Mounted Flank Charges into Infantry

[KiwiWarlord]

Charged Spearmen in the Rear with Knights & Bowmen in the Flank with Heavy Cavalry, both Foot were in Good Going & both mounted bounce off and the Infantry are not disrupted ???
Is this realistic ?
Why do the Infantry have to be engaged frontally before disruption takes place ?

[Athos1660]

This rule has been applied since FoGII: Ancients. Are you surprised by it because of the timeframe (in your opinion, medieval cavalry should be stronger than ancient one) or because you prefer the (stronger) effect of the rules in P&S ?

I guess the rationale is that unengaged foot who are charged in flank or rear by cavalry can quickly turn at the time or just before/after the impact. But I guess that what matters first is gameplay.

[gribol]

Charged Spearmen in the Rear with Knights & Bowmen in the Flank with Heavy Cavalry, both Foot were in Good Going & both mounted bounce off and the Infantry are not disrupted ???
Is this realistic ?
Why do the Infantry have to be engaged frontally before disruption takes place ?

That's a very big change compared to P&S rules. I was suprised at beginning just like You.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Agreed, it was jarring when I first started playing FoGII. Overall I prefer the Pike and Shot flank system, but I will say in favor of FoGII that it doesn't have the mitigating effect of the presence of various unflankable infantry units available in Pike and Shot - Pike blocks, Tercios, Later Tercios.

[Athos1660]

May I join this club of Addicted to strong P&S flank charge ?

I did an interesting test yesterday using Cronos' mod that implements FoGII flank charge into P&S. The battle mixed three different kinds of non-light cavalry : the 'weak' Arkebuisers, the 'average' Horses and the 'strong' Kuirassiers. I had the feeling, with the mod, that it was harder to defeat Kuirassiers with Arkebuisers and Horses than usually. They seemed more powerful than in Vanilla P&S. In Vanilla P&S, flank charge an unengaged Kuirassiers with a Arkebuiser and the job is almost done. But engaging Kuirassier with Horse to be able to flank with say Arkebuiser, following FoG2 rules, is much more risky. Was it, in this case (when there are weak/average/strong units on the battlefield), more historical/realistic/balanced and, in some ways, more thrilling ? Maybe so. Maybe the P&S flank Charge equalizes units a bit (too much), making the weak a bit too strong.

I also noticed it before, with large enemy armies made of cheap infantry units that seems to be able to flank destroy a smaller army made of more expensive units more easily in P&S than in FoG2.

[KiwiWarlord]

May I join this club of Addicted to strong P&S flank charge ?
I also noticed it before, with large enemy armies made of cheap infantry units that seems to be able to flank destroy a smaller army made of more expensive units more easily in P&S than in FoG2.

You are most welcome to 'join the Club' Athos, after all it is open to all on the Forum.
Yes I agree to what you say and here is a very recent example. In a game just finished from Round 2 of ahuyton's Event ,Landsknechts & Prussians, (see the P&S Forum for these very enjoyable & interesting events ) I had units of Arkebusiers & Kurassiers flank attacked by unarmed Peasant Mobs. My mounted were done for & routed.
So yes there are very good reasons, as you say, for some 'tweaking' of the flank attacks in all the rule sets.
The fact that in FOGM, infantry charged in the rear by heavy knights just laughed it off seems a bit 'over the top' as we say.

[Athos1660]

Note that, in the case of unengaged spearmen charged in the rear by heavy knights, even if the cohesion drop is not automatic in the FoG2 series, the Net PoA is +100, meaning this drop is probable/possible. (Don't ask me about the exact probability of it hapenning : I don't know and don't want to know about such things )



Maybe P&S Flank system didn't protect adequately the unengaged strong from the flank charge of the weak one. Does the FoG2 Flank system overprotects the unengaged weak against the flank charge of the strong one ? I don't know as I haven't paid enough attention to it.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Does the FoG2 Flank system overprotects the unengaged weak against the flank charge of the strong one ?

I personally think yes. My personal tweak would be giving non-light cavalry, or at the very least shock cavalry (Lancers/Knightly Lancers) a guaranteed +100 when flanking, instead of the current 50.

[Schweetness101]

just to throw in my two cents, I prefer the FOG2 flanking system

with P&S style, it kind of felt to me, as someone noted, with large numbers of cheap units you can just swarm around looking for lone flanks against unoccupied enemies. It also feels like if you were charging in from the side of an unoccupied unit, that they would just turn to face you before you got there? depends on training and awareness I guess.

[GryfoCezar]

Note that, in the case of unengaged spearmen charged in the rear by heavy knights, even if the cohesion drop is not automatic in the FoG2 series, the Net PoA is +100, meaning this drop is probable/possible. (Don't ask me about the exact probability of it hapenning : I don't know and don't want to know about such things )

My problem with FoG2 & FoG2M unengaged flank charges is that exclusive +100. So it really doesn't matter if I charge spermen from the front or form the rear (as long as they are unengaged). I would have preffered +100 (or maybe +50, if 100 is to much) on top of what the unit has normally.

[Horde]

I prefer the FOGII system and I´m against automatic drops in unengaged units. Not against a rule like -1 to cohesion tests after being charged in the rear or something similar.

[Athos1660]

@Snugglebunnies : you mean in the case of any shock (or non-light) cavalry charging any unengaged non-light infantry in the flank or rear (in the same way as Knights currently get a +100 PoA against unengaged 2-ranks Dtmd Knights) ? Or does it also apply when the unengaged charged one is any non-light cavalry ?

