Disorder from Terrain

[Philippeatbay]

This question probably arises because I don't understand something fundamental, like the exact function and significance of disorder in this game.

From time to time I have been forced to move a unit through terrain that leaves it in various states of disorder.

I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that immediately after a unit moves out of disordering terrain, they magically return to good order.

Is this the way the game is supposed to work, or am I missing something?

I was under the impression that if you did something that threw a formation into one of various states of disorder in real life (tm) like cross a ditch, climb over a wall, or thread yourself through a bunch of trees, and then plopped yourself down in a nice flat open piece of terrain, the amount of time it would take you to return to good order would have something to do with how disordered you actually were.

I instinctively avoid disordering situations when moving my units, so there may be more going on here that I'm not aware of.

Is recovery instantaneous, and if it is, should it be?

[TheGrayMouser]

This question probably arises because I don't understand something fundamental, like the exact function and significance of disorder in this game.

From time to time I have been forced to move a unit through terrain that leaves it in various states of disorder.

I may be mistaken, but I am under the impression that immediately after a unit moves out of disordering terrain, they magically return to good order.

Is this the way the game is supposed to work, or am I missing something?

I was under the impression that if you did something that threw a formation into one of various states of disorder in real life (tm) like cross a ditch, climb over a wall, or thread yourself through a bunch of trees, and then plopped yourself down in a nice flat open piece of terrain, the amount of time it would take you to return to good order would have something to do with how disordered you actually were.

I instinctively avoid disordering situations when moving my units, so there may be more going on here that I'm not aware of.

Is recovery instantaneous, and if it is, should it be?

Its instantaneous
As for if it should be....hmm, why not? Its nice to get away from the John Tiller approach where disorder is permanent until one passes a leadership test, even if the unit just moved across a sunken road and is 50 hexes away from any danger.. wait a turn, nope , wait another turn, nope...
I think this game presumes that if a unit has a enough "time" within a turn to move into clear terrain, it has a enough time to shake its troops back into order.

Attacking across linear obstacles does not cause disorder to troops defending, just the attacker.
I think there is a chart in the manual that describes effect sof disorder amonst troop types, gendarmes and heavy foot get ht the most, followed by mixed thenj mediums light setc.

[Philippeatbay]

What's actually happening to the disordered unit is that a bunch of sergeant-at-arms are running around like maniacs getting everyone to stand where there supposed to.

I can imagine that in the time-frame of the game (whatever it is) this would happen fairly quickly (read instantaneously) if the disordered unit weren't too big and the disorder weren't severe. But if those sergeants had to do a lot of running around to do because the unit was a massive early tercio, I would want to see a lesser state of disorder persisting for a turn or two. And I would expect a unit to recover faster if it didn't move.

But this kind of thing is a judgement call for RBS. I doubt that the present state of affairs is an oversight, and I'm sure he had his reasons (e.g. enough time elapses between turns for units to get back into alignment. It's not the same as a 'D' result after all).

[rbodleyscott]

But this kind of thing is a judgement call for RBS. I doubt that the present state of affairs is an oversight, and I'm sure he had his reasons (e.g. enough time elapses between turns for units to get back into alignment. It's not the same as a 'D' result after all).

It's a design decision carried forward from FOGR. The idea is to keep the game flowing. Thus troops do not have to spend a turn rallying after passing though disordering terrain, charging, evading, pursuing etc.

The game is not intended to represent a fixed time frame, but rather is intended to follow an episodic initiative-counterinitiative paradigm instead. This, for example, is why pursuing troops can end up moving multiple times in a turn if enemy they charge during the pursuit break. For adjacent units time effectively "stands still" while this is happening, because their command inertia stops them intervening quickly enough. It is also part of the reason why most infantry can't charge engaged cavalry in the rear - in reality the cavalry combat would be over before they would have time to do so.

When a unit charges another, it is effectively moving into the square occupied by that enemy, even though it is not physically moved on the game map. This is why troops on open ground adjacent to an enemy unit in disordering terrain are disordered if they attack the enemy in the terrain, but not if the enemy in the terrain attacks them. If a unit has to fight immediately after "leaving" terrain - i.e. if it attacks enemy in the square adjacent to the terrain - then it is disordered. If not, then it was not opposed and therefore had time to shake out its formation prior to any subsequent combat.

[Confusedesh]

Let me get this right, if the enemy (on open ground) attacks me on rough ground both of us will suffer a disorder penalty but if I attack the enemy only I will suffer the disorder.

So one of the best places to defend is on open ground opposite the enemy on rough ground.


And a similar question when defending a hill what square do you stand on, the top opposite the slope or the slope? I presume the top.

[TheGrayMouser]

Let me get this right, if the enemy (on open ground) attacks me on rough ground both of us will suffer a disorder penalty but if I attack the enemy only I will suffer the disorder.

So one of the best places to defend is on open ground opposite the enemy on rough ground.


And a similar question when defending a hill what square do you stand on, the top opposite the slope or the slope? I presume the top.

