Slitherine

I always try to keep a couple units in a second line ready to react to the battle in the frontline. However if I see a unit starting to crack in the frontline melee, drops to disrupted or fragmented, the last thing I will do is reinforce with units in the second line. If I commit reinforcements, they have a substantial risk of taking a morale hit once the disrupted/fragmented unit inevitably breaks. So I wait until they break and then commit my second line troops.

So I am wondering if it is worth considering giving a morale bonus to the rally modifier or even a one time boost to morale break check of a weakened unit if new troops reinforce the shaken units ongoing melee? The modifier would have to be significant to make it worthwhile to risk the morale lost of a reinforcing unit if the frontline unit breaks. Probably most logical if it helps a unit which hasn't suffered major losses but has taken a sudden early shock causing morale problems for an otherwise intact unit.

The objective would be to encourage a player to commit reserves before the line breaks rather than waiting until after the line breaks. Historical? Worth considering?

If they knew fresh troops are around wouldn't, they be more inclined to give up and let the fresh troops take over?
Maybe fall back instead of routing.

Jagger2002 wrote:The objective would be to encourage a player to commit reserves before the line breaks rather than waiting until after the line breaks. Historical? Worth considering?

Possibly.

Maybe fall back instead of routing.

That is an interesting idea-the arrival of new troops into a melee giving a shaken unit the possibility of pulling back out of a melee. With the discrete units of this period, I could see it as historical.

I do find Tercios and P&Shot Regiments breaking off a little unrealistic, I had a Fragmented Dutch P&Shot Regiment break off from a Spanish Tercio today !!??
The 'rugby scrum' of 500 Dutchmen and 1000 Spaniards just breaks apart with the Fragmented Dutch wandering off to their end of the field and resting up.
I understand mounted being able to break off but large foot formations ? Seems dodgy to me.

I would like to see a +1 to the Cohesion Test for Rear Support.

Having a friend a couple of squares back to your rear should be a moral boost and being two squares back means that the rear support would not suffer a cohesion test for seeing a rout.

Warlord wrote:I do find Tercios and P&Shot Regiments breaking off a little unrealistic, I had a Fragmented Dutch P&Shot Regiment break off from a Spanish Tercio today !!??
The 'rugby scrum' of 500 Dutchmen and 1000 Spaniards just breaks apart with the Fragmented Dutch wandering off to their end of the field and resting up.
I understand mounted being able to break off but large foot formations ? Seems dodgy to me.

I would like to see a +1 to the Cohesion Test for Rear Support.

Having a friend a couple of squares back to your rear should be a moral boost and being two squares back means that the rear support would not suffer a cohesion test for seeing a rout.

Not sure about the break off thing, plenty of evidence troops could mutually "pull back"... although have no idea how common it was. Clearly it cant be as simple as once melee starts one side or the other breaks with no other possible outcomes.



I would like to see cavalry break off MORE. Possibly BOTH automatically after a full round of combat ( unless one is fragged) Why? I would imagine after a few minutes of close combat cohesion would be falling apart and cavalry would very easily be able to "sound trumpet " to reform 20 or so yards away, and then close again. I just hate seeing two cavalry units in melee combat 5, 6 plus turns until one autorouts from casualties alone....

Rears support would be nice but its probably one of those areas that if it was added, the AI would suffer for its lack of being able to use as well(if at all) as a human

Cheers!