_[REQ] rev976 [Rules] Illegal rear charge path

[ianiow]

A recent addition to the FOG[RB] rules was that you could not move - change direction - then rear charge an enemy unit. This was rightfully considered a cheesy move and was coded out of the game. I guess you will need to do the same for FOG .

[cothyso]

Please provide the save game file.

[ianiow]

Forgive my ignorance but;

1) I don't know how to manually 'Save Game'.
2) Not sure how to find the 'Save game' folder.

I have stumbled across a 'console_log file' and an 'output_log' file. Would these help? If so, how do you want to receive them? Email or copy/paste here?

[cothyso]

You don't need to manually save anything, the game automatically saves all the games you're playing in the (temporarily) SavedScenarios folder. For SP scenario games you need to look for a file named Akagras <date>.gsv.pck (the game save pack), while for a SP DAG game you need to look for files named DAG <date>.gch.pck (the game cache pack, ie the DAG "scenario pack), and the DAG <date>.gsv.pck (the game save pack).

Put all needed files (logs, game saves, game caches, etc) in a .zip archive and attach it in here, or send them (or the archive) to me via the known email from the readme, please.

Also, you can resume/replay any of the games you've started via MainMenu -> Load Game menu

[cothyso]

This is not a bug.

FoG(U) rev978 charge in the rear.jpg (402.64 KiB) Viewed 3574 times

I was looking through the code to see if there was anything possible wrong with the rear-charge code, and couldn't find anything. As you haven't provided the requested save game, I've reproduced the situation you're depicting in here, and:
1) Carthaginian Himilco LH BG could charge the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG and trigger a CHT (later edit) only if the later's cohesion state was already fragmented (which is right)
2) Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG's BL (back-left) hex is a valid charge hex (see Carthaginian Himilco LH BG's MA (movement area))
3) The +2(charge in the rear (and ignore all other POA modifiers)) presented in the detailed combat panel is a valid impact combat modifier (as it doesn't require a rear-charge action)
4) Before having the actual impact combat, the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG must have taken a CHT (cohesion test) (a "fragmented BG[8] must pass a charge CHT against charging BG[17]" message should have been logged, followed by CHT's details) and must have successfully passed it (otherwise the charge would have instantly routed it, and no impact combat would have been possible)
5) The rear charge rule should not apply in here, and it is not triggered when charging (its effect is not present and it doesn't appears in combat's log), as indeed Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG's turn phase's start hex is not situated in Carthaginian Himilco LH BG's RA (rear area). If a rear charge would have happened, the "BG[17] Himilco rear charged BG[8] Light Cavalry => cohesion drop" message should have been logged, and the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG would have been routed on the spot (as its previous cohesion state was fragmented).

I've also attached the save game I've used to reproduce this situation for all of you to see.

PS: The combat impact code did revealed a problem though: a fragmented BG charged by other than light foot enemy BG and passing the CHT would have not been also tested for a rear-charge situation (so actually if the Carthaginian Himilco LH BG would have charged the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG from the rear, and it would have passed the charge standing CHT, it would not considered it a rear-charge situation). This was fixed in rev 984.

[TheGrayMouser]

Dan, theres a lot of issues with what you just posted....
Ive attached a screen shot from FOG VB

Ist, the Himalco unit is NOT allowed to charge in the rear as you can see from the move paths available in VB
Why is this changed in Unity? Its , to be blunt, silly. You need to start your turn w a unit that can charge thru it frontal arc, period

Also, a LH can charge another LH or LI, it doesn't need this target to be fragged as a prerequisite....

[cothyso]

First of all, Unity doesn't have anything to do with it, it's just a graphical engine. It's the C# coding the one what controls the behavior of the units and gameplay rules. Secondly, to be blunt, please do not use words like "silly" if you expect anyone to engage with you into a constructive dialog.

Now, regarding the rules. What you see in FoG(RB) is a coded mistake. Not only that the RL hex of the target unit is inside charging unit's FA, but the path leading to it has all its hex in charging unit's FA, and none of path's hexes are crossing any enemy unit's ZOCs.. so, why would the charging unit not allowed to charge in the enemy units RL hex?

FoG(RB) charge in the rear 02.jpg (224.11 KiB) Viewed 3469 times

Also, you're right about the first point, it was meant as "1) Carthaginian Himilco LH BG could charge the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG and trigger a CHT (later edit) only if the later's cohesion state was already fragmented (which is right)"

[ianiow]

This discussion all getting far too complicated than it needs to be.

