Total bafflement

[fogman]

Screen_00000000.jpg (65.12 KiB) Viewed 3161 times

Why can't my unit charge the infantry or the cavalry in its front, but somehow can move in front of that cavalry, and presenting my flank to it?

Movement in general around enemy units is a complete mystery to me or must involve some sort of tedious calculation of charge ranges and other zocs, which seem to exist sometimes and don't exist at other times. Units have some sort of gravitational field and i can't tell you how many times i got hit in the flank because i could not turn when i thought i could. The whole thing seems at best not very clear, at worse very arbitrary.

It's also incomprehensible how painful it is for cavalry to disengage from infantry; it's basically impossible without getting shot up so badly to the point of breaking that it is better just to stay there and charge. How on earth were they ever able to do the caracole?

[rbodleyscott]

Your unit is in the ZOC of the cavalry unit to its right. This prevents it from charging the other units, but does not prevent it from making a non-charge move away from the ZOCing unit.

The ZOCing unit is a priority because it is immediately threatening your unit. The infantry unit is not a priority, although it is directly to your unit's front, because it is facing the other way and consequently presents no immediate threat.

Although movement in the game is IGOUGO, for the convenience of turn-based play, the restrictions on permitted movement behave as if it was simultaneous. It would clearly be ridiculous in real life for a cavalry unit to ignore the immediate and present danger to its flank and charge something else entirely just to gain a temporary advantage "for the greater good". This would not be possible in the real non-IGOUGO world, because the ZOCing cavalry would not just stand there and let them do it without intervening.

[fogman]

Your unit is in the ZOC of the cavalry unit to its right. This prevents it from charging the other units, but does not prevent it from making a non-charge move away from the ZOCing unit.

yes but the moving away is suicide since it cannot go away far enough not to be whacked from behind next turn. So it is given a suicide alternative over a suicide alternative. I'd rather take the suicide alternative of attacking the infantry or cavalry in front.

The ZOCing unit is a priority because it is immediately threatening your unit. The infantry unit is not a priority, although it is directly to your unit's front, because it is facing the other way and consequently presents no immediate threat.

Although movement in the game is IGOUGO, for the convenience of turn-based play, the restrictions on permitted movement behave as if it was simultaneous. It would clearly be ridiculous in real life for a cavalry unit to ignore the immediate and present danger to its flank and charge something else entirely just to gain a temporary advantage "for the greater good". This would not be possible in the real non-IGOUGO world, because the ZOCing cavalry would not just stand there and let them do it without intervening.

yes but that cavalry has been charging the infantry unit, it did not have enough mp to get there. the enemy cavalry unit moved in later. so in 'real life' my cavalry unit who was honing in has to come to a screeching halt or suddenly change direction, any of which actions requires the kind of control that is impossible for commanders to achieve once a charge is launched.

there are two cases that makes this wrong :

a) if my cavalry was two hexes behind and not in the enemy cavalry's zoc, could it have charged into the infantry, even though the same threat exists on its flank?

b) if i'm not mistaken, if the infantry was turned toward my cavalry, it could have been attacked even though, again, the same threat exists on its flank.

so in the end, if b) turns out to be true, it's not about the threat on its flank that prevents my cavalry from attacking, it's because the infantry unit is in a helpless position!

------------------------

similarly i just have another situation where my pike and shot moves right behind an enemy later tertio which was busy with combat; in the following turn, my esteemed opponent moves a pike and shot on the same horizontal line as the later tercio but turned 45 degrees in, facing my unit. and that effectively prevents me from hitting his later tercio... it makes little sense realistically, especially since my pike and shot has another pike and shot following it two hexes behind. gamey, gamey, gamey.

and to think we can't have priority shooting instead...

[rbodleyscott]

The game prevents units from completely ignoring immediate danger from units in an adjacent square, it does not prevent them from getting into situations where they might be in danger from units further away - that is up to the player (or AI). Likewise it does not prevent them from getting into a situation which will be fatal in two turns time, or three. We had to draw the line somewhere.

Part of the purpose of the charge restrictions is to allow units to protect the flanks of other units. In the tabletop game this is dealt with by intercept charges, in the computer game by charge restrictions.

If this situation arose in tabletop FOGR, when your unit charged the enemy infantry, the cavalry on the flank could (and would) declare an intercept charge which would hit your unit in the flank and cancel its charge automatically. Pike & Shot is somewhat kinder to the player in that rather than allowing your unit to charge and then allowing the enemy to charge it in the flank and cancel its charge, it simply prevents you from charging (and committing suicide). What I am saying is that if we had programmed Pike and Shot to allow your unit to charge in these circumstances, we would also have programmed it to allow the ZOCing unit to declare an intercept charge, which in this case would hit you in the flank and cancel your charge.

(You are entitled to disagree with our design decisions, and I don't expect to convince you otherwise, I am merely explaining the reasons why the rules are the way they are for anyone who is interested).

[Waldorf]

This is an illuminating exchange.

I am relatively new to the genre, although I did ten years in game development and publishing (mostly sports games) before retraining to be a teacher.

What I'm fascinated by is that the word "gamey" is used as a pejorative. Is there an expectation that Pike and Shot is anything else *but* a game?

[TheGrayMouser]

This is an illuminating exchange.

