Cavalry Breakoff Moves

[SRW1962]

In a game earlier tonight I had some MF in scrub vs Cataphracts, the cats were losing so they broke off their attack. What happened was incredulous to say the least as the cats broke off, not by the route they originally took to charge the MF but from another route entirely which took them through a one hex gap 60 degrees southeast behind my infantry line where they charged my troops in the rear during their turn. I thought that these silly breakoffs had been altered so that they couldn't happen anymore, as the route they should have taken based upon the direction the melee was orientated was totally clear of any units.

[pantherboy]

I'm seeing this issue also. I think evade should not take you through the ZOC of enemy troops. I have 10 LF and 2 MF behind some cataphracts currently but a single hex channel runs through them so they evaded bck through them all winding left and right.

[arsan]

Yes, there is something fishy in Breaks Offs too.
On a previous game i had one of my cav break off and end 11 hexes away from when they started
They had clear retreat path towards his friendly map edge, but it did a parallel retreat that ended with the cav (that was fighting on the left flank, dropped juts in the middle of my centre, sandwiched between the two long battle lines of mines and enemie's pikes that were in the verge of clashing. Ouch

On the current game i'm playing i had two MF fighting an enemy cav and a third MF setup for a rear attack on the cav on next turn. The cav break off to their right instead of to their rear and ended up perfectly positioned to make a rear attack on the MF that was planning to attack the cav on the rear.
As the break off happens at teh end of teh enemies turn, you cannont react to such crazy moves.
Of course, next turn they charged my helpless MF in the rear
Maybe would be a good idea that cav woudl test for break off at the end of your turn and not at the end of the enemies turn. That way you won't have that kind of problems...
Regards

[arsan]

On the current game i'm playing i had two MF fighting an enemy cav and a third MF setup for a rear attack on the cav on next turn. The cav break off to their right instead of to their rear and ended up perfectly positioned to make a rear attack on the MF that was planning to attack the cav on the rear.
As the break off happens at the end of the enemies turn, you cannot react to such crazy moves.
Of course, next turn they charged my helpless MF in the rear

Yay! it happened again!
Two routed units in the same game in two consecutive turns because enemy cav breaks off to their sides and towards MY SIDE of the map instead of to their rear or towards their side of the map. They end up behind my units at the end of my turn and then charge me in my rear on their turn.

[petergarnett]

Sorry if this is a dumb question but why do evades have to be to your side of the map - surely they can also be away from the danger. And on breakoff moves why can the abstract leader of the BG not evade to a better position to get an advantage?

[batesmotel]

Sorry if this is a dumb question but why do evades have to be to your side of the map - surely they can also be away from the danger. And on breakoff moves why can the abstract leader of the BG not evade to a better position to get an advantage?

As far as I know, there were no fixes in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 for cavalry break offs. The general idea of cavalry break offs is that cavalry that is not winning will pull back in order to charge in again. It is not intended to be a way to infiltrate through the enemy line where you could not otherwise move to that position using an equivalent path. Cavalry are not intended to be the ancient equivalent of 1918 German Stosstruppen which the current cavalry break off frequently allows them to do.

Chris

[arsan]

Sorry if this is a dumb question but why do evades have to be to your side of the map - surely they can also be away from the danger. And on breakoff moves why can the abstract leader of the BG not evade to a better position to get an advantage?

+1 to What batesmotel said!
Its a "break off", not "break in"
Specially when it seems to ignore ZOCs and when it happens at the end of your turn and don't let you react at all.
I bet that if 1000 enemy cavalrymen just zoomed past me and my BG in a break off at least we will look back to see where they went and not keep presenting our rear sides to them so they can charge on our backs on their turn...

[iversonjm]

If I'm remembering correctly, breakoffs were changed so that breaking off units avoid spaces next to enemy units, and evades were changed so that evading units avoid spaces next to enemy FORMED units (but not skirmishers). This seems to have fixed many of the weird results, but created some others. It also means that LF and LH aren't particularly good at pinning in evaders.

Another bizarre result of the latest change is that if an evade capable unit is charged in the rear in a situation where it can't evade (because its evade routes are blocked) it about-faces and fights frontally against its charger. Frequently this is not a happy result for the charger.

[pantherboy]

Personally I prefer anyone charged in the rear loses the opportunity to evade and must take it. In my opinion giving 360 degree reactive movement is not historical. LH charged from the rear would more than likely scatter rather than remain as a cohesive group. Also heavier cavalry evading and turning is most unlikely. Finally it negates the advantage of outmaneouvering your opponents forces so that rear attacks are presented. If you could charge poor LF in the rear and they had to recieve then it would at least promote greater game balance.

