Cavalry fleeing from flank charge

[Paul59]

Okay, so I have redesigned the test to spread the pairs out, so that only one Lancer unit can charge each cavalry unit;



I ran the test twice again, so another 10 charges, I got exactly the same result, each time the cavalry evaded:

Test 1;



Test 2:

[Athos1660]

@Paul59 : « 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 » (Manual, p. 73).

Richard mentioned one factor that determines the decision to evade : the presence of other potential chargers.

There are certainly others. Terrains ? Obstacles around ? Height difference ? Units involved around ? Chance to win the following melee ? Luck, dice ? ... ?

However, I for one prefer the magic of the unknown

[pompeytheflatulent]

Maybe the win percentage of 22% win 7% loss in melee is right on the threshold of the light spear cavalry deciding to whether to fight or flee. Cunningcairn could have gotten unlucky with an under-strength unit of lancers and an over-strength unit of spear cav, tipping the win percentage in melee just enough for the spear cav to decide to stand and fight.

I've seen something similar with superior lancers charging raw skoutatoi&archers. Most of the time, the lancers will bounce back after charging the infantry if it fails to disrupt them, with the melee percentage not good enough to stay. But 1 time in 10 the lancers would stick in melee even though it didn't cause a disruption on the charge. Something pushed that melee win percentage just over the edge to cause the lancers to stick it out in melee instead of falling back after charge.

[rbodleyscott]

Maybe the win percentage of 22% win 7% loss in melee is right on the threshold of the light spear cavalry deciding to whether to fight or flee. Cunningcairn could have gotten unlucky with an under-strength unit of lancers and an over-strength unit of spear cav, tipping the win percentage in melee just enough for the spear cav to decide to stand and fight.

I think that is most likely.

[Paul59]

@Paul59 : « 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 » (Manual, p. 73).

Richard mentioned one factor that determines the decision to evade : the presence of other potential chargers.

Yes, I know. That is why my second test separated the units so that there was no threat from other units.

[Paul59]

Maybe the win percentage of 22% win 7% loss in melee is right on the threshold of the light spear cavalry deciding to whether to fight or flee. Cunningcairn could have gotten unlucky with an under-strength unit of lancers and an over-strength unit of spear cav, tipping the win percentage in melee just enough for the spear cav to decide to stand and fight.

Yes, I think you might have solved the puzzle there. If the Lancers had been understrength, the melee odds might have been good enough for the Cavalry not to evade.

This once again highlights the need to provide screenshots (and preferably a saved game file) when odd situations are discovered. There is often a logical reason for something happening that the player has not realised.

[Cunningcairn]

Maybe the win percentage of 22% win 7% loss in melee is right on the threshold of the light spear cavalry deciding to whether to fight or flee. Cunningcairn could have gotten unlucky with an under-strength unit of lancers and an over-strength unit of spear cav, tipping the win percentage in melee just enough for the spear cav to decide to stand and fight.

Yes, I think you might have solved the puzzle there. If the Lancers had been understrength, the melee odds might have been good enough for the Cavalry not to evade.

This once again highlights the need to provide screenshots (and preferably a saved game file) when odd situations are discovered. There is often a logical reason for something happening that the player has not realised.

Neither unit had been in combat or been shot at in the game and had been lurking on the flank of the main battle. Lancers were at full strength and there were no other units within charge range.

[Cunningcairn]

Maybe the win percentage of 22% win 7% loss in melee is right on the threshold of the light spear cavalry deciding to whether to fight or flee. Cunningcairn could have gotten unlucky with an under-strength unit of lancers and an over-strength unit of spear cav, tipping the win percentage in melee just enough for the spear cav to decide to stand and fight.

I've seen something similar with superior lancers charging raw skoutatoi&archers. Most of the time, the lancers will bounce back after charging the infantry if it fails to disrupt them, with the melee percentage not good enough to stay. But 1 time in 10 the lancers would stick in melee even though it didn't cause a disruption on the charge. Something pushed that melee win percentage just over the edge to cause the lancers to stick it out in melee instead of falling back after charge.

Yes I realise I had been unlucky but I am still surprised that the cav did not evade. A cav unit that will evade when it is at a disadvantage should not stand when it is flank charged by shock troops and certainly should not disrupt the shock troops on contact. These one in a million "shit happens" events happen too frequently. I think decreasing the chance of these events occurring would be an improvement.

[Athos1660]

These one in a million "shit happens" events happen too frequently.

I like this sentence. Sounds like a film punchline. Gonna watch Die hard tonight

A too predictable game would be boring...

Besides, there are certainly some good reason(s) for what happened.

[TheGrayMouser]

Not sure what all the hubbub is about. The lancers had a 50 poa advantage at impact, good but not decisive.. and if both had the same armor rating the Cavalry would get a 25 poa bonus for multiple melee turns... most players , if the option to manually set evasions was part of the game, likely would have ordered the cavalry to hold...

[Athos1660]

The lancers had a 50 poa advantage at impact, good but not decisive.. and if both had the same armor rating the Cavalry would get a 25 poa bonus for multiple melee turns... most players , if the option to manually set evasions was part of the game, likely would have ordered the cavalry to hold...

Indeed.
And it is also a bet : impact advantage vs melee advantage.

Not sure what all the hubbub is about.

I guess it comes, above all, from the fact that, out of a limited number of tests (20) with an empty setup, the case where the cavalry don't evade has not been able to be reproduced.

[Paul59]

I guess it comes, above all, from the fact that, out of a very limited number of tests that is not statistically significant (20) with an empty setup, the case where the cavalry don't evade has not been able to be reproduced.

I'm not sure what my tests have got to do with all the "hubbub"? I'm not the one complaining, and that started before I did any tests.

