Cavalry Fair Play Rules: double, triple ...n charging

As you all should now, somewhat recently, our house rules dominus, Vartan, extendend the fair play rules to include no cavalry charge through enemy and own units. Now, next step to have fair rules is to forbid what I call double, triple, ...n charging, that is, two or more units set side to side charging one single unit, so that their charges come one over the other, as if it were no other horses to stop the horses, and the two units actually deliver a successful charge upon the same one enemy unit, so that instead of having one charge, you have two or more at the same time, breaking any physics law (is more a common sense law) and giving double or more penalties to the unit charged, i.e., double, triple, ...n loses, flanks or attacks from behind, surrounded being, number of enemies, etc. So, to make the game more realistic and stop the frequent abuse of this engine error, I propose that every player uses cavalry so that he can't hit the same enemy unit with two or more overlapping cavalry units.

Attachment 10163

Attachment 10164

Attachment 10165

Attachment 10168

Attachment 10166

Attachment 10167

I think to add that if the case is that you have two or more units that compose only one cav unit regarding numbers (cav was killed), is allowed to charge in mass with those units, but only if those units together make for one cav unit numbers.

I think playing against some armies, a double charge is mandatory to break morale. Especially with the easy availability of Guard mode which does miracles in terms of morale and discipline. Also if this is to take effect, I would like to please ask to lower archer morale, because them staying in the back of the army while cav are looking for a window to charge is getting annoying. I'm talking about levy archers ofcourse, and levy skirmishers if possible. Charging them with heavy cav just wont cut it, especially with the guard mode buff. They effectively hinder cav charges like a mine feild.

So please, can we do something about this. Maybe take into consideration what guard mode is doing to these units and lower morale to compensate ?

On an historical note: that was pretty similar to what happened in a cavalry wedge formation. The leader made contact and surged into the enemy formation. While more and more horsemen were fed into the gap.

On a mechanic note: what you call multiple charges, are actually less effective than say three charges from three sides (flank, rear bonus etc). So in a manner of speaking your opponent is sacrificing effectiveness (inflicting less damage) for a quick execution.

On an engine note: it is the RTW engine that forces units to converge on the center of a formation. Thus incapacitating the charger to attack on the even front that he desired. The solution would be to attack different targets, while perfectly possible, it forces the attacker to "take more time" and also it prevents him to focus his offensive on a key portion of the enemy formation, which would tactically serve his purposes best.

On a personal note: let the vox populi decide whatever it wants. It will not make this any more accurate, the impossibility to focus a cavalry offensive is a biased solution by an infantry perspective. I could make the same case for blobs of infantry concentrated on a part of the opponent formation. With an equal case of physical impossibility for thousands crowded, not mentioning the deaths by trampling and asphyxiation that would occur in reality. Or the impossibility to wield weapons!
Still we are social beings and as such I will abide by whatever "law" we set. But as far as I'm concerned this is a non-issue, related to a broken feature, occurring with both cavalry and infantry. By the proposed reasoning EBO will turn in champion confrontations of one unit frontally engaging another, while the rest watches.

Others might instead use less cavalry and zig-zag the 1-2 they have, making it impossible to catch (another engine's broken feature, for even fast moving units will not catch up to exhausted armoured horses) and claim they aren't doing anything inaccurate/unfair. People will order their infantry to execute mid-melee cessation of hostilities and falling back, something borderline impossible in ancient warfare, achieved only by the most drilled veterans and even then with difficulties and fails. Other currently legal moves, have infantry rushing across the battlefield, skirting the enemy, turning, facing one side, do whatever shenanigan that only an aerial viewpoint can permit, not withstanding both the pratical impossibility in reality and the physical impossibility for those men to do anything of the sort: this is RTW engine, there will never be 'historical accuracy', except the aforementioned single engagement. In my opinion people just shouldn't forget they are playing a videogame and remember the words of Heath Ledger's Joker...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

... it forces the attacker to "take more time" and also it prevents him to focus his offensive on a key portion of the enemy formation, which would tactically serve his purposes best.

---

Right you are my freind, I didnt get all that other cee are aye pee you put in there, but well done , I liked the part i did get.

