Combat support clarification please

[tankerdco]

I've done a good job figuring out most of the rules and how things work. 1 thing left to grasp is how to predict when my BG's will get support from adjacent BGs. Rules state you can get support from adjacent BGs not currently engaged. Obviously, supporting BGs must also be "touching" your target. Is there more to how support is calculated than just touching, not in combat?

[grumblefish]

It seems to me that the supporting units need to be in combat with the unit you're hoping to attack, and that your attacking and supporting units all need to be in melee rather than impact. Also, you can get another form of support by having a unit in one or two of the rear hexes of your unit (it gives +1 to cohesion tests, rally tests, maybe something else).

[CheerfullyInsane]

It seems to me that the supporting units need to be in combat with the unit you're hoping to attack, and that your attacking and supporting units all need to be in melee rather than impact. Also, you can get another form of support by having a unit in one or two of the rear hexes of your unit (it gives +1 to cohesion tests, rally tests, maybe something else).

They don't have to be in combat with the target, merely adjacent.
AFAIK it doesn't even matter whether they're in contact with a third unit further down the line (Not sure about that one though)
And no, impact combat does not get support from other units. Soon as their charge is over though, they still lend support to other units locked in melee.
The rear-support from having a unit in the rear-arc does lend a +1 to cohesion, and nothing else.
And it's not cumulative, so having two units doesn't get you any further advantages.

Lars

[tankerdco]

Ok, thanks to all. More testing and got it figured out.

For those interested, here is how support works:

Support is provided by adjacent BGs (left, right) whose base are touching the target BG and is in or can conduct melee with the target. If an adjacent BG is locked (can only attack the BG the arrow points to) with another BG (not the target), support will not be provided. Each supporting BG will lower the target BG -1 Hit Dice. The effect is cumulative for each BG in support but, never bringing the target BG below 1 Hit Dice. Opposing BGs

[TheGrayMouser]

If an adjacent BG is locked (can only attack the BG the arrow points to) with another BG (not the target), support will not be provided. Each supporting BG will lower the target BG -1 Hit Dice. The effect is cumulative for each BG in support but, never bringing the target BG below 1 Hit Dice. Opposing BGs

Now all we need to figure out is what circumstances/why a BG can be "locked"

[tankerdco]

LOL...I actually figured that out while testing support.

A unit is considered "Locked" (in combat with another BG) when a BG has been attacked/Impact combat by 1 BG only.

A unit is not considered "Locked" when:
A) Unit has been attacked/Impact combat with more than 1 BG ( 1v2, 1v3 etc)
or
B) Unit has not been attacked/Impact combat but, an enemy BG has moved into the frontal hex to attack an adjacent BG in line.

example:
4 BG in line abreast. From left to right the line is attacked. BG 1 impact combat(front) with 1 and 2 enemy BGs. BG 2 has enemy BG 3 move into frontal hex but, enemy BG 3 chooses(red sword at selection) impact combat with your BG 3. skipping combat with your BG 2. BG 4 impact combat with 1 enemy BG (enemy BG 4).

Your BG 1 is "unlocked". Your BG 2 is "unlocked". Your BG 3 is "locked". Your BG 4 is "Locked"

[tankerdco]

and to add to this:

any BG that is skipped and unlocked like BG 2 above...even though BG 2 never conducted an Impact Combat phase, when it attacks, it will be for melee.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Now all we need to figure out is what circumstances/why a BG can be "locked"

Oh no, that's too easy. Observe......

During a LoEG game, I was doing my round of attacks and suddenly thought "That's odd. Why are the percentages different for this unit?"
So I had a closer look re. supporting units.


This is the starting positions.

The following will concern the 6 Ghilman units I have engaging the enemy line, and henceforth they'll be labelled 1 through 6, left to right. Also note the just before this pic unit 1 routed another unit (hence the hole in the enemy line), and unit 3 has already made his attack.




Here's the odds with unit 2 attacking. NOte there's no support from the unit 1, while the enemy gets support from his neighbouring unit.
At this point I figured that units simply don't get support from units that have already attacked.
Not so.



This is the odds when unit 4 tries to attack.
Note that this time he gets support from the unit that has already attacked.
And definitely note that this time the enemy does NOT get support from his neighbouring unit.



This is where I felt like simply weeping.....
The odds for unit 5 attacking.
In this case note that he does not get support from unit 6, but the enemy unit that previously refused to help his friend on his right, this time decides to jump right in......

So........
There are rules for which units are locked.......That's good.
Less good is that these rules also applies to the units you're trying to attack.
And what is very bad is that the GUI doesn't show you which enemy unit is supporting which.
So the only way you can figure out what the odds are for a round of combats between lines is to go through each and every unit first, taking notes......

ARE YOU F**KING KIDDING ME???

