(NOT) Turning towards enemy

[jorneto]

In a recent game one BG stood parallel to an enemy BG. The two were about 3 MU’s apart (laterally), each needing a 90 degrees turn to face the other.

Each took 3 game turns to pass a CMT and face the enemy!

I find it odd to say the least, that two enemy bodies – very close to each other and with no one around - don´t turn to face an imminent danger.

To avoid this sort of situations I would suggest a modifier to the CMT test:

-> 90 or 180 Turn to face an enemy within “x” MU’s …: +2 (“x” being the enemy move?)
Or
-> 90 or 180 Turn to face an enemy within “x” MU’s …: free turn but disordering(disrupting?) BG

[Strategos69]

In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.

[Jhykronos]

In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.

Funny, I've always felt the same way. Someone's pulling an envelopment on you so you try to get your troops to turn but fail, and this causes no confusion at all?

[Cynical]

In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.

I have always thought this was odd. I think it would be better if you declared the move you want to make and if you fail you only do the simple first part.

An example would be drilled troops moving forward and then turning 90 degrees, if they fail I feel that they should still do the forward move even if that now puts them in a poor position.

[jorneto]

I have always thought this was odd. I think it would be better if you declared the move you want to make and if you fail you only do the simple first part.

An example would be drilled troops moving forward and then turning 90 degrees, if they fail I feel that they should still do the forward move even if that now puts them in a poor position.

Actually, I favour the logic of always doing the intended move with the troops but getting disorganised/confused in the process. - Penalizing "troop state" instead of the current "troop move".

In game terms, the CMT would be used to decide if your troops drop (or not) a coesion level, instead of the current rule, to decide if you can (or not) execute a complex move.

I can imagine in a mid game situation some tough decisions arising...

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an . In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Paul

[david53]

In game terms, the CMT would be used to decide if your troops drop (or not) a coesion level, instead of the current rule, to decide if you can (or not) execute a complex move.

The quickist way I've seen of keeping undrilled foot off the table....people take this troop type little enough already, without making it harder to move.

Dave

[dave_r]

This idea has been raised before (by Strategos surprisingly enough).

Wasn't a good idea then and isn't a good idea now.

Keep them coming though.

[philqw78]

Bridesmaids 'R' Us

LMFAO

[ShrubMiK]

>In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken?

>Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Not saying I agree with the idea...haven't really thought about it properly...but do read carefully and don't try to shoot down something that hasn't been suggested

They would have turned immediately, perhaps become disrupted, and not needed to test again unless other BGs moved into the picture and the situation changed significantly again.

[dave_r]

>In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken?

>Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Not saying I agree with the idea...haven't really thought about it properly...but do read carefully and don't try to shoot down something that hasn't been suggested

They would have turned immediately, perhaps become disrupted, and not needed to test again unless other BGs moved into the picture and the situation changed significantly again.

I think Paul was replying to one of the responses that you take a cohesion test to manoever - perhaps you should read more carefully

[Strategos69]

Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an . In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.

I always try "turn and move" with my drilled. If I risked to drop a level, I would not. But right now, at least you always try. It might harm more undrilled... or drilled troops making lots of manouvers. This way you can be certain that your undrilled will perform the manouver and it is all about the order in which they will come out. And as a precaution of odd situations like fleing from manouvering only, fragmented troops who did not pass the test simply do not do anything and stay still.

[ravenflight]

Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an . In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.

I always try "turn and move" with my drilled. If I risked to drop a level, I would not. But right now, at least you always try. It might harm more undrilled... or drilled troops making lots of manouvers. This way you can be certain that your undrilled will perform the manouver and it is all about the order in which they will come out. And as a precaution of odd situations like fleing from manouvering only, fragmented troops who did not pass the test simply do not do anything and stay still.

I think it's a good suggestion, and believe that it would benefit undrilled more than drilled. As you say, people who have drilled may not risk the 'hmm, do I just turn, or try to turn and move and thereby risk going disrupted', however those troops who are undrilled who find themselves in spots of bother would be able to actually DO something about it. Even moving less than maximum is irksome.

Just recently my enemy had a unit of undrilled bowmen a bee's dick away from a unit of spearmen. They were so close that they couldn't manouver at all. If they failed their CMT they just stand there. They couldn't shoot because the spear were in frontal combat and acting as an overlap. So they just stand there like total zombies. Seemed incredibly unrealistic to me.

[david53]

The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.

Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.

[Strategos69]

Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.

Note that a CT is passed on 7 not 7 or 8 like a CMT. The idea is to simplify tests so that it is easier to remember too. Instead of two types of tests there would be only one. Both will pass or fail the tests on 7. The disadvantage for the undrilled comes from the variety of things they can do and the more likeliness of testing. Provided that there is a general nearby, I think manouvering will not be that disadvantaged but players would have to think more ahead. And in this case you can count that your undrilled at least will move.

By the way, I already noted that you could not be routed from moving to test. In those cases you would remain still and not do anything. This represents that the unit is in total confusion, trying to be put in order by the officers. The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.

[philqw78]

......The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.

The complex move test is the general (player) wanting them to do something unusual. The being able to do something else if the test if failed is the troops just carrying on as normal.

[ravenflight]

Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.

Someone would be foolish to do that. Additionally, they wouldn't be ABLE to move short (assuming it's an advance) whilst fragmented as they cannot approach enemy.

[madaxeman]

......The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.

The complex move test is the general (player) wanting them to do something unusual. The being able to do something else if the test if failed is the troops just carrying on as normal.

Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO

[philqw78]

Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO

Play snakes and ladders Tim.

[madaxeman]

Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO

Play snakes and ladders Tim.

That's what the pre-game setup mechanics for PBI WW2 rules are. Oddly enough, the 2 armies I'm painting for PBI at the moment have jumped way ahead of the other stuff in my painting queue this year as well.... and there are no ancients in the queue!