Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[philqw78]

One of the problems many people seem to have with the rules as they stand is the possibility that an enemy BG at close quarters, within 6MU, can turn around and start to walk away with no chance of being caught. Its a problem with skirmishers mainly but any troops can do it providing the threatening enemy is not significantly faster than them. Did this happen often in recorded battles?
"The enemy are just further than I think they could charge from milord"
"Good, we'll turn tail and start heading away then"
Perhaps not.

So why not make a new rule:

If a BG is within 6MU to the front of any enemy of a type it does not ignore it must pass a CMT to end its move* further away from the closest such battle group [added] not in melee.

So a new line on CMT: Retirement, Disengagement, Withdrawal, Fall Back, whatever you want to call it move

Its not crippling but will stop that cav turning 180 and then when you get to 1MU of them just moving 5 more MU away from you without fear. A bit of a problem with U Go I Go.
If the nearest enemy is further than 6MU they would not have to test, but would not feel threatened anyway.
If they fail they can do any other move not requiring a CMT providing they do not end further away.

*not evading, routing, charging or pursuing, just movement phase stuff

[DavidT]

I like this rule. I started a thread about something similar when a battleline of pike turned around and then walked away from my son's Roman legionaries without any problem. However, the consensus was that my son (or anyone else for that matter) would need to devise some different tactics to deal with this.
However, the last time I stated that I liked one of your proposals, I got shot down as well.

[philqw78]

However, the last time I stated that I liked one of your proposals, I got shot down as well.

Obviously by people that don't consider these things fully. Unlike me. I spent at least 30mins on this one. And 5 mins for the added bit about enemy in melee not counting.

[hammy]

IMO this is not a bad idea. Worth a try but to be honest I have not encountered this very much other than with skirmishers in the games I have played so far.

[hammy]

There is a bit of a problem Phil.

Drilled troops can always turn 180 so a BG of drilled troops could turn 180 and then if it failed to pass the CMT to run away it could always just turn back anyway.

EDIT, much the same for single ranked non shock cavalry. If they are charged they can evade.

[IanB3406]

......"A Battlegroup not of light troops that has an enemy to the rear and within 2MU of it's rear edge must CMT to take any action beyond turning to face". The idea is that troops with an enemy to their rear given the order to run away are much more prone to panic.....the failure to act represents panic down the line. Another option would be to require a cohesion test if moving away from enemy within this distance.

I would couple it with the following rule........"A Battlegroup within the 2MU distance of multiple enemy Battlegroups must react to the enemy battlegroup based on his oponents choice." (Let's also make it less easy to get away when zoc'ed by multiple units instead of easier)

Ian

[philqw78]

There is a bit of a problem Phil.

Drilled troops can always turn 180 so a BG of drilled troops could turn 180 and then if it failed to pass the CMT to run away it could always just turn back anyway.

EDIT, much the same for single ranked non shock cavalry. If they are charged they can evade.

Where is the problem?

It turns 180, in yor next move you approach to within 6MU, in its next move it fails a retirement CMT. It cannot get further away but can turn to face. I'm not trying to make it so that if you try and get away and fail you just get slaughtered, but more difficult to just retire without threat in front of the enemy.
As for the cavalry I am not trying to alter the ability to evade either. But if the cav want to turn tail and the above happens there may be a chance of catching them in the evade, as it is now the enemy cav are never in charge reach at the start of your movement.

[MatthewP]

I have to admit I havent come across this much either. But a possible solution would be to change the rules so that drilled troops have to test to turn 90 or 180 degrees. They will still be able to move if they pass, so they are still superior to undrilled. You dont want to be caught with your back to the enemy and not be able to turn. This might put a stop to the Benny Hill end game.

[philqw78]

......"A Battlegroup not of light troops

Light troops are the main problem

that has an enemy to the rear and within 2MU of it's rear edge must CMT to take any action beyond turning to face".

What about battle lines that have passed each other whilst in melee?

The idea is that troops with an enemy to their rear given the order to run away are much more prone to panic.....the failure to act represents panic down the line. Another option would be to require a cohesion test if moving away from enemy within this distance.

and you have reduced the distance to 2MU making it still easy for drilled troops to get away.

I would couple it with the following rule........"A Battlegroup within the 2MU distance of multiple enemy Battlegroups must react to the enemy battlegroup based on his oponents choice." (Let's also make it less easy to get away when zoc'ed by multiple units instead of easier)

People would then use skirmish troops or rubbish to shepherd far better troops. e.g. Pin the Knights with some MF and elephants but make them react to the mob so I can intercept, etc. At the moment people react to the worst threat with their battle troops, as they should, the problem being skirmishers just zip away.

[philqw78]

I have to admit I havent come across this much either. But a possible solution would be to change the rules so that drilled troops have to test to turn 90 or 180 degrees. They will still be able to move if they pass, so they are still superior to undrilled. You dont want to be caught with your back to the enemy and not be able to turn. This might put a stop to the Benny Hill end game.

I don't mind the enemy turning back again, they just wasted 2 move phases if they do. Turn 180, fail CMT then have to turn back or be taken from the rear. But it means they stand and fight.
Skirmishers will also usually react to their most immediate threat. The closest enemy which they are on front of. Instead of zipping away 7MU to shoot at that BG that just dropped a cohesion level.

They will still be able to move if they pass, so they are still superior to undrilled

Undrilled can also move if they fail a CMT. So it makes little difference

[expendablecinc]

How about:

Add the following to the definition of a difficult move or simply make it a difficult move for all non skirmishers:
Non-skirmishers in an enemy BGs restricted area attempting to end a move outside an that same restricted area.

