3218 hours in and my first real game gripe- fall back blocking

[Ludendorf]

Hmm...

You know, if you REALLY wanted to make medium cavalry dangerous, you could have a flank attack that hits after a cavalry unit strikes and bounces off count as a cohesion drop. The logic being that if the infantry have had to focus their energy on fighting off one assault, they're not going to be well set up to take on an attack from a different direction.

[MVP7]

I'd like to point out that right now fall back blocking is the only way for cavalry to reliably engage infantry, either to get a flanking attack or to break through the ZoC. While this "tactic" itself is indeed strange and should be removed, doing so without other rework of cavalry vs infantry interactions imo would shift the balance even further towards infantry-based armies (it would be interesting to hear Richard's thoughts on this matter with regards to him playing German Horse Tribes in DL).

For example, with fall back blocking removed, line of defensive spearmen set 2 tiles apart from each other while looking like a net full of holes would become a literally impassable obstacle to any amount of cavalry.

Agreed. Cavalry armies would need something to compensate for removing this exploit. The question is what?

Back in WatG beta I suggested that the half POA that Catapracts got against Spearmen were extended to all cavalry. Personally I think the cavalry bouncing is a bit silly mechanic and it might as well be done with much slimmer disadvantage in cavalry vs foot. We can assume that repeated charging, veering off and quickly regrouping for another charge happens at sub-square level when cavalry is fighting infantry. Only if cavalry loses a combat badly would it break off.

[Athos1660]

I'd like to point out that right now fall back blocking is the only way for cavalry to reliably engage infantry, either to get a flanking attack or to break through the ZoC. While this "tactic" itself is indeed strange and should be removed, doing so without other rework of cavalry vs infantry interactions imo would shift the balance even further towards infantry-based armies (it would be interesting to hear Richard's thoughts on this matter with regards to him playing German Horse Tribes in DL).

For example, with fall back blocking removed, line of defensive spearmen set 2 tiles apart from each other while looking like a net full of holes would become a literally impassable obstacle to any amount of cavalry.

Agreed. Cavalry armies would need something to compensate for removing this exploit. The question is what?

If I am not mistaken, the inability for Cavalry armies « to get a flanking attack or to break through the ZoC » (and fall back blocking as a substitute) come from 2 rules that were added to FoG2 (compared to the previous games of the series) :

• addition of secondary ZoCs

• attenuation of the effect of flank/rear charges on unengaged units

Maybe those rules could be fine-tuned.
Are they beneficial to the game ?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I'd like to point out that right now fall back blocking is the only way for cavalry to reliably engage infantry, either to get a flanking attack or to break through the ZoC. While this "tactic" itself is indeed strange and should be removed, doing so without other rework of cavalry vs infantry interactions imo would shift the balance even further towards infantry-based armies (it would be interesting to hear Richard's thoughts on this matter with regards to him playing German Horse Tribes in DL).

For example, with fall back blocking removed, line of defensive spearmen set 2 tiles apart from each other while looking like a net full of holes would become a literally impassable obstacle to any amount of cavalry.

Agreed. Cavalry armies would need something to compensate for removing this exploit. The question is what?

An alternative that has been discussed elsewhere is to have infantry charged by non-light cavalry lose their secondary ZoC for that turn, and perhaps have light infantry charged by light or non-light cavalry lose their secondary ZoC. With this, a line of infantry set two tiles apart can be broken through - either by having an infantry unit engage one unit, and then use two cavalry units - one to charge, one to slip past. Or, by using three cavalry units - two to charge, one to slip through. It would still entail some risk, especially vs Pikemen, as you have to charge and bounce to strip the secondary ZoC. The logic can be that infantry have to form up defensively to repel cavalry. This would encourage the forming of more solid lines.

Another option is to consider having cavalry Fall Back 3 squares after charging, so they don't get "locked in" by infantry. Or, to have infantry that have been charged by cavalry have their movement reduced to one tile the next turn, to simulate their having to reform and recover from cavalry attack, again preventing cavalry from getting locked in by infantry.

Of course any of these alternatives could presumably be exploited themselves - the question being, would it feel less "gamey"/more plausible than what we currently have?

[DanZanzibar]

Hmm...

You know, if you REALLY wanted to make medium cavalry dangerous, you could have a flank attack that hits after a cavalry unit strikes and bounces off count as a cohesion drop. The logic being that if the infantry have had to focus their energy on fighting off one assault, they're not going to be well set up to take on an attack from a different direction.

This is what I would like to see implemented with the Fallback-in-place for aggressors. It would be a net buff for cavalry but I would rather see a net buff than a net nerf out of this.

[Schweetness101]

An alternative that has been discussed elsewhere is to have infantry charged by non-light cavalry lose their secondary ZoC for that turn...

Another option is to consider having cavalry Fall Back 3 squares after charging, so they don't get "locked in" by infantry...

I heard there was a mod that did this...I seem to have forgotten what it was called though

[Schweetness101]

You know, if you REALLY wanted to make medium cavalry dangerous, you could have a flank attack that hits after a cavalry unit strikes and bounces off count as a cohesion drop...

I don't think that this would be that hard to implement if you'd like me to make a little mini mod to try it out.

[TheGrayMouser]

Wouldn’t the simplest solution be to disallow the ability to partially move a unit, then activate another for a partial move, then back to the first? Is there really a need for this feature other than mini-maxing every AP available?


Or, just change the break off rules so 1 melee must be fought before a break can happen. Less need for blocking and would make lancer armies more interesting.

I don't see how that fixes the problem. It just means that the setup needs to be sequenced properly (which players will learn how to do anyways) or takes an extra turn to setup. This phenomenon is part of the reason why the game still tilts its favour towards swarm armies and punishes elites.

