Blocked Break Offs

[rbodleyscott]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned (forgive me if it has), is the facing of the blocking troops. If the blocking troops have a ZOC (the front edge anyway, if light troops vs non-light) over the unit being blocked, then I think that is legitimate regardless of their weight. I don't believe that would, in most cases, be any kind of cheese move, but more likely lining up a rear charge, or friends getting too close to the action.
Also there's a difference if the blocking troops arrived there via a pursuit or a deliberate move, can the game tell the difference, I don't know the game well enough yet to tell. I think that a non-facing unit behind, should take a cohesion test if they stop a fall back if they are pursuers (if it's possible to tell), but if simply moved there should drop a level without a test, whether they are friends or enemy.

The game does not record the history of how the unit got where it is.

[Cunningcairn]

So how about this package for a possible solution.

1) Troops can break off "on the spot" if the square behind them is blocked.
2) Troops who break off exert no ZOC for the remainder of the turn.
3) Flank/rear charges count full effect against enemy who were in close combat earlier in the turn, even if they aren't now. (Note that "earlier in the turn" normally includes combats resolved in the inter-turn phase - but that might need to be ignored for the purpose of this rule, so that it only applies to combats that have occurred during the current player's active turn).

I am not sure why point 2 is necessary.

See pompeytheflatulent's first post on page 1 of the thread.

Thanks I see now.

[vvanttin]

1) If only attacking units could fall back on the spot, then I think the original proposal would work.

This would make cavalry armies less powerful, so a possible (sans coding issues) support package for them would be:

2) Delayed fallback for heavy cavalry
Heavy cavalry not losing impact would fall back (either backwards or in place) at the end of turn / between turns (without melee). Heavy cavalry losing impact and light cavalry would fall back instantly. This would make it possible to flank with cavalry-only armies without blocking fallbacks in some way.

I will conveniently leave noticing side effects and pitfalls to more experienced players. One I can come up with is that it would be easier to break through a sparse infantry screen with massed cavalry.

[Athos1660]

(...) knights (...)

(off-topic)
On Impact, Knights will get the Heavy lancers capability that provides +100 PoA and nullifies the Lancers capability, won't they ?

[rbodleyscott]

(...) knights (...)

(off-topic)
On Impact, Knights will get the Heavy lancers capability that provides +100 PoA and nullifies the Lancers capability, won't they ?

There will be new rules, it won't be exactly as it is currently.

[Athos1660]

There will be new rules, it won't be exactly as it is currently.

Interesting! It makes one want to know more about it...

[SnuggleBunnies]

Necroing this. What if, assuming the space behind a light unit is occupied:

1) If the light unit charges an enemy and loses Impact, it Falls Back in place.

2) However, a light unit that is charged or caught after evading cannot Fall back in place.

3) Light units in Melee cannot Fall Back in place.

This would take care of a lot of the cheezy pinning a light unit in and charging with it to get the automatic cohesion drop with a second unit. However, light units that were caught after evading would still suffer accordingly.

4) If this alone was not considered enough, the idea of non-lights not facing lights until they've been in 2 rounds of melee could be implemented. Again, this wouldn't eliminate the tactic entirely, but the combination would make it more rare and riskier to pull off.

Thoughts? Any obvious downsides that I'm missing?

[kvnrthr]

Another idea: why not have a bad cohesion test for both "fleeing" unit and "blocking" unit when a unit wants to fall back but is unable to? This might replicate troops trying to flee running into the previous line and throwing it into chaos, which I believe has happened in quite a few ancient battles.

[rbodleyscott]

Necroing this.

Please do. I definitely plan to do something about this for the next update beta. At the moment, however, I am rather busy with new stuff.

[Gaznak]

An alternative to falling back on the spot (although that could work):

1) Non-light units do not turn to face light units engaging them.

2) Non-light units engaged by only light units do not count as "engaged" for creating auto-drops on flank attack. If light units are not strong enough to themselves get auto-drop attacks on non-lights, they are also therefore not strong enough to bother a non-light into such a vulnerable state.

Plus maybe:

3) Troops that try and fail to break off get -1 cohesion modifier.

