Quick Questions Thread on Rules

[kronenblatt]

Keep in mind though that other than with cavalry and elephants, the main use of artillery isn't inflicting casualties but instead adding -1 to cohesion rolls for the unit it fires at.

Good point SnuggleBunnies, thanks: hadn't thought about it that way. And with "other than with cavalry and elephants" you mean that inflicting casualties with artillery is still useful against cavalry and elephants?

Not to put words in Snuggle's mouth, but essentially you have a reasonable chance to disrupt cavalry or elephants with a lucky shot from artillery alone, but they are extremely unlikely to disrupt infantry without another unit or two shooting at them too, because they usually won't cause enough casualties to trigger a cohesion test.

One useful tactic is to shoot with all your other shooting troops, and after doing so, make a judgement which unit to shoot the artillery at to have to most chance of causing a cohesion drop. (Obviously not one that has already dropped cohesion from shooting this turn). If the artillery shoot at a unit that took a test from other shooting, but passed it, surprisingly often the extra -1 modifier will tip the unit into failing.

If the artillery are able to shoot at such a unit, don't worry about them shooting at half effect because the target is in their outer shooting arc, the -1 CT modifier will still apply.

OK, thanks Richard! And on a similar (but still separate) topic: do zero casualties from shooting result in another CT (if the target has already passed one CT from shooting that turn)? I think that I have once, but only once, seen that happen (and the enemy unit failed that CT, which I was both happy and embarrassed about...).

[rbodleyscott]

OK, thanks Richard! And on a similar (but still separate) topic: do zero casualties from shooting result in another CT (if the target has already passed one CT from shooting that turn)? I think that I have once, but only once, seen that happen (and the enemy unit failed that CT, which I was both happy and embarrassed about...).

Yes. Think of it as the morale effect of a huge bolt/large stone whizzing between their ranks after they already took casualties from arrows etc.

[kronenblatt]

OK, thanks Richard! And on a similar (but still separate) topic: do zero casualties from shooting result in another CT (if the target has already passed one CT from shooting that turn)? I think that I have once, but only once, seen that happen (and the enemy unit failed that CT, which I was both happy and embarrassed about...).

Yes. Think of it as the morale effect of a huge bolt/large stone whizzing between their ranks after they already took casualties from arrows etc.

And that applies also for other shooting (javelins, bow, slingers), i.e., "... think of it as the morale effect of more arrows/javelins/slinger stones whizzing between their ranks after they already took casualties from arrows, ..."? (Because that's what I saw (arrows upon arrows) in that one instance.)

[rbodleyscott]

OK, thanks Richard! And on a similar (but still separate) topic: do zero casualties from shooting result in another CT (if the target has already passed one CT from shooting that turn)? I think that I have once, but only once, seen that happen (and the enemy unit failed that CT, which I was both happy and embarrassed about...).

Yes. Think of it as the morale effect of a huge bolt/large stone whizzing between their ranks after they already took casualties from arrows etc.

And that applies also for other shooting (javelins, bow, slingers), i.e., "... think of it as the morale effect of more arrows/javelins/slinger stones whizzing between their ranks after they already took casualties from arrows, ..."? (Because that's what I saw (arrows upon arrows) in that one instance.)

Well they would take a test, but unless there was some new modifier it would have the same result as the previous one.

Having said that, there is code specifically in place to keep track of “wounds” on elephants even when they suffer 0 casualties per unit shooting at them, so that a cohesion test can be triggered if they suffer enough non-fatal “wounds”.

[kronenblatt]

How are use of AP calculated when moving several squares of which one is diagonal?

Such as:
* Does each move to each square count individually, like 4 AP for straight ahead and 6 AP for diagonal move (assuming open terrain), summing up?
* Is it the end square in relation to the start square that determines the angle turned, and thus its AP cost (up to 45 degrees free if within command)? (And then a straight line through the middle of the two squares in relation to the direction that the unit is facing from the middle of the starting square?)

I mean: attacking into a square is basically moving into that square AP cost wise, so I'm trying to understand what's feasible and what's not, from both a defense perspective and planning next offensive move.

(A general answer would be great, but I understand if an explicit example is needed. )

[rbodleyscott]

How are use of AP calculated when moving several squares of which one is diagonal?

Such as:
* Does each move to each square count individually, like 4 AP for straight ahead and 6 AP for diagonal move (assuming open terrain), summing up?
* Is it the end square in relation to the start square that determines the angle turned, and thus its AP cost (up to 45 degrees free if within command)? (And then a straight line through the middle of the two squares in relation to the direction that the unit is facing from the middle of the starting square?)

