Stopping the Enemy Running Away

[Polkovnik]

But the troops in question would simply turn 90 degrees and then move away instead. It will take longer to get away, but will still happen

Moving away by turning 90 is a lot trickier, and often not possible at all (depending on move rates, formations and distance between BGs). And it isn't possible when pinned. And it often gets you in the way of friendly troops.
And this would certainly stop a battle line turning and moving away from a better battle line, just as a delaying tactic.
The main benefit is that you can't guarantee turning back to face the enemy chasing you. Turning 90 doesn't help if the enemy is to your rear.

I think the big problem is troops being able to turn 180 and move away (which is the problem you referred to in the original post). And this would stop it happening.

[philqw78]

But the troops in question would simply turn 90 degrees and then move away instead. It will take longer to get away, but will still happen

Moving away by turning 90 is a lot trickier, and often not possible at all (depending on move rates, formations and distance between BGs). And it isn't possible when pinned. And it often gets you in the way of friendly troops.
And this would certainly stop a battle line turning and moving away from a better battle line, just as a delaying tactic.
The main benefit is that you can't guarantee turning back to face the enemy chasing you. Turning 90 doesn't help if the enemy is to your rear.

I think the big problem is troops being able to turn 180 and move away (which is the problem you referred to in the original post). And this would stop it happening.

Its not the turn, wheel, or any manouver type I am bothered about. Its the fact that a single BG or even a battle line can dissappear in front of you. In your method once you have passed a CMT to turn 180 there is nothing stopping you from moving away. Moving away from enemy, IMO, is the problem.

Nobody is going to turn 180 inside 2MU, except skirmishers. Many troops, drilled MF and any Cav, will turn 90, at between 2 and 6 MU and easily get away from whatever is chasing them

[Polkovnik]

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.

There are all sorts of problems with this. Here's an example:
My MF are moving towards a wood, and are 1 MU away from the wood. Enemy knights move to within 6 MU. The enemy are not even within charge range, but if I want to move my MF straight ahead into the wood I have to pass a CMT.
Don't you think the natural reaction of the MF would be to enter the wood ? Your rule would require them to just stand still if they fail the CMT.

[Polkovnik]

Its not the turn, wheel, or any manouver type I am bothered about. Its the fact that a single BG or even a battle line can dissappear in front of you. In your method once you have passed a CMT to turn 180 there is nothing stopping you from moving away. Moving away from enemy, IMO, is the problem.

A battle line won't dissapear from in front of you if you have to CMT with each BG in order to turn. You would risk leaving some BGs behind and having them outnumbered.

As you say, once you have passed the CMT there is nothing to stop you running away. But the point is you will then have your back to the enemy and will have to pass another CMT to turn back again. So if you turn and move away, you risk being chased of the table or hit in the rear. Which seems like a reasonable solution.

[philqw78]

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.

There are all sorts of problems with this. Here's an example:
My MF are moving towards a wood, and are 1 MU away from the wood. Enemy knights move to within 6 MU. The enemy are not even within charge range, but if I want to move my MF straight ahead into the wood I have to pass a CMT.
Don't you think the natural reaction of the MF would be to enter the wood ? Your rule would require them to just stand still if they fail the CMT.

They could turn around. But it would probably have been better to say end further from all enemy currently within 6 MU rather than closest which I first thought. Your BG of MF does not just represent 12 figures its a mass of men. The ones at the back worrying about being caught and the ones at the front trying to make it to the woods. makes generals more useful than for just rerolls/dying in combat.

[philqw78]

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.

There are all sorts of problems with this. Here's an example:
My MF are moving towards a wood, and are 1 MU away from the wood. Enemy knights move to within 6 MU. The enemy are not even within charge range, but if I want to move my MF straight ahead into the wood I have to pass a CMT.
Don't you think the natural reaction of the MF would be to enter the wood ? Your rule would require them to just stand still if they fail the CMT.

Do you not also think a natural reaction is to turn when threatened to the rear. Your guys can run but not turn, mine can turn but not run

[Polkovnik]

They could turn around.

No they couldn't. They've failed their CMT, and I'm assuming they are irregular.

