Breakoff
Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:06 pm
It is obligatory if conditions are met. It reads, "Otherwise, mounted troops break off if . . ." the steady foot test is met seems clear. Then there is the wording of the rest of the section, including the penalty if "a battle group that should break off is unable to move back at least 1MU . . . ." The word "must" in the rules seems used mainly to fit the sentence structure or emphasize things I suspect playtesting showed were being misconstrued.
The break-off mechanic is well done and gives a nice historical feel.
I tried lighter Cav Sup/Avg Prot Lancers/Sw 1 deep against Sup Arm legionaires. The cav finally won after a long fight mainly due to good fortune including boxcars on general rolls and breaking the Roman flank supports. Mathematically, the odds favored the Romans. The mounted want to charge as much as possible and avoid getting stuck in extended melees since the POA and rolls are dead even on Impact but with the depth and lighter armor the POA swings to the Romans on melees. The Cataphracts have staying power in melee thanks to their armor - the goal is to disrupt the Romans and keep stuck in melee. For hard charging but lighter lancers, the focus is on impact, not melee.
The break-off mechanic is well done and gives a nice historical feel.
I tried lighter Cav Sup/Avg Prot Lancers/Sw 1 deep against Sup Arm legionaires. The cav finally won after a long fight mainly due to good fortune including boxcars on general rolls and breaking the Roman flank supports. Mathematically, the odds favored the Romans. The mounted want to charge as much as possible and avoid getting stuck in extended melees since the POA and rolls are dead even on Impact but with the depth and lighter armor the POA swings to the Romans on melees. The Cataphracts have staying power in melee thanks to their armor - the goal is to disrupt the Romans and keep stuck in melee. For hard charging but lighter lancers, the focus is on impact, not melee.