[FDB] rev976 [Rules] Rear charge modification

[stockwellpete]

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

My point is slightly off-topic here (inasmuch as it is not directly concerned with a bug report), but this discussion has got me thinking about the whole rear charge issue in the game. I actually think there are too many rear charges in some battles (where the unit hit in the rear automatically suffers cohesion loss) and I also think that the constant search for rear charge opportunities distorts the gameplay in an ahistorical way. For example, battles between two horse armies can quickly degenerate into what really resembles a WW2 aerial dogfight with units trying to get on the tail of their enemies.

So what if we said that that you could only achieve a rear charge (with automatic cohesion loss) if the enemy unit you were attacking was already engaged with another one of your own units to its front? To be hit in the rear then by a second unit would be fairly catastrophic. But an enemy unit standing on its own that was charged in the rear should be able to simply turn and face your charging unit and combat would then be resolved normally. Rear charges (with automatic cohesion loss) would also occur if evading skirmisher units were successfully "hunted down" by pursuing units on the same turn. This would reduce the number of rear charges in some battles considerably.

I realise that this is not something for right now, but it would be interesting to play-test this idea at some point in the future. I think it might make for more realistic gameplay.

[ianiow]

So what if we said that that you could only achieve a rear charge (with automatic cohesion loss) if the enemy unit you were attacking was already engaged with another one of your own units to its front? To be hit in the rear then by a second unit would be fairly catastrophic. But an enemy unit standing on its own that was charged in the rear should be able to simply turn and face your charging unit and combat would then be resolved normally. Rear charges (with automatic cohesion loss) would also occur if evading skirmisher units were successfully "hunted down" by pursuing units on the same turn. This would reduce the number of rear charges in some battles considerably.

Nice idea Pete!

[cothyso]

My point is slightly off-topic here (inasmuch as it is not directly concerned with a bug report), but this discussion has got me thinking about the whole rear charge issue in the game. I actually think there are too many rear charges in some battles (where the unit hit in the rear automatically suffers cohesion loss) and I also think that the constant search for rear charge opportunities distorts the gameplay in an ahistorical way. For example, battles between two horse armies can quickly degenerate into what really resembles a WW2 aerial dogfight with units trying to get on the tail of their enemies.

So what if we said that that you could only achieve a rear charge (with automatic cohesion loss) if the enemy unit you were attacking was already engaged with another one of your own units to its front? To be hit in the rear then by a second unit would be fairly catastrophic. But an enemy unit standing on its own that was charged in the rear should be able to simply turn and face your charging unit and combat would then be resolved normally. Rear charges (with automatic cohesion loss) would also occur if evading skirmisher units were successfully "hunted down" by pursuing units on the same turn. This would reduce the number of rear charges in some battles considerably.

I realise that this is not something for right now, but it would be interesting to play-test this idea at some point in the future. I think it might make for more realistic gameplay.

This would allow slow units as phalanxes not engaged into combat to change-face into a rear/flank charge, which would be wrong. And cavalry engagements were exactly the sort of swirling affairs you implied when talking about WW2 aerial dogfights.

A better solution was used in the old Great Battles game series: there was a BG property telling if a BG could auto-change facing when charged (and not already engaged into melee). LH and LC (ie skirmishers) could automatically do this, but from the HF units, only the (highly trained ie drilled) roman legionaries were allowed to do it.

I've already thought about using it a long time ago, but that's evolving away from FoG TT rules, and we've kind of decided that we won't do this for FoG(U) v2 (and kind of decided we can and might do it for FoG(U) v3)..

[stockwellpete]

This would allow slow units as phalanxes not engaged into combat to change-face into a rear/flank charge, which would be wrong. And cavalry engagements were exactly the sort of swirling affairs you implied when talking about WW2 aerial dogfights.

A better solution was used in the old Great Battles game series: there was a BG property telling if a BG could auto-change facing when charged (and not already engaged into melee). LH and LC (ie skirmishers) could automatically do this, but from the HF units, only the (highly trained ie drilled) roman legionaries were allowed to do it.

I think the automatic cohesion loss is often too much of a penalty though, because the unit will then often lose the combat too and suffer a second cohesion loss. Maybe unengaged units charged in the rear should just lose their impact POA's and if they lose that melee phase heavily then they should suffer just one cohesion loss? All this becomes more of an issue in the later stages of many battles when the initial formations have broken up and units are more isolated. I didn't play Great Battles, but that sounds a very interesting idea that might be suitable for FOG at some stage.

But that's evolving awayt from FoG TT rules, and we've kind of decided that we won't do this for FoG(U) v2 (and kind of decided we can and might do it for FoG(U) v3)..

OK, that is very interesting. There is a difference between FOG PC being "based on" the TT rules on the one hand, or being "inspired by" the TT rules on the other, isn't there? If there is a feeling at Slitherine/Newrosoft that the longer-term development of the game is heading in the "inspired by" direction, then that is very good news indeed as far as I am concerned, because that formulation will allow for greater innovation in the gameplay.