Blocked Break Offs

[Athos1660]

Ok I understand. Thank you.
(I was to test whether or not light foot could pass through as part of a break off, as I wasn't sure.)

[vvanttin]

A simple solution for the most despicable light horse trick would be to have non-lights auto-drop cohesion only when already engaged with a non-light unit. So flank charging a medium/heavy unit in melee with a light horse would only get the +50, not +200 and auto-drop.

[rbodleyscott]

A simple solution for the most despicable light horse trick would be to have non-lights auto-drop cohesion only when already engaged with a non-light unit. So flank charging a medium/heavy unit in melee with a light horse would only get the +50, not +200 and auto-drop.

That's an interesting idea, but it still nets the enemy a free +50 POA charge.

[Paul59]

A simple solution for the most despicable light horse trick would be to have non-lights auto-drop cohesion only when already engaged with a non-light unit. So flank charging a medium/heavy unit in melee with a light horse would only get the +50, not +200 and auto-drop.

That's an interesting idea, but it still nets the enemy a free +50 POA charge.

Yes, but maybe if this was implemented, along with the non-light unit not turning rule? That might be the best way to go.

[pompeytheflatulent]

A simple solution for the most despicable light horse trick would be to have non-lights auto-drop cohesion only when already engaged with a non-light unit. So flank charging a medium/heavy unit in melee with a light horse would only get the +50, not +200 and auto-drop.

That's an interesting idea, but it still nets the enemy a free +50 POA charge.

Yes, but maybe if this was implemented, along with the non-light unit not turning rule? That might be the best way to go.

Wouldn't this make heavy cavalry able to chase skirmishers without fear or concern for flanks, since the most they have to fear now is a 25% lose chance if they get counter-charged in the flank?

[Paul59]

That's an interesting idea, but it still nets the enemy a free +50 POA charge.

Yes, but maybe if this was implemented, along with the non-light unit not turning rule? That might be the best way to go.

Wouldn't this make heavy cavalry able to chase skirmishers without fear or concern for flanks, since the most they have to fear now is a 25% lose chance if they get counter-charged in the flank?

I thought that was the whole point of this discussion?

[pompeytheflatulent]

I thought that was the whole point of this discussion?

I thought it was about blocked charges by light cavalry forcing heavy units to turn their backs to the enemy main line, not let heavy units wildly chase skirmishers with no regard to consequences.

[Paul59]

I thought that was the whole point of this discussion?

I thought it was about blocked charges by light cavalry forcing heavy units to turn their backs to the enemy main line, not let heavy units wildly chase skirmishers with no regard to consequences.

Can you have one without the other?

You seemed to be all in favour of non-light troops not turning to face light troops:

The alternative would be for non-light troops not to bother to turn to face light troops at all.

Probably safer this way. I remember a few times I used the blocked light cav charge trick not to set up a flank charge for myself, but to take an enemy lancer or elephant that's about to roll up my flank and send it running away from the battle chasing my routed light cav.

Have you changed your mind?

[pompeytheflatulent]

Not having heavies turn around to fight lights solves the exploit of using blocked light charges to spin an enemy around for a flank charge the next turn.

Having melee against lights not count for flanking purposes attempts to solve the same exploit, succeeds only partially, while at the same time introduces entirely new issues with heavies being able to chase lights with greatly reduced risks.

How is that in any way confusing?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Another possibility would be to make it so that non-light troops do not turn the whole unit to face light troops if that would expose them to a flank attack by non-light troops next turn. (Treat the light troops with the contempt they deserve).

That would give them 3 rounds of melee to rout the light troops before they could be charged in the flank.

So far this seems like the simplest solution. 3 rounds of combat might be enough to rout the light troops. Even if it's not, it can give time to scramble other troops into position to save the situation. Still, both this solution and the idea of having non lights not turn to face lights wouldn't solve the problem, though it would make it somewhat less common - you could still pin a light unit in place with another light behind it, and, so long as you were already set up for a flank charge on the now pinned unit, you would be able to force an automatic cohesion drop where you normally wouldn't be able to. It would at least make it much more difficult/impossible to force the enemy unit to turn around and expose itself to a flank.

A more extreme idea would be to have a light unit locked in combat against a non light that can't Fall Back after losing a combat simply disperses. But that, I imagine, would open up another realm of exploitation.

Perhaps you could combine the 3 rounds or the no turning to face solution with a crushing cohesion test penalty to a light unit pinned in place like that against non lights?

[melm]

That would give them 3 rounds of melee to rout the light troops before they could be charged in the flank.

I don't really understand how it offeres 3 turns of melee before they could be charged. Does it mean that other unit cannot charge the in-melee unit the next turn after light and targeted non-light are in melee? Or it just means no auto face changing to non-light, but if it is charged by non-light, the other flank positioned unit is still able to flank charge to cause cohesion drop?

