Skirmishing

[deadtorius]

It brings the game in closer to the TT rules that way. On the TT you can either let your lights run or you can try to make them stand and receive a charge from anything, even knights and cataphracts. You have to pass a CMT to do it, but my pikes have had the misfortune of having Roman lights who their general decides to try and make stand and the little buggers will normally pass the test and I have to fight them off instead of closing on his heavies that I wanted to tangle it up with.
Right now you have no choice in how your lights will react and if they stand people don't like it as they get tangled up in melee then get charged by something heavier and they lose 2 break points for the lights, if they run others complain you can't catch the sneaky little buggers. We can only hope that having some choice in whether to run all the time, act as they do now or do suicide stands will improve the game. I personally am looking forward to it myself. If someone wants to make their skirmish line stand fast and let my heavies and lancers take them on, thats fine I don't mind taking the break points on them. Personally I would rather see my guys beat it behind that big line of heavies to their rear, unless I am up against a bow army and really need them to stand fast and block the shooting, then its keep them close and bring up the nasties to take on what ever charged my line of lights.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, I agree that it works out on the TT where you only have several lights that are battle groups... i dont think it would be worth sacrificing one of those in a TT game, you just dont have the same # of individual uits running around... In PC, you regulary have light style armies with 70 plus units altogether....

[deeter]

I think it will be a good thing to be able to field average or better skirmishers that will retreat from poor LF -- something they don't do now which makes them pretty useless at skirmishing. Their agression should be adjustable by situation and it doesn't need to be by unit either. I would set stance universally if I could.

Also, I believe mounted will have agression settings which will be great. I'm really tired of watching my averge HC up hill from an attacker run off because they have slightly lower odds at impact, when they might actually have an advantage in melee. It's crazy. If I put heavy troops in position to guard the flank, they had better do it or die.

Deeter

[deadtorius]

I wasn't to sure if they had said it would apply to mounted as well but that is what I had thought I had read somewhere. Mounted and lights need some stiffening up, or sensible flight as it were.

[kujalar]

During ancient times skirmishing was often ritualistic move which was done first, before the battle. The outcome of the skirmish could rise or lower the morale of the whole army as it was an indication who was favored by the gods. Skirmishers were often the youngest soldiers in army. Skirmishers clashed between the lines while heavy troops stand and watch. After a brief clash the skirmishers were called back and they retreated behind heavies, and turned to the flanks. After all this the main line started to advance. This might happen if all lights are set to low aggression and they just evade melee and throw missiles. So I think the aggression level is good thing compared to current situation where you can pin skirmishers very easily.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, hear are my concerns (reiterated)

If a player has a LOTS of lights and sets them across the board to "alway evade", how is one going to ever have a chance to catch them ? (especially as cvalary is only mildly effectibve in doing so)

Realistically, one really cant force enough lights to evade off map to achieve victory (and would be a completely unsatifying game if you could, for both players)

I just dont see the stances changing the ping ponging and continual use of lights to pin other lights as the primary mean of dealing with lights, with the exception that now any light might hold or NOT evade.
All it is going to do is possibly increase lights meleeing eachother whn that eally should be an exception, not the norm.

I would be much happier if a differnt solution was found, maybe just make it so no unit can evade another if the unit has the same weight class ...

ie knights, lancers cats are heaviest
reg cavalry(regardless of weapon) next
light cavalry next
light foot last

thus units can only attempt to evade from the bracket above them
so that light foot can be caught , i would suggest light foot evades be based off the cavalry units movement allowance, minus one
So a knight facing a Light foot 2 hexes away will be able to catch the bugger when the knight charges
reg cavalry will catch 3 hexes away etc etc
Would make play a little more realistic, ie no more sending javelineers 1 hex away from cavaly of any sort with impunity

Finaly light foot vs light foot: Well, since they cant evade from eachother (as same weight) and we dont want them meleeing eachother excessivley, the solution would be light foot would need to pass a significantly difficult anarchy test to charge another light foot.... Really only superior units (ie Agrianians etc) would have a good chance to charge another light foot...
If you try it with low quality or unsuited lights, well you would just be wasting theri turn....

Oh well, just my opinion

[batesmotel]

Well, hear are my concerns (reiterated)

If a player has a LOTS of lights and sets them across the board to "alway evade", how is one going to ever have a chance to catch them ? (especially as cvalary is only mildly effectibve in doing so)

Realistically, one really cant force enough lights to evade off map to achieve victory (and would be a completely unsatifying game if you could, for both players)

I just dont see the stances changing the ping ponging and continual use of lights to pin other lights as the primary mean of dealing with lights, with the exception that now any light might hold or NOT evade.
All it is going to do is possibly increase lights meleeing eachother whn that eally should be an exception, not the norm.

