No rear charge POA

[dazzam]

Yes I think it's fair enough that sometimes troops won't charge if disrupted even if it's in their favour but you'd have to think that there would be more refusals to charge when they are clearly outmatched than in cases where they clearly had the advantage. I think it's fairly easy to incorporate these sort of factors into the CMT test..maybe add 1 to the dice for each POA of the resulting combat or subtract 1 for each - POA. This may reduce the suicidal anarchy charges give some greater degree of realism to decisions made my troops in deciding to disobey orders.

After all troops disobeying orders on the field have to make a decision on facing the wrath of command after the battle and the chances of being around after the battle to face that wrath. If I was in a battlegroup with some decent armour and a decent spear but as a unit a little bit disrupted I'd probably more inclined to obey the order to charge if the chaps I was directed to were a bunch of light foot with slings and facing the other way compared to charging up a hill to meet heavily armoured knights accompanied by the banner of the king..but maybe that's just me.

[cothyso]

In the bug I've posted in the Beta forum, my LC was not disrupted at all, while the HC was disrupted. Though, both formations were Very Disordered, and the "rules" (I'm using "rules" to point the fact that there is no definitive known set of game rules, as all of them are outdated) say this accounts as Fragmented, though doesn't explicitly says in which calculations are counted as that.


The bug is that the LC doesn't get any PoA for attacking in the rear (The "rules" are saying that no light gets a bonus for rear attack, which seems kinds strange to me considering a LC attack from the rear, with Light Spears as combat weapon), while the HC gets a strange +0 PoA for "Attacker's next to defender's rear" which is an even stranger PoA in itself.



No response until now.

[deadtorius]

its a change in the game from the TT to the PC version of the game. On the TT LH will get the ++ for a rear charge but their target does not drop a cohesion level. For some reason the devs decided against this. Same is true for Mobs that move as MF on the TT but the devs decided to move them as HF in the PC game. I had questioned that one a long time ago and was told it was a decision they made for some reason that was never explained.

As for being disrupted and anarchy charging, your odds of an uncontrolled charge on the TT go up as the -1 to the CMT will make it more likely you will charge. The thought being that the unit wants to get payback on the bastads that disrupted them in the first place. On the TT there are several exceptions to anarchy charges, such as only lights are in range, target is elephants, target is in or beyond very disordering terrain that do not appear in the PC version of the game. The human mind can reason easier than the devs can program the AI I guess.

[TheGrayMouser]

My guess is Light Horse do not get the auto cohesion drop when hitting heavies in the rear is a game blance thing. Just think how many LH one can get with some armies, Do you want all batles revovling around light horse scrambling to the rear to shatter pike and legion battlelines every game? Considering how nimble and evasive they can be (especially with the new evasion rules, har har) they would dominate IMHO

[cothyso]

Not if the rear attack is implemented properly (like in only possible when the attacked unit is already engaged, or within another enemy unit's frontal ZOC, so it couldn't turn to face the rear attack; otherwise the attacked unit should auto-face, if not phalanx). And if enemy cavalry units gets behind your main battleline, you should be rightly punished with rear attacks for the folly of allowing them to get into that position on you.

Keep in mind that at Cannae for example, it was the carthaginian LC the one which closed the trap and sealed the fate of almost 70.000 roman HI, attacking them from behind.