Higher Ground POA

[rbodleyscott]

You tell that to my hoplites who thought it was a magnificently dominant position.

They didn't, you did. You were wrong. A flank attack on an unengaged unit is not intended to guarantee success.

Yes it was apparently 0.16% and it happened twice in succession.

Which is a 1 in 360,000 chance.

There have been a lot of ways the game has worked that are no longer the same. I understand your reluctance to want to change things because any change can affect other parts of the game and it is never obvious what they will be. This game has plenty of predestination and it has nothing to do with the philosophy of the game. There are numerous situations where units cannot lose a combat and certainly cannot fragment.

Yes, because the advantaged unit in those cases is at a greater advantage than in this situation.

All I am saying is that this should be one of those situations.

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

-------------------------

I guess the fundamental issue is that you don't buy the concept that a flank attack on an unengaged unit should not necessarily be decisive. Which leads you to assume that your unit was in a "magnificently dominant position" when by the rules of the game, it wasn't.

[Cunningcairn]

The shifting sand is this situation as my question was never actually answered and became this confusion which I've actually created.

I assume you are referring to the question in the other thread?

If so:

Your unit's chance of losing the combat at +50 POA was about 5%. In order to double drop it would have to lose badly, the chances of which are not easily quantified, but probably about 1%.

At that point, if no other CT modifiers apply, your unit would be testing at -2. That means that a score of 4 or less on 2d6 would result in a double drop. That is a 1 in 6 chance.

So the chance of your unit double-dropping was perhaps about 1 in 600.

OK I just accepted Mike's calculations which was far less. I think the real problem to me is that after reading so many views on flank and rear vulnerability in other threads which were accepted as being in line with game philosophy and historical precedent that it can be acceptable that a hoplite unit charging another in a flank in an uphill position can fragment. Yes maybe it could lose because it's commander was killed or it was struck by lightening but fragment? Doesn't it have to lose then suffer significantly more casualties and then badly fail the cohesion test to be able to fragment?

[rbodleyscott]

The shifting sand is this situation as my question was never actually answered and became this confusion which I've actually created.

I assume you are referring to the question in the other thread?

If so:

Your unit's chance of losing the combat at +50 POA was about 5%. In order to double drop it would have to lose badly, the chances of which are not easily quantified, but probably about 1%.

At that point, if no other CT modifiers apply, your unit would be testing at -2. That means that a score of 4 or less on 2d6 would result in a double drop. That is a 1 in 6 chance.

So the chance of your unit double-dropping was perhaps about 1 in 600.

OK I just accepted Mike's calculations which was far less.

0.16% is a 1 in 625 chance.

Doesn't it have to lose then suffer significantly more casualties and then badly fail the cohesion test to be able to fragment?

Yes, hence the 1 in 625 chance.

Note that I have edited my original estimate of "1 in 300 to 1 in 600" to "about 1 in 600" because I think a 1% chance of losing the melee badly is more likely.

[Cunningcairn]

I assume you are referring to the question in the other thread?

If so:

Your unit's chance of losing the combat at +50 POA was about 5%. In order to double drop it would have to lose badly, the chances of which are not easily quantified, but probably 1 or 2% at most.

At that point, if no other CT modifiers apply, your unit would be testing at -2. That means that a score of 4 or less on 2d6 would result in a double drop. That is a 1 in 6 chance.

So the chance of your unit double-dropping was perhaps between 1 in 300 and 1 in 600.

OK I just accepted Mike's calculations which was far less.

0.16% is a 1 in 625 chance.

Doesn't it have to lose then suffer significantly more casualties and then badly fail the cohesion test to be able to fragment?

Yes, hence the 1 in 625 chance.

It is 1.6 in a thousand but that doesn't matter because as you said it was incorrect anyway. All I wanted to do was make the point that double dropping in the situation as described is extreme. This is not about warband double dropping on impact. You have made it clear that you disagree with my statement although it could quite easily be remedied by adding a line to the cohesion test saying that a unit charging another in the flank can only drop one cohesion level. My hoplites are now tired as well as fragmented and are retiring from the field

[rbodleyscott]

It is 1.6 in a thousand but that doesn't matter because as you said it was incorrect anyway.

No, on reflection I think Mike's estimate was about right, and I have edited my post above to avoid confusion.

Either way it is only a small chance.

You are saying there should not be any chance at all.

If you had attacked an engaged unit in the flank, then there would have been no chance at all.

