When does a unit turn after being flanked

[BMAXIMUS]

When you are attacking a unit which is not facing yourself and end up locked in a melee, it seems that sometimes, the attacked unit turn to face the attacking unit allowing it to be flanked by units which wouldn't have beet to flank it had the attacked unit not turn. I apologize if I'm not clear there.
From what I understand is if a unit is flanked it will turn, but not if it is attacked at 45deg. Am I right ?

[Ray552]

The defending unit will turn to face its attacker at the beginning of the next turn (assuming the defender is not already in melee which started in an earlier turn).

So if you have two potential attacking units which do not have flank attacks available right now, you can attack with one unit first, but you will have to wait until your next turn to attack with the second unit to get the flank attack (if the second unit is now in a position to do so.)

One exception: If the attacking unit is a light infantry or light cavalry unit, and the defending unit is a non-light unit, the defending unit will *not* turn to face the light unit if it would expose its flanks to enemy non-light units within charge range.

As for the 45-degree attack, the defending unit will still turn to face the attacker in the next turn (except for the light/non-light exception above).

[BMAXIMUS]

That makes sense. Thank you very much

[Ray552]

You are welcome.

Another thing to remember - the banner above the unit shows the "official" current facing of that unit, not necessarily the figures of the soldiers/horses/elephants etc.

Of course, the figures and the banner are usually facing the same direction, but (for example) when a unit is attacked from any direction except from directly in front, some of the figures will face the attack, but the banner has not yet changed facing.

Always look where the banner is facing...

[BMAXIMUS]

Thanks for the tip. I found it indeed sometimes confusing when a unit as multiple opponents.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

One exception: If the attacking unit is a light infantry or light cavalry unit, and the defending unit is a non-light unit, the defending unit will *not* turn to face the light unit if it would expose its flanks to enemy non-light units within charge range.

Are you sure about that? Non-light cavalry does turn to face light cavalry.

Turning enemy cavalry by flanking them with light cavalry can be achieved quite regularly as light cavalry that flanks has a good chance to get through impact without suffering major losses (which means it sticks and stays for melee, forcing the enemy unit to turn).

[Ray552]

One exception: If the attacking unit is a light infantry or light cavalry unit, and the defending unit is a non-light unit, the defending unit will *not* turn to face the light unit if it would expose its flanks to enemy non-light units within charge range.

Are you sure about that? Non-light cavalry does turn to face light cavalry.

Turning enemy cavalry by flanking them with light cavalry can be achieved quite regularly as light cavalry that flanks has a good chance to get through impact without suffering major losses (which means it sticks and stays for melee, forcing the enemy unit to turn).

Yes, I'm sure about that: "If the attacking unit is a light infantry or light cavalry unit, and the defending unit is a non-light unit, the defending unit will *not* turn to face the light unit if it would expose its flanks to enemy non-light units within charge range." (emphasis added.)

This is what the designer of the game stated in the second post of this thread from December 2021: "Unable to initiate flank"

Yes. As of update 1.5.30

"o Non-light troops will no longer turn to face light troops in close combat if the enemy would then be able to flank/rear charge them with a non-light unit on his next turn."

If you look at the red cavalry banner, you can see that it is still facing your cavalry. The banner is what shows the "official" facing of a unit, not the way its models are facing. (In a two rank deep unit, only the rear rank models would turn to face rear attackers, but of course this isn't possible for a 1 rank deep unit, because the rear rank is also the front rank. Although in this case, as the light horse have attacked at an angle, only 1 of the models has turned to face.)

But I agree with you that non-light cavalry (and non-light infantry) will turn to face enemy light cavalry (and light infantry, if the terrain allows the attack in the first place) - as long as the condition above does not exist.

[rbodleyscott]

This exception was added in update v1.5.30, and the manual has not yet been updated. The plan is to fully update the manual alongside the release of the Bronze Age dlc. This is a while off yet, because we have another DLC for FDOG2 Medieval to complete and release first.

[SpeedyCM]

One thing I'd like to see is the removal of the ability of bow only armed light cavalry to melee non light units.

[Swuul]

One thing I'd like to see is the removal of the ability of bow only armed light cavalry to melee non light units.

Why? Bow armed light cavalry were more than happy to ride within a few steps of slower enemies without missiles; in fact, much closer than you would get to pike units with their 6 meter pikes. It is much easier with a bow to hit your enemy from 5 meters than from 50 meters. The question is, do you *really* want to turn your back at somebody taking aim with their bow 5 meters from you?

[SpeedyCM]

Melee is hand to hand combat, it physically impedes the free movement of a unit, even if the bow skirmishers are only a handful of metres away they are not physically impeding the unit.

[Swuul]

Melee is hand to hand combat, it physically impedes the free movement of a unit, even if the bow skirmishers are only a handful of metres away they are not physically impeding the unit.

