Annoying Break Offs

[NZsam03]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already? Just had a situation in a game I played yesterday, borrowing a pontic army from a friends. I was playing Late Dynastic Egyptian and had a unit of 6 sarmatian lancers (Cv, armoured, superior, lancer, swordsmen) in a 3 x 2 formation charge into a unit of (i think( Egyptian Guard). They were (HF, protected, superior, defensive spear-men). in a 2 x 2 formation. In the impact phase it was 4 v 4 dice, but he was at a POA (spear-men, v nothing, as his spear-men canceled out my lancers), and so he won, i passed my CT and death check, and we continued. In the melee it was 6 v 4 dice (to me) at equal POA. I won, and killed a base, put he still passed his CT (with an 11!), and remained steady. In the jointed action phase I had to break off, and thus face another impact phase in my next turn. He contracted to 3 x 1, so when I charged it was 2 v 2, with him at a POA. Again I lost, and became disrupted. Poor rolling saw a draw in the melee, and so I had to break off again. Having no general available to help them, my disr cav charged again next phase, and became frag, and then broken.

I would have done so much better if I hadn't broken off the first time, (6 v 3, at equal POA).

Shouldn't the break off be voluntary, or at least I could try pass a test not to break off?

[NickW]

It would perhaps be better in that case, but that would probably not be a proper reflection of the way cavalry fought against formed infantry. As the rules show quite nicely, they tended to be executed through a series of charges. And it should be difficult for mounted to break formed groups of quality spearmen.

And you probably should have won the second melee anyway, even with the disruption. After all you were 2 dice v. 2, at even POA, and 2 dice v. 1 at POA advantage. That's roughly 2.3 hits v. 1.3 hits on average (I think, off the top of my head).

And BTW, I assume you failed you CMT not to charge the second time?

So, poor rolling three times in a row brought you undone.

Maybe passing a CMT not to break off could work, but I get the feeling that it was not really an optional or voluntary occurrence.

[NZsam03]

alas yes I failed the CMT, although I think i was his great rolling as well as my poor rolling, that got them in the end. Additionally, I did strand them without a general, which contributed to their down fall

[Polkovnik]

So you charged cavalry into spearmen, which is not a good move. It worked out badly for you, so the rules should be changed ?

[NZsam03]

No, I failed the CMT, but the point is, once I survived the first impact, I was in a good position in the melee (6 v 3 dice at equal POA), yet I still had to break off and thus charge again next phase.

[Polkovnik]

Yes, that's the rules, designed to correctly reflect the way cavalry fought. Rather than saying the rules are wrong, you should learn from what happened - if you put lancer cavalry in front of HF spearmen, they are going to get into trouble.

[grahambriggs]

The problem was that once you were in charge range you were unlucky. Losing the CMT and the spears passing their CHT for losing was the problem. So if you ran that 10 times and did better 8 times you'd be about right.

Of course the mistake you made was a couple of bounds earlier. when you should have been manouvering the cavalry away from the spears and towards a better target and you didn't. I find I frequently make the mistake of leaving decisions too lonng in fog as I'm more used to games where you can make the decisions later.

G

[TERRYFROMSPOKANE]

When making moves, one definitely needs to consider what might happen during the opponent's next turn and where his BGs may get to before one gets another chance to move.

Terry G.

[david53]

When making moves, one definitely needs to consider what might happen during the opponent's next turn and where his BGs may get to before one gets another chance to move.

Terry G.

To win in FOG it is better to think as many moves as you can in front. It takes a while and it dos'nt always work and it takes experience none of which i have in bunches but if you can make your opponent react to what your doing thats half the battle overwith. I'm no expert I've made huge errors in many games but its still a fun game.

[RobKhan]

The critical event here was the foot passed their CT. This means the foot were tough despite the loss and the horse failed to disrupt their order despite killing some, and throughout history it is firm or steady infantry that is the rock of land warfare. Men on horses are more vulnerable, and this is why break off tactics for horse were developed - the rules have got it right to some extent.

The interesting thing is the rules give a test option for some troops to go against the grain (shock can try to hold back from charging, skirmishers can pass a test to charge or not evade) but others don't get this mechanism. The line has been drawn but it is a good question. Why not allow a test to opt to not break off, maybe for shock and not Cav or Sk. The breakoff feature is good, but was it a standard that was followed consistently or is it doing it by the book. If the "uncontrollable knights" charged without orders did they then conduct a by the book breakoff after getting to grips?? Seems unlikely if they were uncontrollable. So why not a test to see if they do not break off, just as we tested to see if they remained under control before charging?

But overall I'm happy with it the way it is.

RobKhan the contented.....but....

[david53]

The critical event here was the foot passed their CT. This means the foot were tough despite the loss and the horse failed to disrupt their order despite killing some, and throughout history it is firm or steady infantry that is the rock of land warfare. Men on horses are more vulnerable, and this is why break off tactics for horse were developed - the rules have got it right to some extent.

The interesting thing is the rules give a test option for some troops to go against the grain (shock can try to hold back from charging, skirmishers can pass a test to charge or not evade) but others don't get this mechanism. The line has been drawn but it is a good question. Why not allow a test to opt to not break off, maybe for shock and not Cav or Sk. The breakoff feature is good, but was it a standard that was followed consistently or is it doing it by the book. If the "uncontrollable knights" charged without orders did they then conduct a by the book breakoff after getting to grips?? Seems unlikely if they were uncontrollable. So why not a test to see if they do not break off, just as we tested to see if they remained under control before charging?

But overall I'm happy with it the way it is.

RobKhan the contented.....but....

The whole idea of the break of IMO is that as they are still steady spearmen solid lines and spears pointing at the horses there is nowere for the horses to go but backwards. IIRC this happened at Bannockburn were the english Cavalry could not break the Scottish lines and had to make many charges. Once the foot go disprupted its ment to show again IMO that there have been some gaps in the foot lines allowing the Cavalry to fight there way in. I think this is a great part of FOG, it gets you thinking about what might happen in the next moves all part of the game.

[NickW]

I always think of the example of the French at Courtrai - they broke off against the Flemish pikemen. Same with the Parthian cataphracts against Roman legionaries at Carrhae.

I like the mechanism - seems to work pretty well, even if frustrating when you have the advantage in melee!

[philqw78]

I always think of the example of the French at Courtrai - they broke off against the Flemish pikemen. Same with the Parthian cataphracts against Roman legionaries at Carrhae.

I like the mechanism - seems to work pretty well, even if frustrating when you have the advantage in melee!

But its a god send when you are getting a pasting yourself.