And I'm sure Vartan or one of the other boys will comment on the exceedingly large amount of commas i have in my speech.

I eagerly await their reviews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

On an engine note: it is the RTW engine that forces units to converge on the center of a formation. Thus incapacitating the charger to attack on the even front that he desired. The solution would be to attack different targets, while perfectly possible, it forces the attacker to "take more time" and also it prevents him to focus his offensive on a key portion of the enemy formation, which would tactically serve his purposes best.

---

You are by far exaggerating the point here. The only reasonable thing regarding the point is that quote, and that's also my proposal: attack different targets and stop abusing of cavalry charges. It's quite unfair to charge like that, for you are exploiting virtuality more than it should be permitted on a reasonable behavior. Of course you can do things that a normal general couldn't do, but that has nothing to do with abusing physical impossibilities and specially taking advantage of a broken engine. It could fairly be possible for the developers of the game to hinder double, triple, etc., cavalry massification and charge: simple as the horses should act as obstacles for the other horses. Is not the same with infantry, and infantry blob is a waiting mass, only the front line attacks; cavalry charging has not that effect, as everyone in the front ranks of every single unit can successfully deliver the charge, as if they were "immaterial beings" (and there is no use of talking about the immateriality of the video game here, that's pure rhetoric). Also the wedge formation was not the same so you can't justify the massive charges with that. Yes, the point is that THE PLAYER focuses cav on a single unit. You can go and focus other units with the other cav, but of course THE PLAYER wants to focus all the cav in a single unit to break it, TO WIN. I'm not talking about changing the engine, but changing the player behavior: charge different targets, never one target with more than one cav. It comes down to a exploit of the cavalry that has no parallel (as you intend that it has) with other "issues" in the game: you can't make the same exploits with other units or situations.

Also, image number 4 is what I consider a fair charge: units charging different targets synchronized or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

infantry blob is a waiting mass, only the front line attacks

---

But causes "insta routs" and similar broken behaviour...

Quote:

---

Also the wedge formation was not the same so you can't justify the massive charges with that.

---

RTW has only a frontal attack animation, missing leaning sideways cuts and thrusts, but that massive charge works just like a wedge...
And I've shown also how it prevents the player from doing what he actually intended. Forcing a compromise...

An exploit of that situation would be a cav unit charging. Holding the enemy in place and another coming several time after charging through its predecessor. But units launched at the same time that the engine forces on the same direction are unavoidable to the player. He isn't purposefully acting to change the game...

Quote:

---

I'm not talking about changing the engine, but changing the player behavior

---

Precisely, limiting choices on no grounds...

Quote:

---

It comes down to a exploit of the cavalry

---

It's not an exploit, it's a broken mechanic due to convergence on target.

Quote:

---

that has no parallel (as you intend that it has) with other "issues" in the game

---

The parallel isn't about that execution, it's of broken engine behaviours:

- zig-zagging units become uncatchable. Should we prevent people from countermanouvering? No, it's just a broken engine.

- infantry blobs cause certain units to insta rout. Should we prevent people from concentrating on the flanks? No, it's just a broken engine.

- Loose infantry, in guard mode holds incredibly multiple times its size. Again same thing.

My point is that, when you choose to answer yes, the game will be stripped barren to that level of frontal duels.
Here you are pushing on this particular example, because you take issue from it. And the reasoning, that is perceived as an 'exploit' isn't objective. Because on a mechanic basis it does less than what potentially can...

To change players' tactics isn't 'fair play' nor 'fixing a problem', it's an imposition on the players' options. Unfortunately some options are poorly addressed by the engine...
Changing players' dirty behaviour to actively bend the physics on the other hand is...

If the logic is to prevent the player to use what he has to achieve victory, within the system, is an arbitrary imposition on a particular broken feature: you either decide to ban them all or none...
For example a player selects two slingers to fire on a general unit, making that choice to help him achieve victory. Another focusses his cavalry on the strongest opposition of infantry, for the same reason. Behind there's no unethical modus operandi to exploit something...


