(NOT) Turning towards enemy

[kevinj]

We already have an element of troops doing something the player does not want in charging without orders. For normal moves, maybe it would be worth considering changing the order in which moves and tests occurred, so for example move the BG, then take a CMT to see if it can turn. Or turn your LH/LF, move 3 MU and then test to see if you can turn back.

[ShrubMiK]

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

Yes, I realise that

Perhaps though you could actually engage with the point rather than just trying to be snide? ExplaIn how, under the suggestion that was made, you would need to test 3 times until you break.

[david53]

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

I think Paul was taking the above as the example, failed the test to turn three turns, disrupted first turn, fragmented second turn and routed the last turn. Of course each of these would get harder to pass as you now have a minus on the score needed.

dave

[dave_r]

Quite.

Shall we turn around now we have reached the enemy's camp and ransacked it? No we will fragment instead.

This is still a really rubbish idea.

[jorneto]

I think Paul was taking the above as the example, failed the test to turn three turns, disrupted first turn, fragmented second turn and routed the last turn. Of course each of these would get harder to pass as you now have a minus on the score needed.

dave

Note that the 3 turns of failed CMT tests were “what happened” under current rules.

With one of the suggested procedures they would turn 90º and drop one level (and that only because they failed the test).
And that’s it! – No reason for a second and a third test.

Generally, during the course of a game the player would have to carefully consider when to execute a difficult maneuver. He can do the move but the price is the risk of a cohesion drop.

A mechanism like this will certainly reduce the number of fancy moves, particularly for drilled troops, which generally are considered to have excessive mobility.

Aditionally some adjustments might be needed to go along this line of reasoning:
- Limit the cohesion drop to fragmented (as suggested by Strategos)
- Bonus if away from enemy (say > 6 MU’s)
- Review definitions for complex/impossible moves

[dave_r]

I think Paul was taking the above as the example, failed the test to turn three turns, disrupted first turn, fragmented second turn and routed the last turn. Of course each of these would get harder to pass as you now have a minus on the score needed.

dave

Note that the 3 turns of failed CMT tests were “what happened” under current rules.

With one of the suggested procedures they would turn 90º and drop one level (and that only because they failed the test).
And that’s it! – No reason for a second and a third test.

Generally, during the course of a game the player would have to carefully consider when to execute a difficult maneuver. He can do the move but the price is the risk of a cohesion drop.

A mechanism like this will certainly reduce the number of fancy moves, particularly for drilled troops, which generally are considered to have excessive mobility.

Aditionally some adjustments might be needed to go along this line of reasoning:
- Limit the cohesion drop to fragmented (as suggested by Strategos)
- Bonus if away from enemy (say > 6 MU’s)
- Review definitions for complex/impossible moves

It would have a stultifying effect on the game. I suggest you move on instead of trying to make a bad idea tenable. There is no point in polishing a turd.

[david53]

A mechanism like this will certainly reduce the number of fancy moves, particularly for drilled troops, which generally are considered to have excessive mobility.

Even if this was being considered by the authors which from the Beta test Forum it’s not, you would be still affecting undrilled foot more than as you say drilled since they need an eight to pass any test.

As for your excessive mobility idea, I would argue once again with the posts in the beta test the changes being considered to movement will in the main fix any perceived problem there may be with regard to unit movement.

Dave

[Strategos69]

Even if this was being considered by the authors which from the Beta test Forum it’s not, you would be still affecting undrilled foot more than as you say drilled since they need an eight to pass any test.

CT´s are passed on 7 not 8´s. No one said they should be changed to 8´s for undrilled. The current table already limits their manouvering. The idea is also to simplify by unifying tests. What does not have much logic is trying something, failing and then do something completely different. Undrilled would drop levels more often as they have to test for very simple things, but in the other hand they would increase their mobility. If drilled start manouvering all around, they might find that they risk more than they do right now.