I would be much happier if a differnt solution was found, maybe just make it so no unit can evade another if the unit has the same weight class ...

ie knights, lancers cats are heaviest
reg cavalry(regardless of weapon) next
light cavalry next
light foot last

thus units can only attempt to evade from the bracket above them
so that light foot can be caught , i would suggest light foot evades be based off the cavalry units movement allowance, minus one
So a knight facing a Light foot 2 hexes away will be able to catch the bugger when the knight charges
reg cavalry will catch 3 hexes away etc etc
Would make play a little more realistic, ie no more sending javelineers 1 hex away from cavaly of any sort with impunity

Finally light foot vs light foot: Well, since they cant evade from eachother (as same weight) and we dont want them meleeing eachother excessivley, the solution would be light foot would need to pass a significantly difficult anarchy test to charge another light foot.... Really only superior units (ie Agrianians etc) would have a good chance to charge another light foot...
If you try it with low quality or unsuited lights, well you would just be wasting theri turn....

Oh well, just my opinion

This would make the behavior of skirmishers/evaders substantially different in FoG PC the in FoG TT. In the TT rules, the owner of the skirmishers/potential evaders may make a decision in each case whether the BG will evade or stand. In the case of skirmishers charged by non-skirmishers in open, then the skirmishers must pass a complex move test (PC Anarchy test) in order to stand to receive the charge. It is unfeasible in the PC version for multi-player to allow the owner of the troops to make the decision at the time of the charge so allowing a policy to be set for each BG each turn seems like a reasonable equivalent. In addition, on the TT the owner of the evading BG also has some choice in the direction of the evade which normally may either be away form the charge or toward the original rear of the unit. The combination of not being able to choose when to evade based on the actual charging unit and the corresponding position of other enemy troops at the time of the charge should remove enough player control of the evaders to make up for the larger number of skirmishers in the PC version and the larger size of armies in general. One thing that might make sense would be to have a melee penalty for non-shock cavalry that has either an always evade or evade from stronger enemy option. This would be equivalent to the TT requirement that cavalry be in a single rank to evade.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

I do agree that the PC and TT are differnent, no doudt..... I mean , a heavy infantry based army in ROR might have maybe 2-3 bg's of light foot? Wheras the same army in the pc will have 10-12, if not more!

I guess if lights (as envisoned by the new rules due October) have to pass an anacrchy test to stand up to heavies (if they were set to agressive, for example) I guess it would alleviate some of my concerns.....

Not sure what you mean by cavalry getting a melee penalty if set to low agression (ie always evade) Arnt they going to be to buising evading to fight anyhow?

Actually you indirectly raise a point about how the stance settings will be handled on the user end
When do they take effect? Do you need to set them at the start of the turn BEFORE a unit moves? Change them back and forth while you are taking your turn?? Does changing the stance use up all the units "action" for the turn??

Too many questions and only one source for answeres (Slitherix)

[batesmotel]

I do agree that the PC and TT are differnent, no doudt..... I mean , a heavy infantry based army in ROR might have maybe 2-3 bg's of light foot? Wheras the same army in the pc will have 10-12, if not more!

I guess if lights (as envisoned by the new rules due October) have to pass an anacrchy test to stand up to heavies (if they were set to agressive, for example) I guess it would alleviate some of my concerns.....

Not sure what you mean by cavalry getting a melee penalty if set to low agression (ie always evade) Arnt they going to be to buising evading to fight anyhow?

Actually you indirectly raise a point about how the stance settings will be handled on the user end
When do they take effect? Do you need to set them at the start of the turn BEFORE a unit moves? Change them back and forth while you are taking your turn?? Does changing the stance use up all the units "action" for the turn??

Too many questions and only one source for answeres (Slitherix)

The settings would not have any effect on the unit on your turn although possibly changing them might. So I would think that changing them would take place at the end of a BGs move on your turn or take the place of some or all of the move similar to the way changing facing or placing stakes does. If cavalry has a current setting of always evade or evade from stronger, it would then have the melee penalty if it initiates combat on your turn or is engaged in combat (either by failing to evade successfully or by standing against a charge by an equivalent or weaker opponent). i have no idea to what degree the implementers at Hexwar have even thought about the details of how it should work yet.

Chris