Slitherine

Not sure if this is a bug but in the attached file I started a charge with my spearment from the hex marked with a blue circle and finished in the rear of the mounted knights. You will see the blue circle is behind the rear line so should disrupt the mounted knights. The only complication is that in the hex with the red star there were some skirmishers that evaded as soon as the spearmen arrived. The spearmen then hit the mounted knights in the rear instead..however no automatic disruption occured. Why was there no auto-disruption as the charging unit started behind the rear line?

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8712/rearcharge.png

I have seen this issue as well in that sometimes a rear charge that was initially made by skirmishers will disrupt the final target and sometimes not. Unfortunately I haven't captured screens hots for any of these.

Chris

What I've noticed is that the target of the charge will be auto-disrupted. This means that if you must target something that can evade away which then leaves a new target resulting in a rear hit then they won't be auto-disrupted. By placing lights in the rear of the vulnerable knight as per your example then they will at least prevent the auto-disrupt. Is this intentional or not I can't say as in truth I feel it should result in disruption but currently I use the placement of lights and cavalry in the rear of units that have been outmaneuvered to prevent auto-disruption.

I guess the argument for not auto-disrupting is based on the fact if you don't start from behind the charged unit you don't auto disrupt. I guess the logic is that you need to change direction at the last moment thereby not reaping the benefits of an outright straight charge. Well I think this must be the logic behind the rules they have chosen. I personally think your path to the rear should matter..if you are attacked from behind it shouldn't really make much difference about how you got there.

As a related concern I think that the ability to lose a combat having charged a unit in the rear is too great. For my money the + 2 POA is not adequate reflection on the relative combat advantage..especially when some are not auto-disrupted. Assuming both units are average if you charge another unit in the rear having not started behind the line therefore no auto-disrupt a little over one quarter of the times you will not inflict a defeat on them (No win for either 17% and loss 9%). That loss % is too high in my opinion.

If you went to auto-disrupt for rear charges regardless of where you start the non wins go down to a total of 18% (13% no result and 5% loss). These percentages seem more appropriate for me.

I started to look into this when I found I had units disrupted after charging enemy units in the rear what seemed far too frequently. In reality sometimes a + 2 POA can be generated from a frontal charge so what happens when the same unit is charged in the rear..no difference in the POA.

Perhaps there is a case for POA + 3 or at least auto-disrupt regardless of the initial target or if you didn't start from behind the lines. Anything to stop my expensive mounted shock troops from being beaten after charging LF in the rear!

it really is an odd situation where you dont auto disrupt and your example is one of them. I used the editor to test BUT, if the enemy knight was facing due NORTH rather than Northeast, you WOULD have auto disrupted him, also you didnt get the option to attack the knight directly from that hex side in that example either. Its hard to articulate my observations, but....

If an enemy battlegroup has 2 valid paths into its rear from the perspective of the charger, it matters not at all if a light is intervening and evades, you WILL (assuming your charger doesnt roll low on a VMD and stop short) get the auto disrupt.
In your example you only had ONE valid hex path to the knights rear , and the light foot (and it would not have mattered if you substituted the light w a heavy that couldnt evade, you wouldnt have been allowed to target the knight anyhow) basically became the "primary target"

Basically I think this is a purposefull game feature that prevents one getting rear hits in too many "odd sutiutions" that arise in a hex game. Play with the editor and you will see what I mean.

In simpler terms: If you cant target the enemy battlegroup with your mouse pointer (ie you dont get combat odds pop up) from the hex you want to charge into, you are NOT going to auto disrupt.

I think you are right TGM re the auto-disrupt rule..if you can't target it then you can't auto-disrupt it. However it's slightly nonsensical that if the LF unit was not there I would have auto-disrupted it. In the end the LF unit was not there as it evaded so why no auto-disrupt? I guess what you are suggesting is that in this case they are trying to account for the attack on the rear of the knights as a consequential contact due to the hex system and therefore not give it the full benefit. I would contend that the hex system itself had prevented me from targeting the knight unit (I don't understand why it should stop me but it does). If the LF unit was not there I would have been able to target the knights and therefore auto-disrupt. The end result I believe is a quirk which obviously can be exploited as PB points out but in my opinion detracts from the gameplay. Effectively Light troop can shield you from rear attack by being placed adjacent to your troops rather than in front and this seems wrong. If you have managed to maneuver your troops to the rear of the enemy it's a little frustrating that the vulnerable party are protected by adjacent troops who are going to disappear as soon as the enemy advance.

The game engine will only reduce the cohesion of the target of the charge, so if you charged the light foot but contacted the knights the knights will not be disrupted. This is not the same as the TT rules but the way we designed the PC version from day one. Keith

Thanks Keith ..well it certainly works as per design then. The frustrating thing that I find is that the LF presence make it impossible to target the rear of the other unit..they are not in between my attacker and the intended real target instead they are adjacent. If they were not there I could target the rear of the other unit. However as soon as they charge the lights will evade allowing me to hit the rear of the other unit but not autodisrupt them. My 2 cents worth is that is a little non sensical. I should either be allowed to target them or at least receive the benefit of auto-disrupting them as I started from behind the rear flanks. The way the rules work provide the LF with a means of protecting their friends rear simply by being next to them and I don't see the logic there.

I agree.

I also agree - using LF to protect the rear hexes of your knights, HF etc is wrong but once word is out that this is how the game engine works some players will start using such a tactic.

They haven't been doing this all along?

Deeter

deeter wrote:They haven't been doing this all along?

Deeter

Nope, I was unaware of this tactic. Not anymore....

Morbio wrote:

deeter wrote:They haven't been doing this all along?

Deeter

Nope, I was unaware of this tactic. Not anymore....

To be honest i dont think this is a big deal, it really occurs only in some rather rare situations. To literally plan this out in advance to prevent rear charges is beyond my ability , although PB has known about it and likly uses it when it is feasable.

I dont mind this mechanic at all, after all, if the unit was NOT a light foor (in the siuation that Dazzam has in his pic) would you have an issue with the cavalry unit not being hit in the rear? The way i see it is the light foot are closer and grabbed the attention of the charger and then at the last second ran, the charger then saw an oppurtunity to wheel and partially contact another bg nearby but not a full charge that would reap maximum benefits.

They still get the benefit of ++ POA of cousre which is often more than enough:)