Cavalry Evading

[Morbio]

I apologise now for a post that may seem to make me unappreciative of the efforts that have gone into development of the Rise of Rome. I don't want this to be the case, but I do want to convey a sense of frustration at the playability of the current game.

I've just received my latest multiplayer update and the new game mechanics have just turned a position of strength into a weakness because of what is either silly rules or some mis-coding.

The particular engagement was one which was likely to determine the outcome of the overall battle. It concerns the cavalry that had engaged on the left flank (from my perspective). I had 5 Superior, Drilled, Armoured, Cavalry (1 Disrupted), a couple of light horse and 4 medium foot facing off against 1 Superior, Undrilled, Armoured, Cavalry and 3 Superior. Protected Cavalry and a light horse. An additional 3 Superior, Undrilled, Armoured, Cavalry were nearby, but wouldn't be able to engage the main forces until the following turn.



Now, my opponent oppens up with a charge of his Superior, Undrilled, Armoured, Cavalry against 2 similar, but drilled, units (1 Disrupted). Imagine my horror when both of my units evade and run through the cavalry behind them and then through the line of MF, disrupting 4 units. Needless to say, when the protected cavalry piled in, the line didn't evade but stood and took a pounding and lost more cohesion.



I don't profess to be an expert, but I do exect good units that are as good, or better if you consider the drilled aspect, to stand and fight. If this is working as designed, then it means that it seems pointless to send a grouped set of units to engage (which normally I would consider a sound and strong strategy to hit in force), since all that is needed is a charge from the enemy horse to force them to run away and disrupt the collective unit.

To be honest, this is the latest of some dumb evading, both foot and horse, I've witnessed since the upgrade, and it has made the game largely unplayable - unless you want luck to determine the outcome.

I really hope that a fix comes out for this with some speed. I do consider myself a very active and competent player and I used to love the game. But I can't play it the way it is

I can e-mail the screenshots if you need them.

[IainMcNeil]

Evades/routs are on my list of bugbears right now. I think you should not be able to evade through a hex adjacent to unbroken enemy. Also it needs to select the route better when it has determined which tiles are passable. Units also need to take in to account the fact they are being charged in teh rear when deciding to stand.

[Morbio]

Your points are all valid concerns, but my biggest issue here is that my cavalry shouldn't have evaded in the 1st place. Most things were in their favour;
- Better (or as good) units
- More units
- Supported from rear
- Commander in close proximity

The first point alone should be a good enough reason to stand. I can understand why light units evade heavy units, but drilled superior armoured units should stand against just about everything.

[arsan]

I have also experienced some strange cavalry evading when charged by equivalent or nearly equivalent enemy cavalry
I don't recall seeing this before the expansion.
Has something changed in this??

[batesmotel]

I have also experienced some strange cavalry evading when charged by equivalent or nearly equivalent enemy cavalry
I don't recall seeing this before the expansion.
Has something changed in this??

My impression from 1.03 was that untis would stand to fight an even impact but evade at a disadvantge. In 1.10 it seems like they will evade unless they have an outright advantage.

Chris

[keithmartinsmith]

Its the same logic but ... there are a lot more armoured and/or superior or elite and/or lance armed cavalry around now and that changes the combat odds significantly. Keith

[Blathergut]

stuff should not evade through good order troops and disorder them.....evade should be leaving if you can...so if you want, like Hannibal at times for instance, want to ensure troops in front can't evade, you can bar them from doing so by having other troops behind

allowing evades and routs through good troops and down long lines is probably the most frustrating aspect of the game

[76mm]

not sure if this is the same issue, or just plain bad luck, but just before RoR I was playing an MP Pharsalus battle, and literally NONE of my light troops evaded, and were slaughtered. Just didn't seem right...my opponent claimed that units can't evade if they move/shoot in the prior turn, but I haven't seen that in the rules anywhere, and it doesn't seem correct based on other games I've played...am I missing something here?

[hidde]

Don't think that about move/shot in the prior turn is correct. They can however only evade once in the same turn. So you can catch them if they already evaded once.
That's all I can come up with.

