Slitherine

ethan wrote:Ahh that is a fair point, you could word it something like this:
If the initial charge path, prior to any evades, would contact a non-skirmisher BGs rear edge the charging BG adds 2 MU to it normal move distance.
Probably easiest just to say "non skirmisher/not single rank Cv."

This does not cure the original problem though. With your plus 2MU, which takes up as many words, a BG can still about turn at 8MU, let the enemy get to 3 MU away and then move off without a care in the world. If the enemy is much faster moving add a wheel or a turn. Since undrilled foot don't do the turn about and walk away thing any troop type threatened by the extra 2 MU will not see it as much of a threat. And why are skirmishers excluded from your rule?

Phil

Like the intent but the rule wording would have to be precise. Would something like the below satisfy what you are trying to achieve?

'
Any move other than a route or evade that will finish futher away from the nearest known (i.e. ignore ambush markers) enemy BG counts as a complex move
'

That way it stops the move being automatic but allows a general to command the troops more effectively. No worry about skirmishers etc. You might like to add "within 9 MU" between 'enemy' and 'BG'.

This has only had 30 seconds thought - not 30 minutes but is deliberately simple.

Regards
Tim
(For even more fun instead of making it a CMT make the unit take a CT!)
P

timmy1 wrote:Like the intent but the rule wording would have to be precise. Would something like the below satisfy what you are trying to achieve?
Any move other than a route or evade that will finish futher away from the nearest known (i.e. ignore ambush markers) enemy BG counts as a complex move

CMT are only taken in the movement phase or JAP to stop looting or pursuing IIRC. So routs, evades etc do not need mentioning.

Tim the wise wrote:That way it stops the move being automatic but allows a general to command the troops more effectively. No worry about skirmishers etc. You might like to add "within 9 MU" between 'enemy' and 'BG'.

I thought 6MU best as that is where double moves stop. Also threatening enemy is the main point. So troop types that are ignored must be added to the rule/wording (well subtracted really) and the BG testing must be to the front of the enemy

Tim the wise but impetuous wrote:This has only had 30 seconds thought - not 30 minutes but is deliberately simple.

Well if you can concentrate for longer the girls would be happier. Or is it a case of why prolong the agony?

Tim wrote:Regards
Tim
(For even more fun instead of making it a CMT make the unit take a CT!)
P

Always fun is the main aim

My vote would be for all non-skirmishers to need a CMT to turn 180. Solves the problem in a simple and easy manner.

Polkovnik wrote:My vote would be for all non-skirmishers to need a CMT to turn 180. Solves the problem in a simple and easy manner.

no it doesn't. They turn 90 then move.

I like the idea in principle Phil, but reading the thread suggests that the wording will be difficult and the opportunities for cheese immense.

Why not just change the movement distances?

If all foot had a base move of 4MU, MF would lose their current advantage over HF. And both would have an increased chance of catching LF.

Combine that with a change to the VMD so that mounted double the gain or loss, so +2 or 4 and -2 or 4, and LH will start to be caught a lot more often too.

But I hope that once FoGR is up and running, the authors will have some time to address these and other issues.

Pete

Like that. How about keep EVERYTHING you listed except that MF and HF move 4MU if Unprotected or Protected, and 3MU if Armoured or Heavily Armoured?

(I use Principate Romans so this will not help me personally).

"Evaders are always caught on a roll of 6:1" would be fun - and simple.

petedalby wrote:I like the idea in principle Phil, but reading the thread suggests that the wording will be difficult and the opportunities for cheese immense.

Why not just change the movement distances?

If all foot had a base move of 4MU, MF would lose their current advantage over HF. And both would have an increased chance of catching LF.

Combine that with a change to the VMD so that mounted double the gain or loss, so +2 or 4 and -2 or 4, and LH will start to be caught a lot more often too.

But I hope that once FoGR is up and running, the authors will have some time to address these and other issues.

Instead of raising MU of HF drop HF,MF to 3mu LF to 4 Cavalry to 4 MU and LH to 6mu leave the VMD the same just doing this will make a difference it would solve a lot of the problums without loads of special wording rules

Instead of raising MU of HF drop HF,MF to 3mu LF to 4 Cavalry to 4 MU and LH to 6mu

All opinions are valid.

I'd raise HF to 4 MU because at the moment HF armies struggle and I think this would make them more viable.

petedalby wrote:

Instead of raising MU of HF drop HF,MF to 3mu LF to 4 Cavalry to 4 MU and LH to 6mu

All opinions are valid.

I'd raise HF to 4 MU because at the moment HF armies struggle and I think this would make them more viable.