The situations are different, and this is reflected in the possible outcomes.

[Cunningcairn]

It is 1.6 in a thousand but that doesn't matter because as you said it was incorrect anyway.

No, on reflection I think Mike's estimate was about right, and I have edited my post above to avoid confusion.

Either way it is only a small chance.

You are saying there should not be any chance at all.

If you had attacked an engaged unit in the flank, then there would have been no chance at all.

The situations are different.

No Richard I'm not saying there should be no chance at all of losing and even disrupting. I'm saying fragmenting is a step too far. I'm saying there should be no chance of a steady, full strength unit fragmenting when it charges another unit in the flank and that can be covered in the cohesion test by giving a +1 modifier to the charging unit. That would nullify the -1 for suffering more casualties than received and if my calculations are correct prevent a double drop.

[rbodleyscott]

It is 1.6 in a thousand but that doesn't matter because as you said it was incorrect anyway.

No, on reflection I think Mike's estimate was about right, and I have edited my post above to avoid confusion.

Either way it is only a small chance.

You are saying there should not be any chance at all.

If you had attacked an engaged unit in the flank, then there would have been no chance at all.

The situations are different.

No Richard I'm not saying there should be no chance at all of losing and even disrupting. I'm saying fragmenting is a step too far.

I know.

That is what we were talking about, not the lesser outcomes.

However, the design philosophy point of view is that in this situation, which is not a "proper" flank attack, there is a small chance (maybe 1 in 100) of the charger losing the impact badly. Having done so, it has exactly the same chance of panicking and fragmenting as in any other situation where a unit loses the impact badly.

Psychologically, losing when you are expecting to win may have more of a morale impact than losing when you are expecting to give ground.

[Cunningcairn]

No, on reflection I think Mike's estimate was about right, and I have edited my post above to avoid confusion.

Either way it is only a small chance.

You are saying there should not be any chance at all.

If you had attacked an engaged unit in the flank, then there would have been no chance at all.

The situations are different.

No Richard I'm not saying there should be no chance at all of losing and even disrupting. I'm saying fragmenting is a step too far.

I know.

That is what we were talking about, not the lesser outcomes.

However, the design philosophy point of view is that in this situation, which is not a "proper" flank attack, there is a small chance (maybe 1 in 100) of the charger losing the impact badly. Having done so, it has exactly the same chance of panicking and fragmenting as in any other situation where a unit loses the impact badly.

Psychologically, losing when you are expecting to win may have more of a morale impact than losing when you expect to lose.

Yet the rules give a -1 modifier to a unit even if it has a threatened flank. The rules acknowledge the vulnerability of a flank. So even if the charge wasn't a "proper" flank attack the fact remains as supported by the rules it was a flank attack.

[rbodleyscott]

As I say, we will have to agree to disagree.

[Cunningcairn]

Yet the rules give a -1 modifier to a unit even if it has a threatened flank. The rules acknowledge the vulnerability of a flank. So even if the charge wasn't a "proper" flank attack the fact remains as supported by the rules it was a flank attack.

As I say, we will have to agree to disagree.

Richard I don't have any issue with what you decide as I think these are great rules. Anyone that has played wargames for some time knows there can never be a perfect rule set due to the varied perceptions and preferences within the community. However i also know that although you stick to your game philosophy you are reasonable and listen to arguments for change. All I do is present things that I think should change as I cannot justify them to myself. If you decide not to change it then so be it. I will still support the game and promote it to all newcomers.

PS it will only take a little +1 modifier in the CT to prevent the double drop

[76mm]

You tell that to my hoplites who thought it was a magnificently dominant position. Yes it was apparently 0.16% and it happened twice in succession.

hmmm, my worst result was four double-drops in a row, and 6 of 7 in the same turn, with contiguous units. While these combats were straight up warband vs warband fights, no hills or flank attacks, I was not amused--each of these attacks should have been basically a toss-up, but instead half of my army disintegrated in a single turn.

[Cunningcairn]

You tell that to my hoplites who thought it was a magnificently dominant position. Yes it was apparently 0.16% and it happened twice in succession.

hmmm, my worst result was four double-drops in a row, and 6 of 7 in the same turn, with contiguous units. While these combats were straight up warband vs warband fights, no hills or flank attacks, I was not amused--each of these attacks should have been basically a toss-up, but instead half of my army disintegrated in a single turn.