It's not rhetoric, as a game it has shortcomings. Except some obvious unphysicalities (for example, lances through allied units, which is exploitative for it creates an unfeasible result), either one copes and accepts what the videogame is, or strips it to pure balance. Losing the whole purpose of the simulation into a board game...

Now you are not getting the point. There is no parallel to what massive cav charges do. All your examples are of no important result to a game. You can win a game by charging your whole cav army to single enemy infantry... you know this well. Other choices, as shooting a general with 1,2,3 slingers has nothing to do with broken game mechanics.
There are some rules called "Fair play rules". That means, we players decide to stop engine exploits, as the cav double charge, the phalanx turning, the elephants and cav crossing allied units, the units firing while still in melee. The point of these rules is to have a more real game and not a classical broken video game in which the best players are the best to exploit the engine. It comes down to this, do we decide to have Fair play rules or not, as for your logic does, we better not have them.
So, isn't a best option to keep these rules getting better? I don't see any rational argument here to stop Fair play rules to get better. I'm talking here about an engine exploit that is the decision of the player to exploit it or not. Of course you can stop it from being done; the irresponsibility you are trying to justify is unjustified. I can stop massive charging into one unit, is on my free will; unless, of course, I'm actually using that tactic to win, which is winning through an exploit of the engine parallel to charging through or shooting in melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

- Loose infantry, in guard mode holds incredibly multiple times its size. Again same thing.

---

Lets talk about this point here ^^

Hate it when they do that. Messes up cav charges like no body's business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

Now you are not getting the point. There is no parallel to what massive cav charges do. All your examples are of no important result to a game. You can win a game by charging your whole cav army to single enemy infantry... you know this well. Other choices, as shooting a general with 1,2,3 slingers has nothing to do with broken game mechanics.
There are some rules called "Fair play rules". That means, we players decide to stop engine exploits, as the cav double charge, the phalanx turning, the elephants and cav crossing allied units, the units firing while still in melee. The point of these rules is to have a more real game and not a classical broken video game in which the best players are the best to exploit the engine. It comes down to this, do we decide to have Fair play rules or not, as for your logic does, we better not have them.
So, isn't a best option to keep these rules getting better? I don't see any rational argument here to stop Fair play rules to get better. I'm talking here about an engine exploit that is the decision of the player to exploit it or not. Of course you can stop it from being done; the irresponsibility you are trying to justify is unjustified. I can stop massive charging into one unit, is on my free will; unless, of course, I'm actually using that tactic to win, which is winning through an exploit of the engine parallel to charging through or shooting in melee.

---

Very good point, No the only question remains is. Is this an exploit ? Is this un-realistic.

Its like grouping the 600 man cav unit with a 300 man cav unit to increase its size and momentum. Is it so weird to stack cavalry together, It can be seen as a reinforcement, or boost in size to a unit. I have no problem with that, they act as a single unit charging a single unit.

Furthermore, with the presense of the ever-annoying guard mode ability, more and more power is needed out of cavalry to break a unit even in the best of circumstances. Where do we get this power if not from grouping cavalry together into a single unit.

While we're on this lets get that guard-mode loose formation levy archer minefeild out of the way, you know the one people use to cover their backs and makes a pain to every cavalry commander out there.

Right here right now lets get this out of the way. Archers may not use guard while in loose formation, there easy, done , and overwith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

Very good point, No the only question remains is. Is this an exploit ? Is this un-realistic.

Its like grouping the 600 man cav unit with a 300 man cav unit to increase its size and momentum. Is it so weird to stack cavalry together, It can be seen as a reinforcement, or boost in size to a unit. I have no problem with that, they act as a single unit charging a single unit.

Furthermore, with the presense of the ever-annoying guard mode ability, more and more power is needed out of cavalry to break a unit even in the best of circumstances. Where do we get this power if not from grouping cavalry together into a single unit.