I agree with you completely at the club last monday I gave up trying to chase a dom rom army with my Knights as they could turn 180 or turn 90 and move and since the moved at the same speed as my knights and faster than my foot i could never catch them. Most anonying no rules broken just not fun.

david53 wrote:I agree with you completely at the club last monday I gave up trying to chase a dom rom army with my Knights as they could turn 180 or turn 90 and move and since the moved at the same speed as my knights and faster than my foot i could never catch them. Most anonying no rules broken just not fun.

But raising HF movement speed will not help. You will still never catch the MF.

I think that you can have a couple of simple solutions without changing the movement.

First, any BG shooting at an enemy BG to the enemies' rear (or eventually the right flank) will get one PoA (or two if we want to be severe). That way enemy skirmishers can be countered more effectively with your own or with bowmen. If you think it carefully, it is not very wise to be facing the opposite direction to the enemy. Evading should also have a cost in cohesion levels.

Second, any BG except light troops who turns 180 (or even 90) within an enemy in 6 MU to its front drops one cohesion level. Who would order to turn around when the enemy is aproaching? And if a commander would do it, how would the troops feel? An ordered retreat can easily turn into a clear rout.

Strategos69 wrote: who turns 180 (or even 90) within an enemy in 6 MU to its front drops one cohesion level. Who would order to turn around when the enemy is aproaching?

1. Mongols would do it or any other Steppe army, thats what they do move up move away while killing you.

Strategos69 wrote: And if a commander would do it, how would the troops feel? An ordered retreat can easily turn into a clear rout.

Maybe drilled troops would do it?

david53 wrote: 1. Mongols would do it or any other Steppe army, thats what they do move up move away while killing you.

I would classify that type of fighting as light horse. And those would not drop any cohesion level.

david53 wrote: Maybe drilled troops would do it?

For sure they can and I am not thinking that it should not be avoided. The fact is that they did not do it that often and it could turn into an overall retreat. Imagine the impact in other tropps of watching some of your men turning around, even in good order. Maybe a CMT to check if the level is lost could be more adequate.

Strategos69 wrote:

david53 wrote: 1. Mongols would do it or any other Steppe army, thats what they do move up move away while killing you.

I would classify that type of fighting as light horse. And those would not drop any cohesion level.

Which is where we get to the point again that the distinction between LH and CV is mostly artificial. Aside from some guard units maybe steppe type armies did not have units with notably different fighting styles (i.e. LH and CV), they tended to switch from one mode to the other as required. As long as that's not in the game you can't limit a retreating fighting mode to LH.

madaxeman wrote:"Evaders are always caught on a roll of 6:1" would be fun - and simple.

Obviously I like that.

Another more complicated option could be mounted evading from foot, when the mounted roll a VMD of 6 or 5 they must take a CT to avoid dropping a level. This also potentially starts to make the evading troops pay a price.

madaxeman wrote:"Evaders are always caught on a roll of 6:1" would be fun - and simple.

Obviously I like that.

Another more complicated option could be mounted evading from foot, when the mounted roll a VMD of 6 or 5 they must take a CT to avoid dropping a level. This also potentially starts to make the evading troops pay a price.

philqw78 wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:My vote would be for all non-skirmishers to need a CMT to turn 180. Solves the problem in a simple and easy manner.

no it doesn't. They turn 90 then move.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. This thread is about the problem of enemy turning 180 and moving away. Requiring a CMT to turn 180 would stop that (or at least make it a very risk manoeuvre), as you wouldn't be sure of turning in the first place (so a battle line is likely to only turn a few units, not all) and you won't necessarily be able to turn back, so might be hit in the rear.

Maybe it should not apply to cavalry and light chariots (if in single rank) in addition to skirmishers though (in other words all troops who can evade), so they can turn to face the enemy after an evade.

Polkovnik wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

Polkovnik wrote:My vote would be for all non-skirmishers to need a CMT to turn 180. Solves the problem in a simple and easy manner.

no it doesn't. They turn 90 then move.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. This thread is about the problem of enemy turning 180 and moving away. Requiring a CMT to turn 180 would stop that (or at least make it a very risk manoeuvre), as you wouldn't be sure of turning in the first place (so a battle line is likely to only turn a few units, not all) and you won't necessarily be able to turn back, so might be hit in the rear.

Maybe it should not apply to cavalry and light chariots (if in single rank) in addition to skirmishers though (in other words all troops who can evade), so they can turn to face the enemy after an evade.

But the troops in question would simply turn 90 degrees and then move away instead. It will take longer to get away, but will still happen