Slitherine

batesmotel wrote:If mounted are already in melee, adding a new impact opponent will not change when they break off. Mounted break off if half or more of their foot opponents are steady. This is different from TT rules and it should be if half or more of all their opponents are steady foot.

Chris

Right, i wasnt questioning that, what i noticed from using the editor is that one full "round" must pass before the cavalry attempts a break off so you impact an infantry unit, end turn, opponent resolves the melee , hits end turn AND THEN you will see the ist break off attempt....

However what I observed in a game last nite was an infantry unit that was just added to an existing cavalry battle on MY turn via impact, allowed the enemy BG to immedietly break off when I hit end turn. I had expected the unit wouldnt have been eligible to BO until my opponent resolved melees and hit end turn.....

TheGrayMouser wrote:

batesmotel wrote:If mounted are already in melee, adding a new impact opponent will not change when they break off. Mounted break off if half or more of their foot opponents are steady. This is different from TT rules and it should be if half or more of all their opponents are steady foot.

Chris

Right, i wasnt questioning that, what i noticed from using the editor is that one full "round" must pass before the cavalry attempts a break off so you impact an infantry unit, end turn, opponent resolves the melee , hits end turn AND THEN you will see the ist break off attempt....

However what I observed in a game last nite was an infantry unit that was just added to an existing cavalry battle on MY turn via impact, allowed the enemy BG to immedietly break off when I hit end turn. I had expected the unit wouldnt have been eligible to BO until my opponent resolved melees and hit end turn.....

The cavalry that you impacted this turn had already been in melee with your other BGs so it was eligible to break off at end if turn. The new infantry impact did not reset the timer, just changed the count of opponents so it did break off.

Chris

Yeah I came to that deduction as well, what Im not sure of if this is a conscience design decision or an oversite....

In the TT an infantry unit would have to go thru a whole combat cycle ie impact then resolve a melee before the cavalry will BO, in the situation I saw that is bypassed . Likly not a big deal but I can see how this knowledge could lead to a variety of exploits...

TheGrayMouser wrote:Yeah I came to that deduction as well, what Im not sure of if this is a conscience design decision or an oversite....

In the TT an infantry unit would have to go thru a whole combat cycle ie impact then resolve a melee before the cavalry will BO, in the situation I saw that is bypassed . Likly not a big deal but I can see how this knowledge could lead to a variety of exploits...

I think this is the intended behavior for the PC other than the 1/2 foot opponents versus 1/2 all opponents being steady foot. Cavalry break off on the TT is normally all in one player's turn, e.g. if the cavalry charges, it then fights impact and melee and then breaks off at the end of the owning player's turn. If the infantry initiates impact, then break off is at the end of the opposing player's turn. It's only in more complicated combats, often when a previously unsteady foot has bolstered back to steady that cavalry would be breaking off after multiple turns of combat.

Chris

The obvious consequence of this game mechanism is that you don't charge cav with inf to finish them off as it just gives those cav a get out of jail free card. For my money that seems a little silly. If at least they had to wait till they were in melee with the inf I would almost be in agreement with the ruling but as it stands I just think is one of those silly quirks within the game.

I think cav break offs in FOG are something that was severely broken and are now less so..but there is still some room for improvement.

maybe they should not be allowed to breakoff, if in contact with any cavalry. or at least the cav in contact should pursue any break-offs.

That would be my vote