I wouldnt say the best place to defend is on open ground oposite rough, far from it!
example medium foot in rough opposite heavy foot in clear. The medium can basically just shoot at the heavy foot, if the heavy shoots back, most rough terrian proviseds SOME cover to reduce causalties.... If the heavy attacks into the rough he will suffer more penalties for disorder than the medium. If the medium choses to sally forth, well yeah the medium will have some slight disorder penalty which is why they could just stay in there and defy heavies or cavalry from coming in to melee.

I beleive for hills its the height differential that matters from one grid to another , whether or not you on a "flat" or slop grid doesnt matter

[Confusedesh]

I wouldnt say the best place to defend is on open ground oposite rough, far from it!
example medium foot in rough opposite heavy foot in clear. The medium can basically just shoot at the heavy foot, if the heavy shoots back, most rough terrian proviseds SOME cover to reduce causalties.... If the heavy attacks into the rough he will suffer more penalties for disorder than the medium. If the medium choses to sally forth, well yeah the medium will have some slight disorder penalty which is why they could just stay in there and defy heavies or cavalry from coming in to melee.

I beleive for hills its the height differential that matters from one grid to another , whether or not you on a "flat" or slop grid doesnt matter

Of course your right, I had in my head horse and you could try and block them with your own horse so they had no choice but to attack from the rough, I presume that would give you the advantage.

Height difference that makes sense.

[jomni]

I turn on tool tips and it says which slopes give penalties.

[RogerJNeilson]

A really big problem I have with this game is the lack of effect of terrain. I just cannot see large pike formations being able to move into and through woods at all. This seems to me to make terrain types purely 'chrome' - whereas in reality I would expect certain terrain types - like woods, to be effectively impassable to certain troop types.

Roger

[simacole]

And yet the Swiss were known to have emerged from woods on a number of occasions. See accounts of the battle of Morat.

"The Confederate Vanguard of some 6,000 skirmishers and all the 1,200 cavalry present erupted out of Birchenwald Woods to the west of Murten, exactly where Charles had predicted they would appear.

Behind the Vanguard came the main body of pike, the Gewalthut (Centre). This was some 10,000 to 12,000 strong and was formed in a huge wedge with the cantonial standards in the centre, flanked by halberdiers and an outer ring of pikemen. The Rearguard of 6,000 to 8,000 more closely packed pike and halberdiers followed the Gewalthut towards the now sparsely manned Grunhag."

Another account of the same battle: " The largely Swiss Vorhut (Vanguard) of 7,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry, were instructed to attack from the right, while the principal thrust would come from the 8,000 infantry and 1,300 cavalry of the Gewalthut (Centre), which was dispatched on a difficult circuitous march round the left flank, over thickly wooded snow-covered slopes out of view of the waiting Burgundians."

Fighting in woods with a pike block is one thing, but passing through "thickly wooded snow-covered slopes" doesn't appear to have presented too much of a problem. Incidentally I don't recognise the game being described here. Terrain has an enormous effect in Pike and Shot.

[simacole]

Here is more from the battle of Grandson: "The Burgundian knights soon surrounded the Swiss vanguard, but then Charles made a serious mistake. After brief skirmishing, Charles ordered his cavalry to pull back so the artillery could reduce the Swiss forces before the attacks were renewed. At this time, the main body of the Swiss emerged from a forest which had hitherto obscured their approach. The Burgundian army, already pulling back, soon became confused when the second, and larger, body of Swiss troops appeared."

Its seems that traversing difficult terrain to make an unexpected appearance on the battlefield was actually a major ingredient in the early victories of the Swiss.

[RogerJNeilson]

There are many examples over many wars of troops traversing 'difficult' terrain. The question is always, 'how difficult' it actually is. I have no doubt that given the will and given the time any terrain can be traversed. I have woods near me that are pretty open and where one can see a log way in and the trees have significant spread (deciduous) and I have others where after a few steps you cannot see anything and you have to stumble through the tightly packed trunks and need both your hands to move the branches apart (coniferous).

I have to say I am very new to this game and this period, so I may be easily shown to be wrong, but my reservation about the game is the terrain issue.

Some thoughts.....

1. Moving through woods that are known, that have been scouted is much easier than moving through woods for the first time - where at any moment you may find an enemy force.
2. Tercios and Kiels seem to me to be just about the most complex troop deployments you can have - the nearest I can get to them outside of the period would be the Napoleonic square, or the Alexandrian Pike Phalanx. In the case of the square it just did not move at all, the Phalanx was fine moving forward and given a bit of time it could turn 180 degrees. In the game the Tercio and Kiel seem to be able to move with balletic quality - they must have been incredibly well trained. Given they were, and given they were tightly packed and skilfully led then that formation simply cannot exist traversing anything other than clear ground. When you move such a force through any broken ground of any kind there has to be an opening of ranks to avoid obstacles - by the time you get to woods you have two options - either you break formation and move through them independently - reforming on the other side, or you follow trails and paths that you know will lead you in the right direction - and therefore your frontage will decrease significantly, but the depth of your formation will increase - you are forming a loose column. If you break formation, or you change formation to a long column - possibly only one man width, then when you get back to the clear ground there will be a significant time penalty when your forces need to reform. - they will also need space to form up again.