@Schweetness : to further complicate things, if I am not mistaken, your flank mod showed that you even prefer a softer version of the current FoG2 flanking system, as it made a distinction between flank charges and rear charges and made the former less effective, even when it involved an engaged unit (no more cohesion drop, Net PoA+100 instead of 200, right ?).

@GryfoCezar : I see what you mean. This is the rule that guarantees a net POA equal to the non-flanking net POA if the latter is more than +50, meaning flanking Knights get a Net PoA of 100 (instead of the basic 50) because they get +100 when charging head-on. Indeed it doesn’t sounds totally logical. At first glance, it is expected that flanking Knights would get a bonus compared to the non-flanking ones.

PS : One thing is true, P&S flanking system is easier to grasp, more straightforward :

"Troops automatically drop a cohesion level if charged in flank or rear (unless they are non-light troops charged by light troops, or are immune). (...) Keils and Tercios are immune to flank attacks. Early Tercios are also immune to rear attacks".

[SnuggleBunnies]

I meant against any unit.

One thing that softens the flank effect in PnS other than unflankable units is the inability of most infantry to charge cavalry at all.

[Athos1660]

... while being tough in head-on against cavalry and able to shoot at them, so they are far from being helpless.

[KiwiWarlord]

One thing that softens the flank effect in PnS other than unflankable units is the inability of most infantry to charge cavalry at all.

Yes it works well except I do not understand the effectiveness of peasants (Mobs) in P&S. The P&S rule book page29, 9.4.3 states that foot other than Keils cannot charge cavalry, even in the flank or rear. Must be an error somewhere.

[SnuggleBunnies]

One thing that softens the flank effect in PnS other than unflankable units is the inability of most infantry to charge cavalry at all.

Yes it works well except I do not understand the effectiveness of peasants (Mobs) in P&S. The P&S rule book page29, 9.4.3 states that foot other than Keils cannot charge cavalry, even in the flank or rear. Must be an error somewhere.

Pike and Shot was later patched so that all-melee non-light infantry could charge cavalry. (1.1.2 "- Allowed any non-light foot without missile weapons to charge cavalry.") Rodeleros, Dismounted Men at Arms, Swiss Halberdiers, and indeed mobs. Still, the mobs do get slaughtered if caught by cavalry, and are fairly easily avoided.

In Sengoku Jidai, only all-melee Warriors can charge cavalry - so the Peasant mobs and all-melee Medium Foot units cannot charge cavalry (neither can Wokou Impact/Sword Warriors with 50% missile capability). I believe the Dismounted Hatamoto, though classed as Determined Foot, can charge cavalry.

Peasants in FoGII Medieval actually do okay if they manage to flank cavalry, due to Combat Strength Modifier.

[KiwiWarlord]

Thanks SB, I had forgotten that update.

[ahuyton]

I think that Kiwiwarlord makes a valid point. Knights in FoGM are expensive and remarkably brittle against enemy shooters (not just massed longbowmen but skirmishers can easily disrupt them). But they seem to lack punch in their charges and it is very difficult to use them in a historical way. So leading with knights while the rest of the army follow behind will likely end in disappointment.

Giving Knights the possibility to disrupt the enemy by hitting them in the flank even if they are not in combat seems worth trying.

[Athos1660]

Here are three cases of Knights charging Defensive Spearmen :

1) Head-on, Steady Spearmen

The Knights get a +150 Impact PoA, so the Net PoA is +100.




2) Head-on, Disrupted Spearmen

The Knights get a +200 Impact PoA (as the Spearmen are not Steady), so the Net PoA is +150.




3) Flanking, unengaged Steady Spearmen

The Knights get what they would have got if they had charged Steady Spearmen head-on, ie+150 Impact PoA, so the Net PoA is +100 like in case 1.



The question could be : What is the closest situation of Flanked unengaged Steady Spearmen : that of Steady Spearmen charged head-on (case 1) or that of Disrupted ones charged head-on (case 2) ? Should Flanked unengaged Steady Spearmen be considered as being as 'disrupted' as Disrupted Spearmen charged head-on (or, in other words, are the Knights in the same favourable situation as if they were facing Disrupted Spearmen), so +200 Impact PoA would apply to Knights ? Or should it remain as it is currently, based on a rationale such as unengaged Spearmen have time to turn around and face the Knights, so that they can't be charged in the rear or flank ?

[tyronec]

The question could be : What is the closest situation of Flanked unengaged Steady Spearmen : that of Steady Spearmen charged head-on (case 1) or that of Disrupted ones charged head-on (case 2) ? Should Flanked unengaged Steady Spearmen be considered as being as 'disrupted' as Disrupted Spearmen charged head-on (or, in other words, are the Knights in the same favourable situation as if they were facing Disrupted Spearmen), so +200 Impact PoA would apply to Knights ? Or should it remain as it is currently, based on a rationale such as unengaged Spearmen have time to turn around and face the Knights ?

I think there is an anomaly here, and it is because the Knights are so much a better troop type than much of the cavalry in Ancients.
If you charge a unit of Hoplites with Greek heavy cavalry from the front then the combat is very much in favor of the Hoplites.
If you charge the same unengaged unit of Hoplites from the rear with Greek heavy cavalry then the impact is in favor of the cavalry. This seems reasonable.

However in Medieval the rear charge with Knights gains no advantage because the rear charge bonus is the same as what they get from a frontal charge.