Forget that its a LH. It could easily be a Cav or MF doing the illegal charge. My point is that when making a charge move into contact there can't be a 90 degree turn in the middle of the charge. If you want a 90 degree move it can be in the initial hex or the destination hex only.

It is true that in the first years of FOG(RB) you could start in front of your target, run around the flank, and hit him in the rear all in one move. The designers and players agreed this wasn't fair so about a year ago the coding was changed to make this impossible (the no 90 degree turn rule). It is clear than in FOG(U) this rule change has been overlooked.



Just to make it clear. During this move to contact, the LH can move into the East hex or the SE hex in its move (white arrows). The 90 degree NE move (red arrow) is illegal.

[TheGrayMouser]

First of all, Unity doesn't have anything to do with it, it's just a graphical engine. It's the C# coding the one what controls the behavior of the units and gameplay rules. Secondly, to be blunt, please do not use words like "silly" if you expect anyone to engage with you into a constructive dialog.

Now, regarding the rules. What you see in FoG(RB) is a coded mistake. Not only that the RL hex of the target unit is inside charging unit's FA, but the path leading to it has all its hex in charging unit's FA, and none of path's hexes are crossing any enemy unit's ZOCs.. so, why would the charging unit not allowed to charge in the enemy units RL hex?

The attachment FoG(RB) charge in the rear.jpg is no longer available

Also, you're right about the first point, it was meant as "1) Carthaginian Himilco LH BG could charge the Syracusan Light Cavalry LH BG and trigger a CHT (later edit) only if the later's cohesion state was already fragmented (which is right)"

Sorry Dan, did not mean that to be offensive, yet what you are talking about is a radical departure from a core game rule. There is no way how charges were implemented in FOGVB was a bug (not there were possibly bugs within other mechanics following a charge/impact)
Ianiow is only partly correct , I believe though:
The game always presented charges as per my screenshot. A few years ago a patch introduced a bug, where a unit, if it paused during its movement could get then get a rear hit. (it appears that the relative positioning and facing of a unit, if paused during its movement, would "reset", the program tricked into thinking this was the units position at the start of its turn, thus allowing rear hits.... This bug was fixed after it was finally notice.

Anyways, the orginal game manual shows how rear charges works as well as charging in frontal arc. The charging unit must begin it movement behind a plane extending behind the enemy units rear hexes

[ianiow]

What TGM says. He is better at explaining than me.

Perhaps have a chat with Iain. I seem to recall that he was a big part of the discussion first time around. I wish I could find the original thread.

[kilroy1]

What TGM says. He is better at explaining than me.

Perhaps have a chat with Iain. I seem to recall that he was a big part of the discussion first time around. I wish I could find the original thread.

I believe this is the thread that you are referring to: viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32224&hilit=rear+charge

kilroy

[cothyso]

Thinking on it over night, I think ianiow and TGM might actually have a point: even if all charging units are in its FA, the path itself won't have each hex in previous hex'es FA. So this might be a case of interpretation due to a not so clearly formulated rule: that an unit would only charge in its FA.

Coming in the morning to post this, I saw you guys already added some new posts, clarifying that this is the case we're actually talking about. I'll have a look over that thread later on when I'll have some time for it.

Ianiow is only partly correct , I believe though:
The game always presented charges as per my screenshot. ...

Anyways, the orginal game manual shows how rear charges works as well as charging in frontal arc. The charging unit must begin it movement behind a plane extending behind the enemy units rear hexes

This has nothing to do with the present case we're discussing here. The manual image you're talking about is illustrating (and it actually does it in a wrong way!) which charge is considered a rear-charge, or not. Have a look at the online manual, "Front, Flanks & Rear" section. The red "no rear-charge" example path from the right of the image is completely wrong: no unit could have actually ever charged like that, as the path is completely outside it's FA. That unit should have actually facing NW (rather than SW) in order to display a valid charge which is not considered a rear charge.

A few years ago a patch introduced a bug, where a unit, if it paused during its movement could get then get a rear hit. (it appears that the relative positioning and facing of a unit, if paused during its movement, would "reset", the program tricked into thinking this was the units position at the start of its turn, thus allowing rear hits.... This bug was fixed after it was finally noticed

This was already taken care of in FoG(U). When testing charging unit's FA it's turn phase starting point is used as reference, instead unit's current sitting hex.

