LH cannot charge

[MVP7]

Why does the Reduced CC free turn count as large turn when with CC it doesn't? It's especially weird since in the exact same situation a non-light cavalry can still charge after turning and moving.

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

Yeah, I just tested 45 and 90 degree angles with and without CC with Light Horse, and 45 degree angle with and without CC with Cavalry. Only the light cavalry loses the ability charge. It obviously doesn't make a large turn either so I suppose there is some kind of logic bug when light unit makes its free turn that would require CC for non-light units.

[Cunningcairn]

Why does the Reduced CC free turn count as large turn when with CC it doesn't? It's especially weird since in the exact same situation a non-light cavalry can still charge after turning and moving.

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

Yeah, I just tested 45 and 90 degree angles with and without CC with Light Horse, and 45 degree angle with and without CC with Cavalry. Only the light cavalry loses the ability charge. It obviously doesn't make a large turn either so I suppose there is some kind of logic bug when light unit makes its free turn that would require CC for non-light units.

Thanks for that. I agree that doesn't sound correct.

[rbodleyscott]

Why does the Reduced CC free turn count as large turn when with CC it doesn't? It's especially weird since in the exact same situation a non-light cavalry can still charge after turning and moving.

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

Yeah, I just tested 45 and 90 degree angles with and without CC with Light Horse, and 45 degree angle with and without CC with Cavalry. Only the light cavalry loses the ability charge. It obviously doesn't make a large turn either so I suppose there is some kind of logic bug when light unit makes its free turn that would require CC for non-light units.

I have confirmed this. This is of course an artifact of the way the different code for light troops and non-light troops works, but I will have to be very careful in "fixing" it, not to break anything else.

The question is whether to fix it so that both can charge, or both can't charge.

[Cunningcairn]

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

Yeah, I just tested 45 and 90 degree angles with and without CC with Light Horse, and 45 degree angle with and without CC with Cavalry. Only the light cavalry loses the ability charge. It obviously doesn't make a large turn either so I suppose there is some kind of logic bug when light unit makes its free turn that would require CC for non-light units.

I have confirmed this. This is of course an artifact of the way the different code for light troops and non-light troops works, but I will have to be very careful in "fixing" it, not to break anything else.

The question is whether to fix it so that both can charge, or both can't charge.

I think if it is a pure choice between both or none can charge it has to be both can charge. If there was another option then LH should be able to charge but maybe not the cavalry. Intuitively in the case under discussion I did not even consider that my LH would not be able to charge. To add unnecessary drama to this particular incident the inability to charge caused me to lose 2 elements in the next turn and the game which I lost 60% or 61% to 59%. If I had been able to charge I would have won this game. I am not upset or throwing my toys as it is just a game but there are too many instances when one crazy situation turns really close games the wrong way. It really does happen a lot of the time!

[rbodleyscott]

Yeah, I just tested 45 and 90 degree angles with and without CC with Light Horse, and 45 degree angle with and without CC with Cavalry. Only the light cavalry loses the ability charge. It obviously doesn't make a large turn either so I suppose there is some kind of logic bug when light unit makes its free turn that would require CC for non-light units.

I have confirmed this. This is of course an artifact of the way the different code for light troops and non-light troops works, but I will have to be very careful in "fixing" it, not to break anything else.

The question is whether to fix it so that both can charge, or both can't charge.

I think if it is a pure choice between both or none can charge it has to be both can charge. If there was another option then LH should be able to charge but maybe not the cavalry. Intuitively in the case under discussion I did not even consider that my LH would not be able to charge. To add unnecessary drama to this particular incident the inability to charge caused me to lose 2 elements in the next turn and the game which I lost 60% or 61% to 59%. If I had been able to charge I would have won this game. I am not upset or throwing my toys as it is just a game but there are too many instances when one crazy situation turns really close games the wrong way. It really does happen a lot of the time!

I know that the following statement will be greeted by a storm of outrage from the experts, but I have to say it.

The fact that you are complaining that one dubious "feature" of the rules prevented you from exploiting another dubious feature of the rules, and that you lost the game as a result of not being able to use this exploit, illustrates my point (about ZOCs, in the other thread). The more predictable the rules are, the easier it is to exploit them.

Sure, it will be said that the only reason this rule is exploitable is because the rules don't prevent it, but my (27 year) experience of designing tournament wargames rules (and 48 year experience of playing in wargames tournaments) is that the "experts" will always find a way to exploit the rules in a way that isn't strictly realistic, however "tight" the rules are. We went through edition after edition, plugging loopholes each time, only for the experts to find new loopholes to exploit.

