Cavalry turning 180 degrees

[rogerg]

Maybe we are just interpreting the tactical roles and cohesion states differently. I would suggest that a fragmented battle group is on the point of breaking. It has not just rallied back ready for new orders. It has been given a thorough beating. If the foot can follow it up, they should be able to finish it off. The only way to prevent this is to have fresh troops to engage the foot and allow the cavalry to turn and move away before they break and run.

A battle group that breaks off steady or in good order can turn 180 degrees ready to move off (or indeed 90 degrees and with a CMT, move as well). The only thing to prevent this is if the foot advance after the combat, which would make it somewhat unwise for the cavalry not to face them. If the cavalry are in good order though, it would seem to me historically reasonable that they will continue to keep charging until the issue is decided. If shock troops they may not get any choice.

I am not the best person to advise on the history. However, the idea of cavalry being pulled out and redeployed in this period seems a bit unlikely as far as I know. The commanders role is surely just to get them to the required place. Once there they engage the enemy. After that they will either be chasing the beaten enemy into the distance or coming back the other way not very interested in being sent elsewhere other than far to the rear. I suppose it's down to how we expect things to happen. Even in the nineteenth century cavalry seem to have been a one shot weapon and not easily controlled after being committed.

[zellak]

however if i was to suggest , off the top of my head , 2 points per base for a "rally back" ability, where the cavalry need not turn back towards the enemy at the end of a break off. Would that throw the whole system out of line ?

It is impossible to say without extensive play-testing. This is why we suggest not making such house rules, as the resulting imbalance may then put you off the rules as a whole.

The current rules on this are not an oversight. They get the effect we intend and want.


Yes, we could have a rule such as you suggest, but as well as making cavalry too effective by making them almost impossible for foot to ever break, it would delay the outcome of the game excessively.

Thanks for the insight , i will pass this on.

[zellak]

Maybe we are just interpreting the tactical roles and cohesion states differently. I would suggest that a fragmented battle group is on the point of breaking. It has not just rallied back ready for new orders. It has been given a thorough beating. If the foot can follow it up, they should be able to finish it off. The only way to prevent this is to have fresh troops to engage the foot and allow the cavalry to turn and move away before they break and run.

I think this is the thing that is difficult believe, if they have been given a good beating why would the turn to face the enemy who were following them? Taken that both formations are moving at the same time. Real people don't just move just when its their "turn".The cavalry break off in order to regroup and charge again ,when They decide to, their strength is in keeping the initiative in the fight by using their advantage in manoever.

There is no doubt the HF can follow , but to have a system where cavalry can break off but never outrun HF who are plodding after them is a bit difficult to swallow. RB Scott has outlined the reason is to achieve a result within a finite time scale.
Which is an understandable way to go for a set of tournament rules.

However its unfortunate but true that realism can sometimes be shunted aside to achieve a game result.

Theres always a trade off when writing wargames rules.

Thanks for the compehesive replies....zellak

[rogerg]

FoG approaches the game from a top down perspective. The final outcome is the true test of whether the rules work. In this case it is about whether cavalry versus infantry produces the outcome we believe to be correct. What the cavalry are actually doing, or which they face, is not so important in this context. It's whether they break and how easily they do so that matters. The rules need to be playable, i.e. not overly complex and slow and achieve the result.

I'm pleased that you are enjoying FoG. In the context of the whole rules, the fact that we are having a dispute only about cavalry facing says a lot about how much is right about the rules as a whole.

[shall]

Indeed the top down feel is all.

I think this is the thing that is difficult believe, if they have been given a good beating why would the turn to face the enemy who were following them? Taken that both formations are moving at the same time.

FWIW I rationalise this in my mind more that FRGed troops are in a degree of confused chaos that they are unlikely to survive if put under any pressure. So I would expect horses facing in all sorts of directions in reality, and it is no more realsitic facing the bases away, sideways or towards.

