(NOT) Turning towards enemy

[madaxeman]

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.

This might be a baby and bathwater scenario IMO. Adding more decision points, with a range of consequences, makes it a better game. Simply keeping things moving doesn't.

Having an option to force a CMT "pass" at the expense of dropping a level would be a good addition IMO, as it would create exactly such a decision point.

Keeping everything moving all the time was a good idea in game design 20 years ago, but it's no longer a feature of any other tabletop game I currently choose to play.

[ShrubMiK]

Richard, I think "forcing a BG to drop cohesion" is overstating the suggestion, it's a *choice* being proposed here. Presumably you would only exercise that choice and accept the possibility of cohesion loss is the benefits outweigh the downsides. If you never exercise the choice, the rules are effectively unchanged. So I don't see how adding such a choice would make anyone less likely to take undrilled "other".

[hazelbark]

I think this all comes down to what you want to model, what are the decision points, game balance etc.

There are more options than there are gamers.

You have to choose or else be bogged down by everything.

I generally fall in the a "minor" change that adds some chrome but doesn't unbalance is fine. So if this turn and drop a level IF only applied to undrilled foot, then I would be fine. I think expanding it to all is dangerously improving mounted and drilled foot.

[Strategos69]

There are many ways to implement it, but in my opinion the good idea of the change is getting rid of CMT (a new kind of test) and using CT's only. In fact they use more or less the same mechanics and modifiers. The good point is that it would simplify things, especially for new players. There would be only one chart and one number to pass it (7 for all: note that this would improve the undrilled by around 20% in their complex manouvers).

I agree with others that if it is considered too much (which I think would only be known through testing), players could be given the choice to halt the movement, which in my opinion is less realistic but could be acceptable (the officers realizing that the manouver was not being done right). I do not agree to state that this would hurt more undrilled. In fact I would say it would favor them because they would move and now they cannot. And in the other hand, drilled risking on dropping levels will not do as many fancy moves as they try now. Just the risk is enough to prevent risk averse players to try. I think that historically it is accurate that troops could manouver, but if you got out there as in a parade but with your enemy in front it was quite likely that it was a complete mess.

The current situation is not only quite unrealistic, but as a game, as mentioned, there is a lack of decision options. If I do not have to think in my choices, then the less choices I make the less interesting the game becomes. If I am drilled I will ALWAYS try to turn and move compared to turning only. If I might drop a level, I would only do it when the circumstances require to take some risks. That gives a more exciting game in my opinion. The only odd situation could be routing by movement and in those circumstances it could be stated as suggested that fragmented troops that fail the test remain in place.

[keltichrp]

the rules state that if a unit or battle line fails its cmt it can make a simple move wich would be a charge directly forwards, a wheel (of not more than 90 degrees) and charge enemy within range or any other forward move with no more than a single wheel. so i think you should have been able to if not charge the enemy unit you should have been able to wheel and get into position for the following turn.
if you would have had a commander with the bg there would have not have been a need to make a cmt
but i am also in the camp of make the move you want and then roll to see if you become disorderd or severely disorderd

[lawrenceg]

IF the drilled "turn and move" if I pass, "do something completely different" if I fail is the main issue then perhaps it could be addressed by having the BG test after doing the first component of the move and having to end the move at that point if it fails.

Then you would have

Turn, test, possibly advance.
Advance, test, possibly turn.
Expand, test, possibly advance.
Advance less than 3 MU, test, possibly contract.
Contract while stationary or followed by a move of less than 3 MU is trickier to handle in this way. Possibly contract, test and if you fail you have a choice either to move at least 3 MU or to cancel the contraction.
Skirmishers turn 180 and move up to 3 MU, test, possibly turn 180 again (possibly a bit harsh).

The options available to "undrilled other" that fail a CMT are limited enough that no change is needed there. [/i]

[flamingpig0]

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.)

I wonder if combining the proposed increased move for HF with allowing simple moves after turning might lead to dancing pike phalanx armies.

[philqw78]

IF the drilled "turn and move" if I pass, "do something completely different" if I fail is the main issue then perhaps it could be addressed by having the BG test after doing the first component of the move and having to end the move at that point if it fails.

Then you would have

Turn, test, possibly advance.
Advance, test, possibly turn.
Expand, test, possibly advance.
Advance less than 3 MU, test, possibly contract.
Contract while stationary or followed by a move of less than 3 MU is trickier to handle in this way. Possibly contract, test and if you fail you have a choice either to move at least 3 MU or to cancel the contraction.
Skirmishers turn 180 and move up to 3 MU, test, possibly turn 180 again (possibly a bit harsh).

The options available to "undrilled other" that fail a CMT are limited enough that no change is needed there. [/i]

I'm sure the rules you may write would be funnier than any dog/barker language and more open to interpretation