Break-off moves

[RichardThompson]

1. Break-off moves should be voluntary.

Consider some armoured cavalry who get shot twice and then charge into some unprotected bowmen. If the cavalry have a ++ POA in melee why would they they want to break off and get shot at again?

The game is also more fun when the players get to make the decisions.

2. Break-off moves should require a CMT.

This would help to make cavalry armies less slippery.

3. Should break-off moves should have the option of ending facing away from the enemy?

4. Should impact foot be able to make break-off moves?

This could simulate the behaviour of Roman Legionaries falling back in front of advancing pikes, or of warbands who charge ferociously and then melt away again.

[jlopez]

I would prefer it if the mounted break-off was compulsory unless you decide to pass a CT. A CMT is a no-brainer but a CT might make it very interesting for both sides.

If you can face away after a break-off the cavalry will be even more slippery as when things go pear-shaped they won't have to test to avoid charging if shock and will just trot away into the sunset while the infantry look on impotently.

I don't think there is much evidence of infantry breaking-off from hand-to-hand combat to launch a fresh charge. As you point out, they melt away...but to their homes not to a rallying point. As for the Romans falling back in front of pikes, I think you'll find it was more a case of them being physically pushed back. There was no break-off.

[RichardThompson]

I would prefer it if the mounted break-off was compulsory unless you decide to pass a CT. A CMT is a no-brainer but a CT might make it very interesting for both sides.

Why not a CMT? A break-off if must have been difficult to organise in the face of the enemy.

Why would the armoured cavalry (from my example) need to take a CT if they had the advantage in the melee?

If you can face away after a break-off the cavalry will be even more slippery as when things go pear-shaped they won't have to test to avoid charging if shock and will just trot away into the sunset while the infantry look on impotently.

Historically. cavalry were quite happy to ride off when things were going pear shaped.

In game terms I agree with you.

This was why I put a question mark at the end.

I don't think there is much evidence of infantry breaking-off from hand-to-hand combat to launch a fresh charge. As you point out, they melt away...but to their homes not to a rallying point. As for the Romans falling back in front of pikes, I think you'll find it was more a case of them being physically pushed back. There was no break-off.

The rules don't include push backs and this might be a way of simulating that.

[nikgaukroger]

I would prefer it if the mounted break-off was compulsory unless you decide to pass a CT. A CMT is a no-brainer but a CT might make it very interesting for both sides.

Why not a CMT? A break-off if must have been difficult to organise in the face of the enemy.

It appears, however, that it was the norm for mounted if faced off by steady infantry - Hastings is a good example.

[RichardThompson]

It appears, however, that it was the norm for mounted if faced off by steady infantry - Hastings is a good example.

At Hastings the Knights would have been faced by steady spears:
The Saxons would have had +1 for uphill and + 1 for steady spear.
The Normans may have +1 for better armour depending on who they were fighting.
Since the Normans are at a disadvantage it would make sense for their player to order a break-off.


In my original example:
The Cavalry have +1 for better armour and +1 for Sword.
Bows have no pluses.
Since the Cavalry have an advantage it would not make sense for their player to order a break-off (especially as they would then get shot again).

[nikgaukroger]

Since the Normans are at a disadvantage it would make sense for their player to order a break-off.

Other way round - the troops will naturally break off, you would need to order them to stick around.

FWIW I don't think any change is necessary - the rules are getting the right effect as it stands.

[RichardThompson]

Since the Normans are at a disadvantage it would make sense for their player to order a break-off.

Other way round - the troops will naturally break off, you would need to order them to stick around.

FWIW I don't think any change is necessary - the rules are getting the right effect as it stands.

This makes some sense for knights who have an advantage in the impact phase.

It makes no sense for the cavalry in the second example.

The break-off rules are (by far) my biggest irritation with the current rules.

[philqw78]

It makes no sense for the cavalry in the second example.

But cavalry that are not shock troops are not designed for melee. It is however unfortunate that Lt spear cav do not throw their spears. Perhaps they should.

[RichardThompson]

It makes no sense for the cavalry in the second example.

But cavalry that are not shock troops are not designed for melee. It is however unfortunate that Lt spear cav do not throw their spears. Perhaps they should.

