LF Archers vs. Cavalry

[keyth]

On a few occasions now, steady LF (most recently archers) with no enemy to their rear, or friendlies for that matter, have stood up to a cavalry charge in the open with fairly predictable results. They made no attempt to evade. is this expected behaviour?

[nikgaukroger]

Happens occasionally. Usually seems to depend on how close the cavalry start to the LF - AI takes into account the chance of being caught from behind when deciding whether a unit evades IIRC. And sometimes they just stand

[Cumandante]

Better to stand and take the charge than to be caught when you're running away.

[Scutarii]

The evasion system for light foots is not working well at all... is not the first time i see heavy foot pushing light foot and chasing them in same turn after very strange evasion reaction.

I think game needs the old FOG ability to set light troops (and cavalry) evasion posture, never evade, AI evade, allways evade and at same time made evasion for lights means use the full movement, not evade only 2 squares VS attacker like many times they are doing.

Other point is that units that force evasion cant move full squares and still be capable to assault the units.

[nikgaukroger]

I think game needs the old FOG ability to set light troops (and cavalry) evasion posture, never evade, AI evade, allways evade and at same time made evasion for lights means use the full movement, not evade only 2 squares VS attacker like many times they are doing.

Wholly disagree. IMO the game (and indeed historical representation) is better for not allowing the player to set a posture and the randomising of distance evaded (and charged when the target evades) adds a useful level of uncertainty and friction (perhaps). In the case of light foot (especially) it encourages you not to leave them hanging out in front of you battle troops and to withdraw them prudently (i.e. encourages historical use) or take a risk with attendant consequences.

I'd also add that in general I've found that as long as you think a bit about evade routes for your lights they don't get into problems too often (mostly comes down to the variable movement that can happen). The AI seems to have a bit of difficulty with this, however, as it seems to often block evade routes or only leave routes that then put an evader within charge reach of a new unit and so they get hit as they have used up that moves permitted evade.

[Kaede11]

The evasion system for light foots is not working well at all... is not the first time i see heavy foot pushing light foot and chasing them in same turn after very strange evasion reaction.

I think game needs the old FOG ability to set light troops (and cavalry) evasion posture, never evade, AI evade, allways evade and at same time made evasion for lights means use the full movement, not evade only 2 squares VS attacker like many times they are doing.

Other point is that units that force evasion cant move full squares and still be capable to assault the units.

I think this would be nice to implement and it would give us more strategic options. Still I don't know if it would be okay to give this amount of control to players because I have my doubts about what would happen if a general told it's archers to take the full impact of a cavalry charge.

I see possible exploits with this, forcing dispensable units to take charges and "fixing" cavalry in place, just to flank them with other cavalry or infantry. If this is going to change, it couldn't be the only thing that changes.

[JorgenCAB]

I think giving such power to the player is a bad idea and very unrealistic. we can't really control how people react on the battlefield.

Such a change would just make the game more chess like and I would be sad.

I think we already have too much control as it is.

[jamespcrowley]

I agree that the player already has too much control; the existing system works really well.

If anything I would like to see even less control over units that are out of command range,

[Cumandante]

I agree that the player already has too much control; the existing system works really well.

If anything I would like to see even less control over units that are out of command range,

Would be fun, though probably frustrating, to have Sub-Generals and the units under them acting somewhat independently.

[Scutarii]

Well, if you fix the AI evasion to made it work much better for me is ok... but to be fair FOG I started with AI evasion only and later was added the option to select posture for for lights-cavalry and worked very well.

Still is a 1.0 version, game needs some patches to see how it works but now i have same impresion with evasion than in initial FOG versions and i think similar problems similar solutions is not something crazy at all.

And why player cant have more control??? or in real battles generals cant give specific orders to specific units??? i doubt a lot when battle start units dont have orders.

[Mirek69]

Anarchy go back

[Cumandante]

And why player cant have more control??? or in real battles generals cant give specific orders to specific units??? i doubt a lot when battle start units dont have orders.

Oh you can give people orders. That doesn't mean they will follow them, though.

[MaxDamage]

On a few occasions now, steady LF (most recently archers) with no enemy to their rear, or friendlies for that matter, have stood up to a cavalry charge in the open with fairly predictable results. They made no attempt to evade. is this expected behaviour?

Cavalry has 16 movement, LF has 12. They didnt hope to evade the charge so they didnt evade because it is a guaranteed rear attack with cohesion failure.

[Scutarii]

But if you have one square between you and cavalry they need move one square more and they simple cant attack an unit if they dont have enough points to do it.

For example, i place my archers with 2 empty squares with enemy heavy foot, he move heavy foot but CANT attack my lights... but many times when are 1 or 0 squares between lights and heavy foot after made lights evade 2 squares the heavy foot move 2 squares... AND ASSAULT LIGHTS!!!

I find that to much times infantry and cavalry is chasing light foot that simple they CANT catch.

[MaxDamage]

When evading your unit and opponent's unit have a chance to randomly receive +4 or -4 on their movement points. So even if you a charged a square away then there is a possibility that the opponent gets +4 and you get -4 points and then hell be able to catch up with you and rout you.

[Cumandante]

But if you have one square between you and cavalry they need move one square more and they simple cant attack an unit if they dont have enough points to do it.

For example, i place my archers with 2 empty squares with enemy heavy foot, he move heavy foot but CANT attack my lights... but many times when are 1 or 0 squares between lights and heavy foot after made lights evade 2 squares the heavy foot move 2 squares... AND ASSAULT LIGHTS!!!

I find that to much times infantry and cavalry is chasing light foot that simple they CANT catch.

I believe the manual explains this behavior:

The AI decides for the (player or AI) unit
whether it will evade, based on its chance of winning the combat and its chance
of successfully getting away. The charging unit pursues with its remaining APs,
so that it is more likely to catch the evaders if it starts its charge in an adjacent
map square. Evaders and chargers may get a random addition or deduction
of 4AP to/from their current AP. Evaders who are caught are treated as having
been charged in the rear.

[Scutarii]

And this is why i dont like the new evasion system, you have have enemy at 2 squares and him can magically catch you after evade 2 squares more.

If units can disengage after suffer casualties no problem but now for a light unit cached like this is his dead...

[SnuggleBunnies]

It just means you have to play carefully with lights, as it should be. The fact that we have a thread here complaining that it's too easy to catch lights, and threads elsewhere saying it's too hard makes me think things are working just right. Personally, I would like even more 'friction,' reducing player control but I think the game has found the right middle ground in this respect.

[Scutarii]

I can have a heavy cavalry unit evading enemy heavy calvary all the map and never catched while lights are catches by other heavy cavalry unit... even is not rare see heavy foot catching lights that they made evade...

[JorgenCAB]

Heavy foot does not catch light units very often, it happens.

I really don't see much reason why cavalry should not catch light foot as long as they are in open terrain, seem appropriate. Outside Cataphracts there are no real heavy cavalry in this game.

The biggest complaint I have in FOG the tabletop game and this computer game are its almost neglect of the importance of command and control. We have WAY to much control over our armies. In ancient armies it was really rare for an entire army to be in motion at any one time, it took huge amount of effort to get large bodies of men moving, at least if you wanted them to move the way you wanted them to move. They did not really have radios back then so communication was very slow.
One of the reasons why the Roman army was so powerful was its decentralized command structure, or rather that command could come from both above or below.