Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
AMEN!!!!!deeter wrote:I hate to keep beating a dead horse, but I couldnn't find the old threat to ressurect. Something needs to be done about this. I had six armored superior Gallic cav with a leader and rear support sitting uphill form the enemy and hold a critical flank. They were charged by one cataphract and everyone evaded except the leader who got distrupted in the melee. All the other gav dirsupted or fragged eached other trying to get out of the way. Some evaded of the map. My flank is ruined.
I was on the verge of resigning in disgust but decided it would be unfair to my worthy opponent. If something isn't done to correct this and a few other things fix skirmish evades, etc. I fear this game is going to lose its following. The problems with this game all come from taking player control out of the equation. I know this was done to make the turns move faster, but without some better AI behavior what remains is a potentially great game that is seriously broken.
Deeter
The problem is that BGs in the game occupy far more depth than they would in the real world. This is combined with the fact that most units in the period covered by these rules are not equipped with ranged weapons so they really do not influence an area beyond that occupied by the unit. So no, I don't think there should be Zones of Control in the normal board game sense that block all movement in the PC game. The TT rules do have a 2 MU (2" deep for 15mm figures) restricted zone that applies to normal moves but does not apply to evades, break offs, charges and routs. I think that the PC rules should behave analogously to this and not apply a ZOC to block evaders moves. The problem with catching evaders in the PC version is the relative movement rates of troops compared with the quantization of movement due to the use of the hex grid which insures that the evaders always have a full hex head start compared to the charging unit. In the TT rules the charger can get proportionately much closer to the skirmishers before charging than in the PC rules so faster chargers are likely to catch slower skirmishers. This is what needs to be fixed for the PC rules to make it more dangerous for LF to expect to be able to evade from LH and cavalry.Morbio wrote:So Chris, let me paraphrase what I think you saying: A unit can be surrounded by enemy units so that any movement would bring it into melee. On it's turn it can't move without engaging. Yet, when attacked it can miraculously skip through these control hexes and escape.
This seems totally nonsensical.
It begs the question, particularly with relevance to skirmish troops that largely are immune to attack anyway, why surround a unit (which is a normal real-world battle tactic to cut off lines of retreat) if it can just skip through the lines.
If combat occurred within the hex rather than between BGs in adjacent hexes then it would probably work to have no ZOC. The current implementation does seem to give the right feel for ancient combat as it now works in that it prevents units filtering through opposing lines and making it a little more difficult to turn flanks so it is right in a top down sense. Historically, the normal tactic for dealing with skirmishers was to run them down rather than to try to surround them so again I think the current implementation with evades allowed through the ZOC while normal movement isn't does give the right effect overall. Something to remember is that in an actual battle, the skirmishers would be re-acting to the situation as it developed rather than in move counter move fashion so that the process of moving to "surround" the skirmishers might well trigger the evade rather than just the actual charge.Morbio wrote:Chris, I understand what you are saying and I agree with the fix that is required for LF when attacked by LH and cavalry.
The bit I still struggle with is: If there is no ZOC beyond the area occupied by the unit, then why can't the unit being attacked move through the hexes on its normal movement phase? It's this inconsistency that does my head in
) that cavalry get behind the enemy lines nicely facing the rear of the line..... and of course, the player that has just forced the evade, may not be able to stop the rear shunt that will follow if he has already moved those units!Evaders should end their move facing the way they evaded. This would be consistent with the TT rules and would prevent evaders in general from being ready to immediately charge back into combat in the direction from which they just ran away. Allowing the 1 hex ZOC all around a BG to block evades would allow a BG to control too much area in general.Morbio wrote:The other problem, which was probably mentioned earlier in this thread, is that it is by allowing evades through ZOC (even if there isn't one
It just seems simpler to me to stop evades through hexes where normally they'd have to fight.
