Breaking off to lax

[Lupus]

Hi,

After playing Trigranocerta 69BC, I think the breaking off rules are much to lax. In general I think breaking off option is a good new rule, but when a cavalry unit fails to break off, imho there should more penaltie. Currently all that happens, that the cavalry can not get away, but it can attack normally next turn and there are no cohesion drops.

Wouldn't it more realistic if either the unit cannot attack next turn (similiar to an anarchy flag) or cohesion drops one level?

Rgds

L

[petergarnett]

This has been discussed previously but I'll add a note to the review list.

[mschund]

Exactly how does breaking off work with respect to the mechanics...is there another thread that explains this...

[76mm]

Wouldn't it more realistic if either the unit cannot attack next turn (similiar to an anarchy flag) or cohesion drops one level?

I think this is too harsh and would wreck heavy cav. If it can't withdraw, it continues to fight, what is wrong with that? I can see the argument for cases where it "wants" to withdraw, passes whatever test to do so, and then is blocked by an enemy unit to the rear.

[Paisley]

I agree with 76mm.

[Lupus]

The basic idea is that a unit who tries to break off, spends time doing so. In this time it cannot fight as effective as if it had not.
Also, when a cavalry unit does not manage to break off, one could argue that this has an effect on unit morale and/or fatigue. Now morale is not simulated in FoG, but the nearest thing is cohesion imho.

I know, that a penalty is harsh, but a player has to position his critical units accordingly.

My 5 cents, anyway...

[76mm]

The basic idea is that a unit who tries to break off, spends time doing so. In this time it cannot fight as effective as if it had not.

I guess the question is what does it mean to "try to break off"?

In other words, presumably the games tests all cavalry units for break off, but that does not mean that in fact all of these units would want to break off--either they might be doing well, or doing poorly but afraid that they'd do even worse if they tried to break off. This doesn't mean that every unit that doesn't break off should be penalized.

[Lupus]

Good point, but I'm not sure how the breaking off rule works in detail. If the engine would test every cavalry unit in melee for breaking off, this would result in all such units either actually doing the breaking off or failing to do so. But I witnessed lots of cavalry in melee simply continue to fight without breaking off or failing to do so..

The question is of course, under which circumstances does a unit check. Only when it's overwhelmed by enemies (however one would define this) or in another check... Unfortunately I'*m a work and cannot the check the help files.

[IainMcNeil]

They will break off if the majority of medium/heavy foot they are facing are steady. They will stay in contact if they are disrupted.

[batesmotel]

They will break off if the majority of medium/heavy foot they are facing are steady. They will stay in contact if they are disrupted.

I believe that is all foot they are fighting, including LF, not just MF and HF. LF are considered for FoG TT for break off as well and I am prety sure I have seen mounted break off in FoG PC when the only foot involved were LF.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

My 6 cents worth

I dont think cavalry should be penalized for doing what they should be able to do, which is pull back from foot formations to rally and recharge (or break off and anarchy back into the same bad situation!)
I guess if it was the players choice ie an active command to withdaw , then there should be a penalty for failure.. I doubt that will change though.

It does seem a little squirrelly though, have seen good going cav pull back from disrupted formations before when I really wish they had stayed....

[Paisley]

Mounted definitely break off from light foot (with no mediums or heavies present)

[deeter]

In the TT rules, a cav unit that cannot break off due to units in its rear drops a cohesion level and so it should be on the PC.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

In the TT rules, a cav unit that cannot break off due to units in its rear drops a cohesion level and so it should be on the PC.

Deeter

This works on the table top be cause a mounted unit will normally be breaking off at the end of the turn of the owning player since both the impact phase and the initial melee phase will occur within the owning player's turn. This cannot happen on the PC since the initial melee phase occurs in the opposing player turn which will make it all too easy to move another BG behind the mounted BG that would have to break off and hence force the drop in cohesion level. Without a change in the sequence of play I think the drop for being unable to break off should continue to be left out of the PC version.

Chris

[deeter]

Maybe so, but everytime I've seen this on the PC it would've been possible for the owning player to leave an open should he have wished to do so.

Deeter

[batesmotel]

Maybe so, but everytime I've seen this on the PC it would've been possible for the owning player to leave an open should he have wished to do so.

Deeter

But how easy would it have been for the opposing player to have moved into position to block it in cases where the owning player hadn't? The problem is that the concept of breaking off isn't to create an equivalent of the infamous DBM buttocks of death where just moving any BG behind the cavalry will force it to drop in cohesion level. Given that cavalry may well not charge into an enemy line a a wide line of their own, it would be far too easy for poor LF to then dash out at the ends of the cavalry line and position themselves in the buttocks of death position behind cvalry that would then be unable to break off. I think ti would be better to eliminate cavalry break off altogether than introduce a buttocks of death (maybe that should be buttocks of in coherency) into the game.

Chris

[deeter]

In that case, I'd prefer to keep things the way they are.

Deeter