Cavalry breaking off . . .

[stockwellpete]

Got a situation in a game where my cavalry (with general) is faced off by a shieldwall unit in the adjacent frontal square. Either I just stand still or do nothing or I charge, get a drawn result (usually) and then break off for 2 squares. If I charge, next turn my opponent advances the shieldwall unit 2 squares and we are back in the same position. This cycle can repeat itself until my cavalry unit reaches the maps edge where it can no longer break off and where it would then be best to let the shieldwall unit attack me.

This seems a bit odd to me. What is being represented is cavalry charging infantry head on, being repulsed then falling back, re-grouping and then deciding to charge again. It might be better if there was a chance (25% or 33% perhaps) that the cavalry broke off to the distance of 3 squares so that the cycle described in the first paragraph did not automatically occur. It would still be the most likely outcome, of course.

Thoughts?

[Athos1660]

A couple of initial thoughts before I think it over carefully :
1) Cavalry should avoid to charge infantry head-on as often as possible (I may be wrong ?)
2) The situation you describe in the first paragraph is often my only tactic when my infantry army faces a cavalry army (pushing it out of the battlefield)
3) Maybe your solution makes the cavalry a bit too agile (ie overpowered compared to infantry), able to flee too easily and circumvent the infantry

However I lack historical background to discuss such matter.

[stockwellpete]

3) Maybe your solution makes the cavalry a bit too agile (ie overpowered compared to infantry), able to flee too easily

That is why I have suggested 25% or 33% chance for it to happen. Even it was just a 10% chance then that would be better than what we have now.

[Athos1660]

That is why I have suggested 25% or 33% chance for it to happen. Even it was just a 10% chance then that would be better than what we have now.

I see I can bargain with you. Let's say 7% and you get this wonderful FoG2 mug

Seriously speaking, 33% seems indeed too much imho.
As for less than 33% ? I don't know.

[Athos1660]

Let me rephrase this sentence...

1) Cavalry should avoid to charge infantry head-on as often as possible (I may be wrong ?)

1) imho Cavalry should not find itself in the situation you describe and deserves to be punished. Once again, I'm certainly wrong

(edit)

imho Cavalry is agile enough to avoid this situation.
Obliging the cavalry to avoid this situation rebalance the strength between an agile cavalry and clumsy infantry.

[Paul59]

Alternatively, what if when an infantry unit is charged by cavalry it's AP for the next turn could be reduced to say 4 or 6. It could then only move forward one tile and/or turn?

Before anyone comes down on me like a ton of bricks for daring to suggest such nonsense, let me say I am sure that could result in other issues, but it's an idea.

[stockwellpete]

Alternatively, what if when an infantry unit is charged by cavalry it's AP for the next turn could be reduced to say 4 or 6. It could then only move forward one tile and/or turn?

Before anyone comes down on me like a ton of bricks for daring to suggest such nonsense, let me say I am sure that could result in other issues, but it's an idea.

Yes, that would have the same effect. Again there would have to be a random element, I guess. Anything between 10% and 33% chance of it happening.

[TheGrayMouser]

Just a thought, it might be easier to just have lancers evade charging spears/ pike if the odds are bad, of course the code would have be adjusted to have evaders turn back to their original facing after the evade( which would make horsevarchers more formidable opponents too if applied to all evading Cavalry). After all , if Cavalry using the retreat move or the bounce off revert to original facing, why not evaders?

Another thought: infantry cannot purposefully enter the zoc of non fragged cavalry in an open grid unless they are charging said Cavalry .

[pompeytheflatulent]

Got a situation in a game where my cavalry (with general) is faced off by a shieldwall unit in the adjacent frontal square. Either I just stand still or do nothing or I charge, get a drawn result (usually) and then break off for 2 squares. If I charge, next turn my opponent advances the shieldwall unit 2 squares and we are back in the same position. This cycle can repeat itself until my cavalry unit reaches the maps edge where it can no longer break off and where it would then be best to let the shieldwall unit attack me.

Sounds like the long standoff is the perfect opportunity for said general to contemplate all the bad life choices that led him to his current predicament.

[stockwellpete]

imho Cavalry is agile enough to avoid this situation.
Obliging the cavalry to avoid this situation rebalance the strength between an agile cavalry and clumsy infantry.

But sometimes these situations occur as a result of pursuits and general mayhem that cavalry can cause. Plus in match-ups between cavalry armies (lancers) and HF armies it is a very common occurrence.

[Athos1660]

Sounds like the long standoff is the perfect opportunity for said general to contemplate all the bad life choices that led him to his current predicament.

