Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[grahambriggs]

If they fail, I'm in the poop!

If they pass the Aux are in the poop

No, because the Aux are 6.1MU away. They don't want to move away, they've just turned their backs for a bit so that the Gauls are in their 6MU 'pin'. If the Gauls pass the CMT and move straight forward the Aux just turn to face them.

[grahambriggs]

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

I suspect there are a number of ways to do it. It might be nice to limit the number of turns that can be made per move by an army for example. Or limit some types of manouver such that the general must be with the BG to do it (say 180 turn or turn 90 combined with movement). Or say that any turns close to the enemy require a CMT, etc, etc.

Perhaps the main thing is to flag it to the authors as something to fix next time round.

I don't have a problem with a single BG being able to turn 180 - Laconian countermarch and all that - but I'm not aware of any ancient drills that allow the whole battleline to turn.

There are examples of troop redeployments being interpreted as routs. So perhaps rather than CMTs a turn or move to the rear should trigger cohesion tests for that BG and nearby BGs? The extra rolling might take up more time or might dissuade people from pulling the stunt in the first place.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

[philqw78]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Ok, non-skirmisher/non single rank cavalry instead of just skirmishers. Although it wouldn't necessarily be needed, presumably I move up and charge the forward facing cavalry, the run away in my turn. In the cavalry's turn they can either turn to face or bugger off.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[ethan]

How about as an alternative:

"Any charge the would contact the rear edge of non-skirmisher enemy has a base charge distance 2 MUs greater than normal."

So MF getting into range to threaten, but planning run away will be caught from behind. Can be rationalized as troops charging the enemy rear are willing to break ranks and just generall "hoof it" to get to grips. After all, what you are armed with and/or formation doesn't matter when hitting someone in the rear (you always get ++) so troops can break ranks, etc to do it.

Adds 2 MU to anybody charging skirmishing Cavalry

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

[philqw78]

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

But skirmishers are the main problem in the Benny Hill end game. The grit from the army is destroyed so the skirmishers that are left just turn around and walk away from the enemy, normally not towards their own base edge, just into open space anywhere

[david53]

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

That said you could easily change it to non-skirmishers/not cavalry in a single rank.

But skirmishers are the main problem in the Benny Hill end game. The grit from the army is destroyed so the skirmishers that are left just turn around and walk away from the enemy, normally not towards their own base edge, just into open space anywhere

But would not real skirmishers do that? and would'nt they be hard to catch and destrpy. Light horse seem to do well at catching lights.

Were I would agree is the moving up and away by medium drilled troops against heavy troops of Knights.

[spikemesq]

The rule suggested in the OP has a lone Psiloi smell to it.

I'd hate to see one BG of Cv tie up multiple drilled BGs by sitting 5.99 MU away and "soft pinning" them from moving away towards more productive parts of the fight. This rule will encourage big split deployments -- e.g., all but one BG at one end of the table and a lone BG of Cv at the other. The Cv "soft pin" the enemy by skirmishing the front preventing the troops from adjusting to address the rest of the army.


Spike

[spikemesq]

The rule suggested in the OP has a lone Psiloi smell to it.

I'd hate to see one BG of Cv tie up multiple drilled BGs by sitting 5.99 MU away and "soft pinning" them from moving away towards more productive parts of the fight. This rule will encourage big split deployments -- e.g., all but one BG at one end of the table and a lone BG of Cv at the other. The Cv "soft pin" the enemy by skirmishing the front preventing the troops from adjusting to address the rest of the army.


Spike

[philqw78]

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

But when they evade you will add 2MU to your move due to being able to catch them in the rear.

[philqw78]

If they fail, I'm in the poop!

If they pass the Aux are in the poop

No, because the Aux are 6.1MU away. They don't want to move away, they've just turned their backs for a bit so that the Gauls are in their 6MU 'pin'. If the Gauls pass the CMT and move straight forward the Aux just turn to face them.

