Cavalry breaking off . . .

[SnuggleBunnies]

You can't about face if you're in the infantrys primary zoc

[stockwellpete]

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!

But you cannot turn the cavalry unit around if you are ZOC'd by the infantry unit, can you? You can if there was a one square gap.

The "logic" that we have at the moment might have come from a Benny Hill script. The cavalry charge, get blocked (usually) then break off and re-group for the next manoeuvre, while the infantry run as fast as the horses did to get themselves in exactly the same position viz a viz the cavalry as before. This causes rather absurd looking situations, particularly with broken formations in the second half of the game. This is at a time when weaker cavalry units really come into their own - they are often not much good when formations are relatively intact.

[stockwellpete]

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.

Hmm. I am not sure about the extra click required here, or the cohesion test. Just keep everything the same with a chance that the cavalry will re-group 3 squares away instead of 2. I am now thinking this might happen 20% of the time so 4 out of 5 times nothing would change at all.

[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.

Hmm. I am not sure about the extra click required here, or the cohesion test. Just keep everything the same with a chance that the cavalry will re-group 3 squares away instead of 2. I am now thinking this might happen 20% of the time so 4 out of 5 times nothing would change at all.

Sorry as it seems that I made myself unclear because of my poor English :

I am not sure about the extra click required here (...)

I meant no extra click. I did not mean "you click twice on the square" but " you click once on the second square" :



As you put it : you "keep everything the same with a chance that the cavalry will re-group 3 squares away instead of 2".

I am not sure about (...) the cohesion test.

Once again, I meant that the current rule is kept , that is there will be a cohesion test in your OP situation, as : "if a fall back move is performed when within charge reach of a non-routing non-light enemy unit (whether or not that enemy is actually in a position to charge), the falling back unit will take a Cohesion Test" (p. 65).

So I guess you agree about the general mechanism of my suggestion. However I don't know yet whether or not I agree with it Maybe this mechanism should be only for cavalry and only in the situation you described in OP (that is when facing an infantry) ? Maybe... this or that.

As for :

I am now thinking this might happen 20% of the time so 4 out of 5 times nothing would change at all.

it would be up to the boss !

[pompeytheflatulent]

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

[Athos1660]

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around?

I guess it would be indeed more simple to code and understand. Exceptions (I mean pussyfooting) is bad.
But wouldn't it make cavalry too agile ? Would it be only for cavalry or also for infantry ?

Besides I had a question about that. Is the probability to fail the cohesion test higher when clicking on the 'second' square than on the first one ?
If not, it could be an option for a 1, 2, 3 square fall back.

[Cunningcairn]

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around?

I guess it would be indeed more simple to code and understand. Exceptions (I mean pussyfooting) is bad.
But wouldn't it make cavalry too agile ? Would it be only for cavalry or also for infantry ?

Besides I had a question about that. Is the probability to fail the cohesion test higher when clicking on the 'second' square than on the first one ?
If not, it could be an option for a 1, 2, 3 square fall back.

What historical evidence is there of cavalry being frozen in place by infantry to their front? Aren't the cavalry supposed to be more mobile? This like other discussions is going down the same path with a few people saying they like the situation as it is and that is the end of it.

[Athos1660]

What historical evidence is there of cavalry being frozen in place by infantry to their front?

As I mentioned in my first post of this thread, I have no historical knowledge to answer those questions. Sorry.
However iirc some answers have already been given in recent threads about ZoC.

Aren't the cavalry supposed to be more mobile?

Wouldn't it cause an imbalance between cav and infantry ?

This like other discussions is going down the same path with a few people saying they like the situation as it is and that is the end of it.

Let's discuss it kindly
(and the last word goes to the game designers/devs.)

[Cunningcairn]

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

That sounds pretty logical and a good idea.

[MVP7]

Increasing the cavalry fallback distance to 3 squares without 180 rotation could be reasonable although I'm not sure I like the option of quick change of target that it offers. Rotating the unit 180 degrees after 3 square fallback would make the fallback more like hasty retreat and it would take a turn to rotate the unit before next attack.

One option could be changing the current 2 square fallback to include 180 degree rotation. It would leave the cavalry open for charge from the unit it was facing which would have to be evaded with a risk of getting caught in the rear. This would add a clear element of unpredictability and unavoidable risk in exchange for the increased mobility.

[TheGrayMouser]

I guess no ones grabbed by the idea of infantry being forbidden to enter a mounted zoc and stop( but it could charge if it had enough ap’s) ? It would mitigate what Pete illustrated but still give the infantry and mounted some options. I just hate the idea of infantry zippy around and pinning Cavalry. I’d test it out if I could figure out to code it.

Yet another option would be to have mounted( but not chariots) move like light horse...( with their normal ap’s of course) This one I think would be easy to code...

