Field of Glory v1.2.6

[batesmotel]

Hello
According to TT rules should only be able to evade the units that can evade a frontal charge.
I noticed that when I charge against the rear of cavalry armed with lance this evades when it should not be able to do it.
The units can evade in the TT, are, if I remember correctly, LF, LH and non-shock CV, deployed in a line (not applicable), provided the escape route(direct to the contrary direction to the charge)is not blocked by enemy units .
Mikel

Thanks Mikel!
So, Iain, is like this how the PC game should work?? LF, LH and Cav (except shock??) evading rear charges??

Only troops that are allowed to evade in general will be able to evade rear charges. This includes LF, LH, LCh and non-shock cavalry.

Chris

[batesmotel]

Change: Logic: Units that are charged in the rear will now evade in most circumstances.

This is leading to some silly results and introducing more gamey play.

In a game I was just playing my poor LF Bowmen rear-charged average LF Javelinmen and they evaded. This is similar to the LH Bowmen rear-charging LH Javelinmen evade I pasted in the Tech Support thread. This is making it really difficult to attack some units and is removing what would be the preferred method of attack for most units, i.e. the surprise attack from the rear.

So, it seems if you have a skirmisher unit in trouble, perhaps being persued by other weaker skirmisher units then turn away from the enemy and they can't attack. How daft is that to expose your rear as a defence?

In the TT rules BGs that are allowed to evade do not receive any penalty for being charged in the rear other than it restricts their options for evades direction compared to a frontal charge at them. Since the PC rules do not allow a choice of evade direction to the owning player, this is irrelevant to the PC version. Arguing against evading from a rear charge because it makes evading troops harder to catch is at best a bandage for rules which need a more substantial fix to work well.

What really needs to be fixed for evades is:

1) Allowing the owning player some control about which troops (of the types allowed to evade) should evade and in what circumstances.
2) The charge distance for units charging evaders needs to be fixed so that faster troops will most likely catch slower evaders, and so that chargers who move at the same speed or slightly slower will have a chance to catch evaders if they start close enough to the evaders, i.e. withing 1 hex.
3) Evaders should end up facing in the direction they evaded so if they are caught it will be a rear attack by the charger.

Chris

[deeter]

The devs say they don't want to clutter up the UI to give us evade cchoice control, but now we've got that right clic to dismount or deploy stakes, none of which light troops can do, so I don't see what the problem is.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

We said we didnt want to offer an evade option because of teh flow - asking for input outside of your turn. We didnt say we were not going to let you choose to evade or not

[kujalar]

If voting for evade options I would definetly vote for yes.
To hell with AI, it is always crappy and can't entertain you for a long time.
Multiplay is the name of the game!

[CaptainHuge]

Personally, I would vote against evade options. It might make sense in a table top setting where you have to manually move the figures anyway, but realistically, how many commanders controlled how their light troops evaded? Not having absolute control of evasion seems more realistic.

[Morbio]

...It might make sense in a table top setting where you have to manually move the figures anyway,....

So, in the PC game the units move themselves? Ah, you must be talking about anarchy!


I'd like to think that the Generals gave their unit commanders some parameters to work with before the battle. I'm sure that once they saw the troops lined up they must've given some guidance to their cavalry and skirmishers, i.e. whether to evade or not, and I'm sure the unit commanders made some decisions on the fly based on what they saw happening around them and the information they were receiving from messengers and scouts.

So, I do think some form of guidance to the units is acceptable and has some logical basis in history. I also think that it shouldn't be hard and fast, because there should be a chance of local decisions, anarchy and being caught by surprise. So, a unit that is given the guidance to evade all conflict, should have a small chance of being caught or attacking without orders. Similarly, any unit given guidance to engage the enemy and not let them through, should have a small chance of evading. I know this sounds odd, from one of the biggest critics of anarchy, but I do believe anarchy is valid - it just needs to be the exception, not the norm.

[kujalar]

I do not think there is absolute control , if you could choose from maybe three doctrines,

cautious - evade all
normal(default) - current behaviour
bold - engage all

, and there could be cohesion checks to see whether the order is followed, or reverted to default.
I think it could be a good thing to say to skirmishers who are deployed a far away from mainline, "you should be cautious, get back from there in one piece!"
and to skirmishers near your main force "Hold on! Our heavies will back you up!"

[kujalar]

It just is dumb that if you have poor quality skirmishers, and your opponent has average, you can put your poor quality further away to harash your opponent... and if you put average there, they will be eaten alive.