180 degrees turning

[Strategos69]

I do not like the idea of the CMT leading to dampen logical manouvers (like turning when you have an enemy behind you), but rather taking CT's. Therefore, you move as you wished but you face the consequences (losing cohesion in the unit), which is something that might likely happen. In my opinion CMT should be substitued by CT in all cases so that generals do not play moving around without any risk. Thus you check to turn being close to the enemy, you fail and drop any cohesion levels depending on the result and then you make the turn. For sure, these would not apply if troops are far away from the enemy (6 MU).

As it has been said, turning and moving seems too much advantage too. I can't see an auto turn of 180 without making those troops losing a cohesion point for the incertitude of having an enemy behind them.

[grahambriggs]

The history buffs will be better than I at that bit but deep in memory I think I recall that a hoplite army did retire from enemy and reform on new lines

Are you referring to Platea maybe? The Greeks tried but they had to start that movement overnight and had to stop as soon as the Persian cavalry started skirmishing them. And there you have the anecdote of the Spartan mora commander who refused to give ground. Given that in FoG there are not pushbacks, that hastati and principes are merged into one unit, etc, I would not worry about small movements which might have happened in a few battles (in fact, it was suggested that if you did that kind of movement in certain situations a CT and not a CMT would be more accurate) and would rather try to solve 2 by ignoring 1. This is true mainly for infantry (heavium and medium). I think that cavalry (even knights) can be treated differently and "more generously".

Plataea wasn't a withdrawl during a battle (The Greeks had occupied their position for some time without the Persians attacking). It was mor a slipping away under cover of night. It was a complete mess, as the army split into three parts withoput that being the commander's intention.

[lawrenceg]

Auto 180 would penalize the enemy who just got into a tasty charge position.

Yes, but is it realistic, that a barbarian BG, with no foes to the front, would sit still while a bunch of lancers or elephants charge to their back from whatever hundred meters distance?

If you want to charge the back of the enemy, you should either be ambushed or pin the target with troops in his front.

As most troops can turn 180 voluntarily without a CMT, or move straight ahead to get out of charge range, in most cases the enemy who just got into a tasty charge position would not be disadvantaged. It would make "undrilled other" less vulnerable, but I get the impression that these are not exactly the troops of choice (with the possible exception of knights).

In any case, as VMadeira pointed out, if you want to charge the rear you can pin the target from the front with, for example, LF, which should be no great hardship.

I think this idea is well worth trying.

[Strategos69]

Plataea wasn't a withdrawl during a battle (The Greeks had occupied their position for some time without the Persians attacking). It was mor a slipping away under cover of night. It was a complete mess, as the army split into three parts withoput that being the commander's intention.

I know, but it is the closest I have found for Greeks and Persians. In fact the Greeks stopped that movement when the Persian cavalry headed towards them in the morning. It really shows that those movements are not a good idea. I can't imagine how it had worked during the day! Therefore turning 180 degrees with an enemy in front of you should not be easy to do.

[spikemesq]

Auto 180 would penalize the enemy who just got into a tasty charge position.

Yes, but is it realistic, that a barbarian BG, with no foes to the front, would sit still while a bunch of lancers or elephants charge to their back from whatever hundred meters distance?

If you want to charge the back of the enemy, you should either be ambushed or pin the target with troops in his front.

As most troops can turn 180 voluntarily without a CMT, or move straight ahead to get out of charge range, in most cases the enemy who just got into a tasty charge position would not be disadvantaged. It would make "undrilled other" less vulnerable, but I get the impression that these are not exactly the troops of choice (with the possible exception of knights).

In any case, as VMadeira pointed out, if you want to charge the rear you can pin the target from the front with, for example, LF, which should be no great hardship.

I think this idea is well worth trying.

Let me make sure I understand this. The proposal is:

What if, BG's with enemies on their back (if the enemy is turned on their direction), automatically turn to face them (these should be the basic instinct of any soldier), unless they pass a CMT, or also have enemies to their front.

So troops losing a turning battle, such as Undrilled HF, would benefit from the enemy getting behind them instead of merely to their flank. On the flank, the HF need a CMT to face the enemy. If instead, they ignore the flank threat and move forward to put the threat to their rear, they auto-180 to face it??

So one-on-one maneuvers should shift from a turn/deny dogfight into a "blast forward to pivot back" exchange?

Moreover, troops that try to redeploy by turning 90/180 should have less risk against nearby enemy because they can avoid flank threats two ways (keep the enemy to their front or to their rear to set up the auto-180)?

Really?

I am all for dialing back the 180/90 turns and dancing drilled infantry, but this change seems to make those maneuvers more useful, not less, because it strips out the risk of rear charges.

[lawrenceg]

Let me make sure I understand this. The proposal is:

What if, BG's with enemies on their back (if the enemy is turned on their direction), automatically turn to face them (these should be the basic instinct of any soldier), unless they pass a CMT, or also have enemies to their front.

So troops losing a turning battle, such as Undrilled HF, would benefit from the enemy getting behind them instead of merely to their flank. On the flank, the HF need a CMT to face the enemy. If instead, they ignore the flank threat and move forward to put the threat to their rear, they auto-180 to face it??

So one-on-one maneuvers should shift from a turn/deny dogfight into a "blast forward to pivot back" exchange?

