Another bug/exploit/oversight

[deeter]

In a few recent games, my opponents have intentionally blocked their cavalry from breaking off against steady foot but putting LF behind them. While the value of doing this is questionable, these players believe it's a good thing. Problem is in the TT rules, cavalry that cannot break off drop a cohesion level instead. This rule should've been applied to the PC game, but wasn't.

Coming on the heals of revelations regarding the rear charge exploit/bug, I wonder what other nasty tricks players are using? Please post them here, so we can all know.

Deeter

[FedeM]

I think that, that rule should be added if possible...

[TheGrayMouser]

People have been doing this since the beginning, although I personally find it odd since , generally, cavalry do much better when they b/o and charge back in.

Instead of losing a cohesion level, perhaps the cavalry should "burst thru" the blocking light foot (or horse) in their break off and lf or horse should suffer the cohesion hit?

I find this is a lessor evil though, than purposefully putting lights near the rear hex of a friendly bg and set to evade, when threatened by a rear charge, thus enemy BG's that charge at an angle who otherwise would get a rear hit, dont.....

Another thing that might be considered gamey is this:
you have BG's that are at a disadvantage if they impact anenemy bg (poa wise), however yours very well might be evens or even at an advantage in melee. If you impact charge a routed enemy BG adjacent to one of the enemy BG's as above you dont need to worry about the disadvantagious impact phase.

[FedeM]

I think that last thing you mentioned is on spot TGM. I also think that a BG on pursuit of a routed one should have an impact phase if on the way finds an enemy.
Against this however we can say that the unit who is "waiting" maybe can not see behind their fellow routers and so can not be prepared on time for impact...the same for the one that is making pursuit.

So I dont know. How ate the TT rules regarding this?

Cheers!

[TheGrayMouser]

Just thinking aloud here but I wonder if they didnt add cohesion drops for cavalry that cant break off as being too harsh considering the large unit count and chaotic situations you can get in , in a hex based game....

Also, unlike the TT game, in the PC game you HAVE to be right up a friendlies butt to give rear support (ie adjacent rear hex) which kinda encourages 2 hex deep battle line ( or at least alternating rear ranks to make rout channels, one of the worst aspects of the game IMHO)

The funny thing is , many of these issues wernt really part of the original game up to the 2nd or third patch. Prior to that bg's, when they routed, basically plowed staight back toward their map edge and went thru anything in their path ignoring the all to easy to create a-historical "channels".

This is highlighted by the thread in the scenario section the battle of Tigroncerta. I remember playing this back in the day (it was one ofthe original 20 scenarios) and it was reasonably easy to defeat the Armenians. Now it is basically impossible, all do to the rout routines.

However, take my fondness of the game 50 patches ago with a disclaimer, as I belive I am one of the 5 players that actually thought the original anarchy routine far superior to the curernt one

[Tiavals]

There's plenty of other exploits in the game, which I use freely. Like using a poor quality light foot, like a slinger, and attacking some other skirmishers. If the player hasn't put it to "always evade", the poor unit will trap the enemy skirmisher like flypaper(hence I call it the flypaper-technique), and you can charge at the trapped unit with a knight or such. Normally it would evade, but because it is considered to be in melee already, and thus can't flee, the knights will squash them like a fly swatter.

Or how about the fact that you can "lead" your units to another combat if you use the pursuing rules properly(kinda like Fedem said), so that if you beat a skirmisher with your defensive spearmen, and it flees beyond a set of impact foot, your defensive spears will make contact with the foot, giving them a huge advantage, since it'll skip the impact phase, and thus the spears will be steady, totally crushing the foot. You can manipulate these kinds of things by resolving the combats in the right order. Sometimes it even means doing stupid things with other units, to give an unfair advantage to others. Like charging with the defensive spears at the skirmisher, even if you already have something more worthy fighting them.

You can even use this to your advantage. If a unit of yours is surrounded by several enemy, and you want to get into contact with one of them, you first position one of your units in the fleeing-area of your own unit that is Fragmented, then choose the enemy you like and it'll walk right beside your other unit.

For example, you have Superior Heavy Weapon Medium Foot waiting on a small hill a few hexes behind a small fight. The fight has 1 skirmisher of your own, and 1 knight, 1 skirmisher and 1 defensive spear of the enemy. You will choose to fight the knight with the skirmisher, and when it loses, it will flee past the HW MF you set up earlier and as the knight pursues, it will get stuck on the MF. And when it's the knights turn, it'll take heavy losses by being in a situation it surely would never otherwise be in(fighting uphill against a steady HW MF). On the other hand, you can always do a similar thing, without setting up someone on the path, and just attack with the skirmisher. With luck, the knight will be in a good position to be rear-charged by some unit you have, and you can eliminate it easily for a low cost.

