Breaking off from close combat

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

You say that knights could break off as individuals, but not as groups.

That's not what I said, Kevin.

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

So I don't see how it can be said that my assumptions are "clearly false" while yours are presumably correct beyond all doubt.

You are trying to cast my argument into the mold of yours, and then put the burden of proof on me, not you.

Let me repeat.

You are saying "individual knights can do X, therefore the whole element can do X."

I'm saying that your logic is faulty. There is no reason to believe that the second part follows from the first.

Then I gave evidence for other elements in DBA where individual warriors can do Y, but the whole element cannot do Y.

If you want to prove your argument, then you should find evidence that the whole element of Knights actually does X.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove your argument, and certainly not incumbent upon me to prove that elements of Knights could not disengage -- any more than it is incumbent upon me to prove that they could not fly, or walk on water. There is a huge difference between me saying "Knights could not disengage" (which I would have to prove, or at least provide evidence for) and me saying "your logic is faulty". The first is a statement about Knights, the second is a statement about your logic. When I say your logic is faulty, I am responsible for pointing out flaws in your logic. I have done so. I am not responsible for disproving your premise, because I didn't say your thesis was wrong -- I said that you haven't proven it is right by the logic you are using. Perhaps there is some other argument that would prove your premise.

Maybe Knights should be able to disengage. That is unproven. But your logic, that the individual behavior of Knights when fighting one-on-one against single footmen should allow us to generalize to the group behavior of 1000 knights fighting against 1000 footmen, is invalid.

[Scott Russell]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

This is incorrect, Scott. ZOC effects including elements breaking ZOC or having to conform to ZOCs they enter happen during the turn as soon as the moves are made. There is no 1 turn delay for anything.

Rich,
My impression was that the SCh made the 3Kn turn to contact, and thus broke the ZOC, but looking at the second of the two pictures (which doesn't appear to have made an appearance in the quote) the SCh actually seems to have cut the ZOC in some other way.
Scott

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

That's not what I said, Kevin.

You are trying to cast my argument into the mold of yours, and then put the burden of proof on me, not you.

Let me repeat.

You are saying "individual knights can do X, therefore the whole element can do X."

I'm saying that your logic is faulty. There is no reason to believe that the second part follows from the first.

Then I gave evidence for other elements in DBA where individual warriors can do Y, but the whole element cannot do Y.

If you want to prove your argument, then you should find evidence that the whole element of Knights actually does X.

It is not incumbent on me to disprove your argument, and certainly not incumbent upon me to prove that elements of Knights could not disengage -- any more than it is incumbent upon me to prove that they could not fly, or walk on water.

Somewhere between all the X's, Y's, casting of molds, incumbents, etc. we seem to have lost sight of the fact that neither of us can PROVE how ELEMENTS behaved in real life because in real life there were no elements. All we can do is lean on the historical evidence, which often highlighted the roles of individuals with whom the chroniclers & troubadors were principally concerned. Generalizing from specific examples may not always yield the right answer, but it's not necessarily faulty logic either.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

Somewhere between all the X's, Y's, casting of molds, incumbents, etc. we seem to have lost sight of the fact that neither of us can PROVE how ELEMENTS behaved in real life because in real life there were no elements.

I agree completely.

Originally Posted by Kevin Boylan

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence, which often highlighted the roles of individuals with whom the chroniclers & troubadors were principally concerned. Generalizing from specific examples may not always yield the right answer, but it's not necessarily faulty logic either.

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence of how units and large groups behaved. There are lots of descriptions of that, too.

If we rely on descriptions of Alexander's exploits in personal combat for how all Macedonians fought c.330 BC, we aren't going to get a very realistic picture.

[Kevin Boylan]

Originally Posted by david kuijt

All we can do is lean on the historical evidence of how units and large groups behaved. There are lots of descriptions of that, too.

Can you cite some examples that serve to prove your point? I am willing to consider the possibility that I am mistaken.

[Rich Gause]

I would say that a large group of indivdual Kn who are all charging home with impetus would have a difficult time breaking off all together if some were repulsed and others were making inroads in the enemy formation. Since they are inclined to overrash pursuit unless the whole element got repulsed from breaking into the enemy's formation(easy to visualize with a close order formation of heavy foot, less so with open order Ax and Ps), the element as a whole should not be allowed a voluntary break off IMO as the lock result represents some repulsed and some winning and the ones who are winning would be disinclined to stop riding down the open order foot. If they get recoiled that represents a serious enough lack of success for the Kn to have disengaged as an entire element from the loose foot. IMO

[colinrice]

Originally Posted by kontos

Breaking off from combat remaining ordered is a difficult maneuver to pull off. 2.2 allowed it at will. I think that grants too much control. 3.0 restricts it...period. 2.2+ allows it IF you are faster than your opponent. Simply stated. I happen to find this an excellent compromise.

I guess that is why it is a single element move and costs a full pip to do it. Units in combat had the capability to withdraw. The rule makes something that was possible, impossible. It removes a capability. That is not compromise.

[david kuijt]

Originally Posted by Rich Gause

I would say that a large group of indivdual Kn who are all charging home with impetus would have a difficult time breaking off all together if some were repulsed and others were making inroads in the enemy formation. Since they are inclined to overrash pursuit unless the whole element got repulsed from breaking into the enemy's formation(easy to visualize with a close order formation of heavy foot, less so with open order Ax and Ps), the element as a whole should not be allowed a voluntary break off IMO as the lock result represents some repulsed and some winning and the ones who are winning would be disinclined to stop riding down the open order foot. If they get recoiled that represents a serious enough lack of success for the Kn to have disengaged as an entire element from the loose foot. IMO

Very well stated, Rich. And a perfect illustration of how group behavior is not the same as individual behavior.

[Rich Gause]

Napoleonic armies in genreal had better command and control than ancient armies. The British at Waterloo wanted their heavy cavalry to break off and reform, even sounded the recall but the heavies kept right on going. If Wellington couldn't get it done(and he was about as well organized and as micromanaging a control freak as I have ever read about, not in a bad way, he was very good) then I doubt many ancient generals would have had better luck. There are plenty of other examples like that where what would be Kn in DBA didn't break off when the General wanted. I don't think in DBA it should be so simple that Kn should get to break off whenever the player wants for just one Pip. I think a recoil represents Kn breaking off from combat. I think the break off if faster is better than any suggestion I have heard yet to replace it and doubt if anything better is possible without becoming hideously complicated or allowing breakoffs that shouldn't be allowed. If the choice is Kn that get a lock result vs Ps or Ax are never able to break off or always able to break off I would pick never for both realism and game play reasons.

[Lobotomy]

Originally Posted by colinrice

I guess that is why it is a single element move and costs a full pip to do it. Units in combat had the capability to withdraw. The rule makes something that was possible, impossible. It removes a capability. That is not compromise.

Colin,

It is a design choice, not a "compromise." Until 2.2, the design choice was you had to be faster, so that is the design choice we are use to. This is no difference than the other changes in 2.2+, which are all design choices.