I am relatively new to the genre, although I did ten years in game development and publishing (mostly sports games) before retraining to be a teacher.

What I'm fascinated by is that the word "gamey" is used as a pejorative. Is there an expectation that Pike and Shot is anything else *but* a game?

I doubt it. I think what the designer is trying to explain the philosphy in this game is to mitigate short term gains from "gamey" behaviour always evident in turnbased games, that wouldnt/couldnt have happened in real life. IE no suicide charges.
I think gamey often refers to actions players take, that take advantages of bugs or design weaknesses or flaws to get a ahistorical advantages: Example: Steel Panthers. One could buy an army of snipers and heavy artillery and absolutely crush your opponent. Clearly not the design intent.
Of course no amount of rules can cover every unrealist things players or the AI does, rules can cover actions, but not "intent" very well.

@Fogman
As for the example above: I am pretty sure there were other options for the cavalry unit: it could have used fall back move to avoid the impending flank attack, it should have been able to change facing toward the closer enemy cavalry. If it was already 2 grids further back, I am pretty sure it would not have been able to attack the infantry in the rear as A you cant carge across an enemy front and B that cavaly unit now would have been its priority target

[fogman]

If this situation arose in tabletop FOGR, when your unit charged the enemy infantry, the cavalry on the flank could (and would) declare an intercept charge which would hit your unit in the flank and cancel its charge automatically. Pike & Shot is somewhat kinder to the player in that rather than allowing your unit to charge and then allowing the enemy to charge it in the flank and cancel its charge, it simply prevents you from charging (and committing suicide). What I am saying is that if we had programmed Pike and Shot to allow your unit to charge in these circumstances, we would also have programmed it to allow the ZOCing unit to declare an intercept charge, which in this case would hit you in the flank and cancel your charge.

I have played many napoleonic games in the pre-computer age where reaction charges are a common feature. But only if the friendly counter charging unit was already facing the enemy unit when the charge was initiated and could itself initiate a charge. This is not the case here. The friendly unit was facing the other way.

But I have never seen counter charges being allowed for infantry.

But it is what it is.

[fogman]

This is an illuminating exchange.

I am relatively new to the genre, although I did ten years in game development and publishing (mostly sports games) before retraining to be a teacher.

What I'm fascinated by is that the word "gamey" is used as a pejorative. Is there an expectation that Pike and Shot is anything else *but* a game?

In the old days of board wargames, nothing was hidden from the players, we knew all the charts, everything, and people who played sophisticated games like ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) famously carried around a thick binder of rules. When the computer came, much of it was buried under the (software) hood and players who knew where to look and understood the idiosyncrasies of the program would gain a huge upper hand. Basically they would destroy the opposition through better knowledge of arcane rules, not necessarily better tactics. That's 'gamey'.

Personally when i play historical wargames, i like to replicate historical behaviour. I form a frontline, I keep the army together as if in the range of an invisible commander, the right wing stay on the right, the left on the left; i don't send out light troops around to the enemy rear to act as commandos. my unit shoots what's in front of them. Well you try that you get hammered. You need to do the 'gamey' stuff to survive, ie impossible things in reality: engage in a firefight at maximum range, concentrate fire, maneuver all other the place so that after a while there is no more frontline, and know the little arcane rules.

[fogman]

@Fogman
As for the example above: I am pretty sure there were other options for the cavalry unit: it could have used fall back move to avoid the impending flank attack, it should have been able to change facing toward the closer enemy cavalry. If it was already 2 grids further back, I am pretty sure it would not have been able to attack the infantry in the rear as A you cant carge across an enemy front and B that cavaly unit now would have been its priority target

yes, i had to turn, then charge him the next turn. forget about trying to disengage cavalry in this game. once the cavalry advances, it's impossible to get it back. if your read about cavalry charging, withdrawing to reform, then charging again and again, well that's clearly not going to happen here.

[batesmotel]

@Fogman
As for the example above: I am pretty sure there were other options for the cavalry unit: it could have used fall back move to avoid the impending flank attack, it should have been able to change facing toward the closer enemy cavalry. If it was already 2 grids further back, I am pretty sure it would not have been able to attack the infantry in the rear as A you cant carge across an enemy front and B that cavaly unit now would have been its priority target

yes, i had to turn, then charge him the next turn. forget about trying to disengage cavalry in this game. once the cavalry advances, it's impossible to get it back. if your read about cavalry charging, withdrawing to reform, then charging again and again, well that's clearly not going to happen here.

Cavalry charging into a target and breaking off is how this game represents cavalry charging in again and again. I have found at times that it makes sense to charge cavalry into a P&S unit that has e pinned it in its ZoC and then have it break off afterwards. This seems to often result in lower casualties over all and the cavalry breaks off far enough that it may well have the otpion to disengage (as well as to charge in again) if it isn't pinned int he ZoC of another enemy unit. (The unit if broke off from can shoot but can't move on its next turn so it won't be able to pin the cavalry.)

Chris

[fogman]

Cavalry don't reform for a new charge within firing range. they often retreat all the way back to their lines because of that. the inability of cavalry to quickly turn and run from infantry is just strange. i have a couple of opposing pike and shot running after my retreating cavalry for several turns, blasting it numerous times. just plain weird.