Breaking off from close combat

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

With that said, I'm not convinced by Kevin's argument -- Kn breaking off, reforming, and charging again is tactical action that takes place within an element during combat, exactly like second-rank individual heavy foot replacing losses in the front line, or juggling manipular formations of Romans, short-range missile fire, throwing pila and francisca, and things like that. In other words, it isn't represented by the movement of the whole element (a thousand warriors); it is part of normal combat results.

Against the less organized, less rigid-front mass of Aux/Ps, Knights are much more likely to crush the loose order troops immediately (which is built into the combat results already), but if that fails it makes perfect sense that they would have difficulty disengaging, because they are much more mixed into the enemy and much less "repulsed in front of" the enemy as they would have been with a failed charge against a rigid line of heavy foot.

I am not convinced by Dave's argument here, as it seems self-contradictory. For on one hand it admits that knights routinely broke off from opposing foot, but argues that this doesn't matter because it's represented abstractly within generic game mechanics. On the other hand, it argues that we need to distinguish between different types of foot elements in a way that that the game (generic as it is) does not. Moreover, any argument that Knights should not be able to break off for this reason would have to apply with equal force to Cavalry as well.

In any event, the question of whether or not knights are fighting enemy in close or loose order is immaterial. The real issue is whether or not they could break off from such combat -- which they definitely could.

[john meunier]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

While I generally agree with the must be faster to break off rule, this particular case strikes me as quite reasonable. Knights routinely broke off from combat with opposing foot, "rallied back" and reformed to charge again.

Why isn't that represented by a recoil?

[Rich Gause]

I like the current 2.2+ only break off if faster in the ending terrain mechanic. Can an individual guy on a horse run away from a guy on foot in fairly open terrain? Usually yeah, but how many times is the guy on foot going to get to stab him before he can turn the horse and get away? Well that depends on other things, how close are they, did the guy on the horse stop short of the guy on foot or even ride past him? Do they have freedom of individual movement or are they trying to maintain a formation with their friends or maybe they are in a crowd of other guys on horses that are still trying to go forward... Now multiply all that by hundreds of guys either side. I think all this complexity is nicely represented by the simple mechanic of break off if you are faster mechanic. I don't think all mounted should be able to break off from all foot all the time. Until somebody can come up with another game mechanic that works at least as well and is as simple I think there is about zero chance of getting any sort of consensus to agreee to change it.

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

Until somebody can come up with another game mechanic that works at least as well and is as simple I think there is about zero chance of getting any sort of consensus to agreee to change it.

We are really only talking mounted that pursued or a push result, so that your mounted starts your bound in contact with the enemy's front edge.

I like 2.2+ as it stands, but I also liked how DBMM handled mounted breakoff. If I remember correctly, mounted have the option to swap their recoil or push result against foot into a repulse result instead. A repulse is like a recoil, but at the full movement distance instead of base depth. It adds complexity though.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Pavane

I like 2.2+ as it stands, but I also liked how DBMM handled mounted breakoff. If I remember correctly, mounted have the option to swap their recoil or push result against foot into a repulse result instead. A repulse is like a recoil, but at the full movement distance instead of base depth. It adds complexity though.

Phil was looking into adding that to 3.0 at some point; not sure if it is in now or not (I stopped following 3.0).

Regardless, having situational choice (recoil or repulse) is not only something that the overall commander would not have had control over (and therefore, to my mind, very suspect as a mechanic) but is also complexity that I really don't see as having enough benefit to be worth adding to the nice simple mechanic we have.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

Can an individual guy on a horse run away from a guy on foot in fairly open terrain? Usually yeah, but how many times is the guy on foot going to get to stab him before he can turn the horse and get away? Well that depends on other things, how close are they, did the guy on the horse stop short of the guy on foot or even ride past him? Do they have freedom of individual movement or are they trying to maintain a formation with their friends or maybe they are in a crowd of other guys on horses that are still trying to go forward... Now multiply all that by hundreds of guys either side.

Knights necessarily fought "unformed" after the initial contact. Indeed, when opposing foot, their advantage was greatest if the melee became "unformed" because they did not have to worry about fighting cohesive bodies of formed spear, etc., and had the advantages of speed and height (the ability to strike downward) over their enemies. They particularly had little to fear from bodies of light skirmishing foot in open terrain, whether charging or riding through/away from them. Thus, when the recall was sounded, there was no need to form ranks. Each man would ride back individually and rally with his comrades around their leader's standard.

Perhaps some approximation of the DBMM result could be elegantly achieved simply by having knights flee from foot that they do not beat.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

I am not convinced by Dave's argument here, as it seems self-contradictory. For on one hand it admits that knights routinely broke off from opposing foot, but argues that this doesn't matter because it's represented abstractly within generic game mechanics.

Perhaps you didn't understand my main point, Kevin. INDIVIDUAL knights and small groups routinely did such actions. ELEMENTS, not so much.

Individual Roman blade threw Pila. Elements, no. Individual Cretan archers (Psiloi) fired their bows at enemy. Elements of Psiloi do not get missile fire, as it is subsumed in their skirmishing combat style.

Individual Skythian horse archers used the "parting shot" to harass enemy. LH elements in DBA do not get to fire out their butts after being recoiled/fled.

You were talking about individual behavior. While interesting, that doesn't necessarily correspond with the behavior of a unit of a thousand men. That was my point.

Does that resolve your confusion on what I was talking about?

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Perhaps some approximation of the DBMM result could be elegantly achieved simply by having knights flee from foot that they do not beat.

Broken. The "lock" (tie result ending still in combat) is a major component in the DBA combat results. Even a studly killing machine like Knights hitting Psiloi/Aux in the open must worry about getting a lock, because then the enemy can come in and overlap him on their bound and reduce his odds of success, possibly even putting him in a flank attack that will kill him. In your system the Knight will never end in combat (will never lock). That causes a major change in the way combat works. Not a good idea, and to me clearly too far from the 2.2+ mission to keep the feel of the game essentially the same as 2.2.

If you mean replace recoil results with flee results, that wouldn't have the problem above (no 'lock' result) but also wouldn't do what you wish; a free disengage on lock results. And a flee on any loss by Kn against foot would look totally different on the battlefield from what we are familiar with -- before even considering such an idea I'm sure the GMlist would want to see lots of examples of that sort of behavior from historical battles, because that would be a huge change from v2.2.

[Pavane]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

Phil was looking into adding that to 3.0 at some point; not sure if it is in now or not (I stopped following 3.0).

Regardless, having situational choice (recoil or repulse) is not only something that the overall commander would not have had control over (and therefore, to my mind, very suspect as a mechanic) but is also complexity that I really don't see as having enough benefit to be worth adding to the nice simple mechanic we have.

I prefer 2.2+, and you are right that optional combat outcomes is quite a departure that may lengthen games. It did answer Rich's request though.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Pavane

I prefer 2.2+, and you are right that optional combat outcomes is quite a departure that may lengthen games. It did answer Rich's request though.

Yup. I was just remembering my reaction when Phil brought up the optional repulse concept for 3.0.