Cavalry with a lance are classed as shock troops. Armoured cavalry with a sword are designed for melee.

In the example, continuing to fight the melee at ++POA makes more sense than:
- breaking-off
- being shot at for two rounds
- then charging in again with the bowmen getting to shoot from the rear rank

Why would the unit commander want to order a break-off?
Why would the troops want to break-off without orders?

[gozerius]

My problem with break offs is the fact that you cannot shift bases/drop back bases to avoid things that are in your way. This is an issue when you charge at an angle, must then conform, and are forced to break off in a different direction than the original approach.

[philqw78]

It makes no sense for the cavalry in the second example.

But cavalry that are not shock troops are not designed for melee. It is however unfortunate that Lt spear cav do not throw their spears. Perhaps they should.

Cavalry with a lance are classed as shock troops.

yes they are.

Armoured cavalry with a sword are designed for melee.

Are they?

In the example, continuing to fight the melee at ++POA makes more sense than:
- breaking-off
- being shot at for two rounds
- then charging in again with the bowmen getting to shoot from the rear rank

the rules should be re-written then so that they cavalry are not at + or ++ so that their player is more likely to want them to break off unless the enemy is disordered.

Why would the unit commander want to order a break-off?
Why would the troops want to break-off without orders?

Because they foot are still formed so the cavalry have not broken into their formation. But most of all that is what they did.
So the best change in the rules to enable your wish would be for cavalry to get a double minus before other factors are taken into account when fighting foot. You can then choose to break off or not.

[RichardThompson]

But cavalry that are not shock troops are not designed for melee. It is however unfortunate that Lt spear cav do not throw their spears. Perhaps they should.

Cavalry with a lance are classed as shock troops.

yes they are.

Armoured cavalry with a sword are designed for melee.

Are they?

In the example, continuing to fight the melee at ++POA makes more sense than:
- breaking-off
- being shot at for two rounds
- then charging in again with the bowmen getting to shoot from the rear rank

the rules should be re-written then so that they cavalry are not at + or ++ so that their player is more likely to want them to break off unless the enemy is disordered.

Why would the unit commander want to order a break-off?
Why would the troops want to break-off without orders?

Because they foot are still formed so the cavalry have not broken into their formation. But most of all that is what they did.
So the best change in the rules to enable your wish would be for cavalry to get a double minus before other factors are taken into account when fighting foot. You can then choose to break off or not.

The army list authors have given swords to most Cavalry which means they believe they were effective in melee. If you wish to weaken Cavalry in melee then removing their swords would be simpler than a --POA factor against infantry.

There are four ways that break-offs could be handled:

1. Break-offs should be compulsory (as now)
2. Mounted should have to take a CMT not to break-off
3. Mounted should have to take a CMT to break-off
4. The Player should get to choose

Personally I would choose option 3 because:
It would have been hard to co-ordinate in the noise of battle.
It would have been easier for drilled troops.
It would have exposed the troops to a hack-in-the-back etc.
It would make cavalry armies less slippery

I dislike the current rule because it doesn't give the player any choice.

Skirmishers would normally evade but can take a CMT not to.
Shock troops would normally charge but can take a CMT not to.
Bowmen would normally stand and shoot but can take a CMT to charge.

Why not introduce some choice into the break-off rules?

[philqw78]

I think CMT not to break off, as breaking off is the norm. They would have to reduce the points cost of Foot missile troops then though as mounted become even more powerful.

[hammy]

The mounted break off cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a package of factors that let the interraction between mounted and foot work in a reasonable way.

If mounted have the option not to break off from steady foot it has a pretty bad effect on medium foot bow who lose all real hope of beating mounted.

Cavalry can move to outside the effective range of the bow, charge, and then elect to stay in close combat because they feel like it. The end result is not good at all for the bow.

The way I consider break off is that mounted who fail to disrupt a formation of close combat foot have not made enough headway to feel that they have the edge (regardless of POA) so pull back to try again. Against bow if the mounted can disrupt the bow then they have fought their way through any short range missile fire and are genuinely up close and personal so stay and cut the bow down. If they don't disrupt the bow in the impact and melee then they have got close but faltered at the last moment.

I don't see break off changing, the change to make it compulsary and inflict a cohesion loss if it fails was introduced late in the beta because with mounted break off being possible to prevent with clever positioning of your own troops it gave mounted too much of an edge over bow.