[Athos1660]

I'm not sure what my tests have got to do with (...)

... this discussion ? Both are about occurrences.

"hubbub"

I don't know what this word means.
My post was about the current discussion, not about a budubbubbuuubhhh...

I'm not the one complaining (...)

I've never said anyone is.
No harm intended

[TheGrayMouser]

I'm not sure what my tests have got to do with (...)

... this discussion ? Both are about occurrences.

"hubbub"

I don't know what this word means.
My post was about the current discussion, not about a budubbubbuuubhhh...

I'm not the one complaining (...)

I've never said anyone is.
No harm intended

My bad, hubbub means the same as ballyhoo, malarky or baloney.

( all jokes aside I was making a light comment on all the comments on the seemingly predictable phenomenon based on my understanding of the rules.. ie the offending Cavalry that refused to flee weighed the risks of a Minor deficit in a one time impact, vs it’s advantage in potentially unlimited melees and stayed put)

[Athos1660]

My bad, hubbub means the same as ballyhoo, malarky or baloney.

Great ! Tonight I learned 3 words : hubbub, ballyhoo and malarky

(...) the offending Cavalry that refused to flee weighed the risks of a Minor deficit in a one time impact, vs it’s advantage in potentially unlimited melees and stayed put

Indeed.

What might be surprising is the seeming difficulty to reproduce this behaviour in an empty open terrain.

[Cunningcairn]

I'm not sure what my tests have got to do with (...)

... this discussion ? Both are about occurrences.

"hubbub"

I don't know what this word means.
My post was about the current discussion, not about a budubbubbuuubhhh...

I'm not the one complaining (...)

I've never said anyone is.
No harm intended

My bad, hubbub means the same as ballyhoo, malarky or baloney.

( all jokes aside I was making a light comment on all the comments on the seemingly predictable phenomenon based on my understanding of the rules.. ie the offending Cavalry that refused to flee weighed the risks of a Minor deficit in a one time impact, vs it’s advantage in potentially unlimited melees and stayed put)

LOL actually hubbub is not the same as malarkey or baloney but that is off thread. I think my opponent purposely turned the cav's flank to my lancer to get me to charge and pursue to get me away from the action. The point is I'd never seen this happen before and have since learnt that there is little advantage for a lancer charging a cav in the flank. Somebody mentioned in this thread that it is the same advantage as a frontal charge. Does that seem correct to you?

[Athos1660]

... this discussion ? Both are about occurrences.

I don't know what this word means.
My post was about the current discussion, not about a budubbubbuuubhhh...

I've never said anyone is.
No harm intended

My bad, hubbub means the same as ballyhoo, malarky or baloney.

( all jokes aside I was making a light comment on all the comments on the seemingly predictable phenomenon based on my understanding of the rules.. ie the offending Cavalry that refused to flee weighed the risks of a Minor deficit in a one time impact, vs it’s advantage in potentially unlimited melees and stayed put)

LOL actually hubbub is not the same as malarkey or baloney but that is off thread.

What a malhubhooney ! Was I told a lie ?

Somebody mentioned in this thread that it is the same advantage as a frontal charge. Does that seem correct to you?

A Flank attack is effective only when the attacked unit is busy, surprised, overwhelmed... It is not the case here.

And in the case at issue, +50 Impact PoA (for Mounted light spear or flanking) is enough to win the Impact.

No need to make Impact PoA cumulative, imho.

[Cunningcairn]

My bad, hubbub means the same as ballyhoo, malarky or baloney.

( all jokes aside I was making a light comment on all the comments on the seemingly predictable phenomenon based on my understanding of the rules.. ie the offending Cavalry that refused to flee weighed the risks of a Minor deficit in a one time impact, vs it’s advantage in potentially unlimited melees and stayed put)

LOL actually hubbub is not the same as malarkey or baloney but that is off thread.

What a malhubhooney ! Was I told a lie ?

Somebody mentioned in this thread that it is the same advantage as a frontal charge. Does that seem correct to you?

A Flank attack is effective only when the attacked unit is busy, surprised, overwhelmed... It is not the case here.

And in the case at issue, +50 Impact PoA (for Mounted light spear or flanking) is enough to win the Impact.

No need to make Impact PoA cumulative, imho.

If that is the case then why does a cav not get the same factors when charging a lancer in the flank as it does when charging it frontally?

[rbodleyscott]

Neither unit had been in combat or been shot at in the game and had been lurking on the flank of the main battle. Lancers were at full strength and there were no other units within charge range.

Even full strength units vary in strength.

On a general note, it is worth mentioning that in determining relative combat strength for such purposes, the game gives double weight to melee over impact, because there is only one impact round and usually multiple melee rounds.

The point is I'd never seen this happen before and have since learnt that there is little advantage for a lancer charging a cav in the flank. Somebody mentioned in this thread that it is the same advantage as a frontal charge.

Actually it isn't always. In this case in a frontal charge the net POA would be +25 to the lancers.

However, you are missing the point, mentioned above, that the only "proper" flank charge is a flank charge on an engaged unit. An unengaged unit is assumed to have some time to "get its shit together".

If that is the case then why does a cav not get the same factors when charging a lancer in the flank as it does when charging it frontally?

The bottom line is that the current rules are working as intended, and are not going to change.

[Athos1660]

If that is the case then why does a cav not get the same factors when charging a lancer in the flank as it does when charging it frontally?

It does as the situation is similar for the charger :
- Front : Light Spear +50
- Flank : Flank attack +50

What does change is the ability for the attacked lancers to use their lances or not at the impact :
- Front : lancers +100
- Flank : None.

My 2 cent :
1) Assume the current rules work fine.
2) Use the Editor to get all the answers you need.