Slitherine

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.

Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?

Paul59 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.

Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?

Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:23 am Yes but only when the normal PoA factors don't give you at least 50 PoA.

Imagine Off Spears charging Impact Foot on a downhill slope of less than 100 height. That is a net -75 PoA from any angle. But if you charge from the rear, the game will see that you have -75 PoA which is less than +50 and then award you +50 PoA as a final result for being a flanker.

If you were to reverse the scenario with Impact Foot charging downhill on Off Spears, that is a net +125 PoA from any angle. The game will see you have +125 PoA and thus not change anything.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Paul59 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm

Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?

Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Paul59 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm

Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.

Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.

Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).

It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented. And it happened twice in succesion.

Paul59 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:32 am Regarding the -75 POA, I think Richard is getting confused with another example that Mike gave in a previous post.

I set up a test scenario to look at your flank attack issue, see the tooltip here;



There is no uphill POA bonus in the Impact phase for the hoplites, but it does kick in for the melee.


cheers

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.

Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).

It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:12 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am

Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).

It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented.

Sorry, thought you were talking about the charging impact foot in the flank downhill case.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.

You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.

You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.

The actual question concerns the hoplite fragmenting from a magnificently dominant position. The risk averse might just crawl back into their shell if this type of result can be expected.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:52 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am

You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.

The actual question concerns the hoplite fragmenting from a magnificently dominant position. The risk averse might just crawl back into their shell if this type of result can be expected.

A flank attack on an unengaged unit is not meant to be a "magnificently dominant position", and this is reflected in the net POA of only +50.

Whatever the exact chance of your hoplite fragmenting was, it was certainly very small. Such events are meant to model the great variety of unexpected (and otherwise unmodellable) events that can often happen in warfare. e.g. The unit commander was killed and the unit panicked.

This is how the game works, and it is how it is intended to work. If you don't like the game design philosophy, there are other games. This game is not going to adopt a philosophy of predestination.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 amThe shifting sand is this situation as my question was never actually answered and became this confusion which I've actually created.