---

As it regards grouping more men into a single cav unit, it comes down to "physics" again. Will those 600 hundred hit the, say actual 100 unit of infantry, or will only the first rank, say of an extension equal to that of the enemy infantry unit, hit this? Of course we see that only the first line of cav with its 100 men covering the 100 infantry men will hit the infantry men, the other, including the one you have add to the cavalry unit, will not hit not even could get in touch with the infantry unit. Is like a bottle neck, there can pass only a certain amount not caring how hard you push to it, it will pass only a certain amount each time. Same goes with cav here, just some cav can hit the enemy infantry line, the other cav stays behind and could get involved in melee as the infantry pushes or as the front line cav dies, but otherwise they would just stay back. My point, gentleman, is fair and simple as this. There is no parallel in what you may call "engine exploits" but only the ones already addressed in the Fair Rules system on to which we pledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

As it regards grouping more men into a single cav unit, it comes down to "physics" again. Will those 600 hundred hit the, say actual 100 unit of infantry, or will only the first rank, say of an extension equal to that of the enemy infantry unit, hit this? Of course we see that only the first line of cav with its 100 men covering the 100 infantry men will hit the infantry men, the other, including the one you have add to the cavalry unit, will not hit not even could get in touch with the infantry unit. Is like a bottle neck, there can pass only a certain amount not caring how hard you push to it, it will pass only a certain amount each time. Same goes with cav here, just some cav can hit the enemy infantry line, the other cav stays behind and could get involved in melee as the infantry pushes or as the front line cav dies, but otherwise they would just stay back. My point, gentleman, is fair and simple as this. There is no parallel in what you may call "engine exploits" but only the ones already addressed in the Fair Rules system on to which we pledge.

---

So thats a go for the archer guard mode loose formation thingy right ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -Stormrage-

So thats a go for the archer guard mode loose formation thingy right ?

---

I prefer to discuss that in another thread, you are encouraged to propose your reasons there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

I prefer to discuss that in another thread, you are encouraged to propose your reasons there.

---

Nah I'll just launch a coup and take matters into ma own hands.

This is a STickup, No body move.

As from today

You all answer to me, Capice ne comprendo ?

As from today, No one is allowed Guardmoded Mine feilds behind his line.

'Tis Done!

If this doesn't get across it, I don't know what will:

https://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3461/obs7.jpg

A wants to go blue with I and II, which would be more effective due to extended frontage. But the engine can only follow red.
It isn't an exploit, but a graphical/mechanical issue.

What you are demanding is basically to ban a full house against your pair, because the full house is stronger. On the grounds that the cards have fallen on the table stacked on top of one another...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

If this doesn't get across it, I don't know what will:

https://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3461/obs7.jpg

A wants to go blue with I and II, which would be more effective due to extended frontage. But the engine can only follow red.
It isn't an exploit, but a graphical/mechanical issue.

What you are demanding is basically to ban a full house against your pair, because the full house is stronger. On the grounds that the cards have fallen on the table stacked on top of one another...

---

I fully agree ON THIS PICTURE. I was thinking, also regarding Storm's claims, that LOSE FORMATION UNITS COULD GET CHARGED BY 2 CAV AT SAME TIME. Not the same with the other cases, the 2 Leuce Epos charging the Sweboz Gen is a paradigm of that engine exploit. (Also you can run through units in lose formation, I remind you ;) )-

This is the content of the law I'm proposing.

Attachment 10240

It can go like this: You may charge with multiple cavalry units if each cavalry unit corresponds to a possible free space it could charge without overlapping with the other cavalry, otherwise, you can't, i.e., if there is not space for allowing more than 1 cavalry unit free possible charge.

Lol, I have been missing all the horsie drama.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

I fully agree ON THIS PICTURE. I was thinking, also regarding Storm's claims, that LOSE FORMATION UNITS COULD GET CHARGED BY 2 CAV AT SAME TIME. Not the same with the other cases, the 2 Leuce Epos charging the Sweboz Gen is a paradigm of that engine exploit. (Also you can run through units in lose formation, I remind you ;) )-

---

Sure you can run through them but your charge will get messed up, and I sir am a very neat person.

Why put the pressure on us Neat folks huh ?
:p

Anyway, as i said, It will disrupt a perfectly thought over, and hard worked over charge.

You of all people should appreciate the fine qualities of some good coordinates to ram out kontai up their... parts.

So, My Last order goes as planned. No Delay Sargeant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulises

This is the content of the law I'm proposing.