I appreciate that "expert" players like full predictability, but I have to stand up for the 98% of the player base who are not into the more arcane aspects of taking best advantage of the rules (whatever they are at the time) to a degree that constitutes gamesmanship, rather than concentrating on getting the right matchups, or getting there "fastest with the mostest" like a real general would.

So having the rules (such as the ZOC rules) a little bit "looser" and not completely predictable (but nevertheless adjudicated impartially by the computer) may not be a bad thing for those who want to fight battles in a way more closely resembling the way a real general would fight them, and not concentrate on exploiting the minutiae of the rules geometry to their advantage.

And I know I am "wrong" from the point of view of those arguing in favour of completely predictable ZOC rules, my position must seem indefensible from their point of view. But they should accept that they are a tiny rarified subset of the player base. The fact that they may be among the "best" players does not necessarily mean that the rules should be changed to consolidate the advantage they get from knowing the minutiae of the rules so well.

And it does not do a wargames tournament circuit any good at all for the weaker players to feel as if they have been "gamed" to death rather than defeated fair and square. It just leads to people dropping out of the tournament circuit, or being too afraid to enter in the first place.

[Paul59]

I must say that I am astonished that no one has complained about the tactic that the OP was trying to pull off here!

[Cunningcairn]

I have confirmed this. This is of course an artifact of the way the different code for light troops and non-light troops works, but I will have to be very careful in "fixing" it, not to break anything else.

The question is whether to fix it so that both can charge, or both can't charge.

I think if it is a pure choice between both or none can charge it has to be both can charge. If there was another option then LH should be able to charge but maybe not the cavalry. Intuitively in the case under discussion I did not even consider that my LH would not be able to charge. To add unnecessary drama to this particular incident the inability to charge caused me to lose 2 elements in the next turn and the game which I lost 60% or 61% to 59%. If I had been able to charge I would have won this game. I am not upset or throwing my toys as it is just a game but there are too many instances when one crazy situation turns really close games the wrong way. It really does happen a lot of the time!

I know that the following statement will be greeted by a storm of outrage from the experts, but I have to say it.

The fact that you are complaining that one dubious "feature" of the rules prevented you from exploiting another dubious feature of the rules, and that you lost the game as a result of not being able to use this exploit, illustrates my point (about ZOCs, in the other thread). The more predictable the rules are, the easier it is to exploit them.

Sure, it will be said that the only reason this rule is exploitable is because the rules don't prevent it, but my (27 year) experience of designing tournament wargames rules (and 48 year experience of playing in wargames tournaments) is that the "experts" will always find a way to exploit the rules in a way that isn't strictly realistic, however "tight" the rules are. We went through edition after edition, plugging loopholes each time, only for the experts to find new loopholes to exploit.

I appreciate that "expert" players like full predictability, but I have to stand up for the 98% of the player base who are not into the more arcane aspects of taking best advantage of the rules (whatever they are at the time) to a degree that constitutes gamesmanship, rather than concentrating on getting the right matchups, or getting there "fastest with the mostest" like a real general would.

So having the rules (such as the ZOC rules) a little bit "looser" and not completely predictable (but nevertheless adjudicated impartially by the computer) may not be a bad thing for those who want to fight battles in a way more closely resembling the way a real general would fight them, and not concentrate on exploiting the minutiae of the rules geometry to their advantage.

And I know I am "wrong" from the point of view of those arguing in favour of completely predictable ZOC rules, my position must seem indefensible from their point of view. But they should accept that they are a tiny rarified subset of the player base. The fact that they may be among the "best" players does not necessarily mean that the rules should be changed to consolidate the advantage they get from knowing the minutiae of the rules so well.

And it does not do a wargames tournament circuit any good at all for the weaker players to feel as if they have been "gamed" to death rather than defeated fair and square. It just leads to people dropping out of the tournament circuit, or being too afraid to enter in the first place.

Please do not read into my response that I consider myself to be a tournament tiger by responding I am not outraged at your response and do not disagree with what you are saying w.r.t. exploiting the minutiae. I have played wargames for a number of years and also have a dislike for the "cheese" that begins to dominate competitive scenarios. In saying that the current randomness of ZOC rules is not satisfactory. If it is not improved I will continue to play FOG2 and still purchase future DLC's but my enjoyment of the game will be greatly diminished. Battles are won in real life because generals can develop strategies based on predictable factors. These factors include weapons, armour, range, maneuverability, training, terrain, human psychology amongst others. All these factors are predictable. What is happening with the current ZOC rules is not predictable and therefore does not model warfare. I have always admired the way you have evolved rule sets as problems became apparent and do not see why a change could not be tested once again to see if it could improve the ZOC situation.

[TheGrayMouser]

Why does the Reduced CC free turn count as large turn when with CC it doesn't? It's especially weird since in the exact same situation a non-light cavalry can still charge after turning and moving.