Moreover, troops that try to redeploy by turning 90/180 should have less risk against nearby enemy because they can avoid flank threats two ways (keep the enemy to their front or to their rear to set up the auto-180)?

Really?

I am all for dialing back the 180/90 turns and dancing drilled infantry, but this change seems to make those maneuvers more useful, not less, because it strips out the risk of rear charges.

Firstly, the risk of a rear charge is almost unaffected because everything apart from undrilled other can turn 180 without a CMT and undrilled other can move straight ahead which in many cases opens the distance beyond charge range. So usually there is no risk of a rear charge, which is precisely the problem to be solved.

Secondly, if you can get behind the enemy, then you can get on his flank, so you won't miss out on the opportunity to charge giving an automatic cohesion drop and ++ in impact.

Remember these are for isolated BGs. If there is anything in front of the target, it won't turn 180.

As has been pointed out several times on here, the drill for a 180 turn is much easier than for 90 degrees. Therefore this idea is not as unrealistic as you make it out to be.

I think if it was implemented as:

If enemy battle troops are within 6MU, directly behind the BG and facing it; and no enemy is within 6MU in front of the line extending its front edge, then the BG will turn 180 instead of moving, unless it passes a CMT. (in effect, turn 180 becomes a simple move and everything else becomes complex) This would apply only to BGs that lack the ability to evade.

it would not inconvenience manoeuvrable attackers very much. It would inconvenience BGs that turn their back to the enemy and run away.

I still prefer my suggestion of giving a CT to any BG that is not able to evade when enemy battle troops move into a position from which they could deliver a rear charge. However, I think the idea described above could work quite well as a method to make it more difficult to redeploy while enemy are chasing you.

[VMadeira]

So troops losing a turning battle, such as Undrilled HF, would benefit from the enemy getting behind them instead of merely to their flank. On the flank, the HF need a CMT to face the enemy. If instead, they ignore the flank threat and move forward to put the threat to their rear, they auto-180 to face it??

So one-on-one maneuvers should shift from a turn/deny dogfight into a "blast forward to pivot back" exchange?

Moreover, troops that try to redeploy by turning 90/180 should have less risk against nearby enemy because they can avoid flank threats two ways (keep the enemy to their front or to their rear to set up the auto-180)?

I was thinking that the enemy would have to be in the rear at the start of the turn. If a BG put himself voluntarily with his back to an enemy by moving forward as you describe, the opponent would have his turn to charge him in the back.

[spikemesq]

So troops losing a turning battle, such as Undrilled HF, would benefit from the enemy getting behind them instead of merely to their flank. On the flank, the HF need a CMT to face the enemy. If instead, they ignore the flank threat and move forward to put the threat to their rear, they auto-180 to face it??

So one-on-one maneuvers should shift from a turn/deny dogfight into a "blast forward to pivot back" exchange?

Moreover, troops that try to redeploy by turning 90/180 should have less risk against nearby enemy because they can avoid flank threats two ways (keep the enemy to their front or to their rear to set up the auto-180)?

I was thinking that the enemy would have to be in the rear at the start of the turn. If a BG put himself voluntarily with his back to an enemy by moving forward as you describe, the opponent would have his turn to charge him in the back.

That is the rub.

Lawrence's point on rear charges being rare with the current 180 move presumes a static enemy rear.

An "auto-180" rule suggests that troops can move to position their rear towards enemy and VOILA flip to face them. Call it the "buttocks of life." This reduces flank risks because troops with a naked flank need not turn on the threatened corner (e.g. to refuse the flank). Instead, they can merely turn on the other corner, show a little ass and flip on the enemy for free.

[lawrenceg]

So troops losing a turning battle, such as Undrilled HF, would benefit from the enemy getting behind them instead of merely to their flank. On the flank, the HF need a CMT to face the enemy. If instead, they ignore the flank threat and move forward to put the threat to their rear, they auto-180 to face it??

So one-on-one maneuvers should shift from a turn/deny dogfight into a "blast forward to pivot back" exchange?

Moreover, troops that try to redeploy by turning 90/180 should have less risk against nearby enemy because they can avoid flank threats two ways (keep the enemy to their front or to their rear to set up the auto-180)?

I was thinking that the enemy would have to be in the rear at the start of the turn. If a BG put himself voluntarily with his back to an enemy by moving forward as you describe, the opponent would have his turn to charge him in the back.

That is the rub.

Lawrence's point on rear charges being rare with the current 180 move presumes a static enemy rear.

An "auto-180" rule suggests that troops can move to position their rear towards enemy and VOILA flip to face them. Call it the "buttocks of life." This reduces flank risks because troops with a naked flank need not turn on the threatened corner (e.g. to refuse the flank). Instead, they can merely turn on the other corner, show a little ass and flip on the enemy for free.

No, you missed a critical detail of the proposed rule, which is:

You turn 180 if the enemy is behind you before your move NOT after.

If you expose your rear in your move, it stays exposed and the enemy just charges it.

If you start your move under a rear charge threat, you turn 180 and can't run away (unless you pass a CMT).

Provided you are fairly strict about the criteria causing the involuntary turn, it would be fairly hard for the flanked player to exploit the rule against a mobile threat, especially as undrilled other can't wheel without a CMT within 6 MU of enemy.