[Polkovnik]

Do you not also think a natural reaction is to turn when threatened to the rear. Your guys can run but not turn, mine can turn but not run

No, yours can do nothing if they are irregular and fail their CMT.

If you are 50 metres from a wood, which gives you protection from mounted, and the knights are 300 metres away, I think the normal reaction would be to head for the wood.

[Polkovnik]

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.

Going back to the original post, I think the problem most people have is with heavy or medium foot doing this. I don't think most people see it as a problem for skirmishers or cavalry. We expect these troops to be more flexible.

My suggested solution would largely eliminate this problem by making turning 180 in the face of the enemy a risky proposition for heavy or medium foot.

Your rules suggestion has a lot of other consequences and would stop a lot of other moves taking place (like the example I have given above, and any time you approach an enemy from the side or rear), not just turning in the face of the enemy. It effectively creates a 6" restricted zone, rather than the 2" we have at present, and also contradicts the current restricted zone rules.

[Strategos69]

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.

Going back to the original post, I think the problem most people have is with heavy or medium foot doing this. I don't think most people see it as a problem for skirmishers or cavalry. We expect these troops to be more flexible.

My suggested solution would largely eliminate this problem by making turning 180 in the face of the enemy a risky proposition for heavy or medium foot.

Your rules suggestion has a lot of other consequences and would stop a lot of other moves taking place (like the example I have given above, and any time you approach an enemy from the side or rear), not just turning in the face of the enemy. It effectively creates a 6" restricted zone, rather than the 2" we have at present, and also contradicts the current restricted zone rules.

Yes, I agree with you (and medium and heavy foot should be the main concern). That is the reason why I suggested dropping cohesion levels. That way your troops can get damaged even before contact. Indeed if shooting to their rear can make them suffer more, people would not risk giving their backs to the enemy, which only happened when the battle was lost. That way you can have some skirmishers with your heavies that can chase the enemy foot running away. In fact, that is something that did happen with hoplites during the Peloponesian wars.

[grahambriggs]

I think there's a case to be made that all turns should be a complex (or possibly difficult) move for drilled HF and MF. They would still be more likely to do it than irregulars. It just wouldn't be a gimme as it is now. Or perhaps only allow it to be simple if you're in one rank?

I'd also like to see some restriction on turn 90 and move for all troops; perhaps having to beat the CMT by 1 to do so?

Alternatively, there could be some restriction on how many times in a turn you can do this. I don't have a problem with the odd battlegroup twiddling around but the whole army doing so didn't happen much in history.

[pezhetairoi]

I think some turning and walking away did happen.
I seem to recall a passage in Xenophon's anabasis regarding the battle of Cunaxa.
I won't quote, but as the Greeks approached the persian battle line the persian line infantry simply turned and walked away. The Greeks kept after them but never made contact.
From what I understand, this was a large portion of the army -- not just skirmisher types. We are told morale on the Persian side was pretty low -- but without casualties and no other cause for routing. It may have been part of the Great King's plan to avoid the dangerous Greeks and draw his usurper Cyrus into a trap.

This is the only example that comes to mind, and I can't be bothered to look up any more.
I would like to leave this "tactic" available. Good for baiting and refusing a flank. Might be your only hope if you are mostly "protected light spear" ....

When Greeks and Romans do it, well the shame should be punishment enough.

[olivier]

At chaironeia, all the phalanx under Philip fall back in orderly manner to tempt the athenian hoplites.

[Three]

I don't see any problem with turning and walking away, but I'd prefer to see a CT to stop doing so. When you are walking away from some scary guys with big sticks it's a lot easier to keep on walking than to stop and turn round

[Strategos69]

I think some turning and walking away did happen.
I seem to recall a passage in Xenophon's anabasis regarding the battle of Cunaxa.
I won't quote, but as the Greeks approached the persian battle line the persian line infantry simply turned and walked away. The Greeks kept after them but never made contact.

I think that these ordered retreats should be kept in the game, especially for campaign purposes, but the good point here is that they did not turn back (thus making those turns to give the back to the enemy to lose cohesion as a morale drop), which you can see sometimes on the tabletop.

At chaironeia, all the phalanx under Philip fall back in orderly manner to tempt the athenian hoplites.