*sheeesh*

[TheGrayMouser]

Wow , you guys certainly have done your homework to solve this riddle, I must say my head is swimming and theres no way i would be able to eek any advantage out of this newfound knowledge in a game...

Hey CheerfullyInsane, at least knowing which troops are locked/unlocked wouldnt have helped you in that horrible cavarly battle you got yourself into.,. Knights vs sword bows, and outflanked too!

[batesmotel]

The general rule for which opposing BGs you are allowed to attack in melee are:

1) Any opposing adjacent BG that you attacked or defended against in impact in a prior turn.
2) Any opposing adjacent BG which has attacked you in melee in a previous turn. (This would most often a BG that attacked yours under condition 3).
3) If there are no adjacent BGs covered by 1 and 2, then any adjacent opposing BG. Note that Routers are normally not a target for attack in melee.

I'm not sure if this is completely accurate but is consistent with what I've observed. It does require keeping track of the history of combats and doesn't let you figure it out quickly form just looking at the current position. Paying attention to these is probably more useful when planning initial impact combats than in analyzing the position at a later time.

Chris

[CheerfullyInsane]

Paying attention is all well and good (and probably something I should try at some point ).
However, when the player-turn changes you can see arrows designating who's fighting.
Surely it can't be too much of a stretch to allow the enemy arrows to stay on-screen during ones turn.
AFAIK even the TT game has markers designating which BG is engaging who when there are multiple units adjacent.

@GrayMouser.... The situation isn't as bad as it seems in that particular screenshot.
My Ghilman are Superior and Armoured, whilst his Knights are Average and Sword-armed (IICR), plus I've got some more cav further to the right ready to flank the flankers.
There's no doubt I'm getting spanked by CharlesRobinson in that particular game, but I suspect that might have something to do with me rolling an average of 5.3 for cohesion test...... *sigh*

Lars

[CheerfullyInsane]

Okay, I've settled down a bit since the last few posts.
First of all, an apology for the.....*ahem*....colourful language
I guess that time my frustration shone through a little harder than I would've liked.

Next, a few more comments

I'm not sure if this is completely accurate but is consistent with what I've observed. It does require keeping track of the history of combats and doesn't let you figure it out quickly form just looking at the current position. Paying attention to these is probably more useful when planning initial impact combats than in analyzing the position at a later time.

Which is fine if you're running one game at a time.
I've got (at present) 12 games running incl. 6 LoEG match-ups.
The odds of me remembering who are engaging who in every battle, especially if the melee is resolved over several turns, are fairly remote. And those odds aren't likely to improve as I get older *LOL*

Wow , you guys certainly have done your homework to solve this riddle, I must say my head is swimming and theres no way i would be able to eek any advantage out of this newfound knowledge in a game...

Quite correct. I doubt that I could use the knowledge to finagle a game-winning strategy.
It would, however, be nice to be able to at least figure out which sequence to fight the battles in.
What I object to is that the information is clearly being used by the game-engine, and yet it isn't available to the player.
It's a bit like playing a WWII game without anyone telling you what the armor-ratings are.

Lars

[batesmotel]

It seems like the alternative you would want is to have something that would graphically represent who each BG could attack and similar for each opposing BG as well simultaneously. I'm not sure there would be a good way to do this that wouldn't completely clutter up the screen. So looking at each BGs odds one at a time may well be a reasonable solution even if it does seem like more work than would be ideal.

Chris

[CheerfullyInsane]

It seems like the alternative you would want is to have something that would graphically represent who each BG could attack and similar for each opposing BG as well simultaneously. I'm not sure there would be a good way to do this that wouldn't completely clutter up the screen. So looking at each BGs odds one at a time may well be a reasonable solution even if it does seem like more work than would be ideal.

Chris

No, I think we're talking past each other here. *LOL*

From I can gather support by enemy units is only applicable if unit you're attacking with was attacked by that enemy unit in the previous player-turn.
Or using the illustrations above, the reason the enemy cav supported unit 5s attack, and not unit 4s is that that particular unit engaged unit 5 in the previous player-turn.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that this is educated guess-work, but going on the assumption that it is actually right, what I would like is arrows designating which enemy units attacked my units.
So that if I was attacked by a unit I'm already locked in melee with, there'd be a double-headed arrow.
This way I'd be able to see which enemy units are eligible to support the attacks I'm planning, and hence which sequence to do them in.
If for example, I have one Disrupted and one Ordered unit locked in melee with an enemy unit in support of the Disrupted units attack, it would be nice if that was clear so I could use the Ordered unit first, hopefully Disrupting the target and increasing the odds of the mandatory attack.

I quite agree that having arrows designating every possible attack- and support-combination would be counter-productive.
Or arrow-productive, as the case may be

Lars