[ShrubMiK]

I think Paul was taking the above as the example, failed the test to turn three turns, disrupted first turn, fragmented second turn and routed the last turn. Of course each of these would get harder to pass as you now have a minus on the score needed.

dave

True, that's quite possible. However I tend to assume people are responding to the most recent posts in a thread, as you would in a conversation, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

Are you saying "Dave (R) is wrong", though?

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Just to clarify I was referring to the previously described scenario of dropping a cohesion level after a failed test. IMO this is an awful idea which would do nothing to help the problem outlined in the original post. In fact it makes it worse.
I had attempted to make this clear by starting the post with

Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test…….

However, I can see that this could be interpreted as a comment on the just posted suggestion that a failed test drops a level, but the manoeuvre succeeds, which is less unbalanced. The continuation of the post with reference to the original post and dropping 3 levels again could only apply to the previous idea.

My apologies that this was unclear.

The impact of the suggestion that a failed test drops a level, but the manoeuvre succeeds will be scenario dependant. If the scenario is that a unit of undrilled foot need to turn to avoid being flank/ rear charged disrupting but turning would be preferable to standing still. You would have disrupted at impact and avoid the double – impact.
The potential problem is that with the current balance of generals and unit numbers the tips in the rulebook suggest that the best strategy is to avoid cohesion tests. This is easy enough for drilled troops they can turn without a test, however for undrilled they are stuck with standing still or moving a full move straight ahead.
Therefore, despite being an interesting suggestion IMO this is not likely to improve the game.

Paul

[gozerius]

I personally favor the suggestion. I too have encountered situations in which an undrilled BG, for want of a favorable CMT stares into space while the enemy flanks and destroys it. I also find the option to revise a failed complex move by substituting a completely unrelated simple move makes no sense. As things currently stand, drilled troops are vastly more manuverable than undrilled. Drilled can do more things without testing and are permitted manuevers with a test which are impossible to undrilled troops. This gives drilled troops a HUGE advantage over undrilled troops. This proposal is an attempt to even things out by giving the undrilled troops an option to execute a manuever at the risk of loss of cohesion. Perhaps giving the player the option to fail the maneuver or complete it with a cohesion drop would be an acceptable revision.

[ShrubMiK]

>Perhaps giving the player the option to fail the maneuver or complete it with a cohesion drop would be an acceptable revision.

Now that sounds like a pretty good tweak on the basic idea, my initial reaction is that I would go for that.

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

On a failed CMT test giving you an option to complete the complex move but drop a level works for me.
Historically it seems more logical than on a failed roll doing something completely different.
It is an option so doesn't unbalance the current unit/general ratio and it would appear to help the unpopular unmanoeuverable stuff like undrilled foot. (of course it will also help the drilled stuff turn and move onto a flank but its more beneficial to the less agile troops).

Paul

[hazelbark]

On a failed CMT test giving you an option to complete the complex move but drop a level works for me.
Historically it seems more logical than on a failed roll doing something completely different.
It is an option so doesn't unbalance the current unit/general ratio and it would appear to help the unpopular unmanoeuverable stuff like undrilled foot. (of course it will also help the drilled stuff turn and move onto a flank but its more beneficial to the less agile troops).

Well that works well in the sense if it is used by a unit to turn and receive an attack. But for mounted or drilled foot it would allow them to dodge away from potentially an attack that would destroy the unit, thus presumably giving those units the power to avoid a defeat.

Not sure this is beneficial

[jorneto]

>Perhaps giving the player the option to fail the maneuver or complete it with a cohesion drop would be an acceptable revision.

Now that sounds like a pretty good tweak on the basic idea, my initial reaction is that I would go for that.

Yes, well thought.

Well that works well in the sense if it is used by a unit to turn and receive an attack. But for mounted or drilled foot it would allow them to dodge away from potentially an attack that would destroy the unit, thus presumably giving those units the power to avoid a defeat.