It is still unclear how that happened, but it seems that they were pushed back (or that they stepped backwards), what means that they did not turn around and exposed the rear to the enemy. It has also been described as a finged retreat, but I have problems to see how you do that with a 5 meters long sarissa. By the way, I think that, although difficult to implement, push backs would be interesting in game terms.

I think that more useful even that CMT (and a drop in morale of 1 or 2 points depending on the failure) would be two net PoA's for being shot from the rear. Skirmishers would harass the enemy more effectively as it did happen and players will think twice while turning in such an ahistorical manner.

[wildone]

Don't forget that while the turn and walk away tactic by MF can be annoying to its opponent, if you mistime it the results can be diabolical.
If you get to close (charge reach) then you risk being unable to turn or getting hit in the flank or rear. If you turn just outside the enemy move distance it can allow him to move up and threaten or pin you. If you get pinned then while the enemy BG may not be able to catch you it can herd you across the board cutting down on your table space.

[madaxeman]

Don't forget that while the turn and walk away tactic by MF can be annoying to its opponent, if you mistime it the results can be diabolical.

Yes, however it appears relatively rare for tabletop generals to mistime it in this way. However the same tactic was clearly immensely challenging for historical generals, so much so that there appear to be few if any recorded instances of anything even approximating this type of manoeuvre.

[ShrubMiK]

I always mention Manzikert at around this point in these discussions.

Of course a large formation should be able to turn around if so ordered and if not too close to the enemy they may get away with it. But sometimes it just goes pear shaped, for reasons that the general couldn't predict or control. And that's the bit that is missing from the rules - the uncertainty and hence risk fo doing so.

Making BGs take a CT and disrupting if failed I don't see as being a solution - if you are going to stay out of combat the fact that you are disrupted isn't going to make a lot of difference in the end.

[Strategos69]

I always mention Manzikert at around this point in these discussions.

Of course a large formation should be able to turn around if so ordered and if not too close to the enemy they may get away with it. But sometimes it just goes pear shaped, for reasons that the general couldn't predict or control. And that's the bit that is missing from the rules - the uncertainty and hence risk fo doing so.

Making BGs take a CT and disrupting if failed I don't see as being a solution - if you are going to stay out of combat the fact that you are disrupted isn't going to make a lot of difference in the end.

I agree that only one level does not capture the tremendous results such a bad decision could have, especially in a bad timing. Neither it reflects the contagious effect it can have. I think that I did not explain it properly. When I said CMT I was refering to a cohesion test where you can even drop two levels. Maybe new modifiers should apply in this case depending on the tyoe of enemy and the distance. I think that the unit would do the manouver. I don't think they were not able or suffciently trained to do so. I am concerned, as you point out, that these non historical tacticts are advisable in game terms. Besides that, evading troups should check CMT or drop a level or two. An evasion can clearly disorder a formation. That way troups would not have to play the mouse and the cat anymore. The formation of the skirmisher could get either disordered by routing over and over or ending up caught.

Steady troups getting fragmented without having fought is a big deal in game terms. Indeed, maybe friends should check as if their comrades were fleing, because that's what they are really doing. All these things together with extra PoA for firing to an enemies rear would change the prevalence of skirmisher armies.

[grahambriggs]

I always mention Manzikert at around this point in these discussions.

Is that the same Mankizert where the second line turned away and that was the critical point when the Byzantine's lost the battle? I suspect the front line thought "they're runiing! Let's react as if we've just lost 2 attriction points for each group of them!"

Or is that the Mankizert where the second line turned, Benny Hilled away for a bit to avoid stronger enemy, then turned back and gave the Turks a kicking?

The problem historically was not whether a large part of the army could turn and move away. Yes of course they could - though it might take some time to do it in an organised fashion if you haven't got a drill for it. It's whether they turn back again in time to do anything and whether the rest of the army would keep fighting.

Plateae is a good example of a retreat almost becoming disaster. Some of the Greek contingents tried to withdraw overnight, it all got a bit confused, fortunately the best troops were forming the rearguard and managed to win the battle anyway.

While acknowledging the problem, it's hard to find a simple solution. It needs something like a temporary attrition point loss for troops marching away from the battle or something but very difficult to word it properly I'd have thought. In the absence of that, a reasonable compromise could be to make the manouver more difficult.