There's probably more that I didn't remember to mention. My point kinda is, the game rules are what they are, and the players should use them to their advantage to the best of their ability. This isn't the table-top version, but the digital version, and it has it's own share of different rules. Some rules fit the digital version better, that would be impossible in the TT, or the other way around. Of course, obvious bugs should be corrected(like skirmishers Evading from melee sometimes), but some exploits should just remain. To repair them might take too much effort(you might have to think of another way to resolve the situation), or produce other problems.

[TheGrayMouser]

Sorry Tiavals , I disagree with your main point that players should "learn" to use anything and everything just because the game engine allows it. Some things that CAN be done are clearly contrary to the spirit of the game , both TT and PC, and just because Slitherine doesnt have the resources and time to fix things doesnt mean they should be universally adopted.

[davouthojo]

Personally, I don't have a problem with any of these (apart from wishing I had spotted them first!)

I wasn't aware of the LF evade and rear charge tactic until they came up this month, my smart opponents got an edge, but in retrospect, if you look at the replays both these tactics are obvious. Just part of the learning curve - I am sure pantherboy has watched as one-by-one, his tactics have been discovered and copied. Remarkable that it took him a couple of weeks on his own to find them - it took the whole rest of us 2 years! And the gap is still there......

However, one reason for the wiki was to help publicise these so that the game remains a level playing field, so I have added a section to the wiki http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/Tips+and+tricks and will post any others you add to this thread to shine sunlight on them.

[ericdoman1]

Where to start

I suppose FOW and hiding troops behind others so your opponents can not see them. Always wondered why you couldn't see an ellie behind some pikemen?

I prob started the blocking of break off moves. Based on it was the only way I could figure out how to take on spearmen. Pikes forget it unless they are disrupted and <75% (yes both). Otherwise if you have to continue to charge into the spears you prob got no chance of winning. I made a point to TGM both about the rear charges and for not breaking off. If I was a commander of a cavalry unit and I saw we had an adavntage in combat I would want to remain in combat. I reckon there should be a test if you do not want to break off, as you have an advantage.

There are prob more I can think of but will have to play a game and then see.

I personally think some players can just see how you play the game better than others. Pick up the various moves quicker than others. I know when I have helped numerous players when playing they didn't have a clue about some of the moves and so on. That is the one thing I am proud of is that I have helped players during a game.

The downside is that they are getting better. I have created a few monsters! LOL

[Old_Warrior]

It is up to you and your opponent how you play the game. Discuss it before you play, password protect the game and avoid the rest of us that will use whatever the game allows.

Frankly I just noted that cavalry cannot evade if blocked and so I am going to to NOT block my cav if I can help it.

[stockwellpete]

Is this cheating?

Say that you wanted one of your inferior meleeing units (e.g. average crossbows) to move 2 hexes forward to melee with a far superior unit (e.g. Swiss pikes) in order to protect another of your own units from a rear attack? There is a chance that they will say "no!" and just stay where they are. But what if you move one hex forward first, pause, then try and move forward again? Is it possible they will shout "no" from the new position and not move forward - or will they automatically move forward because they have already moved one hex that turn? I don't know the answer but depending on the answer, it seems to me that this might be a variation on "the dodgy rear charge" bug. And if they do refuse to move in the second part of the turn, the player has still managed to move his inferior unit forward one hex (which may be important in congested situations).

[ericdoman1]

Pete, they will say no. What amazes me is that you will have poor mf unprot bow with a spoon charging into units but Immortals will say no? Itis a gamble really to charge in with archers. If they say no, you try with another one they say no, you have missed the opportunity to shoot. If it is a rear, agst light foot (not even sure they may say no vs LH) or fragmented. Yep they will charge. Ruddy cowards if you ask me. I have played Agincourt a few times now. To try and win I march into the right wood and attempt to outflank the French. Even then I have found that longbowman will not charge into mounted knights,if they are in a wood.

[ericdoman1]

Right read it differently. OK you have avg mf prot xbow. 3 hexes from Swiss pikeman. You move forward 1 hex, move forward again and then attempt to charge and they will prob say no. But they will move forward 2 hexes. It is up to you at this point if you want to be that close.

