Cavalry Evading

[Morbio]

Your comment about LF outrunning LH is also part of my other thread about cavalry effectiveness viewtopic.php?t=15452

[76mm]

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?

i see what you're saying, but my point is that once a LF unit is pinned in melee, they attract a bunch of other units that pile onto the combat. unless I'm willing to escalate the fracas as well, I just have to write off the LF that failed to evade.

[Morbio]

I agree with you. I often leave mine to die (I'm a cold-hearted general ) because it can be disastrous to get pulled out of position to try to save them.

Yes, once pinned, other units will pile in to finish the job. Isn't that what you'd expect to happen? It's the same with cavalry - and the same with those units that don't need pinning. If a unit is engaged then often it will be swamped because it is the most effective way to destroy or rout it as quickly as possible and with minimal losses. I know I generally want to free up my units ASAP so they can start on the next part of my grand plan

[Morbio]

Following on the question around whetehr the Medium Cavalry (Protected and Armoured) should evade or not.

I now have a better understanding of why this reaction has been implemented thanks to some great feedback on a generalised question about this viewtopic.php?t=15477. This has made me much happier about the behaviour for Light Cavalry and Heavy Cavalry and I also understand the logic for MC even if I don't fully agree with how it has been implemented.

So, I now see both perspectives. On one hand when, as a commander, I send my medium cavalry off to engage the enemy I don't want it to run away when the enemy attacks it, because that's the purpose I sent it out there for. But on the other hand, when I send medium cavalry round a flank to explore and engage should a favourable opportunity arise, I'm happy if it runs away if someting big and bad picks on it.

So, how do we resolve this problem?

Suggestion for consideration by all and Slitherine:

When the commander moves his troop he can select the formation for the cavalry
If the commander selects a skirmish mode, then unless it is clear it will probably win the fight (e.g. LH attacking), it will evade.
If the commander selects a line mode it will always fight.

So, all that needs to be done to achieve this is to have a way of selecting this when making the unit moves (a new icon on the unit?) and a visible display so both allies and the enemy can see the formation of the unit. The enemy commander can then take actions based upon what he sees.

Let's also assume this option is only limited to MC. LC are always loose skirmish mode and will evade, HC are always in lines and will fight.

All thoughts welcome.

[Examinondas]

IMHO, that's an easy way to end with this evade non-sense.

In fact, I was going to write more or less the same before you posted:
Just implement a shift+click command which allows to toggle between skirmish (always evade, no matter the odds) and melee (always stand and fight) for LF, LH and Cav. A small S letter would mark a unit that is in skirmish mode. LF and LH would start the battle in skirmish, Cav in melee. Changing from one mode to the other would require a CMT.

[deeter]

I like that suggestion!

Deeter

[Paisley]

So long as ONLY units that are in command can have their stance changed, that would seem to be a good idea. Though I don't think light foot or horse (with the odd exception) should be allowed to choose to melee stance.

[deeter]

In the miniatures rules, all units capable of evading can cose to stand if they so desire.

Deeter

[Paisley]

Hmm... I'm not sure about that. I can't see anyone convincing a bunch of half naked slingers with cheese knives as secondary weapons to stand against even javelin and shiled armed lights, let alone formed infantry, and certainly not cavalry of any stamp.

[deeter]

True. That's just the TT rules. Indeed, skirmishers should just be pushed back. Making HF stop just to drive them off is a bit daft, but I suppose is a rules mechanism.

Deeter

[TimW]

Your comment about LF outrunning LH is also part of my other thread about cavalry effectiveness

Ah. So it is - I hadn't spotted that.

[petergarnett]

I really like the shift-click idea. If within command range you can change it but units beyond should remain as however they began the game.

[Morbio]

I really like the shift-click idea, and the default starting formations (LF and LH start as 'S'). I also think the CMT idea is a great suggestion too. Regarding command, I have mixed views. Perhaps you can change stance while in command at will, but to do it out of command would require a CMT - I don't have a major issue with this either way though. Personally, I'd have the unit stay in the formation they were in when they left the command radius. So, if a unit is sent out to harry some units then it stays in skirmish mode. If it sent to engage a unit or units (with the purpose of tieing them down for the greater good) then it should stay in tight formation until it comes into command again and get new orders. Either way, the key thing for me is that now I'd be able to ensure that, what I perceive as melee cavalry, will actually fight!

If the shift-click option is difficult, then I'd be happier if missile horse were considered skirmishers and melee horse were considered melee. So, if they have a missile weapon they evade and if they don't they stand. Not a perfect solution, but better than today.

'Half-naked slingers with cheese knives' - that just cracked me up People around me at work think I'm crazy for bursting out laughing! I agree with the sentiment though, maybe the simple solution here is that a test is made to see if they follow orders. The more disciplined they are, the more similar the units and with commander presence the more likely they will stand for the greater good. So, our half-dressed, cheese knife wielding slingers if drilled with a commander nearby, might well stand against Javelin and shield armed lights (say a 65% chance), but would still be unlikely to stand against cavalry (5% chance).

[petergarnett]

I've just gone through every army list on RoR & just cannot find the half naked cheese men - so wanted to try them out!

[TimW]

If the shift-click option is difficult, then I'd be happier if missile horse were considered skirmishers and melee horse were considered melee. So, if they have a missile weapon they evade and if they don't they stand. Not a perfect solution, but better than today.

There does seem to have been a historical tendency for troops dual-armed with missile and close-quarter weapons to prefer to use the missile weapons rather than engage hand-to-hand (quite understandably). Various rules sets have factored this into reaction tests or more abstract mechanisms over the years.

Personally I'd be inclined to say horse archers/LF with no weapon other than a bow (or sling) are primarily skirmishers (though light horse will charge a soft target if one is available, e.g. other lights, well-softened up other targets). Javelin-armed horse and foot or horse archers with javelins and bow may be a different matter. Huns and Mongols were both willing to pitch into hand-to-hand fighting once the odds seemed in their favour, and most Mongol horse only carried a bow and sword - as did most Steppe/Turkic peoples. How about Hunnic nobles? Heavy cavalry with bow and lance. Sassanian cataphracts, later Roman/Byzantine heavy horse. Seljuks. Ghulams. There's a long list of troops that carried bows or spear and other missile weapons but were equally adept at melee.

It would be ideal if the behaviour of the troops was modelled on how their army fought historically rather than as generic broad categories, but I don't see this as a practicable solution (unless the period/armies modelled are very restricted). I think we are really in the business of discussing/requesting fine tuning to what is basically a pretty sound game mechanism. One answer is to adopt the level of abstraction of DBA, which works well in many ways. though there are some historical match-ups that for various reasons don't work very well at all under those rules.

I do agree however that seeing the best cavalry you have available run off rather than stand for even one or two turns before breaking off makes them impossible to use in any sensible way. Another example is light chariots. Charge a British chariot with legionnaries or auxiliary horse and there's a good chance it will evade through it's own force disordering all and sundry as it goes. Then next turn it often charges back (trampling any friends in the way) to melee the same unit it's just evaded.

Maybe the simplest answer is to do what TT rules have done for a long time. The player decides if he wants the unit to evade/stand /counter-charge, then a test is run to see what actually happens. Pass the test, they behave as ordered; fail and they do something else. No different to ordering a unit to charge into melee only to hear that resounding "NO!!"