[Mairtin]

From the shieldwalls point of view, they are also stuck. Either you sit still and let the cavalry run around you, or you press forward.
A solution for both the cavalry and shieldwall is to get a buddy to turn up, admittedly not always possible.
The situation really only arises in a one on one, as soon as the infantry are ZOC'ed out of advancing, the cavalry can do as they please, and when they are the infantry flanks are likely to get hit sooner or later.
If the cavalry can disrupt the foot, then it's likely to be over quickly. The foot doesn't have much chance to be able to do the same.

Cavalry can already run rings around foot most of the time, admittedly pushing someone off the edge is less than ideal, but even if you do you still have to worry about them returning.
I'm not sure there is a solution, giving cavalry even more advantage seems less than ideal.

[stockwellpete]

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

That sounds pretty logical and a good idea.

I am not opposed really but would it throw out the balance between infantry and cavalry in the game as a whole too much? What would be the unintended consequences of such a change? That's why, at the moment, I am suggesting only a % chance of a 3 square fall back. And I wouldn't want the cavalry unit to be rotated or anything. I think we would need to test something like this in a beta.

[stockwellpete]

From the shieldwalls point of view, they are also stuck. Either you sit still and let the cavalry run around you, or you press forward.
A solution for both the cavalry and shieldwall is to get a buddy to turn up, admittedly not always possible.
The situation really only arises in a one on one, as soon as the infantry are ZOC'ed out of advancing, the cavalry can do as they please, and when they are the infantry flanks are likely to get hit sooner or later.
If the cavalry can disrupt the foot, then it's likely to be over quickly. The foot doesn't have much chance to be able to do the same.

Cavalry can already run rings around foot most of the time, admittedly pushing someone off the edge is less than ideal, but even if you do you still have to worry about them returning.
I'm not sure there is a solution, giving cavalry even more advantage seems less than ideal.

I think this sort of situation is much more likely to occur in the second half of a battle when formations have broken up and there is a lot more space due to the number of routed units. I think this is exactly the time that cavalry units, particularly 30-40pt cavalry units should have increased lethality. Isolated infantry units should always be vulnerable if there are cavalry about - the reverse is not true. So I think some sort of change in this area might be generally historically realistic, and in FOG2 terms it would reward players who hold their cavalry back for the later stages of a battle.

[MVP7]

I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

If you have just individual cavalry units stuck against infantry, they would still be stuck against infantry for no apparent reason and most likely for extended time. This is the situations where being stuck makes the least sense as well. If you have an entire line of cavalry stuck against infantry line then you don't really need the occasional random extra fall-backs as the ZoCs of other units will give you ways to defuse the situation.

The break-off approach also still has the inherent issue of requiring the cavalry to frontally charge the infantry to break-off which makes no sense.

Using the fall-back (rather than break-off) system for moving the cavalry by 3 squares and/or rotating them would not be risk free move as it would always trigger the cohesion test that can more often be avoided by charge and bounce.

If the cavalry also rotated after 2 and/or 3 square fall-back that would be very close to how evasion currently works and would have pretty similar dynamic overall so there shouldn't be any massive meta changes to current cavalry balance as result. I think the main effect would be that it would become harder to pin down cavalry units with infantry.

I think rotation after fall-back would also be more realistic than the current weird inability of the cavalry to fall-back without turning back towards the enemy at the end. I'm pretty sure the horses are not assumed to be literally reversing in these situations.

I guess no ones grabbed by the idea of infantry being forbidden to enter a mounted zoc and stop( but it could charge if it had enough ap’s) ? It would mitigate what Pete illustrated but still give the infantry and mounted some options. I just hate the idea of infantry zippy around and pinning Cavalry. I’d test it out if I could figure out to code it.

I don't think it's a good approach to compensate the cavalry's lack of mobility by reducing the infantry's mobility.

I also don't think this would be very realistic as in the situation described by Pete the cavalry has just broken-off and is falling back. There's no way they would be able to hinder the advance of the heavy infantry in this situation.

It's also comes frighteningly close to the biggest problem I had with P&S/SJ (which thankfully was fixed in FoG2) where mixed and medium infantry could not charge cavalry under normal circumstances. It constantly caused absurd situations where cavalry was physically blocking pike/spear armed infantry from moving forward or situations where one unit of Chinese mixed was being slowly destroyed by cavalry and the other infantry units were unable to intervene.

There is no way a stationary cavalry unit can hold ground against infantry. Cavalry may charge an approaching infantry unit but if they don't start breaking the cavalry has no options but to fall back and regroup which means the infantry can move forward little by little. Cavalry can slow down infantry, as it practically does in FoG2, but it can't prevent infantry from moving forward in the long run.

[Athos1660]

@stockwellpete : btw, rather than what I suggested, I guess the fall-back tweak would work best this way :
1) The general rule : as it is currently
2) When and only when a cav is in front of an infantry (as you described in OP), the player has an additional option : choosing the 3rd square behind and having x% chance of going 3 squares backwards, y% of chance of going back only 2 squares

That way, the player would always be able to choose a 1 or 2 square fall-back and get it.

This exception could still be hard to code though...

