Slitherine

Morbio wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 2:25 pm If you don't like the situation then why not do an about face?

If the infantry attack you break off and can move normally next turn. If they stand you can move normally next turn. Problem solved!

Why change the logic which is good for the infantry, and is one of the limited few options they have against cavalry!

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:30 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:50 pm Yes, all I am suggesting is something to break up the predictability of this sort of situation just a little bit.

What about this ?
1) The charge/break off mechanisms remain unchanged.
2) The fall back mechanism changes :
You click on the second square and you have 5-10% of chance of moving 3 squares backwards.
Of course, you take a cohesion test.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:04 pm

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 6:30 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat Mar 21, 2020 5:50 pm Yes, all I am suggesting is something to break up the predictability of this sort of situation just a little bit.

What about this ?
1) The charge/break off mechanisms remain unchanged.
2) The fall back mechanism changes :
You click on the second square and you have 5-10% of chance of moving 3 squares backwards.
Of course, you take a cohesion test.

Hmm. I am not sure about the extra click required here, or the cohesion test. Just keep everything the same with a chance that the cavalry will re-group 3 squares away instead of 2. I am now thinking this might happen 20% of the time so 4 out of 5 times nothing would change at all.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:04 pm I am not sure about the extra click required here (...)

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:04 pm I am not sure about (...) the cohesion test.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 3:04 pm I am now thinking this might happen 20% of the time so 4 out of 5 times nothing would change at all.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:20 pm Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around?

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:37 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:20 pm Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around?

I guess it would be indeed more simple to code and understand. Exceptions (I mean pussyfooting) is bad.
But wouldn't it make cavalry too agile ? Would it be only for cavalry or also for infantry ?

Besides I had a question about that. Is the probability to fail the cohesion test higher when clicking on the 'second' square than on the first one ?
If not, it could be an option for a 1, 2, 3 square fall back.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:24 pm What historical evidence is there of cavalry being frozen in place by infantry to their front?

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:24 pm Aren't the cavalry supposed to be more mobile?

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:24 pm This like other discussions is going down the same path with a few people saying they like the situation as it is and that is the end of it.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:20 pm Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:06 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:20 pm Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

That sounds pretty logical and a good idea.

Mairtin wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:56 pm From the shieldwalls point of view, they are also stuck. Either you sit still and let the cavalry run around you, or you press forward.
A solution for both the cavalry and shieldwall is to get a buddy to turn up, admittedly not always possible.
The situation really only arises in a one on one, as soon as the infantry are ZOC'ed out of advancing, the cavalry can do as they please, and when they are the infantry flanks are likely to get hit sooner or later.
If the cavalry can disrupt the foot, then it's likely to be over quickly. The foot doesn't have much chance to be able to do the same.

Cavalry can already run rings around foot most of the time, admittedly pushing someone off the edge is less than ideal, but even if you do you still have to worry about them returning.
I'm not sure there is a solution, giving cavalry even more advantage seems less than ideal.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:39 pm I guess no ones grabbed by the idea of infantry being forbidden to enter a mounted zoc and stop( but it could charge if it had enough ap’s) ? It would mitigate what Pete illustrated but still give the infantry and mounted some options. I just hate the idea of infantry zippy around and pinning Cavalry. I’d test it out if I could figure out to code it.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:03 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:06 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 4:20 pm Why not just increase the fallback distance of cavalry to 3 squares instead of all this pussyfooting around? What historical evidence is there for cavalry having trouble breaking contact from infantry?

That sounds pretty logical and a good idea.

I am not opposed really but would it throw out the balance between infantry and cavalry in the game as a whole too much? What would be the unintended consequences of such a change? That's why, at the moment, I am suggesting only a % chance of a 3 square fall back.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:53 am I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:13 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:53 am I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

Well, it would solve the current predictability that we have at the moment in these situations. That is all I am really asking for.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:48 pm What is wrong with MPV7's idea of cavalry being able to about turn and move 1, 2 or 3 squares away from an enemy unit directly to their front always ending facing away from said enemy unit? No random movement simply a move directly to their rear of up to 3 squares (one less square than their normal allowed forward movement so cataphracts would get 2 squares). They should still have to test for cohesion. The arguments against it say that it could upset the balance between cav and infantry but isn't the current problem that the balance isn't quite correct? The balance can be assessed in a beta test. I cannot see how this can be deemed unhistorical or illogical behaviour.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:53 am I don't think random 3 square break-off would really solve anything as it would be random:

If you have just individual cavalry units stuck against infantry, they would still be stuck against infantry for no apparent reason and most likely for extended time. This is the situations where being stuck makes the least sense as well. If you have an entire line of cavalry stuck against infantry line then you don't really need the occasional random extra fall-backs as the ZoCs of other units will give you ways to defuse the situation.

The break-off approach also still has the inherent issue of requiring the cavalry to frontally charge the infantry to break-off which makes no sense.

Using the fall-back (rather than break-off) system for moving the cavalry by 3 squares and/or rotating them would not be risk free move as it would always trigger the cohesion test that can more often be avoided by charge and bounce.

If the cavalry also rotated after 2 and/or 3 square fall-back that would be very close to how evasion currently works and would have pretty similar dynamic overall so there shouldn't be any massive meta changes to current cavalry balance as result. I think the main effect would be that it would become harder to pin down cavalry units with infantry.

I think rotation after fall-back would also be more realistic than the current weird inability of the cavalry to fall-back without turning back towards the enemy at the end. I'm pretty sure the horses are not assumed to be literally reversing in these situations.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:39 pm I guess no ones grabbed by the idea of infantry being forbidden to enter a mounted zoc and stop( but it could charge if it had enough ap’s) ? It would mitigate what Pete illustrated but still give the infantry and mounted some options. I just hate the idea of infantry zippy around and pinning Cavalry. I’d test it out if I could figure out to code it.

I don't think it's a good approach to compensate the cavalry's lack of mobility by reducing the infantry's mobility.

I also don't think this would be very realistic as in the situation described by Pete the cavalry has just broken-off and is falling back. There's no way they would be able to hinder the advance of the heavy infantry in this situation.

It's also comes frighteningly close to the biggest problem I had with P&S/SJ (which thankfully was fixed in FoG2) where mixed and medium infantry could not charge cavalry under normal circumstances. It constantly caused absurd situations where cavalry was physically blocking pike/spear armed infantry from moving forward or situations where one unit of Chinese mixed was being slowly destroyed by cavalry and the other infantry units were unable to intervene.

There is no way a stationary cavalry unit can hold ground against infantry. Cavalry may charge an approaching infantry unit but if they don't start breaking the cavalry has no options but to fall back and regroup which means the infantry can move forward little by little. Cavalry can slow down infantry, as it practically does in FoG2, but it can't prevent infantry from moving forward in the long run.