What instantly in my mind is that if non-light doesn't turn to face light, it rewards the unit on difficult slope as light foot can no longer force non-light to turn to give the other unit chance to charge uphill in the back.

[rbodleyscott]

That would give them 3 rounds of melee to rout the light troops before they could be charged in the flank.

I don't really understand how it offeres 3 turns of melee before they could be charged. Does it mean that other unit cannot charge the in-melee unit the next turn after light and targeted non-light are in melee?

They can't be in a position to charge them in the flank/rear next turn, otherwise the enemy would not have turned to face the light troops. They can be in a position to charge them in the front, which we aren't trying to prevent.

[Athos1660]

Another possibility would be to make it so that non-light troops do not turn the whole unit to face light troops if that would expose them to a flank attack by non-light troops next turn. (Treat the light troops with the contempt they deserve).

That would give them 3 rounds of melee to rout the light troops before they could be charged in the flank.

This is the best solution found so far. Il is the most logical one that a unit faces the greatest threat :
- the non-light troop if there is a non-light troop facing and a light cav flanking
- the light troop if it is the only threat

Moreover, that very logic has somewhat already been implemented in game : "A unit that is in the primary ZOC of an enemy unit (...) cannot turn except to reduce the threat of a flank charge or face another enemy unit in whose primary ZOC it is." That's what a AI unit does when threatened by several units : it turns to face the most threatening one.

Besides the attacked non-light troop does not turn either when the light troop falls back after a flank attack, in the case where it is not blocked.

So there's no surprise for the players.

[Paul59]

Not having heavies turn around to fight lights solves the exploit of using blocked light charges to spin an enemy around for a flank charge the next turn.

Having melee against lights not count for flanking purposes attempts to solve the same exploit, succeeds only partially, while at the same time introduces entirely new issues with heavies being able to chase lights with greatly reduced risks.

How is that in any way confusing?

For me, both solutions did not seem to be going far enough, so combining them seemed like an idea worth considering.

[melm]

There are two problems. And solutions are not alternative to each other.
One is to prevent light horses'(or light foot's)back-charge changing the facing of the non-light. The solution has nothing to do with the case that I use a light to block my lancers' retreating path to frontally charge into foot ranks, then another unit flank charges next turn.
The second one is to eradicate the way that the case above exploits, which lancers have large probability to bounce off.

[rbodleyscott]

There are two problems. And solutions are not alternative to each other.
One is to prevent light horses'(or light foot's)back-charge changing the facing of the non-light. The solution has nothing to do with the case that I use a light to block my lancers' retreating path to frontally charge into foot ranks, then another unit flank charges next turn.
The second one is to eradicate the way that the case above exploits, which lancers have large probability to bounce off.

The originally suggested solution would have solved that one, but pompeytheflatulent pointed out the big flaw in it.

One possibly solution for the original issue would be to allow break offs "on the spot" only if the unit is fighting the flank or rear of the enemy. The logic would be that the enemy isn't pressing them hard, so they don't need to fall back far.

That ought to solve the light horse in the flank issue, without allowing the ploy pompey pointed out.

But it wouldn't fix the issue of preventing your cavalry from breaking off so that another unit of cavalry can charge the enemy in the flank.

Clearly the best solution would be to allow the blocking unit to be shunted out of the way - at least if it is a light unit. But that may be a nightmare to code, which is why I have avoided the issue for so long. I will take another look at the feasibility of that.

[Swuul]

IMO, Light units pushed back from combat but being blocked by another friendly unit should automatically drop the cohesion level of the Light unit and leave it in place. For non-light units I do not see the need for that, as they are supposed to be able to handle themselves in melee.

In itself that would not be enough to ensure that they were routed in time before the non-light unit gets attacked in the flank.

Or are you suggesting that original suggestion of Breaking Off "in place" should apply to blocked light troops, but not to others? That did occur to me, but it seemed hard to justify the logic of it.

Yes, I meant they would break off from combat (while still being visually in contac) *and* lose a step of cohesion (if unable to being pushed back, that is).

[Nosy_Rat]

But it wouldn't fix the issue of preventing your cavalry from breaking off so that another unit of cavalry can charge the enemy in the flank.

Is it really an issue, though? There should be some way to force your cavalry to stay in disadvantaged melee with infantry for a turn, at least. Otherwise it makes it really hard for cavalry to make a flanking charge as they just keep bouncing off.

[rbodleyscott]

But it wouldn't fix the issue of preventing your cavalry from breaking off so that another unit of cavalry can charge the enemy in the flank.

Is it really an issue, though? There should be some way to force your cavalry to stay in disadvantaged melee with infantry for a turn, at least. Otherwise it makes it really hard for cavalry to make a flanking charge as they just keep bouncing off.

Cavalry normally flanked infantry who were already engaged against enemy infantry. So this is working as intended, barring the gamey exploit way of preventing them from following their normal behaviour.

[melm]

It may make cavarly army difficult to break foot army then.