Errrr... Hand to hand combat is in fact not the definition of melee. Sure, a H2H combat can under some circumstances be called a melee, but they are not synonyms or meaning the same thing.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Melee is hand to hand combat, it physically impedes the free movement of a unit, even if the bow skirmishers are only a handful of metres away they are not physically impeding the unit.

I would disagree with this. Lots of readings of Ancient battle suggest that melees were often short sharp periods of hand to hand combat and lots of standing off at throwing missile/yelling range, while both sides worked up the courage to engage again.

I think the game's mechanics suggest that missile weapons were part of melees - look at the description of shieldwall units with their 'some archers' that give no ranged capability. More explicitly, 'Light Spear' is actually javelins most of the time, but represented as Impact, and in Pike and Shot/Sengoku Jidai muskets/arquebus cancel enemy armor advantage in melee - because some men are firing in close combat.

So I would say a melee is close combat which psychologically and/or physically impedes the unit from moving.

[SpeedyCM]

I would disagree with this. Lots of readings of Ancient battle suggest that melees were often short sharp periods of hand to hand combat and lots of standing off at throwing missile/yelling range, while both sides worked up the courage to engage again.

My understanding is that this sort of thing is already factored in to the impact phase bonuses. Early - mid legions getting impact bonus due in large part due to throwing of pilums prior to impact, latter Romans getting defensive impact bonus due to darts, warbands I'm guessing getting a bonus from working themselves up into an almost berserker like frenzy prior to impact etc.

If you want light bow only units to melee and fix units in place or turn them solely for the reason that they are firing bows then logically it follows that units should also be fixed in place when bow units are just using missile fire.

[SpeedyCM]

Melee is hand to hand combat, it physically impedes the free movement of a unit, even if the bow skirmishers are only a handful of metres away they are not physically impeding the unit.

Errrr... Hand to hand combat is in fact not the definition of melee. Sure, a H2H combat can under some circumstances be called a melee, but they are not synonyms or meaning the same thing.

Yes there are other meanings to the word, however with regard to combat the typically accepted definition is hand to hand fighting.

From Wiki (yes I know terrible source)

A melee (/ˈmeɪleɪ/ or /ˈmɛleɪ/, French: mêlée [mɛle]) or pell-mell is disorganized hand-to-hand combat in battles fought at abnormally close range with little central control once it starts

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

: a confused struggle
especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several people

From dictionary.com

a confused hand-to-hand fight or struggle among several people.
confusion; turmoil; jumble:

[SnuggleBunnies]

I would disagree with this. Lots of readings of Ancient battle suggest that melees were often short sharp periods of hand to hand combat and lots of standing off at throwing missile/yelling range, while both sides worked up the courage to engage again.

My understanding is that this sort of thing is already factored in to the impact phase bonuses. Early - mid legions getting impact bonus due in large part due to throwing of pilums prior to impact, latter Romans getting defensive impact bonus due to darts, warbands I'm guessing getting a bonus from working themselves up into an almost berserker like frenzy prior to impact etc.

If you want light bow only units to melee and fix units in place or turn them solely for the reason that they are firing bows then logically it follows that units should also be fixed in place when bow units are just using missile fire.

I think FoG is deliberately vague on what exactly is going on at the worm's eye level, to allow for multiple interpretations of this sort of thing. My interpretation of light bow cavalry with no swordsmen capability engaging in melee is of the unit charging, and hoping to scatter the enemy with the charge, and engaging with a combination of swords and point blank archery - the lack of swordsmen of course being an indication that they're not particularly good at using the weapons, not that they don't have them.

For melees, I strongly subscribe to Philip Sabin's view expressed in 'The Face of Roman Battle' - in which prolonged contact isn't necessarily highly committed hand to hand fighting, but doesn't involve breaks extensive enough to warrant a new impact phase in game for each re-engagement.

[Swuul]

Melee is hand to hand combat, it physically impedes the free movement of a unit, even if the bow skirmishers are only a handful of metres away they are not physically impeding the unit.

Errrr... Hand to hand combat is in fact not the definition of melee. Sure, a H2H combat can under some circumstances be called a melee, but they are not synonyms or meaning the same thing.

Yes there are other meanings to the word, however with regard to combat the typically accepted definition is hand to hand fighting.

From Wiki (yes I know terrible source)

A melee (/ˈmeɪleɪ/ or /ˈmɛleɪ/, French: mêlée [mɛle]) or pell-mell is disorganized hand-to-hand combat in battles fought at abnormally close range with little central control once it starts

From Merriam-Webster dictionary

: a confused struggle
especially : a hand-to-hand fight among several people

From dictionary.com

a confused hand-to-hand fight or struggle among several people.
confusion; turmoil; jumble:

Even your own quotes show melee and H2H combat are not synonyms. I wonder who and when have decided melee is "the typically accepted" definition for H2H combat; in my ~40 years of wargaming I have never before heard somebody has claimed them to be synonyms. I remember one heated discussion from a decade or so ago if in wargaming "skirmish" and "melee" are in fact synonyms in operational level wargames, but never have I seen anybody to claim H2H and melee to be same thing.