(NOT) Turning towards enemy

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

jorneto
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Lisboa - Portugal

(NOT) Turning towards enemy

Post by jorneto » Mon Apr 25, 2011 5:57 pm

In a recent game one BG stood parallel to an enemy BG. The two were about 3 MU’s apart (laterally), each needing a 90 degrees turn to face the other.

Each took 3 game turns to pass a CMT and face the enemy!

I find it odd to say the least, that two enemy bodies – very close to each other and with no one around - don´t turn to face an imminent danger.

To avoid this sort of situations I would suggest a modifier to the CMT test:

-> 90 or 180 Turn to face an enemy within “x” MU’s …: +2 (“x” being the enemy move?)
Or
-> 90 or 180 Turn to face an enemy within “x” MU’s …: free turn but disordering(disrupting?) BG

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Mon Apr 25, 2011 6:35 pm

In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Post by Jhykronos » Tue Apr 26, 2011 1:17 am

Strategos69 wrote:In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.
Funny, I've always felt the same way. Someone's pulling an envelopment on you so you try to get your troops to turn but fail, and this causes no confusion at all?

Cynical
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 10:44 am

Post by Cynical » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:29 am

Strategos69 wrote:In my opinion, if CMT were CT things would be easier. This way if your order your troops to turn, they will, but if they fail the CMT they would be disrupted after that. Right now trying is free and with no cost, so you just try it as if you fail you can always try a simple move. That feels odd.
I have always thought this was odd. I think it would be better if you declared the move you want to make and if you fail you only do the simple first part.

An example would be drilled troops moving forward and then turning 90 degrees, if they fail I feel that they should still do the forward move even if that now puts them in a poor position.

jorneto
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Lisboa - Portugal

Post by jorneto » Wed Apr 27, 2011 5:17 pm

Cynical wrote:I have always thought this was odd. I think it would be better if you declared the move you want to make and if you fail you only do the simple first part.

An example would be drilled troops moving forward and then turning 90 degrees, if they fail I feel that they should still do the forward move even if that now puts them in a poor position.
Actually, I favour the logic of always doing the intended move with the troops but getting disorganised/confused in the process. - Penalizing "troop state" instead of the current "troop move".

In game terms, the CMT would be used to decide if your troops drop (or not) a coesion level, instead of the current rule, to decide if you can (or not) execute a complex move.

I can imagine in a mid game situation some tough decisions arising...

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 10:17 am

Post by elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:03 pm

Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an 8). In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Paul

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 6:32 pm

jorneto wrote:
Cynical wrote:In game terms, the CMT would be used to decide if your troops drop (or not) a coesion level, instead of the current rule, to decide if you can (or not) execute a complex move.
The quickist way I've seen of keeping undrilled foot off the table....people take this troop type little enough already, without making it harder to move.

Dave

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Wed Apr 27, 2011 7:05 pm

This idea has been raised before (by Strategos surprisingly enough).

Wasn't a good idea then and isn't a good idea now.

Keep them coming though.
Evaluator of Supremacy

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm

The runner up wrote:Bridesmaids 'R' Us
LMFAO
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

ShrubMiK
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:37 am

Post by ShrubMiK » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:30 pm

>In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken?

>Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Not saying I agree with the idea...haven't really thought about it properly...but do read carefully and don't try to shoot down something that hasn't been suggested ;)

They would have turned immediately, perhaps become disrupted, and not needed to test again unless other BGs moved into the picture and the situation changed significantly again.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3792
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:55 pm

ShrubMiK wrote:>In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken?

>Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.

Not saying I agree with the idea...haven't really thought about it properly...but do read carefully and don't try to shoot down something that hasn't been suggested ;)

They would have turned immediately, perhaps become disrupted, and not needed to test again unless other BGs moved into the picture and the situation changed significantly again.
I think Paul was replying to one of the responses that you take a cohesion test to manoever - perhaps you should read more carefully ;)
Evaluator of Supremacy

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:00 pm

elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote:Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an 8). In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.
The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.

I always try "turn and move" with my drilled. If I risked to drop a level, I would not. But right now, at least you always try. It might harm more undrilled... or drilled troops making lots of manouvers. This way you can be certain that your undrilled will perform the manouver and it is all about the order in which they will come out. And as a precaution of odd situations like fleing from manouvering only, fragmented troops who did not pass the test simply do not do anything and stay still.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Post by ravenflight » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:46 am

Strategos69 wrote:
elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n wrote:Dropping a cohesion level after a failed test is to put it mildly not a good idea.