I assume you mean the Gauls are not in their 6MU zone. But since they are over 6MU since you marched they are not anyway. But that is moot. Your Gauls are better off my way. I will elucidate.

The gauls double to just over 6MU.
The roman player has 2 BG in the area. One of HF and the MF auxilia. The auxilia want the support of the HF but it will take time to reach them so they turn about. This gives them the oppotunity to move away so that the HF can get behind or to the flank of the Gauls by the time the Gauls make charge range. So the Roman player turns about and moves the HF towards the Gauls.
The Gallic player must now either plod towards the MF, by passing a CMT, or React to the HF by turning to face, also a CMT, or wheeling since he has a general with. The CMT is also better than 50/50 If the Gaul passes the CMT he can reach the auxilia and have them within charge range before the HF can interfere. The auxilia may also pass a CMT and move away. No change to what happens now. They may however fail the CMT, have to turn to face and be overwhelmed by the Gauls. The difference now is the Gauls actual have a chance of taking out the auxilia

[philqw78]

But would not real skirmishers do that? and would'nt they be hard to catch and destrpy. Light horse seem to do well at catching lights.

Were I would agree is the moving up and away by medium drilled troops against heavy troops of Knights.

Yes they would and would still be able to if they passed a CMT. But what they can do at the moment, as well as being squirmy in other ways, is move away from being threatened by one BG to the charge range of a different one. It gives the local BG, Very Junior, commander a high degree of command and control and overview of the whole battle. Instead of concentrating on his immediate threat.
Consider a BG of LH without a general heading down a flank unmolested. Their plan being to go all the way around and assault the camp. The opponent notices this and sends an unoccupied BG of LH to deal with it. However, the flanking BG will never be caught. The BG trying to cut them off may move to within a few inches, but the flanker does not need to respond, he just carries on going ignoring the BG that is chasing him, until he gets to the camp. But that doesn't matter, the camp is taken and 2AP gained. They may also pass a CMT to stop looting and be away again before they can be charged. BG, it seems, are only threatened by the enemy if they are slow moving. Whereas I would have thought a local, BG, junior, commander would be more interested in his immediate threat than the puicture on the whole field.

[philqw78]

The rule suggested in the OP has a lone Psiloi smell to it.
I'd hate to see one BG of Cv tie up multiple drilled BGs by sitting 5.99 MU away and "soft pinning" them from moving away towards more productive parts of the fight. This rule will encourage big split deployments -- e.g., all but one BG at one end of the table and a lone BG of Cv at the other. The Cv "soft pin" the enemy by skirmishing the front preventing the troops from adjusting to address the rest of the army. Spike

And how would this lone BG of Cav do this?Initially it will slow double moves down exactly as it does now. Then once the enemy approaches close to 6MU the cav have a number of otions.
1.They can stand firm and wait for the approaching enemy to get close, risking being caught during their evade.
2.They could turn early, not fire and not allow themselves to be forced to CMT to move further away from enemy within 6MU by moving away before the 6MU.
3. They could turn late, and risk failing a CMT to move away, they could then turn to face, but aggain at close quarters.
Whatever happens if the cav evade they will normally move 5MU so only 1 approaching BG need charge them to push them more than 6MU away, allowing freedom of movement for the remainder of the approaching enemy. I don't see as this has much difference to now, except that a BG of cav that turns and enemy then get to within 6 MU may not be able to merrily bugger off, it may be forced to react to the enemy that are close to it and turn around at very close range.

[ethan]

Not sure it matters. Cavalry are facing me so I don't get extra, I charge them and they run away. In the cavalry's turn they either turn to face or bugger off.

But when they evade you will add 2MU to your move due to being able to catch them in the rear.

Ahh that is a fair point, you could word it something like this:

If the initial charge path, prior to any evades, would contact a non-skirmisher BGs rear edge the charging BG adds 2 MU to it normal move distance.

Probably easiest just to say "non skirmisher/not single rank Cv."