As for foot catching mounted:

a) with non-shock you can often get away by forming single rank and evading away - this is the section of the rules that handles the "bugging out" that is being discussed. So if you have taken a beating and break-off then next move expand by two and then run away.

b) for shock troops it is part of the + and - of power troops. They likely went in to attack anyway as they had a decent chance to ride the foot down. If Bounced off in good shape they are again a big threat. If bounced and FRG they are in a bit of chaos and I don't mind the foot being able to finish them off, if DSR they are still a threat. Otherwide as RBS says there is no way for a foot army to deal with mounted, which would be detrimental to the game.

A word on FRG. Very simpsticatlly the 4 states are

STEADY great shape
DISR 70% capability and able to still fight their way out of trouble against STEADY troops given the bell curves of combat results
FRG 25% capability and close to running, unlikely to be able to fight their way out of trouble against any reasonable attack
BRK On the run

So there is a big drop from DSR being not far from STDY and FRG being almost on the run (the above taking into account not just dice reductions but POA drops and CT effects as well for an overall feel)

Si

[zellak]

Indeed the top down feel is all.

I think this is the thing that is difficult believe, if they have been given a good beating why would the turn to face the enemy who were following them? Taken that both formations are moving at the same time.

As for foot catching mounted:

a) with non-shock you can often get away by forming single rank and evading away - this is the section of the rules that handles the "bugging out" that is being discussed. So if you have taken a beating and break-off then next move expand by two and then run away.

Si

So if the cavalry forms single line instead of turning 180 degrees , it can evade when charged by the HF.

Am i right in saying that lance armed cavalry who are FRG are no longer counted as shock troops and therefor can evade ?

[Redpossum]

You can always add more "realism" to a game (if you can decide what constitutes "realism") but if this is done at the cost of making the game unplayable (within finite time contraints) it isn't (in our view) worth it.

Very well said, Mr Bodley-Scott.

This is the rule of games design - playability and realism are opposite ends of a sliding scale, and the only workable settings are somewhere in the middle.

Amazing how many people lose sight of that one, when it's one of the half-dozen cardinal rules of games design.

If I was going to counsel adjusting the slider at all from its present position, it would be to nudge it just a smidgen in the playability direction, not toward greater complexity.

[MCollett]

This is the rule of games design - playability and realism are opposite ends of a sliding scale, and the only workable settings are somewhere in the middle.

More precisely, playability and detail are opposite ends. It's easy to add imaginary or inaccurate details that actually decrease both playability and realism. Many rulesets do.

It follows that if there is any doubt about a particular feature, playability should be preferred to 'realism': you know that leaving a detail out improves playability; you need both good historical evidence and extensive playtesting to be sure that including it improves the accuracy of the simulation. For ancient warfare in particular, the evidence is often lacking.

Best wishes,
Matthew

[Redpossum]

This is the rule of games design - playability and realism are opposite ends of a sliding scale, and the only workable settings are somewhere in the middle.

More precisely, playability and detail are opposite ends. It's easy to add imaginary or inaccurate details that actually decrease both playability and realism. Many rulesets do.

It follows that if there is any doubt about a particular feature, playability should be preferred to 'realism': you know that leaving a detail out improves playability; you need both good historical evidence and extensive playtesting to be sure that including it improves the accuracy of the simulation. For ancient warfare in particular, the evidence is often lacking.

Best wishes,
Matthew

And again, well said. I totally agree

[zellak]

After being prompted by a pm, i would like to repeat my unanswered question.

Am i right in saying that lance armed cavalry who are FRG are no longer counted as shock troops so therfor can evade when charged ?

[hammy]

After being prompted by a pm, i would like to repeat my unanswered question.

Am i right in saying that lance armed cavalry who are FRG are no longer counted as shock troops so therfor can evade when charged ?

Shock troops are defined on P18 of the rules. Any mounted with lances (other than light horse) are shock troops. There is no mention of cohsion state affecting their status as shock troops. On P58 it states that fragmented shock troops do not need to test for a forced charge which is because no fragmented troops can declare a charge.

So the simple answer is that you are wrong and FRG lancers cannot evade.

[SirGarnet]

P114 - if Fragmented, "Shock troops are no longer so"?

[hammy]

P114 - if Fragmented, "Shock troops are no longer so"?

oooh, missed that one

Hmm, methinks there may be a little inconsistency in the wording earlier in the rules.

Appologies for my apparent error.