Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:59 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:58 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:26 am

Yes, it can be 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit, as I said above. But they will only turn 45 degrees from what would have been the next direction of their pursuit.

So they are only in fact veering off the projected pursuit path by 45 degrees, even though that may mean a 90 degree turn from their previous facing.

If you look at a projected path as progression through the squares, when leaving the last square they were heading to the bottom right corner of the next square when on entering that square they turned 90 degrees and initiated combat with a unit across from the bottom left corner of the square they were entering.

Yes, you don't have to convince me that they may turn 90 degrees, I have already said so myself twice.

But the issue is where they would have gone next if they had continued to pursue instead of charging the new unit. The angle between those directions will not be more than 45 degrees. As I have said, this does mean that units will sometimes change direction by 90 degrees, but it will be no more than 45 degrees from where they would have gone if they had continued to pursue.

I seem to be repeating myself, but I don't know how else to explain it.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:07 amI have the same feeling and I am also finding it difficult to explain but I think we are not saying the same thing. Where they would have gone next is the bottom right corner of the square but where they are going is the bottom left corner which is a 90 degree turn seeing they started their move in the top left corner heading towards the bottom right corner.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:26 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 10:07 amI have the same feeling and I am also finding it difficult to explain but I think we are not saying the same thing. Where they would have gone next is the bottom right corner of the square but where they are going is the bottom left corner which is a 90 degree turn seeing they started their move in the top left corner heading towards the bottom right corner.

Where they would have gone next is not the bottom right hand corner of the square, that is just the facing resulting from their move into their current square from their previous square. Where they would in fact have gone next is the next square that the routing unit moved through.

If that was the square directly to the bottom of their current square, then turning to charge the unit in the bottom left corner of the square only represents a 45 degree deviation from their pursuit route, even though it results in an overall turn of 90 degrees from their prior facing.

gamercb wrote: ↑Wed Apr 10, 2019 9:43 pm So what you are saying is that if they would have turned 45 degrees to continue the pursuit, they can turn another 45 degrees to charge a new unit. That seems wrong and definitely looks wrong when you suddenly find yourself being flanked by a unit that was in pursuit. I would have thought that units pursuing should not attack another unit until they have stopped pursuing.

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:56 pm I'll just throw in my own little gripe with the cavalry pursuit mechanics - sometimes pursruing cavalry decides that charging elephants in the flank is a great idea.
It obviously isn't and most of the time just means that your cavalry gets swiftly destroyed.
Any chance it could be addressed in the future?