Very funny

Got a situation in a game where my cavalry (with general) is faced off by a shieldwall unit in the adjacent frontal square. Either I just stand still or do nothing or I charge (...)

btw you can also directly fall back 1 or 2 squares backwards without charging, take a cohesion test and put an infantry unit in between during the same turn (if... you have one available).

[stockwellpete]

btw you can also directly fall back 1 or 2 squares backwards without charging, take a cohesion test and put an infantry unit in between during the same turn (if... you have one available).

Different situation altogether and also possibly not relevant if you have a lancer (mounted) army.

[pompeytheflatulent]

btw you can also directly fall back 1 or 2 squares backwards without charging, take a cohesion test and put an infantry unit in between during the same turn (if... you have one available).

Why would you take a needless cohesion test when you could accomplish the same thing by charging, getting a draw, and bouncing back 2 squares?

[pompeytheflatulent]

Really the best thing to do for the lancers in this situation provided they are not being shot up or in danger of getting flanked is just to sit tight and wait for another unit to bail them out. You are only down 22 points by getting a 64 point lancer in a staring contest with a 42 point shieldwall. Just jump the general to another unit.

[Athos1660]

btw you can also directly fall back 1 or 2 squares backwards without charging, take a cohesion test and put an infantry unit in between during the same turn (if... you have one available).

Different situation altogether and also possibly not relevant if you have a lancer (mounted) army.

maybe it is all about that : a general rule that works fine 90% of the time but that might frustrate a player in a few very specific situations ?

btw you can also directly fall back 1 or 2 squares backwards without charging, take a cohesion test and put an infantry unit in between during the same turn (if... you have one available).

Why would you take a needless cohesion test when you could accomplish the same thing by charging, getting a draw, and bouncing back 2 squares?

because I hate confrontation.

[MVP7]

Granted, it's a bit silly how effectively infantry can lock down Lancers but why would you ever charge the infantry with you cavalry in situation like this? If you just leave the cavalry in place the infantry will have to charge it with terrible odds or also stay locked in place. It's a stalemate at best but better than getting driven in the corner unless your cavalry is getting swarmed by the infantry, which is a historical threat for overcommitted heavy cavalry.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if there was a third Fallback option: "Feigned retreat" where the cavalry would rotate 180 degrees and move back 3 squares. It would give the non-light cavalry a bit more mobility where it's currently a bit lacking and the cohesion test would be very reasonable cost for a maneuver that is historically prone to cause panic and real rout.

[stockwellpete]

Granted, it's a bit silly how effectively infantry can lock down Lancers but why would you ever charge the infantry with you cavalry in situation like this? If you just leave the cavalry in place the infantry will have to charge it with terrible odds or also stay locked in place. It's a stalemate at best but better than getting driven in the corner unless your cavalry is getting swarmed by the infantry, which is a historical threat for overcommitted heavy cavalry.

Well you might charge the infantry unit head on if the infantry unit was near its automatic rout level and you hoped to destroy it. You might also charge it if you hoped to stay in contact with that infantry unit to avoid being shot at by nearby missile units.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if there was a third Fallback option: "Feigned retreat" where the cavalry would rotate 180 degrees and move back 3 squares. It would give the non-light cavalry a bit more mobility where it's currently a bit lacking and the cohesion test would be very reasonable cost for a maneuver that is historically prone to cause panic and real rout.

Yes, all I am suggesting is something to break up the predictability of this sort of situation just a little bit.

[MVP7]

Well you might charge the infantry unit head on if the infantry unit was near its automatic rout level and you hoped to destroy it. You might also charge it if you hoped to stay in contact with that infantry unit to avoid being shot at by nearby missile units.

My poorly expressed main point there was that I don't like the idea of making the extended retreat only possible by charging since that charge rarely makes sense and even less so in situations where you really want to get away from the infantry rather than break them.

Also I'd prefer if the cavalry was facing away from the enemy after a 3 square fall-back (or break-off) since first turning and running away at some speed and then neatly regrouping facing the enemy sounds like a pretty complex maneuver to pull off and definitely harder than just retreating and facing away. From gameplay point of view I think the cavalry could use the additional mobility in this area as well.

[Athos1660]

Yes, all I am suggesting is something to break up the predictability of this sort of situation just a little bit.

What about this ?
1) The charge/break off mechanisms remain unchanged.
2) The fall back mechanism changes :
You click on the second square and you have 5-10% of chance of moving 3 squares backwards.
Of course, you take a cohesion test.

[Morbio]

If you don't like the situation then why not do an about face?

If the infantry attack you break off and can move normally next turn. If they stand you can move normally next turn. Problem solved!

Why change the logic which is good for the infantry, and is one of the limited few options they have against cavalry!