[Cunningcairn]

Much has been written in the past about the issue of deliberately blocking breakoffs, which can be used for various cheesy in-game ploys.

Various solutions have been suggested, including the blockers being pushed back or evading. These solutions would be hard to implement, and could cause all sorts of new anomalies.

However, there is a much simpler solution, which already occurs when a break off that was not blocked at the time of determining the combat result, is blocked by another unit by the time it reaches the top of the queue to actually be activated. That is that the unit stays put in its current square, but is deemed to have broken off and (unless the enemy unit "follows up") the combat is deemed to have ended.

This could fairly easily be implemented as a general solution to blocked break-offs. The unit won't actually move (apart from the opposing front ranks falling back from the enemy) but the combat will be ended. In the case of a "push back" neither unit will move, and they will carry on fighting in their previous position.

This won't prevent the deliberate blocking of pushbacks, but that isn't such an issue since the removal of consecutive pushbacks.

It will prevent the far more cheesy tactic of attacking a unit in the flank with Light Horse, having blocked the Light Horse unit's break off, so that the enemy turns to face them next turn, allowing them to be attacked in the flank by the non-light unit (that they were previously facing) in your next turn. Apart from being (in our opinion) unrealistic, this tactic makes Light Horse significantly more effective than we intend.

It will also prevent cavalry fall backs from infantry from being prevented by ZOCs or light troops behind them, which will make it harder for infantry armies to swarm cavalry. I expect some people will view this as a good thing, and some as bad, but overall we feel it will be an improvement.

Thoughts?

Richard isn't the actual problem the perception that it is cheesy? It annoys me far less than a single light horse being able to do it based on the throw of the dice. If you justify it as a supported flank/rear charge it is less cheesy than a single light horse doing the same. With more than one light horse unit being needed the numbers of figures is close to that of the cavalry it has charged. Wouldn't a cavalry unit "pay more attention" to very large numbers of light horse attacking their flank/rear?

[rbodleyscott]

Much has been written in the past about the issue of deliberately blocking breakoffs, which can be used for various cheesy in-game ploys.

Various solutions have been suggested, including the blockers being pushed back or evading. These solutions would be hard to implement, and could cause all sorts of new anomalies.

However, there is a much simpler solution, which already occurs when a break off that was not blocked at the time of determining the combat result, is blocked by another unit by the time it reaches the top of the queue to actually be activated. That is that the unit stays put in its current square, but is deemed to have broken off and (unless the enemy unit "follows up") the combat is deemed to have ended.

This could fairly easily be implemented as a general solution to blocked break-offs. The unit won't actually move (apart from the opposing front ranks falling back from the enemy) but the combat will be ended. In the case of a "push back" neither unit will move, and they will carry on fighting in their previous position.

This won't prevent the deliberate blocking of pushbacks, but that isn't such an issue since the removal of consecutive pushbacks.

It will prevent the far more cheesy tactic of attacking a unit in the flank with Light Horse, having blocked the Light Horse unit's break off, so that the enemy turns to face them next turn, allowing them to be attacked in the flank by the non-light unit (that they were previously facing) in your next turn. Apart from being (in our opinion) unrealistic, this tactic makes Light Horse significantly more effective than we intend.

It will also prevent cavalry fall backs from infantry from being prevented by ZOCs or light troops behind them, which will make it harder for infantry armies to swarm cavalry. I expect some people will view this as a good thing, and some as bad, but overall we feel it will be an improvement.

Thoughts?

Richard isn't the actual problem the perception that it is cheesy? It annoys me far less than a single light horse being able to do it based on the throw of the dice. If you justify it as a supported flank/rear charge it is less cheesy than a single light horse doing the same. With more than one light horse unit being needed the numbers of figures is close to that of the cavalry it has charged. Wouldn't a cavalry unit "pay more attention" to very large numbers of light horse attacking their flank/rear?

Conceivably, but the rationalisation does not stop it from feeling cheesy.

However, I have already written the code to be tested in the next open beta. And its effect is that non-light troops will not turn to face light troops in close combat if that would allow an enemy non-light unit to flank/rear charge them next turn.