[stockwellpete]

Right read it differently. OK you have avg mf prot xbow. 3 hexes from Swiss pikeman. You move forward 1 hex, move forward again and then attempt to charge and they will prob say no. But they will move forward 2 hexes. It is up to you at this point if you want to be that close.

Yes, that's it. But if you tried to move them in one movement and they said "no" they would not move at all. Are players OK with the incremental moves in these circumstances?

[ericdoman1]

Good point and don't know the answer to that.I know in FOG-TT (and remember it is a very different game), you could try and charge, you would need to pass a test (OK same as this game but % instead of 2 x six sided dice and needing a 7 or more). If you fail, it will still not prevent you from moving and or shooting. Same could be done with LH I believe. I think it is up to the player as there is a bit of a gamble involved. A) You do not charge and so your friendly unit can be rear charged or B) Shooting, who knows you might be able to disrupt enemy unit. If it is not a shock unit, lancers, hch, off spear, pike, imp foot. It would need to take a test to charge as it is disrupted.

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete , you really have a two part question here:
The ist is if there actually is a bug where you could "bypass" the anarchy check ( in this case anarchy to allow the charge since bows dont like climbing atop pikemen) by moving one hex, pausing and then continuing to charge with guaranteed results since the engine has been fooled.
Not sure but I dont think so, but you'd have to test in the editor to be absolutely sure.

Second: assuming no bug is it "gamey" to WANT to impact charge an enemy BG as the best thing to do, BUT barring that it would be better than nothing to move one or two hexes in case you get the anrchy "no" happen. In this case I guess it would kind be bucking the system so to speak to move incrementally and then try to charge..... Others might disagree.

This thing would be so situational dependant though, I doudt it really would be a common issue

I look at it like this: decide your intent before you click, if you have somehow discovered you can change your "intent" by "clicking" in a host of differnt ways to change the ultimate outcome, you probobly have found an engine exploit or flaw.

With the unit pathfinding shaded hexes as well as directional arrow(that tells you where your BG will be facing) , there really is no reason ever to have to click more than once to move or move to impact a unit anyways ( barring shooting and right clicking to change facing, set stances)

[stockwellpete]

Yes, I agree entirely, TGM. By moving incrementally you do give yourself two or maybe three options, instead of just the one. I think it is a trick really - whether you would call it a "bug" I am not sure. I often make two separate movements with a unit in a game - sometimes because I have been careless and not moved the unit as far as I could do, or because I have not lined up my missile unit properly to get a shot. I suppose that it is possible for Slitherine to programme the game so that you can only make one complete movement - whether that is desirable or not, I am not sure.

[Tiavals]

If you could see the unit facing at the end of the move(from the arrow before clicking), it would be okay to have only complete moves. As it is, it really is quite annoying to have to run around with skirmishers to line up the best shot, in case you didn't calculate the turns right in the first place. Complete moves would change the fog of war settings a bit though. As it is, you can move a unit a bit, so you see more areas, and then choose the rest of the move.

[FedeM]

Yes, I agree entirely, TGM. By moving incrementally you do give yourself two or maybe three options, instead of just the one. I think it is a trick really - whether you would call it a "bug" I am not sure. I often make two separate movements with a unit in a game - sometimes because I have been careless and not moved the unit as far as I could do, or because I have not lined up my missile unit properly to get a shot. I suppose that it is possible for Slitherine to programme the game so that you can only make one complete movement - whether that is desirable or not, I am not sure.

In cases like this Is when I say that in my opinon the number one flaw of this game is the capability of restarts......Like in this example I want to charge with a MF archer and it doesn´t pass the anarchy test I restart and try something different.....boom. It really sucks and this problem really anoyes me. In fact the more I think about the closest I´m of not playing tournaments anymore....

Cheers!

[TheGrayMouser]

Well I took a gander and you can move as incremantally as you want, the game will test for anarchy to not charge a big boy with a bowman or light.

FOW , yeah moving one hex at a time does give an advantage to FOW and spotting, not sure why they did it that way, almost every game I own doesnt "unhide" enemy units until your move is DONE. Not really a big deal though considering the relativley open nature of ancient warefare.

I agree about moving incremantally to get shots , with the 3d terrain mixed with 2 dimensional contour lines its pretty hard to tell sometimes if you can target a BG.

Fedem, how do you know replays are occuring? I have had the occasional questionable game but nothing enough to say for sure someone was reloading ....