I mean: attacking into a square is basically moving into that square AP cost wise, so I'm trying to understand what's feasible and what's not, from both a defense perspective and planning next offensive move.

(A general answer would be great, but I understand if an explicit example is needed. )

Well it is really yes to both. It is (in open ground) 4 for each square entered orthogonally, and 6 for each square entered diagonally. In addition there may be a turn cost to pay, depending on the overall angle from start position to final position. A "knight's move" normally has no turn cost, because it is less than a 45 degree turn overall.

[kronenblatt]

How are use of AP calculated when moving several squares of which one is diagonal?

Such as:
* Does each move to each square count individually, like 4 AP for straight ahead and 6 AP for diagonal move (assuming open terrain), summing up?
* Is it the end square in relation to the start square that determines the angle turned, and thus its AP cost (up to 45 degrees free if within command)? (And then a straight line through the middle of the two squares in relation to the direction that the unit is facing from the middle of the starting square?)

I mean: attacking into a square is basically moving into that square AP cost wise, so I'm trying to understand what's feasible and what's not, from both a defense perspective and planning next offensive move.

(A general answer would be great, but I understand if an explicit example is needed. )

Well it is really yes to both. It is (in open ground) 4 for each square entered orthogonally, and 6 for each square entered diagonally. In addition there may be a turn cost to pay, depending on the overall angle from start position to final position. A "knight's move" normally has no turn cost, because it is less than a 45 degree turn overall.

Thanks, Richard! So for example: HF unit, all open terrain. Unit looks straight ahead (not diagonally), but has to move diagonally in order to attack into the square to the direction it was originally facing.
So step-by-step that is: turn 45° right, move diagonally, turn 45° left, move/attack straight; which individually would (i.e., not game rules if all made in one go, and using no free turns) have resulted in 4 (for 45° turn) + 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for another 45° turn) + 4 (for straight move) = 18 AP (not possible). BUT since end square is compared to start square, it is actually calculated as follows: 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for straight move) + adjustment for turn of 30° start-to-end (<45°, free for some units within command) => possible with free turn. Makes sense?

[rbodleyscott]

How are use of AP calculated when moving several squares of which one is diagonal?

Such as:
* Does each move to each square count individually, like 4 AP for straight ahead and 6 AP for diagonal move (assuming open terrain), summing up?
* Is it the end square in relation to the start square that determines the angle turned, and thus its AP cost (up to 45 degrees free if within command)? (And then a straight line through the middle of the two squares in relation to the direction that the unit is facing from the middle of the starting square?)

I mean: attacking into a square is basically moving into that square AP cost wise, so I'm trying to understand what's feasible and what's not, from both a defense perspective and planning next offensive move.

(A general answer would be great, but I understand if an explicit example is needed. )

Well it is really yes to both. It is (in open ground) 4 for each square entered orthogonally, and 6 for each square entered diagonally. In addition there may be a turn cost to pay, depending on the overall angle from start position to final position. A "knight's move" normally has no turn cost, because it is less than a 45 degree turn overall.

Thanks, Richard! So for example: HF unit, all open terrain. Unit looks straight ahead (not diagonally), but has to move diagonally in order to attack into the square to the direction it was originally facing.
So step-by-step that is: turn 45° right, move diagonally, turn 45° left, move/attack straight; which individually would (i.e., not game rules if all made in one go, and using no free turns) have resulted in 4 (for 45° turn) + 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for another 45° turn) + 4 (for straight move) = 18 AP (not possible). BUT since end square is compared to start square, it is actually calculated as follows: 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for straight move) + adjustment for turn of 30° start-to-end (<45°, free for some units within command) => possible with free turn. Makes sense?

No, an overall turn of less than 45 degrees does not use up the "free turn", it simply isn't paid for at all. So unmanoeuvrable and out of command range troops can attack like that too.

[kronenblatt]

Well it is really yes to both. It is (in open ground) 4 for each square entered orthogonally, and 6 for each square entered diagonally. In addition there may be a turn cost to pay, depending on the overall angle from start position to final position. A "knight's move" normally has no turn cost, because it is less than a 45 degree turn overall.