Undrilled foot are unpopular enough as it is. Who would dream of taking troops who can only stand still or move a full move straight ahead without taking a test (requiring an 8). In the situation described of a unit spending 3 turns trying to turn presumably they would have broken? Also note that after the first fail the chances of ever getting to turn would get less and less.
The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.

I always try "turn and move" with my drilled. If I risked to drop a level, I would not. But right now, at least you always try. It might harm more undrilled... or drilled troops making lots of manouvers. This way you can be certain that your undrilled will perform the manouver and it is all about the order in which they will come out. And as a precaution of odd situations like fleing from manouvering only, fragmented troops who did not pass the test simply do not do anything and stay still.
I think it's a good suggestion, and believe that it would benefit undrilled more than drilled. As you say, people who have drilled may not risk the 'hmm, do I just turn, or try to turn and move and thereby risk going disrupted', however those troops who are undrilled who find themselves in spots of bother would be able to actually DO something about it. Even moving less than maximum is irksome.

Just recently my enemy had a unit of undrilled bowmen a bee's dick away from a unit of spearmen. They were so close that they couldn't manouver at all. If they failed their CMT they just stand there. They couldn't shoot because the spear were in frontal combat and acting as an overlap. So they just stand there like total zombies. Seemed incredibly unrealistic to me.

david53
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 9:01 pm
Location: Manchester

Post by david53 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:42 am

Strategos69 wrote:
The idea is that if they succeed they turn. If they fail, they DO turn and drop a level. Thus what you describe would not be possible. What does not have much logic is that, if you are in the feet of a commader, you ask your troops to do something, that they do not accomplish and then you are given the chance to issue a new order, that can be completely different to the first one. In the example given, both troops would have turned and both would have dropped a level in their first try.
Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.

Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:09 am

david53 wrote:
Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.
Note that a CT is passed on 7 not 7 or 8 like a CMT. The idea is to simplify tests so that it is easier to remember too. Instead of two types of tests there would be only one. Both will pass or fail the tests on 7. The disadvantage for the undrilled comes from the variety of things they can do and the more likeliness of testing. Provided that there is a general nearby, I think manouvering will not be that disadvantaged but players would have to think more ahead. And in this case you can count that your undrilled at least will move.

By the way, I already noted that you could not be routed from moving to test. In those cases you would remain still and not do anything. This represents that the unit is in total confusion, trying to be put in order by the officers. The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:52 am

Strategos69 wrote:......The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.
The complex move test is the general (player) wanting them to do something unusual. The being able to do something else if the test if failed is the troops just carrying on as normal.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Post by ravenflight » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:58 pm

david53 wrote:Its the same thing, your undrilled foot want to turn, they fail the test and become disrupted, now they want to expand with a - one for being disrupted, thereby needing a nine, fail the test become fragmented, now they want to move short, -two needing a ten to do it fail routed.

All your doing is force undrilled to do little but move forward or for people not to take them.
Someone would be foolish to do that. Additionally, they wouldn't be ABLE to move short (assuming it's an advance) whilst fragmented as they cannot approach enemy.

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Thu Apr 28, 2011 3:37 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Strategos69 wrote:......The unrealistic thing is failing a test and however be allowed to do something else, sometimes completely different.
The complex move test is the general (player) wanting them to do something unusual. The being able to do something else if the test if failed is the troops just carrying on as normal.
Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO
Last edited by madaxeman on Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8721
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:08 pm

madaxeman wrote:Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO
Play snakes and ladders Tim.
:wink:
phil
putting the arg into argumentative

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2970
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman » Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:23 pm

philqw78 wrote:
madaxeman wrote:Reducing the players control over movement by having troops mis-following orders and doing something different to what the player wants (as opposed to the current mechanic which means troops sometimes refuse to do some of what they are told, but otherwise always obey orders faultlessly) would be a good addition to the game IMO
Play snakes and ladders Tim.
:wink:
That's what the pre-game setup mechanics for PBI WW2 rules are. Oddly enough, the 2 armies I'm painting for PBI at the moment have jumped way ahead of the other stuff in my painting queue this year as well.... and there are no ancients in the queue!
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”