Effect:
- In the benny hill chase scenario you are likely to eventually catch BGs even if you move the same speed, particularly if they have to wheel slightly.
- If there is more than a couple of inches between you I would argue that there shouldnt be such a restriction and a stately retreat should be permissable.
- None of this should apply to skirmishers. Its part of the skirmisher reason for being after all.
- Drilled troops are not likely to gat caught in the rear as they can always turn to face but they are likely to be fordced to fight eventually.

A more realistic effect woudl be to substitute the CMT for a cohesion test. There are more instances of a planned stately retreat in the face of superior force turning into a full fledged route rather than them turning to fight. A cmt is too open to abuse though.

nb: the principle that if the BG is in two restricted areas they get to choose which one if the effective one for game effects.

[wildone]

I've used the turn and walk away tactic several times using MF and I've been on the receiving end of it. Its very handy for forcing your opponent to react to you. I've had a battleline of pike BGs advance towards a battleline of MF and in one turn the outside MF BGs turned to flank and moved into rough terrrain while the BGs in the centre of his line turned around. next move they moved away then next bound turned to face. In the meantime the outside BGs have advanced onto my flanks. Lost that game quickly.
I've used it with Chinese MF Xb units who advanced, got one bound of shooting when the opposing foot got within range and in my turn turned and moved away before they got within charge range. I've also mistimed it gloriously and ended up with MF XB in charge range of Armoured Cv Lancers. Did no damage in my shooting phase and in his impact I fragmented the lancers through inspired dice throwing.

regards
Brent

[MatthewP]

This would be pretty harsh on skirmishers, if they had to take a cmt every time to retreat in front of advancing troops. Light foot especially would be at a disadvantage. I think it is better to restrict wheels to 90 degrees which would reduce the slipperyness of Light Horse sufficiently.

I think there is more a problem with drilled medium foot retreating in front of advancing heavy foot, who can never catch them. In my experience there is never enough time for heavy foot to cross the table in normal game time. Drilled medium foot are too manouverable. Forcing them to take a cmt to turn 90 or 180 degrees would hamper there retreating shannannigans slightly by delaying moves.

[philqw78]

I've used the turn and walk away tactic several times using MF and I've been on the receiving end of it.
Brent

And you didn't do it within 2 MU.

[wildone]

And you didn't do it within 2 MU.

You let your opponent get that close to non skirmish infantry its usually too late. I have done it with Cv but that was because he was moving up on my flank and if I didn't get away in my next move I was toast.

Brent

[grahambriggs]

I quite like the suggestion. I used drilled MF quite a lot and feel they can get away far too easily. I agree that the intent is good. Phrasing will need to be careful to stop cheesiness.

e.g. My undrilled gallic MF are double moving to take on Roman Aux in terrain on my right flank and end 6.1 MUs from them. The Romans Aux all smartly about turn so I can't be to their front. Then, a Roman HF unit in the centre wriggles so it just pins my left back corner. My guys then have to take a CMT if they just want to move straight forward towards the rear of the Auxilia. If they fail, I'm in the poop!

Perhaps a bit of fiddling with the words is needed - "ending closer to their own base edge"?

[philqw78]

I quite like the suggestion. I used drilled MF quite a lot and feel they can get away far too easily. I agree that the intent is good. Phrasing will need to be careful to stop cheesiness.

e.g. My undrilled gallic MF are double moving to take on Roman Aux in terrain on my right flank and end 6.1 MUs from them. The Romans Aux all smartly about turn so I can't be to their front. Then, a Roman HF unit in the centre wriggles so it just pins my left back corner. My guys then have to take a CMT if they just want to move straight forward towards the rear of the Auxilia. If they fail, I'm in the poop!

Perhaps a bit of fiddling with the words is needed - "ending closer to their own base edge"?

Wording is a difficult art. But it is the enemy front that those moving away worry about

If a BG is within 6MU to the front of any enemy of a type it does not ignore it must pass a CMT to end its move further away from the closest such battle group not in melee.

In your example you should be in the Poop. Pinned by enemy HF 2MU to your flank/rear. Much more of a concern than the MF facing in the opposite direction. And anyway how do HF manage to pin you after you double moved?
Even if you meant that the HF came within 6MU they are still more of a threat to you so should be CMT'd to move away from.

[philqw78]

If they fail, I'm in the poop!

If they pass the Aux are in the poop

[madaxeman]

An alternative way to skin this particular cat would be to break up the strict IGOUGO move sequence a bit into full move phases for individual commands, so that units from one command might occasionally have the opportunity to move twice before their opponents could move and react.

It wouldn't stop it entirely, but would at least make sure it only happened at more visually credible distances

[grahambriggs]

I quite like the suggestion. I used drilled MF quite a lot and feel they can get away far too easily. I agree that the intent is good. Phrasing will need to be careful to stop cheesiness.

e.g. My undrilled gallic MF are double moving to take on Roman Aux in terrain on my right flank and end 6.1 MUs from them. The Romans Aux all smartly about turn so I can't be to their front. Then, a Roman HF unit in the centre wriggles so it just pins my left back corner. My guys then have to take a CMT if they just want to move straight forward towards the rear of the Auxilia. If they fail, I'm in the poop!

Perhaps a bit of fiddling with the words is needed - "ending closer to their own base edge"?

Wording is a difficult art. But it is the enemy front that those moving away worry about

If a BG is within 6MU to the front of any enemy of a type it does not ignore it must pass a CMT to end its move further away from the closest such battle group not in melee.

In your example you should be in the Poop. Pinned by enemy HF 2MU to your flank/rear. Much more of a concern than the MF facing in the opposite direction. And anyway how do HF manage to pin you after you double moved?
Even if you meant that the HF came within 6MU they are still more of a threat to you so should be CMT'd to move away from.

Sorry Phil I should have been clearer. I meant 'pinned' from 6MU by the legion