Thanks, Richard! So for example: HF unit, all open terrain. Unit looks straight ahead (not diagonally), but has to move diagonally in order to attack into the square to the direction it was originally facing.
So step-by-step that is: turn 45° right, move diagonally, turn 45° left, move/attack straight; which individually would (i.e., not game rules if all made in one go, and using no free turns) have resulted in 4 (for 45° turn) + 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for another 45° turn) + 4 (for straight move) = 18 AP (not possible). BUT since end square is compared to start square, it is actually calculated as follows: 6 (for diagonal move) + 4 (for straight move) + adjustment for turn of 30° start-to-end (<45°, free for some units within command) => possible with free turn. Makes sense?

No, an overall turn of less than 45 degrees does not use up the "free turn", it simply isn't paid for at all. So unmanoeuvrable and out of command range troops can attack like that too.

Ok, so an overall turn of:
1. <45°: 0 AP for everyone?
2. exactly 45°: 0 or 4 AP, depending on circumstances?
3. >45 - 90°: 8 AP?
4. >90°: unit's full starting AP?

#2-4 is as per 12.4.3 of manual, but #1 was a surprise to me.

(I'm ignoring light units here. )

[rbodleyscott]

Ok, so an overall turn of:
1. <45°: 0 AP for everyone?
2. exactly 45°: 0 or 4 AP, depending on circumstances?
3. >45 - 90°: 8 AP?
4. >90°: unit's full starting AP?

#2-4 is as per 12.4.3 of manual, but #1 was a surprise to me.

Yes, it could be clearer.

[kronenblatt]

Is the movement cost in AP for Non-Open the same as for Rough for the different units?

[rbodleyscott]

Is the movement cost in AP for Non-Open the same as for Rough for the different units?

No, it depends on the actual terrain - e.g. Enclosed or Stream. See /Data/terrain.txt

[kronenblatt]

Is the movement cost in AP for Non-Open the same as for Rough for the different units?

No, it depends on the actual terrain - e.g. Stream, Enclosure. See /Data/terrain.txt

Ah, of course: I forgot. I just viewed the terrain of the Stream as Non-Open, but of course many more types are Non-Open too. Thanks and sorry, Richard.

[kronenblatt]

Is there a limit on how many squares a unit can "see", i.e., its length of Line-of-Sight? If yes, what's that maximum visibility in number of squares?

Because I just noticed in a very flat 40x32 battlefield that the far end and the far corners were shaded.

EDIT: it seems that it's 20 squares, based on the shadows and the '2' hotkey. Correct?

[kronenblatt]

When a cavalry unit is "hidden" in the woods, with a woods square in front of it, but open terrain diagonally (say to the left in front of it), is it then visible to the enemy through that diagonal square? (Assuming of course, enemy units have line-of-sight to the woods square in which the unit is located.)

[Karvon]

Is there a limit on how many squares a unit can "see", i.e., its length of Line-of-Sight? If yes, what's that maximum visibility in number of squares?

Because I just noticed in a very flat 40x32 battlefield that the far end and the far corners were shaded.

EDIT: it seems that it's 20 squares, based on the shadows and the '2' hotkey. Correct?

Yes, I think that's about right. If you deploy units against the back edge of your deployment zone, they will not be visible till they or the enemy advance to within that range even on open plains.

[Karvon]

When a cavalry unit is "hidden" in the woods, with a woods square in front of it, but open terrain diagonally (say to the left in front of it), is it then visible to the enemy through that diagonal square? (Assuming of course, enemy units have line-of-sight to the woods square in which the unit is located.)

Yes they will be visible on the diagonal. You can check your LOS using a tool from the right tool menu. Can be handy at times during deployment and the game in helping move/keep troops out of sight.

One of my pet peeves is the fact hills often provide very little blockage of LOS in the game engine, greatly reducing reverse slope hiding/ambushes.

[Swuul]

What surprises me every time is that swamp terrain hides infantry. I mean, wut?



How do you hide 480 legionares there, huh? Are they extra-extra slim legionares, or what?

[rbodleyscott]

What surprises me every time is that swamp terrain hides infantry. I mean, wut?



How do you hide 480 legionares there, huh? Are they extra-extra slim legionares, or what?

Wrong type of swamp.

[Swuul]

What surprises me every time is that swamp terrain hides infantry. I mean, wut?



How do you hide 480 legionares there, huh? Are they extra-extra slim legionares, or what?

Wrong type of swamp.

Isn't that "rushes" next to a "stream"? Though admittedly, there is no "rushes" terrain type in FoG