Evade-capable battle troops can turn 2x but not 1x???

[samwardesq]

Evade-capable formations of battle troops* are, if they pass a CMT, able to turn 180, move <=2MU, and turn 180 again (according to my reading of chart on p 42, Version II)
But the same formation would not, it seems, able to turn 180 followed by only a simple advance (perhaps also only of <=2MU), a manouver which would seem to be a simpler than the first??
This would seem to be inconsistent - what is the reasoning behind this?
Please direct me if this issue has already been discussed.

*ie non-shock cav in single rank, etc

[RobKhan]

I agree totally - the balance is inconsistent here. I think it may have come about as a shallowly thought out sweetener for the "horsy shooty" armies as a result of resricting them in V2 with the 3 MU bow range in single rank. Non shock missile cav. should be able to turn and move away. If drilled then simple, undrilled then complex. The 2x180 could stay as is.

Merry Christmas All, make sure you drink and eat too much - if you try not to you must pass a CMT for undrilled,
Robkhan

[petedalby]

This would seem to be inconsistent - what is the reasoning behind this?

I'm not one of the authors so can't be sure but I suspect the current move is there to represent evade capable mounted of steadily falling back before an opponent whilst still keeping them in charge reach in most cases and therefore potentially vulnerable.

If they could turn 180 degrees and move away they would always be able to get out trouble because of the sequential nature of I go, You go.

So a mechanism for game balance rather than representing what is physically possible.

[samwardesq]

Thanks for both these replies.
I like Robkhan's suggestion. Can anyone see a huge problem in playing his suggested modification?
I suspect Petedalby's explanation for the current rules is correct (would be good to hear from a moderator here).
However, If the 'fall back but not move away' effect of these couple of rules is intended, it would be kind of nice to be able to explain to yourself how this could be possible in terms of battlefield realities, rather than having to accept them as an awkward and inconsistent couple of rules designed merely to restrict cavalry from doing what they probably could do in reality in order to make for a 'better' game.

[petedalby]

I like Robkhan's suggestion. Can anyone see a huge problem in playing his suggested modification?

You are at liberty to adopt any changes to the rules that you wish to make. It only becomes a problem if you play someone from outside your immediate circle or if you play at a competition.

[samwardesq]

No, sorry, I meant problems with how the game might or might not work with this modification, not with agreement over the rules.

[samwardesq]

In answer to my own question, I post this which I re-read on the design notes forum:

Withdrawals: “In play-testing, it was found to be too easy to withdraw large chunks of troops if a turn 180 degree and move was allowed. (Too easy compared with historical accounts of battles). Hence the above restriction.” RBS: “It is not behaviour that we read about often in battle accounts. . . . Perhaps it was the commonly reported problem that troops receiving an order to retire might misinterpret it as a general retreat, and other troops, seeing them retire, might fear being abandoned and break. Whatever the reason, we chose to have the rules encourage actual historical behaviour. Further to RBS comments, from a game design point of view we don't want to many options to turn and run away or everyone will find it very easy with certain armies to recover from mistaken decisions. This leads to long drawn out games, too few results and at times rather boring games. . . . If you needed to run away then you should have made the decision to get into evade formation.” Simon Hall

[petedalby]

It looks like you've answered your own question then? Excellent