(edit)

Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

That sounds pretty logical and a good idea.

I am not opposed really but would it throw out the balance between infantry and cavalry in the game as a whole too much? What would be the unintended consequences of such a change? That's why, at the moment, I am suggesting only a % chance of a 3 square fall back.

Don't forget that, as a counterbalance to that additional freedom/agility, the cavalry would have to take a cohesion test when in front of an enemy infantry... So it is a 'risky bonus'. That's why I suggested a 3-square fall-back in the first place instead of your suggestion in OP (the 3-square break-off after a charge) that seemed to me a bit risk-free.

So maybe a 3-square fall-back for non-light cavalry only, without any other restrictions, without % is balanced enough ?
And I guess it is much more simple to code.

[stockwellpete]

I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

Well, it would solve the current predictability that we have at the moment in these situations. That is all I am really asking for.

[Cunningcairn]

I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

Well, it would solve the current predictability that we have at the moment in these situations. That is all I am really asking for.

What is wrong with MPV7's idea of cavalry being able to about turn and move 1, 2 or 3 squares away from an enemy unit directly to their front always ending facing away from said enemy unit? No random movement simply a move directly to their rear of up to 3 squares (one less square than their normal allowed forward movement so cataphracts would get 2 squares). They should still have to test for cohesion. The arguments against it say that it could upset the balance between cav and infantry but isn't the current problem that the balance isn't quite correct? The balance can be assessed in a beta test. I cannot see how this can be deemed unhistorical or illogical behaviour.

[stockwellpete]

What is wrong with MPV7's idea of cavalry being able to about turn and move 1, 2 or 3 squares away from an enemy unit directly to their front always ending facing away from said enemy unit? No random movement simply a move directly to their rear of up to 3 squares (one less square than their normal allowed forward movement so cataphracts would get 2 squares). They should still have to test for cohesion. The arguments against it say that it could upset the balance between cav and infantry but isn't the current problem that the balance isn't quite correct? The balance can be assessed in a beta test. I cannot see how this can be deemed unhistorical or illogical behaviour.

Nothing wrong with it as such, but it is making a much bigger change than I had envisaged when I started this thread. I think we need to hear from Richard now. He might think it is all a non-starter.

[TheGrayMouser]

I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

If you have just individual cavalry units stuck against infantry, they would still be stuck against infantry for no apparent reason and most likely for extended time. This is the situations where being stuck makes the least sense as well. If you have an entire line of cavalry stuck against infantry line then you don't really need the occasional random extra fall-backs as the ZoCs of other units will give you ways to defuse the situation.

The break-off approach also still has the inherent issue of requiring the cavalry to frontally charge the infantry to break-off which makes no sense.

Using the fall-back (rather than break-off) system for moving the cavalry by 3 squares and/or rotating them would not be risk free move as it would always trigger the cohesion test that can more often be avoided by charge and bounce.

If the cavalry also rotated after 2 and/or 3 square fall-back that would be very close to how evasion currently works and would have pretty similar dynamic overall so there shouldn't be any massive meta changes to current cavalry balance as result. I think the main effect would be that it would become harder to pin down cavalry units with infantry.

I think rotation after fall-back would also be more realistic than the current weird inability of the cavalry to fall-back without turning back towards the enemy at the end. I'm pretty sure the horses are not assumed to be literally reversing in these situations.

I guess no ones grabbed by the idea of infantry being forbidden to enter a mounted zoc and stop( but it could charge if it had enough ap’s) ? It would mitigate what Pete illustrated but still give the infantry and mounted some options. I just hate the idea of infantry zippy around and pinning Cavalry. I’d test it out if I could figure out to code it.

I don't think it's a good approach to compensate the cavalry's lack of mobility by reducing the infantry's mobility.

I also don't think this would be very realistic as in the situation described by Pete the cavalry has just broken-off and is falling back. There's no way they would be able to hinder the advance of the heavy infantry in this situation.

It's also comes frighteningly close to the biggest problem I had with P&S/SJ (which thankfully was fixed in FoG2) where mixed and medium infantry could not charge cavalry under normal circumstances. It constantly caused absurd situations where cavalry was physically blocking pike/spear armed infantry from moving forward or situations where one unit of Chinese mixed was being slowly destroyed by cavalry and the other infantry units were unable to intervene.

There is no way a stationary cavalry unit can hold ground against infantry. Cavalry may charge an approaching infantry unit but if they don't start breaking the cavalry has no options but to fall back and regroup which means the infantry can move forward little by little. Cavalry can slow down infantry, as it practically does in FoG2, but it can't prevent infantry from moving forward in the long run.

.

Fair enough but Im not proposing anything like the inability for infantry to charge cavalry... What I proposed would restrict infantry entering the ZOC of a cavalry UNLESS they are charging said cavalry... IN FOG1 no unit had any ability to be adjacent to an enemy under any circumstances without automatically being in close combat and it was never condidered an issue... ( I know a lot of different things come into play but just sayin)