Also, I want you all to understand that FoG(RB) code documentation we've received was almost zero (well, excepting code comments and two files regarding the game-fixed.xml and .fogsg file formats). Everything in FoG(U) was made from the scratch using FoG(RB)'s outdated manual, FoG's wiki, FoG TT rules, Richard Bodley Scott, Chris Burr and my own FoG expertise, and the discussions we had on forum during FoG(U)'s beta. As a result, not everything is exactly as it was in FoG(RB), most of the times because we've discussed and improved some things (rules/mechanics/data) and some times because some things were simply overlooked/missed/forgotten.

PS: the old FoG was written in Real Basic, not in Visual Basic, hence FoG(RB)

[cothyso]

And yet, the more I look at the case, the more disputable things I find..

Please consider the bellow situations (and excuse my crude super-fast editing):

FoG(RB) charge in the rear 03.jpg (220.89 KiB) Viewed 3501 times

Why should the charging unit be allowed to charge as, even as the charging path is a FA path, yet the charged enemy unit is outside this path's FA (not a Fa full path)? Once reaching the end of its path, the unit has to turn in place in order to can fight.. If the followed axiom is to not allow charge-turns, then this should have not been permitted neither.

FoG(RB) charge in the rear 04.jpg (223 KiB) Viewed 3501 times

In the above image's bottom charge situation there's a rule saying that at the end of the MA, from two enemy BGs the charging BG is only allowed to charge the FA enemy BG, and not the OFA enemy BG.

If the other charge would also have 2 enemy BGs presented, as in the above image's center charge situation, shouldn't the charging BG only be allowed to charge the FA path enemy BG only? And if so, getting back to the first case by removing the added FA path enemy BG, shouldn't be the charging unit not allowed to charge at all the enemy BG (as the charge is not a FA full path)?

[cothyso]

added in rev 984

// GAMEPLAY RULE - [Charge]: a BG may only charge an enemy BG if its charge uses a FA path (each path hex is in its previous path hex'es FA)

[ianiow]

I think the rule for charging into contact is as follows:

The PRIORITY target of the charging unit must be in one of its Frontal Hexes (player choice). If there is no unit in the frontal hex then the most convienient Side hex target becomes the priority target (the charger automatically turns to face before the opponents next turn).

So in your first example jpeg the third charge move (the grey/red arrow) should be blue because he is contacting but because there is no target in a Frontal Hex he will fight in the Side Hex instead. The second picture (first charge) the charger has no Front Hex target and so will target the LH with its Side hex instead. The (second charge) is correct - the Front Hex unit is the Priority target.

[TheGrayMouser]

And yet, the more I look at the case, the more disputable things I find..

Please consider the bellow situations (and excuse my crude super-fast editing):

FoG(RB) charge in the rear 03.jpg

Why should the charging unit be allowed to charge as, even as the charging path is a FA path, yet the charged enemy unit is outside this path's FA (not a Fa full path)? Once reaching the end of its path, the unit has to turn in place in order to can fight.. If the followed axiom is to not allow charge-turns, then this should have not been permitted neither.

FoG(RB) charge in the rear 04.jpg

In the above image's bottom charge situation there's a rule saying that at the end of the MA, from two enemy BGs the charging BG is only allowed to charge the FA enemy BG, and not the OFA enemy BG.

If the other charge would also have 2 enemy BGs presented, as in the above image's center charge situation, shouldn't the charging BG only be allowed to charge the FA path enemy BG only? And if so, getting back to the first case by removing the added FA path enemy BG, shouldn't be the charging unit not allowed to charge at all the enemy BG (as the charge is not a FA full path)?

Dan, I think the issue is Hexwar's/Slitherines original design that no BG can be adjacent to any enemy BG without automatically being locked into mortal combat. (there almost no games that feature this...)
Because of this, units technically charging slightly out of their frntal arc do a small facing changing to conform to the "rule" that you cant be adjacent without being in combat...
Weird but that's what they went with... In the screenie above, even if the yellow unit was northwest one hex, green unit could still impact despite it nowhere near it FA!
I guess this could be made a lot tighter/stricter for units charging?
Example, the green unit could ONLY impact the yellow by moving that one hex frwrd. the second (grey path showing) would be changed so it would not be possible.... (and if the yellow unit was north west one hex, then green would be NOT able to charge it... Would players want such restrictions?

Of course both versions will allow for "technically illegal contact" if the primary target in arc evades and now the charger is simply adjacent to another BG
Oye, the more I think about it what a strange design decision originally made...