[MatthewP]

I am happy with the breakoff rule as it stands. I think it works well. Remember that a cavalry commander would not be aware of the POA which only indicate the future probability of success, but would be aware of the fact that his horses have failed to disrupt the enemy formation. Therefore breaking off would seem reasonable behaviour.

What I dont like is that two or three unwashed light foot can get behind a formation of knight/cataphracts/cavalry/camels etc and prevent them moving. How does that work?

[RichardThompson]

The mounted break off cannot be considered in isolation. It is part of a package of factors that let the interraction between mounted and foot work in a reasonable way.

If mounted have the option not to break off from steady foot it has a pretty bad effect on medium foot bow who lose all real hope of beating mounted.

Cavalry can move to outside the effective range of the bow, charge, and then elect to stay in close combat because they feel like it. The end result is not good at all for the bow.

The way I consider break off is that mounted who fail to disrupt a formation of close combat foot have not made enough headway to feel that they have the edge (regardless of POA) so pull back to try again. Against bow if the mounted can disrupt the bow then they have fought their way through any short range missile fire and are genuinely up close and personal so stay and cut the bow down. If they don't disrupt the bow in the impact and melee then they have got close but faltered at the last moment.

I don't see break off changing, the change to make it compulsory and inflict a cohesion loss if it fails was introduced late in the beta because with mounted break off being possible to prevent with clever positioning of your own troops it gave mounted too much of an edge over bow.

Perhaps the rules need to take into account the missile fire from the front rank during the impact phase?

ATM, a unit of 8 Bowmen in two ranks would get 8 melee dice and 4 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase.

Perhaps they should the same number of 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase as they would in normal shooting? Six in this case.

This would strengthen the Bowmen in the impact phase to balance out the disadvantage they would suffer due to a change in the break-off rule.

I realise this would be a big change and would affect a lot of other interactions as well.

[hammy]

Perhaps the rules need to take into account the missile fire from the front rank during the impact phase?

ATM, a unit of 8 Bowmen in two ranks would get 8 melee dice and 4 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase.

Perhaps they should the same number of 'supporting fire' dice in the impact phase as they would in normal shooting? Six in this case.

This would strengthen the Bowmen in the impact phase to balance out the disadvantage they would suffer due to a change in the break-off rule.

I realise this would be a big change and would affect a lot of other interactions as well.

Perhaps but that isn't really going to change things much. As it stands against cavalry bow will normally only get one volley at full effect, if the cavalry are lancers then there is little hope that the bow will be able to prevent the lancers from charging. Changing the impact combat is still not going to stop the lancers charging but it may help a little in the melee.

You need to look at the whole package which I for one think works quite well.

[RichardThompson]

Perhaps but that isn't really going to change things much. As it stands against cavalry bow will normally only get one volley at full effect, if the cavalry are lancers then there is little hope that the bow will be able to prevent the lancers from charging. Changing the impact combat is still not going to stop the lancers charging but it may help a little in the melee.

You need to look at the whole package which I for one think works quite well.

As I have said before, I find the break-off rules by far the most frustrating part of the game:

Undrilled Knights have to pass a CMT to turn 90 or 180 degrees - except during break-off phase when they can perform two 180 degree turns and a full move with no problem at all.

Cavalry in two ranks cannot evade foot - but can perform a perfect break-off every time.

Knight getting beaten by MF can escape in the break-off phase - even though they move at the same speed.

Cataphracts fighting archers are forced to break-off even though they have the advantage in melee. I can't see the historical problem with cataphracts beating bowmen.

Disrupted cavalry facing disrupted foot cannot attempt to break-off even when they are at a disadvantage.

[grahambriggs]

you seem to be worried about the detailed steps within the mechanism rather than the overall effect.

The overall effect of break offs seems about right i.e my cataphracts are facing archers in the open. I'll charge them , probably disrupt them and then slaughter them. If the archers manage to fend me off, I'll fall back and have another crack next go, but it's not likely that they will.

[timmy1]

I agree with Nik and Graham. I would recommend scrapping break offs because I always forget the rule but we can't just change the rules because I am incompetent (or incontinent for that matter).