An xtra turn can be an eternity in this game....

[nyczar]

Have any of these ideas been considered for testing? Season 9 is upon us and I am getting prescription opioids to numb the pain when I suffer, and to hide the shame when I execute, fall back blocking gamey play.

[SimonLancaster]

I was chatting to Bunny about this the other day.. we went through all the possibilities that have been discussed in this thread. I then suggested that perhaps the unit falling back could veer off left or right if blocked directly behind. Maybe 50-50 as to whether it goes left or right..

[SpeedyCM]

Hmm...

You know, if you REALLY wanted to make medium cavalry dangerous, you could have a flank attack that hits after a cavalry unit strikes and bounces off count as a cohesion drop. The logic being that if the infantry have had to focus their energy on fighting off one assault, they're not going to be well set up to take on an attack from a different direction.

I kind of like the idea but I can see it being gamed heavily with severely over matched cavalry units being used as cheese bounce units, perhaps qualify it with the bounced cavalry unit having to have had a 50% or greater win chance for it's attack.

[76mm]

I kind of like the idea but I can see it being gamed heavily with severely over matched cavalry units being used as cheese bounce units, perhaps qualify it with the bounced cavalry unit having to have had a 50% or greater win chance for it's attack.

That's a good point, but I think 50% is too high--not many cavalry attacks result in >= 50% odds, and even if the odds were quite a bit lower--35%? 25%?--the defending infantry would have to take their attack rather seriously, thereby neglecting their flanks.

[76mm]

Not sure if anyone else has already suggested this, but another way to deal with this might be to allow cav to fall back through light troops, but not other cav or med/heavy foot.

At least this would be somewhat more realistic, as it would represent cav in a deep enough formation that the front ranks would be physically unable to bounce back whether they wanted to or not. But they could do so through a light skirmisher unit...

[Cunningcairn]

Have any of these ideas been considered for testing? Season 9 is upon us and I am getting prescription opioids to numb the pain when I suffer, and to hide the shame when I execute, fall back blocking gamey play.

I'm already feeling bad that our games are going to be a pain filled experience for you I will use this tactic shamelessly and expect you to do the same without feeling any guilt. After all it is a legitimate tactic supported by the rules. I see it, or justify it as an attack supported by light troops which should give an advantage if all else is equal. Think of it as backs in a rugby game joining a rolling maul to push their opponents over the line. Even a pint size halfback can be enough to make a difference.

[nyczar]

Have any of these ideas been considered for testing? Season 9 is upon us and I am getting prescription opioids to numb the pain when I suffer, and to hide the shame when I execute, fall back blocking gamey play.

I'm already feeling bad that our games are going to be a pain filled experience for you I will use this tactic shamelessly and expect you to do the same without feeling any guilt. After all it is a legitimate tactic supported by the rules. I see it, or justify it as an attack supported by light troops which should give an advantage if all else is equal. Think of it as backs in a rugby game joining a rolling maul to push their opponents over the line. Even a pint size halfback can be enough to make a difference.

It just so happens that I played three games of rugby in college before deciding that I didn't need to get banged up and bruised to drink beer on on Saturday night. Its more like a bunch of hookers (the smallest player on the filed for my fellow Yanks that were smarter than me and avoided ruby in college) being able to give fortitude to the scrum when all they want to do is leave the contest. I get the issue is complex but it is not an intended game design tactic and no where is it talked about or encouraged in the rules. It is a tactic the community discovered that is unintendedly allowed by the game design. It is gamey and cheesy. Because a fix is complex, and until a decision is made to Bata test some options, I'll be ready with my Ritz crackers to make it a party! Still don't like it....but the game is too compelling and the community too much fun. I'm particularly looking forward to the Biblical Age as I like playing diverse lists and mirrored matches eliminates list imbalances.

[Cunningcairn]

Have any of these ideas been considered for testing? Season 9 is upon us and I am getting prescription opioids to numb the pain when I suffer, and to hide the shame when I execute, fall back blocking gamey play.

I'm already feeling bad that our games are going to be a pain filled experience for you I will use this tactic shamelessly and expect you to do the same without feeling any guilt. After all it is a legitimate tactic supported by the rules. I see it, or justify it as an attack supported by light troops which should give an advantage if all else is equal. Think of it as backs in a rugby game joining a rolling maul to push their opponents over the line. Even a pint size halfback can be enough to make a difference.

It just so happens that I played three games of rugby in college before deciding that I didn't need to get banged up and bruised to drink beer on on Saturday night. Its more like a bunch of hookers (the smallest player on the filed for my fellow Yanks that were smarter than me and avoided ruby in college) being able to give fortitude to the scrum when all they want to do is leave the contest. I get the issue is complex but it is not an intended game design tactic and no where is it talked about or encouraged in the rules. It is a tactic the community discovered that is unintendedly allowed by the game design. It is gamey and cheesy. Because a fix is complex, and until a decision is made to Bata test some options, I'll be ready with my Ritz crackers to make it a party! Still don't like it....but the game is too compelling and the community too much fun. I'm particularly looking forward to the Biblical Age as I like playing diverse lists and mirrored matches eliminates list imbalances.

From now on I will have an image of you as a hooker every time we play

[kronenblatt]

...I'm particularly looking forward to the Biblical Age as I like playing diverse lists and mirrored matches eliminates list imbalances...

Me too! And the lists sure are diverse. One common denominator being s-tloads of arrows though...

[Cunningcairn]

...I'm particularly looking forward to the Biblical Age as I like playing diverse lists and mirrored matches eliminates list imbalances...

Me too! And the lists sure are diverse. One common denominator being s-tloads of arrows though...

Nothing can quite top Persian versus Indian