[arsan]

Just didn't seem right...my opponent claimed that units can't evade if they move/shoot in the prior turn

Thats 100 %false from my experience.
The trick in Pharsalus and similar scenarios is to attack your LI with a weaker LI so they wont evade (as supposedly they can gain the engagement) and then attack to already locked in combat LI with cavalry or heavier troops. A good way to get easy points.
One of Caesar's problems in Pharsalus scenario is to protect his LI from being slaughtered by the superior enemy cavalry
Cheers!

[76mm]

The trick in Pharsalus and similar scenarios is to attack your LI with a weaker LI so they wont evade (as supposedly they can gain the engagement) and then attack to already locked in combat LI with cavalry or heavier troops. A good way to get easy points.
Cheers!

That's probably what happened, interesting...

[pantherboy]

By the looks of it your opponent started by charging with his general which on the face of this was equal to your cav. but when calculating odds you must remember that the general is rated as one experience level higher for combat purposes (e.g. says superior but acts as elite) so his charge forced your cav to evade due to a higher win probability.

All in all I agree that the route path logic is flawed. I believe evades shouldn't be allowed into hexes adjacent to non-routed enemy units or through units that you can't evade through without causing cohesion loss. Also it should only choose a path that begins with the two rear hexes behind your BG to help cut down forward or sideway evades.

[Morbio]

Where does it say that commanders raise the level of the unit? I've read the Commanders section and the Troop Quality section of the help and I find no refererence to this.

Also, I really think the whole evade logic needs reconsidering. If it is getting down to a percentage comparison, e.g. if attacker A% > defender B% then evade, then I think the game has gone too far. In reality a unit wouldn't necessarily know that an attacking unit is better or worse until it is hit. I accept that LF would run from Cavalry, or LF run from MF or HF - the difference there is obvious. But to have, at least superficially, similar units evading because 1 side is a small percentage better is ludicrous. As an example, Velites seem to be pretty useless because they can't engage most other LF.

Surely, a better evade logic would be based around the type of unit, so that similar types stand and fight unless there is a massive difference in and their quality, quantity and cohesion. e.g. LF would fight other LF unless there's 2 levels difference. It would also seem sensible for a unit to to have a chance to evade if it in a state of disarray (i.e. not Steady) and faced by a Steady unit. I say 'chance to evade' because if they are in disarry then they may not be coherent enough to evade, and so should have a chance of being hit.

[deeter]

This has, IMO, been an issue since beta. In FoG TT, cavalry can only evade if deployed in a single rank (skirmish order) regardless of the odds against them and NOT through formed units. It makes cavalry more of a liability than a help if you can't count on them to hold their position.

I just had a situation similar to the above. A Carthaginian leader with Armored Gaul escort and five Spanish protected (all superior, LS, SW) were charged by three Pontic armored superior cav. I had to guess that they would be equal at impact and thus stand because there is now way to test this until you're in charge range. At any rate all the Spaniards evade, one disordering my leader. The enemy then engaged my leader, killing him and fragging the unit. It's an outrage!

I'd prefer being offered a choice to stand or evade as on the TT, but this is not likely to happen, so I suggest just doing away with cav (not LH) evades altoghether. At least then, you know your flank is covered and that nearby troops won't be trampled during the evade.

Rant mode off.

Deeter

[Morbio]

I have to agree. The situation is made worst because you can't tell what may happen until you get close enough to charge..... so you move in thinking you are doing well only to have it collapse like a house of cards.

Funnily enough, the enemy in my situation were Pontic too.

[batesmotel]

This has, IMO, been an issue since beta. In FoG TT, cavalry can only evade if deployed in a single rank (skirmish order) regardless of the odds against them and NOT through formed units. It makes cavalry more of a liability than a help if you can't count on them to hold their position.

I just had a situation similar to the above. A Carthaginian leader with Armored Gaul escort and five Spanish protected (all superior, LS, SW) were charged by three Pontic armored superior cav. I had to guess that they would be equal at impact and thus stand because there is now way to test this until you're in charge range. At any rate all the Spaniards evade, one disordering my leader. The enemy then engaged my leader, killing him and fragging the unit. It's an outrage!

I'd prefer being offered a choice to stand or evade as on the TT, but this is not likely to happen, so I suggest just doing away with cav (not LH) evades altoghether. At least then, you know your flank is covered and that nearby troops won't be trampled during the evade.