[IainMcNeil]

If you have a saved game with a bad break off move can you send it or take screenshots so we can see what is happening?

[TheGrayMouser]

Personally I prefer anyone charged in the rear loses the opportunity to evade and must take it. In my opinion giving 360 degree reactive movement is not historical. LH charged from the rear would more than likely scatter rather than remain as a cohesive group. Also heavier cavalry evading and turning is most unlikely. Finally it negates the advantage of outmaneouvering your opponents forces so that rear attacks are presented. If you could charge poor LF in the rear and they had to recieve then it would at least promote greater game balance.

I too miss the rear atacks against unwary enemy cavalry, of course sometimes these were from strange break off's that put them in a bad siuation in the ist place.... yikes no easy answers....

[IainMcNeil]

The issue was that weak troops evaded when charged in the rear but strong ones did not. This was the bug we fixed. It is now consistent to avoid that exploit. It could be changed to prevent anyone evading when charged from behind but it would need to be applied to everyone, rather than work for some and not for others and thats a completely different issue

[batesmotel]

The issue was that weak troops evaded when charged in the rear but strong ones did not. This was the bug we fixed. It is now consistent to avoid that exploit. It could be changed to prevent anyone evading when charged from behind but it would need to be applied to everyone, rather than work for some and not for others and thats a completely different issue

Troops allowed to evade in the TT rules are able to evade when charged in the rear so I think this should remain the case. Things that should be changed for evades are:

1) The owner needs to be able to control to some degree when an evade occurs, either on a per BG basis or at least on a troop class basis. This will avoid rope a dope issues and eliminate the benefit of using poor quality skirmishers to insure that they evade nearly all the time. The prior suggestion made some place in the forum of allowing a choice between always evade, evade if at a disadvantage (as now) or never evade would seem about right. In some circumstances such as skirmishers standing against non-skirmishers, a CMT should be required to avoid evading.

2) Evaders, at least sirmishers, should end up facing the way they evaded so they will be caught in the rear if they do not out distance the chargers and will not be able to immediately charge on their turn against the BG that charged them. This should apply to cavalry as well once the player is given more control over whether they want their cavalry to evade or to stand.

Chris

[ianiow]

The issue was that weak troops evaded when charged in the rear but strong ones did not. This was the bug we fixed. It is now consistent to avoid that exploit. It could be changed to prevent anyone evading when charged from behind but it would need to be applied to everyone, rather than work for some and not for others and thats a completely different issue

I think it would be nice that ANY troop charged in the rear (surprised) would not be able to evade for at least 1 turn. From a gaming point of view there has to be at least some way to catch skirmishers other than the cheezy rope-a-dope method or sheep herding. It adds to the tactical manuvering in the skirmish part of the battle and gives skirmishers something to do rather that just shoot shoot shoot.

[Pierre De Chartreuse]

As far as I know, there were no fixes in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 for cavalry break offs. The general idea of cavalry break offs is that cavalry that is not winning will pull back in order to charge in again. It is not intended to be a way to infiltrate through the enemy line where you could not otherwise move to that position using an equivalent path. Cavalry are not intended to be the ancient equivalent of 1918 German Stosstruppen which the current cavalry break off frequently allows them to do.

Chris

+1
Those 2 impetuous charges and cavalry breaking off behind your lines are really very annoying and can ruin a battle as I've seen it 3 times today !

[Pierre De Chartreuse]

As far as I know, there were no fixes in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 for cavalry break offs. The general idea of cavalry break offs is that cavalry that is not winning will pull back in order to charge in again. It is not intended to be a way to infiltrate through the enemy line where you could not otherwise move to that position using an equivalent path. Cavalry are not intended to be the ancient equivalent of 1918 German Stosstruppen which the current cavalry break off frequently allows them to do.

Chris

+1
Those 2 impetuous charges and cavalry breaking off behind your lines are really very annoying and can ruin a battle as I've seen it 3 times today !

[Pierre De Chartreuse]

As far as I know, there were no fixes in 1.2.5 and 1.2.6 for cavalry break offs. The general idea of cavalry break offs is that cavalry that is not winning will pull back in order to charge in again. It is not intended to be a way to infiltrate through the enemy line where you could not otherwise move to that position using an equivalent path. Cavalry are not intended to be the ancient equivalent of 1918 German Stosstruppen which the current cavalry break off frequently allows them to do.

Chris

+1
Those 2 impetuous charges and cavalry breaking off behind your lines are really very annoying and can ruin a battle as I've seen it 3 times today !

And I've also got the could not find smtp host bug so I pressed the button several times, hahaha.

[deeter]

Had an enemy cav evade today that ended next to my camp. It was immediately looted and removed. What's up with that?

Deeter