Slitherine

Jimcrowley
as for pursuits with Alexander, yes he did manage to rally his companions but he still started to pursue his broken enemies. Being an inspired leader on the TT would make it very easy to stop a unit, especially one the general is with, from continuing to pursue. If there is no general around or you can outrun your pursuers than the pursuit will continue, since you need a general about to try and rally your troops from pursuing an enemy they remain in contact with. Major difference between the PC game and the TT game. In the TT game the player has more control over such things in the PC game it seems a lot more random.

As a side note in one of Hannibals battles the Carthaginian cavalry broke and pursued the Roman cavalry off the battlefield but their general managed to rally them and they returned to the battlefield in time to move behind the Roman lines and attack the opposite flanks Roman cavalry from the rear, thus guaranteeing a Carthaginian victory. More of a lucky break they got back in time then instead of doing the usual and riding down the routers till the sun set.

Not disagreeing with the notion of pursuit; only that there is currently no distinction between an undisciplined, leaderless mob, at one of the scale, and an inspired commander at the other end.

MesaDon wrote:....while I am not a TT player and don't quite understand all you write i am amazed with the negativity.

It's because it's very dissapointing to have bought what looks like a pretty good game, but then to find that there are some things that are fundamentally wrong with it (such as Light Horse not being able to catch Light Foot in the open). I just can't see why the designers would have written it in this way. One of the main uses of LH is chasing off or deterring enemy LF. How is it that the light foot can run away faster than horses can catch them ?

Polkovnik wrote:

MesaDon wrote:....while I am not a TT player and don't quite understand all you write i am amazed with the negativity.

It's because it's very dissapointing to have bought what looks like a pretty good game, but then to find that there are some things that are fundamentally wrong with it (such as Light Horse not being able to catch Light Foot in the open). I just can't see why the designers would have written it in this way. One of the main uses of LH is chasing off or deterring enemy LF. How is it that the light foot can run away faster than horses can catch them ?

I think the problem is the quantizaton of movement in the game combined with the fact that combat occurs between units in adjacent hexes. While in the table top game the LH can get as close as it wants to the LF as long as it isn't in contact, in the PC version it always has to start it's charge 20% of it's move away from the LF. On the table top the LH does not have much chance of catching the LF either although maybe a bit more than in the PC version. I'm not sure how it should be fixed without breaking other interactions in the PC version although hopefully there ought to be a better way to handle it. I don't know if this was a significant issue during beta or if it's only becmoing more apparent now.

Chris

We're happy to hear suggestions on how it should work, but they need to integrate with the system and not break anything else

What impact if any would upping Light Horse MP's to 6 have? Would it increase the chance of LH catching LF?

What impact if any would upping Light Horse MP's to 6 have? Would it increase the chance of LH catching LF?

Well first of all they would have to get a license from Warner Brothers to use the new Road Runner icons for LH that would leave burning streaks in their wake... perhaps the LF would have to be replaced by Wyle e Coyote and boxes of Acme supplies.

Can the number of MPs that evading LF get be reduced?

I believe it is supposed to be a die roll to determine both evade and pursuit moves. In the TT game you have to roll to see if you pick up 1 or 2 movement units or go normal or lose 1 or 2 movement units for both the routers and evaders. The problem comes if you evade through a friendly unit as you now have more move to clear the unit and the pursuers, if light horse will stop short of anything heavier than light troops in the pursuit. The evading unit now gets a free move bonus to clear the friendly unit they are interpenetrating.
I find even on the TT games it is pretty rare for LH to catch LF as the LF normally evades behind their front line and the LH does not want to end up in melee with those guys and stops short of the enemy. So the LH has done its job of driving the LF off but with the presence of something bigger and nastier they won't continue the pursuit.

I think that if this is changed in the PC game it needs to be a change that applies to all evades and BGs charging a unit that evaded, not a special solution for LH chasing LF.

