Slitherine

Evaders seem to be remarkably good at zigging and zagging around friendly and enemy units in P&S. I'm not sure I really believe this but what I find especially hard to accept is that chargers following the evaders zigging and zagging around enemy units in their original charge path without either charging into the uncovered opponents of at least halting facing them when they enter the opponent's zone of control. A number of times now I've had a pursuing unit end up ignoring an enemy unit directly in its path and then as the last part of its move turning to follow the zig of the evader and then halting with its flank to the enemy it ignored while chasing the evaders. I suspect that with some malice afore thought, it's probably possible to intentionally set this up to sucker in real enemy troops charging light troops and then ending turning to present their flank to troops that they were originally facing and should have charged into or at least stopped facing. (Just to be clear, I have no issue with a situation where an evader moves directly away from the charger and then the charger ends up in a final position with its flank exposed to enemy that it wasn't initially flanking.

Chris

Hi Chris.

The game assumes that there are significant gaps between units that are placed diagonally to each other - larger gaps than the depiction of units on the map makes apparent (because we did not want to make the unit models smaller).

We assume that pursuers are mainly fixated on the fleers, although they will charge enemy close to their path if they fancy their chances, but not if they don't.

Sometimes this results in them being flanked - them's the breaks - but of course most foot cannot charge mounted, which tends to mitigate this. In addition, the risk of pursuers ending up in a position where they are flanked substitutes for explicit rules forcing them to hit fresh enemy in a disordered state or spend turns rallying. Pursuing should not be without risk and this mechanism supplies that risk without the need for additional explicit mechanisms to achieve the effect.

One has to bear in mind that the main reason fleers and pursuers go in dead-straight lines, and make minimal efforts to head for gaps, in tabletop FOG is not because that is the epitome of realism, but to make the moves easy to adjudicate and minimise the scope for disagreement between the players - not an issue in a computer moderated game.

dragoons do this well

rbodleyscott wrote:Hi Chris.

The game assumes that there are significant gaps between units that are placed diagonally to each other - larger gaps than the depiction of units on the map makes apparent (because we did not want to make the unit models smaller).

We assume that pursuers are mainly fixated on the fleers, although they will charge enemy close to their path if they fancy their chances, but not if they don't.

Sometimes this results in them being flanked - them's the breaks - but of course most foot cannot charge mounted, which tends to mitigate this. In addition, the risk of pursuers ending up in a position where they are flanked substitutes for explicit rules forcing them to hit fresh enemy in a disordered state or spend turns rallying. Pursuing should not be without risk and this mechanism supplies that risk without the need for additional explicit mechanisms to achieve the effect.

One has to bear in mind that the main reason fleers and pursuers go in dead-straight lines, and make minimal efforts to head for gaps, in tabletop FOG is not because that is the epitome of realism, but to make the moves easy to adjudicate and minimise the scope for disagreement between the players - not an issue in a computer moderated game.

I don't mind the current behavior for troops pursuing routing opponents where the situation being modelled would be that the pursuers are presumably already mixed in with the routers. Adin these cases the pursuers do seem to some times end up charging enemy who are enough in their path. In the case of chargers who have charged light troops who will quite probably stay ahead of them, I have a harder time believing that the chargers will be so out of control that they will ignore battle troops who are directly in their path. This is where it seems less reasonable and also I don't think so far I've ever seen chargers who are following evaders ever charge into exposed enemy unlike the case with pursuers,

Chris

batesmotel wrote: and also I don't think so far I've ever seen chargers who are following evaders ever charge into exposed enemy unlike the case with pursuers,

Chris

It definitely happens.

nikgaukroger wrote:

batesmotel wrote: and also I don't think so far I've ever seen chargers who are following evaders ever charge into exposed enemy unlike the case with pursuers,

Chris

It definitely happens.

They are less likely to because (unlike those pursuing routers) they won't charge fresh enemy if that would leave them exposing their flank!

I should note that in terms of the path taken, there is no random element in the route of evaders and pursuers. There is a random element in the distance moved and whether pursuer charges enemy they meet along the way. Nevertheless, with experience it should be possible to predict the likely path of evaders and chargers. If in doubt, don't charge!