Not sure this is beneficial

I tend to agree. However, considering a turn as the easiest way to dodge an enemy, the "Turn 90/180 stationary" for battle troops should also be a complex move. It narrows a bit the difference between drilled and undrilled (many people consider it too wide, anyway), but it would also be an incentive to use more undrilled troops.

[ravenflight]

>Perhaps giving the player the option to fail the maneuver or complete it with a cohesion drop would be an acceptable revision.

Now that sounds like a pretty good tweak on the basic idea, my initial reaction is that I would go for that.

Yes, well thought.

I would think, however, that it would be an all or nothing thing. You either 'choose to do the manouver and drop a cohesion level' or choose to do nothing. I really wouldn't like 'oh, I failed that sneaky move, ok, now that I can't do that, I'll wheel around instead.

In essence, the command 'the regiment will form on the left, left form' is given. The troops either do it successfully or don't. They don't then get to say 'oh shi'ite, we didn't learn doing left and right forms at Legionary school, but we DID learn how to wheel'

Just my 2 shekels (based on the Jubilee Shekel) worth.

[kevinj]

I agree. If this is to be considered it needs to be a risk, rather than another option.

[rbodleyscott]

Just so you guys know why the rules are as they currently are on this issue:

Design policy was to keep the game flowing as much as possible. Hence we allowed simple moves after a failed CMT, no requirement for rallying after evades and pursuits and several other items which (as we were well aware) might not be strictly realistic but help to keep the game flowing.

In our view, keeping the action flowing makes it a better game, even if it makes it less of a simulation. (It is a game, in case anyone has forgotten.)

[ravenflight]

Design policy was to keep the game flowing as much as possible. Hence we allowed simple moves after a failed CMT, no requirement for rallying after evades and pursuits and several other items which (as we were well aware) might not be strictly realistic but help to keep the game flowing.

Hi Richard,

I can see your point, but I'm wondering how it actually keeps the game flowing? I can't see anything faster, in fact, than 'attempt a CMT fail and do nothing'. If you did it 'our' way drilled would still have the advantage, but not as much:

"Our" way:

"Drilled" with exposed left flank to enemy:

Options:
Attempt CMT Left turn and move at the risk of dropping a cohesion level - OR - staying where you are.
Left turn and stay stationary, no risk of dropping a cohesion level.

"Undrilled" with exposed left flank to enemy:

Options:
Attempt CMT Left turn and remain stationary at the risk of dropping a cohesion level - OR - staying where you are.

"Current" way:

"Drilled" with exposed left flank to enemy:

Options:
Attempt CMT Left turn and move at no risk.
If it fails make a simple left turn, - OR - wheel around, -OR- do a lot of other simple manouvers.

"Undrilled" with exposed left flank to enemy:
Attempt CMT left turn. If failed... well... nice knowing you.

I find that in many games there are strange situations like an Undrilled unit not being able to move at all because they failed their CMT. Their own troops are in the way at 9/10 of their maximum move, they can't wheel, they can't do anything... they just stay there. I acknowledge that it is often the General's fault for moving them into such a position, but it isn't always the case.

In our view, keeping the action flowing makes it a better game, even if it makes it less of a simulation. (It is a game, in case anyone has forgotten.)

Maybe where YOU live, but I'm already in hock for 5 sheep stations...

[rbodleyscott]

Design policy was to keep the game flowing as much as possible. Hence we allowed simple moves after a failed CMT, no requirement for rallying after evades and pursuits and several other items which (as we were well aware) might not be strictly realistic but help to keep the game flowing.

Hi Richard,

I can see your point, but I'm wondering how it actually keeps the game flowing? I can't see anything faster, in fact, than 'attempt a CMT fail and do nothing'.

I am not talking about speed of applying the rule, but the flow of the action in the game.

Forcing Battle groups to do nothing does not keep the game flowing.

Forcing a BG to drop 1 cohesion level if it fails a CMT is almost certainly too stringent. Undrilled foot are bad enough already and this would probably eliminate them from contention in the game completely