Cheese alert

[hammy]

I think I have found some cheese. It isn't trivial to create but could produce some nasty effects.

In Monday's game I had a combat where one of my BG's hit two enemy BG's which were at an angle to each other.

Code: Select all

      bb
aaaa    bb
aaaa   xx bb
   xxxxxxxx
   xxxx  xx

In my movement bound I couldn't conform but I was able to move a second BG to a possition where it could charge the flank of 'b'. In Dave's movement phase 'b' had to conform to me (because it could) and as a result it meant I couldn't charge his flank in my bound.

Code: Select all

aaaa   bb
aaaa bbxxbb
   xxxxxxxx
   xxxx  xx

It is possible to reverse this situation so that an enemy BG is forced to conform in such a way that it exposes rather than protects it's flank.

Hammy

[spikemesq]

Not sure that I follow the ASCII art here.

Was your BG staggered to contact BGs a and b?

Spike

[hammy]

Not sure that I follow the ASCII art here.

Was your BG staggered to contact BGs a and b?

Spike

BG's a and b were at an angle to each other with the front corner of b just forward of the front of A but the line was angled well back. My BG hit b first, one base stepped forwards to hit more of b and the rest hit a as a line. In my movement I couldn't conform, in Daves move b flipped round to be in line with the general melee which in effect wheeled it back protecting it's flank.

With a bit of thought it is possible to arrange a situation where a similar charge opens up a flank to a charge. It may be an uncommon thing but worth at least considering IMO.

[spikemesq]

I see your point and share your concern.

Possible candidates for solution (though I am unsure that these work) might include:

1. allowing a BG that exerts a ZOI at the start of a player's movement bound to move by the minimum necessary to maintain that ZOI with respect to conforming BGs; and/or

2. extending flank/rear charge eligibility to those BGs that meet the requirements at the end of their movement phase to enemy that have not moved other than to conform to enemy in close combat.

Both suffer from complexity, however.

Spike

[dave_r]

Yes, this was one of two things we noticed on Monday (both minor).

Whilst a possible concern, I don't think it is a major fault and would be mind bogglingly complex to setup something of this nature. Whilst you [possibly] could setup this sort of thing, your opponent would also have a move of their own to try and sort out the flank of their unit.

If they can't and their flank was in the air then I see no reason why they should not be penalised for it. Certainly if one unit is attacked by two units with a staggered attack (i.e. two charges in successive bounds) then initially the unit would engage the primary aggressor (i.e. turn to face the charge) and then if this left the units flank open then it would be charged by a second unit. Can't see that this is a problem (or unhistorical).

[bddbrown]

It's almost worth keeping just to see people try and set it up!

On a serious note, someone can also see it coming and protect against it if they have supporting BGs. If they don't then they are outnumbered in that area of the battlefield and should lose over time anyway.

[hammy]

It's almost worth keeping just to see people try and set it up!

On a serious note, someone can also see it coming and protect against it if they have supporting BGs. If they don't then they are outnumbered in that area of the battlefield and should lose over time anyway.

I have to admit I think I agree with Bruce. It does seem a bit odd though and in a situation where a BG gets pulled to it's doom it could leave a sour taste.

[spikemesq]

If they can't and their flank was in the air then I see no reason why they should not be penalised for it. Certainly if one unit is attacked by two units with a staggered attack (i.e. two charges in successive bounds) then initially the unit would engage the primary aggressor (i.e. turn to face the charge) and then if this left the units flank open then it would be charged by a second unit. Can't see that this is a problem (or unhistorical).

I agree that the possible solutions all suffer from tedious complexity.

OTOH, the potential for conforming shifts to strip away flank protection (i.e., eliminate a ZOI) and the risk of rewarding/encouraging angled approaches to prompt radical shifts in the enemy battle line smacks of the geometry wars of DBx and the single-element pulls of that game that often annoyed players.

It also seems to me that swifter troops (e.g., mounted and lights) are more susceptible to this ploy because they have greater movement to cause wilder adjustments. This would be a big departure from older sets that forced the player initiating combat to conform to enemy.

Accordingly, if there is a way to temper the results of shifting/conforming -- a rule that seems to be aimed more at table tidiness (not to belittle that goal) rather than historical combat simulation -- that is worth exploring.

Spike

[shall]

Code:
bb
aaaa bb
aaaa xx bb
xxxxxxxx
xxxx xx



In my movement bound I couldn't conform but I was able to move a second BG to a possition where it could charge the flank of 'b'. In Dave's movement phase 'b' had to conform to me (because it could) and as a result it meant I couldn't charge his flank in my bound.

I can see the "frustration" at first glance. Might I suggest though that:

a) Game logic: As you knew he was going to conform (or do now) you would have realised that you wouldn't get to charge the flank by moving where you did - therefore nothing to get disappointed about and next time you would move to be to the flank of where they were going to end up.

b) Real world logic: the conform of b is pretty realistic. If xx was held back by another BG aa then bb would close up the fight to support aa. So in such a real situation I think the battle would ten d to end up on the line of aa

I personally therefore think the mechanism is Ok and as you say solution add more complexity than the problem perhaps justifies...and complex solution to chesse do tend to create...more cheese

Si

[jre]

This reminds me of one risky maneuver I considered with Pechenegs (or any other poor melee army with plentiful LH) is, rather than charge an exposed flank with LH and the front with something more substantial, to apply pressure and the fighting in two directions - POA, it was to charge first with the LH. If the LH can survive two bounds (likely, choosing the impact point and with some luck in the CT the second melee combat) the enemy BG will be automatically conformed to offer you his flank. The LH however will almost certainly break at some time and probably lose bases. The automatic disruption and devastating impact would go a long way to take out an enemy top troop.

Foot has to be disrupted for this to work, so it is better used as a cavalry/knights trap.

I am sure someone will cry foul when the compulsory conform puts the BG flank perpendicular to the enemy main line.

It is risky, and requires some planning, but some armies cannot help but put LH in your flank/rear (the Pechenegs are a good example).

For maximum fun, if the unit that will be charging the flank has missiles, they can help the LH by shooting the unengaged portion of the BG.

One of the risks of being enveloped by LH.

Jos?©

[shall]

It is risky, and requires some planning

That's what we like to hear

Si

[lawrenceg]

Potential cheese would be simply eliminated by making conforming optional for a BG that did not charge this bound.

Actually, making conforming optional for everyone, or, indeed, getting rid of it altogether might not be a bad idea.

Rules on who fights in a melee would need a bit of a tidy up, but they do anyway because they have to be able to cope with the case where conforming is impossible.