Rant mode off.

Deeter

I certainly haven't figured out the logic for when cavalry will evade. After watching my Indian protected, average Cavalry fail to evade when charged by average protected pikes, there doesn't seem to be any obvious logic that I understand!

I think that the best solution would be to provide the player with an option to switch cavalry between "skirmisher" mode and normal mode. In "skirmisher" mode they should probably be treated as the equivalent of LH in melee (but not for impact or shooting), in normal mode as they are now but not able to evade. Ideally this should be something that the cavalry unit could change during a game but even if it was an option that had to be selected per BG at deployment would be an improvement over the current rather unpredictable behavior.

Chris

[76mm]

Surely, a better evade logic would be based around the type of unit, so that similar types stand and fight unless there is a massive difference in and their quality, quantity and cohesion. e.g. LF would fight other LF unless there's 2 levels difference.

I disagree that light units should stand and fight in this situation--given the scoring, it would make light troops useless because you could be sure that they would get engaged and die.

I also think that LF should be able to disengage from MF or HF, as does cavalry. Does it really make sense that a bunch of slingers couldn't escape from a phalanx??

Armies with light units are already disadvantaged by the scoring system, where untrained javelinmen count as much for victory purposes as an elite legion.

[Morbio]

I agree with most of your points.

I agree that it seems odd to have the same points for poor slingers as elite phalanx. Perhaps the points should be the same/similar as the points used to purchase them in DAG?

I agree that LF should be able to break off MF or HF like cavalry do. I also think that there should be some cost of breaking-off (for both LF and cavalry), perhaps 1/4 of a normal melee attack (best fraction to be determined by discussion or play-testing)

I disagree with the point that you'd be sure that they get engaged and die. If it's LF against LF then both sides have a reasonable chance. If one is average LF and the other poor then why wouldn't average fare better? They are both as fast as each other so why not be able to engage? Otherwise, why don't we apply the same logic to MF and HF? There is no test there to determine who will win before deciding whether to engage.

The most frustrating aspects of the game are with those units that constantly evade against similar type units. I wonder how much the units would know about the opposing units approaching in the heat of a battle. There may be some units that are clearly visible by their markings or banners and they may have a reputation that precedes them, but many would be a mass of men that look light, medium or heavy. You may be able to tell something by the way they approached (good order or indiscipline), but the actual test of quality would be when the 2 sides engaged.

[deeter]

76mm, the reason skirmisher battle groups cost the same as everyone else is to force the player to use them wisely. We may think they're trash, but I'd imagine they would value their lives highly. It also makes big skirmish arimies defeatable and not just drawable.

Had another bad evade. This time it was Roman vs. Macedon. My infantry line was perfectly straight and fresh. It had just started figthing the pikes who had come in piecemeal. I felt very confident. On my left, however, A greek cav unit charged my unit of LH which chose to evade all along the front line disordering or fraging every HF unit (12) in the army. There were no troops or other obstacles behind the line and no apparent reason for it to move through fighting troops. When it reach the right flank it was cut down by MF. During my move, my HF all lost their melees and routed. Game over!.

Deeter

[TimW]

This thread overlaps with my comments about anarchic units charging through their own side's heavy foot, even when a clear alternative charge path exists (e.g. by going past either flank of the unit in front of them rather than trampling through it).

Another thing I've just realised is that when mounted evade through foot they (unless light horse) take a cohesion loss. If they "go the other way" and impetously charge through the same foot they don't seem to suffer a cohesion loss. Either way it's bad news for the foot.

Historically, I suspect that a close formation body of troops with offensive spears/pike would be pretty good at preventing their own cavalry evading through them anyway, if they decided to do so to preserve their own order in the face of a nearby enemy threat (they may, of course, attempt to open their formation and get disordered in the process, but not every time - and that's what always seems to happen at present). Poor quality infantry may manage to keep the horse out, or may simply get swept away in the rush - if lots of men on big, excited horses hammer through your formation it probably makes little difference to the "victims" which side the horse are on. Either way they're very dangerous to your state of health and peace of mind.

Another evade issue is that light foot in the open outrun light horse, which seems unlikely in real life.