We can discuss it further once that has been tested.

[Mairtin]

Blocking someones retreat should be a legitimate tactic, but it should come at a cost if you are just throwing troops in the way. If you are facing the blocked troops then that's fine, you're lining up a charge or something similar. If a rear corner of the blocking troops is contacted though, then a cohesion drop could occur as the two bodies of men collide. That should stop the cheese factor, as the consequences would have to be carefully weighed up.
Another possibility is that light troops could evade away instead of blocking (against non-light only?). I'm not sure they shouldn't be able to block if facing though. Maybe they could also drop cohesion before evading, as above.

[MVP7]

Blocking someones retreat should be a legitimate tactic, but it should come at a cost if you are just throwing troops in the way. If you are facing the blocked troops then that's fine, you're lining up a charge or something similar. If a rear corner of the blocking troops is contacted though, then a cohesion drop could occur as the two bodies of men collide. That should stop the cheese factor, as the consequences would have to be carefully weighed up.
Another possibility is that light troops could evade away instead of blocking (against non-light only?). I'm not sure they shouldn't be able to block if facing though. Maybe they could also drop cohesion before evading, as above.

In other wargames cohesion loss from blocked fallback has caused far cheesier exploits than what the system currently produces. People would be running light units to stand in the enemy's rear to cause fast cohesion losses.

[rbodleyscott]

Blocking someones retreat should be a legitimate tactic, but it should come at a cost if you are just throwing troops in the way. If you are facing the blocked troops then that's fine, you're lining up a charge or something similar. If a rear corner of the blocking troops is contacted though, then a cohesion drop could occur as the two bodies of men collide. That should stop the cheese factor, as the consequences would have to be carefully weighed up.
Another possibility is that light troops could evade away instead of blocking (against non-light only?). I'm not sure they shouldn't be able to block if facing though. Maybe they could also drop cohesion before evading, as above.

In other wargames cohesion loss from blocked fallback has caused far cheesier exploits than what the system currently produces. People would be running light units to stand in the enemy's rear to cause fast cohesion losses.

Yep

[Mairtin]

In other wargames cohesion loss from blocked fallback has caused far cheesier exploits than what the system currently produces. People would be running light units to stand in the enemy's rear to cause fast cohesion losses.

Except that what I am suggesting is that the blocked troops remain as currently, and the troops being used to block (in your example light troops) take the cohesion loss and/or evade if not facing. If lights were forced to evade then the fall back could happen, and only heavier troops would stop the fall back.

[Cunningcairn]

Richard isn't the actual problem the perception that it is cheesy? It annoys me far less than a single light horse being able to do it based on the throw of the dice. If you justify it as a supported flank/rear charge it is less cheesy than a single light horse doing the same. With more than one light horse unit being needed the numbers of figures is close to that of the cavalry it has charged. Wouldn't a cavalry unit "pay more attention" to very large numbers of light horse attacking their flank/rear?

Conceivably, but the rationalisation does not stop it from feeling cheesy.

However, I have already written the code to be tested in the next open beta. And its effect is that non-light troops will not turn to face light troops in close combat if that would allow an enemy non-light unit to flank/rear charge them next turn.

We can discuss it further once that has been tested.

Excellent! I look forward to trying it.

[Athos1660]

Does the kind of exploit discussed in this thread partly explain why there are only 120 cavalrymen in a Light Javelin Horse unit ?

Using them mainly as javelin throwers, I for one find them sometimes a bit ineffective in this area, in particular compared with a unit of 240 light javelinmen for the same cost (especially after a move, of course, which is part of their functioning and what makes them fun).

(It could be a matter either of UnitSize or number of javelins (>5 turns).)

[rbodleyscott]

Does the kind of exploit discussed in this thread partly explain why there are only 120 cavalrymen in a Light Javelin Horse unit ?

No. It is because light units have half the number of men of non-light units.

[Athos1660]

Thx for the info

(edit)
Testing a Squads mod for Light Horse Jav (in SP) :
- UnitSize : 250
- TotalMen : 200
- Cost : 30