Slitherine

Here is my question. Sorry if it has already been discussed.

Let's imagine this situation : my Roman lancers and Armoured Cavalry vs one single Roman lancers.

1) Step 1 :

My Lancers charge. The enemy Lancers are meant to charge too. This is a balanced charge. Ok.



2) Step 2 :

The enemy lancers are in melee. My Armoured Cavalry charge. There is no flank charge as the game rules define it in this case, but however, shouldn't my Armoured cavalry 'always' win the Impact or at least get some extra Impact PoAs ?

The first ranks of the enemy are in melee, fighting. The last ones are immobile, behind, unsteady, a bit disordered, not seeing well what is happening in front and refilling the first ranks to replace the dead cavalrymen. And an enemy Armoured Cavalry crashes into it (I would say into his side, if not into his flank). This time the last ranks can't charge (ie move forward) and have to absorb the shock (with or without lances).
Even if everything during a given turn is meant to happen at the same time or in another order, it might seem odd that a single unit can manage the impacts of two enemies so easily during one turn.



What do I miss out ? That the last ranks of the enemy lancers can actually charge the second unit ?
How should I understand this situation ?

(edit)

PS : The same thing happens in P&S when, for example, two Determined Horses are already in melee and a Horse charges.

This was a deliberate design decision to prevent gamey staggering of charges, which really wasn't a valid Ancient tactic. The men the new unit contact must be unengaged, otherwise how did the new unit contact them without being blocked by their friends? Cavalry units in this period were made up of separate troops/drungi, not one monolithic block. The game assumes that the troop(s) facing the new enemy countercharge.

Thank you for the fast answer.

It is also worth noting that the advantage of ganging up two units on one does exist, it just doesn't take effect until the melee phase.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 5:52 pm It is also worth noting that the advantage of ganging up two units on one does exist, it just doesn't take effect until the melee phase.

The melee above the impact

.. which is certainly right historically speaking, especially during the Antiquity and early Middle Age.

What about reducing the POA Modifier of the enemy Lancers to half (8%) in the Impact Phase. The unit is in melee and suffer casualties.

GeneralKostas wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:31 am What about reducing the POA Modifier of the enemy Lancers to half (8%) in the Impact Phase. The unit is in melee and suffer casualties.

As I say, we don't want to do this because it would introduce non-historical deliberate staggering of attacks. The way it works currently is fundamental to the game design, it is not an oversight.

"Units" are not in reality monolithic blocks, but are made up of multiple sub-units, and cavalry combats in particular were a lot less static than is displayed on the screen. Much of what goes on within each "unit" is abstracted, and what is visible on the game screen should not be taken too literally. There is a lot going on in reality that is below the level of representation in the game, so is not displayed.

Sometimes "bottom up" logic does not produce the right overall in-game effect, so we choose to gloss over it in the interest of getting the right overall effect.

In particular we don't want to introduce in-game tactics that do not represent known historical tactics, however logical they may seem.

Also, since the overall relationships between the different unit types are currently where we want them, if we did cancel or mitigate impact POA for engaged units, we would have to rebalance everything to get the balance back to where it was already. All for the sake of "justice being seen to be done".

Interesting