break off for mounted againt steady foot is logical, but rather less when the fact of a new charge will jeopardise more than to stay in melée (ok you can argue that it's not compulsory to charge again).
I think it coul be reasonable to allow mounted to stay in contact with a CMT (don't forget that in battle commander can influence some situations in a different way than classical way and succeed) if the CMT failed than suffered by dropping a leveland break off.
Breaking off
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
rbodleyscott
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28411
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Breaking off
This subject has been discussed at length in other threads. Breaking off is the historical behaviour and is hence enforced by the rules. Forget about the POAs, they are only artificial constructs of the rules, designed to give the right effect when taken together with all the other rules, including breaking off. They have no "reality" independent of the other rules and cannot therefore be used as an argument for breaking off being inappropriate. Precisely because the POAs give some mounted troops an advantage in melee, the break off rules need to remain as they are to produce the right overall interactions. Don't get hung up on the details of how the desired effect is achieved.dvorkin wrote:break off for mounted againt steady foot is logical, but rather less when the fact of a new charge will jeopardise more than to stay in melée (ok you can argue that it's not compulsory to charge again).
I think it coul be reasonable to allow mounted to stay in contact with a CMT (don't forget that in battle commander can influence some situations in a different way than classical way and succeed) if the CMT failed than suffered by dropping a leveland break off.
BTW, my apologies for not replying to this issue on the Francophone board. I can read French well enough, but writing it well enough to explain the above point is beyond my skills.
BREAKING OFF
Ok explanation is clear enough 
But best add my bit.....
The alternative considered was to leave them in with a - POA for second and subsequent rounds of melee as begn spent having lost impetus.
But in practice it seems a pointless option so we make them break off.
The above is a good POA method of mirroring what is happened but then you would all be asking for compulsory break-offs instead I suspect
Si
The alternative considered was to leave them in with a - POA for second and subsequent rounds of melee as begn spent having lost impetus.
But in practice it seems a pointless option so we make them break off.
The above is a good POA method of mirroring what is happened but then you would all be asking for compulsory break-offs instead I suspect
Si