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

The light horse could have charged too, if you had done it in one move...

[rbodleyscott]

What is happening with the current ZOC rules is not predictable and therefore does not model warfare.

And therein lies the point of contention. In reality, warfare is not completely predictable, and it is complete predictability that does not model warfare.

[Cunningcairn]

Why does the Reduced CC free turn count as large turn when with CC it doesn't? It's especially weird since in the exact same situation a non-light cavalry can still charge after turning and moving.

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

The light horse could have charged too, if you had done it in one move...

Correct but it might have recoiled after impact which meant the MF would have still been able to charge my fragged cavalry in the next turn.

[rbodleyscott]

Are you saying a cav out of CC making the same move would be allowed to charge?

The light horse could have charged too, if you had done it in one move...

Correct but it might have recoiled after impact which meant the MF would have still been able to charge my fragged cavalry in the next turn.

Which would, of course, have been more realistic.

[rbodleyscott]

I have always admired the way you have evolved rule sets as problems became apparent and do not see why a change could not be tested once again to see if it could improve the ZOC situation.

That might still happen. I am just stating the case against.

[Cunningcairn]

What is happening with the current ZOC rules is not predictable and therefore does not model warfare.

And therein lies the point of contention. In reality, warfare is not completely predictable, and it is complete predictability that does not model warfare.

Yes but tanks don't do well at sea and ships don't fly.

[rbodleyscott]

What is happening with the current ZOC rules is not predictable and therefore does not model warfare.

And therein lies the point of contention. In reality, warfare is not completely predictable, and it is complete predictability that does not model warfare.

Yes but tanks don't do well at sea and ships don't fly.

It is the level of predictability that is in dispute. You can't compare ZOCs with whether ships can fly.

[Cunningcairn]

The light horse could have charged too, if you had done it in one move...

Correct but it might have recoiled after impact which meant the MF would have still been able to charge my fragged cavalry in the next turn.

Which would, of course, have been more realistic.

Yes agree. Why do they stick when my opponent charges and not when I charge

[SnuggleBunnies]

To be fair the whole trapping your light unit with a second light unit in order to pin the enemy with a flank charge is rather absurd and probably needs to go. Talk about a gamey tactic to frustrate newer players! Mind you, I'll use it in a tournament myself, gotta try to win and all that, but several proposals were made in an earlier thread to end it.

[MVP7]

Without getting into the effect on break-off blocking (something I and many other don't need to worry about in single-player), it would be nice if both LH and Cav behaved consistently in this purely game-mechanical situation (i.e. it's not a tactical decision).

I'd rather take being able to charge after turning (and moving) as I often want to check the ranged damage before deciding whether to shoot or charge. Cancelling the turn-move before charging is a pointless hurdle and it's not going to prevent break-off blocking on the large scale.

[MVP7]

My suggested solution to the break-off blocking is the same as last time:

BlockingRules.jpg (126.82 KiB) Viewed 1608 times

A) If any unit is blocked by friendly light unit, the blocking light unit will evade out of the way.
B) If Light unit is blocked by friendly non-light, the light unit will evade through the blocking non-light unit.
C) If non-light unit is blocked by friendly non-light unit, there will be no break-off.
D) If light unit is blocked by hostile light unit, there will be no break-off.
E) If non-light unit is blocked by hostile light unit, the blocking light will evade out of the way.
F) If any unit is blocked by hostile non-light unit, there will be no break-off.

X) If blocker can't evade in cases A and E, there will be no break-off.
Y) If the square behind blocker is not usable in case B, there will be no break-off.
*) The "evade" by blocker would ideally use the path-finding of normal evasion BUT only move distance of one square.

This system would prevent blatantly unrealistic use of light unit to "block" light and non-light unit but also allow the much more believable blocking of non-light units by other non-light units. It's easy to understand, it would not open any new exploits and it would close several prominent exploits. From historical/realism point of view, I think this believably and consistently represents the interactions of light and non-light units with friendly and hostile units.

[Cunningcairn]

To be fair the whole trapping your light unit with a second light unit in order to pin the enemy with a flank charge is rather absurd and probably needs to go. Talk about a gamey tactic to frustrate newer players! Mind you, I'll use it in a tournament myself, gotta try to win and all that, but several proposals were made in an earlier thread to end it.

Fair chirp it is gamey. It could however be viewed as the result of a combined attack of charging LH and blocking light horse or foot. I had not read MVP7's potential fix before now. I think that light troops recoiling through their own light troops is not a bad idea.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I like that idea, I think more than my own idea which was to force an additional cohesion test on the light unit that can't Fall Back - the tactic would still be possible, but riskier.