I accept this is a game, and any game has to be an abstraction of reality. I do just find it disconcerting that troops in such tightly packed formations which rely for their success upon their preservation of that formation, can happily wander off into terrain that would ruin their formation and slow their movement down, not to say force them to lose sight of where they were supposed to go, and instantly they emerge from such terrain they reform as if someone had said 'abracadabra'.

Is there a significant morale hit in making your troops do this, or does it really slow their movement down as much as it should, and does it force them to emerge disorganised and take time to reform? My limited play of the game does not give me that sense at all.

Roger

[jomni]

Is there a significant morale hit in making your troops do this, or does it really slow their movement down as much as it should, and does it force them to emerge disorganised and take time to reform? My limited play of the game does not give me that sense at all.
Roger

Moving though woods is slower. Because they actually break formation, this gives them some "disorder" status and combat penalties. That means, when going thorough woods, they don't function as tercios and close-order pike blocks any more.
But of course the instant reform happens as mentioned in the initial post.

[RogerJNeilson]

So in order to gain any advantage from a wooded area you have to place your defensive troops immediately adjacent to that wooded area so the enemy moving through the woods have to fight from the woods themselves, as they will instantly reform on leaving.....Ok.

Roger

[simacole]

Stick medium infantry in the woods. They will be only slightly disordered. A kiel will get severely disordered attacking into woods. As has been pointed out they lose pretty much of all of their advantages if severely disordered. Chances are they will get their asses kicked by much cheaper troops. In my experience troops like Jannissaries or Hajduk musketeers will slaughter most pike kiels if they are defending woods. Even weaker units like Scottish highlanders or Azaps will hold their own.

[jomni]

So in order to gain any advantage from a wooded area you have to place your defensive troops immediately adjacent to that wooded area so the enemy moving through the woods have to fight from the woods themselves, as they will instantly reform on leaving.....Ok.

Roger

Yes I do that on occasion.

[w_michael]

When a unit charges another, it is effectively moving into the square occupied by that enemy, even though it is not physically moved on the game map. This is why troops on open ground adjacent to an enemy unit in disordering terrain are disordered if they attack the enemy in the terrain, but not if the enemy in the terrain attacks them.

I was wondering how this worked, but Impact POAs don't seem to work exactly that way. I looked closely at the results in one of my MP games. A Parliamentary Determined Horse in enclosures charged my Cavaliers in the open. The terrain seemed to have had a mixed effect. My Cavaliers did not receive the Impact Mounted +100 POA as if the combat was in non-open. The Determined Horse did not receive their +100 POA for Pistols (Impact) as if the Cavaliers did receive the Impact Mounted POA.

I expected, based on the quote above, that since the Determined Horse was attacking out of enclosures and into open terrain that the Cavaliers would receive the +100 POA for their deemed counter-charge because they were in the open and that, as a consequence, the Determined Horse would not receive the Pistol (Impact) POA. The terrain didn't matter in the subsequent melee, since both sides receive Pistol (Melee) whether they are in enclosures or open terrain.

[rbodleyscott]

When a unit charges another, it is effectively moving into the square occupied by that enemy, even though it is not physically moved on the game map. This is why troops on open ground adjacent to an enemy unit in disordering terrain are disordered if they attack the enemy in the terrain, but not if the enemy in the terrain attacks them.

I was wondering how this worked, but Impact POAs don't seem to work exactly that way. I looked closely at the results in one of my MP games. A Parliamentary Determined Horse in enclosures charged my Cavaliers in the open. The terrain seemed to have had a mixed effect. My Cavaliers did not receive the Impact Mounted +100 POA as if the combat was in non-open. The Determined Horse did not receive their +100 POA for Pistols (Impact) as if the Cavaliers did receive the Impact Mounted POA.

I expected, based on the quote above, that since the Determined Horse was attacking out of enclosures and into open terrain that the Cavaliers would receive the +100 POA for their deemed counter-charge because they were in the open and that, as a consequence, the Determined Horse would not receive the Pistol (Impact) POA. The terrain didn't matter in the subsequent melee, since both sides receive Pistol (Melee) whether they are in enclosures or open terrain.

Although a unit in the open that is attacked by a unit in terrain does not suffer the disordering effect of the terrain, the combat still counts as "not in open terrain".

Pistol (Impact) POA is cancelled by Impact Horse capability, not by the Impact Horse POA, so is cancelled whether or not the Impact Horse actually get a POA. Otherwise the Pistols (Impact) would have too much of an advantage in or near terrain. (Don't forget that despite their different tactical doctrines, both sides were in fact armed identically, and were capable of using their weapons appropriately to the terrain they were in)