I think the most direct way to do it would be to not count the hex where the pursuer would be moving adjacent to the evader in the total amount the pursuer is allowed to pursue. This would be much less drastic a change than adjusting the general movement rate for either LF or LH or than always giving chargers and extra hex of movement. This would certainly make it more hazardous for cavalry to evade when facing better enemy cavalry so would still be a significant change to the feel of the game.

For this to really work it may really be necessary to allow players to indicate that individual units should or should not attempt to evade as their default response to being charged by "better" troops which would significantly complicate the current clean interface.

Chris

It simply feels wrong for a single Roman legionary BG to break away from the line to chase a routing unit. I'm not saying that it never happened but that it should be an unusual occurence.

Actually there are loads of examples, from both Republic and Empire of Roman troops getting carried away with pursuits... even when commanded by the likes of Caesar. Though they were well drilled and well disciplined they were also prone to fits of enthusiasm and sudden onset of nerves, unless kept well in hand by their commanders.

As a separate question, how does the PC game currently do VMD? I haven't seen that described in the on line help and I wonder if that could be tweaked so that any long or short result in the TT game would end up being plus or minus a hex in the PC game if currently it would only treat a plus or minus 2 MU result as significant in the PC game due to the hex grid quantification. Or maybe treat a 1 MU plus or minus as a 50/50 chance of being no change versus a full hex change.

Mostly thinking on the fly here for possible solutions.

Chris

Keith needs to comment on this as I dont know the ins and outs of the evade code.

batesmotel wrote: On the table top the LH does not have much chance of catching the LF either .......

That is incorrect. If the LF come within javelin range of the LH then they are likely to be caught, as javelin range is 2MU and LH move 2 MU more than LF. That is why it is suicidal for LF to get within javelin range of LF (unless close enough to terrain or friendly troops so that they will evade through them and be safe).

iainmcneil wrote:We're happy to hear suggestions on how it should work, but they need to integrate with the system and not break anything else

Well either LH have to move 2 hexes more than LF so that they will catch them, or give a bonus of 1 MP movement if the charge target evades.

Polkovnik wrote:

batesmotel wrote: On the table top the LH does not have much chance of catching the LF either .......

That is incorrect. If the LF come within javelin range of the LH then they are likely to be caught, as javelin range is 2MU and LH move 2 MU more than LF. That is why it is suicidal for LF to get within javelin range of LF (unless close enough to terrain or friendly troops so that they will evade through them and be safe).

You are right. For some reason I was thinking LH vs LH (or LF vs LF) distances when I wrote that and clearly it should not be true for LH charging LF.

Chris

As for evades, my wish would be a doctrine setting you can selected for the entire game, for each turn or for each unit. Options would be: always evade, only evade if outclassed, or never evade.

This was brought up in beta and never implemented, so I'm not counting on it. However, it would be nice have my heavy cav holding a key position actually stay and fight even at a disadvantage, or be able to send out my light troops to skirmish knowing they will in fact skirmish.

Deeter

deeter wrote:As for evades, my wish would be a doctrine setting you can selected for the entire game, for each turn or for each unit. Options would be: always evade, only evade if outclassed, or never evade.

This was brought up in beta and never implemented, so I'm not counting on it. However, it would be nice have my heavy cav holding a key position actually stay and fight even at a disadvantage, or be able to send out my light troops to skirmish knowing they will in fact skirmish.

Deeter

That really sounds like the right solution so hopefully they will do something like that. The current behavior for Cavalry especially in terms of predicting when it will and won't evade can be quite frustrating.

Chris

deeter wrote:As for evades, my wish would be a doctrine setting you can selected for the entire game, for each turn or for each unit. Options would be: always evade, only evade if outclassed, or never evade.

It could be simpler than that, and just have an evade / don't evade flag on each unit that can evade. If you can change this at any time, in your turn you can look at what possible enemy units could charge your unit and set the flag accordingly. No decision process is then required by the computer.

regarding evaders (or in this case routers) out running LH, I had a unit of Roman infantry that was broken, charged it with my LH. At the end of the turn it routs off, towards my army even, and for some reason my LH loses contact with it. Guess I must have had a 1 for pursuit and the Romans rolled a 7