Wow that does take clumping to a whole new level. Use the Arab Conquest superior spear I don't think it is possible for them to double drop and they are cheaper than ordinary warband

[pompeytheflatulent]

I've seen veteran muslim spearmen double drop from disrupted to routing after taking a flank charge from lancers on more than one occasion, so it's definitely possible.

[76mm]

I've seen veteran muslim spearmen double drop from disrupted to routing after taking a flank charge from lancers on more than one occasion, so it's definitely possible.

Yeah, but that includes an auto-drop from the flank attack, so not sure if it "counts" as a double-drop. But how is it that Muslim spearman would not be susceptible to double-dropping, unlike every other unit I've played with?

I play with phalanxes a lot and have seen them double-drop--repeatedly and often--against just about everything on the board.

[kronenblatt]

I play with phalanxes a lot and have seen them double-drop--repeatedly and often--against just about everything on the board.

That is interesting. Why do you think that is that phalanxes (and pikes?) double drop repeatedly and often? Do they stand out in this regard?

[pompeytheflatulent]

Yeah, but that includes an auto-drop from the flank attack, so not sure if it "counts" as a double-drop.

I'm talking about going from steady and engaged in melee, then auto-dropping to disrupted from being flanked, then dropping two more levels to routed after losing the resulting combat to the lancers that just charged in, all in one move.

[76mm]

That is interesting. Why do you think that is that phalanxes (and pikes?) double drop repeatedly and often? Do they stand out in this regard?

I don't know why, but that is my experience over hundreds of games--I see fresh phalanxes double-drop very, very often. In the game I'm playing now out of five phalanx impacts on warbands in my last turn, two double-dropped, one disrupted, and two were draws. This is pretty typical in my experience, rather than "unlucky". I don't mind phalanxes losing...don't mind them disrupting...but having them double-drop this frequently seems way over the top to me, given that a disrupted phalanx is pretty much screwed anyway. Irregular foot, Thracians, all types of medium foot--all in open terrain--I've seen all of them double-drop phalanxes, usually on impact, so you don't even get a good turn out of them before they break.

[deeter]

You must be very unlucky. I wish that were so in our game. : )

Deeter

[Cunningcairn]

That is interesting. Why do you think that is that phalanxes (and pikes?) double drop repeatedly and often? Do they stand out in this regard?

I don't know why, but that is my experience over hundreds of games--I see fresh phalanxes double-drop very, very often. In the game I'm playing now out of five phalanx impacts on warbands in my last turn, two double-dropped, one disrupted, and two were draws. This is pretty typical in my experience, rather than "unlucky". I don't mind phalanxes losing...don't mind them disrupting...but having them double-drop this frequently seems way over the top to me, given that a disrupted phalanx is pretty much screwed anyway. Irregular foot, Thracians, all types of medium foot--all in open terrain--I've seen all of them double-drop phalanxes, usually on impact, so you don't even get a good turn out of them before they break.

Yes I have the same issue with pike and when one of them goes they make a big dent. I have been trying them again as I was going to use a pike army in the upcoming DL but the practice games have put me off them once again. I have posted on this subject before and have also been told I'm "unlucky". These "unlucky" spells always happen in batches and in about 3 to 5 games of the 14 to 16 games I'll be playing at one time. It is almost predictable.

On the Arab Conquest veteran spearmen. I never use that army but have fought against them a lot. I find the army almost impossible to beat and in many cases the veteran spear have to auto break before they will rout. I cannot recall ever seeing them double drop and due to my obsession with them I watch very closely.

[76mm]

Yes I have the same issue with pike and when one of them goes they make a big dent. I have been trying them again as I was going to use a pike army in the upcoming DL but the practice games have put me off them once again. I have posted on this subject before and have also been told I'm "unlucky". These "unlucky" spells always happen in batches and in about 3 to 5 games of the 14 to 16 games I'll be playing at one time. It is almost predictable.

On the Arab Conquest veteran spearmen. I never use that army but have fought against them a lot. I find the army almost impossible to beat and in many cases the veteran spear have to auto break before they will rout. I cannot recall ever seeing them double drop and due to my obsession with them I watch very closely.

Well, glad it's not just me with the phalanxes, I guess. I too play them less and less, because it's just not that fun to have what should be your best units implode on impact, over and over again.

I don't think I've ever played as or against the Arab Conquest spearmen, I don't think I have the DLC that they're in (I didn't buy the last DLC). They sound like the Romans, who in my experience also never double-break and have to be ground down until they auto-break. But probably cheaper than Romans...