Attachment 10240

It can go like this: You may charge with multiple cavalry units if each cavalry unit corresponds to a possible free space it could charge without overlapping with the other cavalry, otherwise, you can't, i.e., if there is not space for allowing more than 1 cavalry unit free possible charge.

---

VETO O.O

Too many commas Storm =]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Lol, I have been missing all the horsie drama.

---

Aren't you the rascal ^^

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

If this doesn't get across it, I don't know what will:

https://img585.imageshack.us/img585/3461/obs7.jpg

A wants to go blue with I and II, which would be more effective due to extended frontage. But the engine can only follow red.
It isn't an exploit, but a graphical/mechanical issue.

What you are demanding is basically to ban a full house against your pair, because the full house is stronger. On the grounds that the cards have fallen on the table stacked on top of one another...

---

This.

I'm reminded of a song that goes "Why'd they teach me to follow my dreams / When dreams are all they can be?"

The Fair Play Rules (FPR?) are like relationships, they're practically never perfect, and rarely come close to it. It's a constant challenge to improve and keep things afloat. Despite participating, I've always felt it best to just leave it to players to decide what the best solution is. I don't want to form a solid opinion on these matters, let alone push my opinion through.

Honestly, I think Arjos has put things into words better than I could. That said, I've read this thread and I feel compelled to at least provide some words (of wisdom?). As you all know, if you order multiple units of any type to attack a single enemy unit, those units will converge upon that single enemy unit. They will not approach or surround the enemy in a way you might anticipate (if you imagined a real battle). They will not be "good boys" and "behave", waiting their turn to reach the front line. They will blend seamlessly. This happens with men on horses, with men on the ground. The game does this to us. I can't change it, you can't either. Without digging through the thousands of threads in these forums, I'll say that at one point we simply decided that we would imagine overlapping units to be larger units as opposed to multiple units, probably because at the end of the day, only the first few rows in these units actually apply a charge bonus, if that.

Yes, charging stacks of men on horses (and off horses) does have a devastating effect (usually). It's true. I can't say it won't. But it's a flaw we live with because we love this game. I hope I could be of some consolation to you Uli. I don't want this boat to sink because the game executes actions the way it does. I believe I understand, at least partially, what you are trying to say. Yes, if we as players know how the engine will act, we ought to adapt by changing how we choose to play the game. But is this a counterweight that will fix these matters, or is it just another ball and chain we would be giving players. Just some food for thought.

P.S. Where is everyone? You all can't be at the beach all the time, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

Too many commas Storm =]


Aren't you the rascal ^^


This.

I'm reminded of a song that goes "Why'd they teach me to follow my dreams / When dreams are all they can be?"

The Fair Play Rules (FPR?) are like relationships, they're practically never perfect, and rarely come close to it. It's a constant challenge to improve and keep things afloat. Despite participating, I've always felt it best to just leave it to players to decide what the best solution is. I don't want to form a solid opinion on these matters, let alone push my opinion through.

Honestly, I think Arjos has put things into words better than I could. That said, I've read this thread and I feel compelled to at least provide some words (of wisdom?). As you all know, if you order multiple units of any type to attack a single enemy unit, those units will converge upon that single enemy unit. They will not approach or surround the enemy in a way you might anticipate (if you imagined a real battle). They will not be "good boys" and "behave", waiting their turn to reach the front line. They will blend seamlessly. This happens with men on horses, with men on the ground. The game does this to us. I can't change it, you can't either. Without digging through the thousands of threads in these forums, I'll say that at one point we simply decided that we would imagine overlapping units to be larger units as opposed to multiple units, probably because at the end of the day, only the first few rows in these units actually apply a charge bonus, if that.

Yes, charging stacks of men on horses (and off horses) does have a devastating effect (usually). It's true. I can't say it won't. But it's a flaw we live with because we love this game. I hope I could be of some consolation to you Uli. I don't want this boat to sink because the game executes actions the way it does. I believe I understand, at least partially, what you are trying to say. Yes, if we as players know how the engine will act, we ought to adapt by changing how we choose to play the game. But is this a counterweight that will fix these matters, or is it just another ball and chain we would be giving players. Just some food for thought.

P.S. Where is everyone? You all can't be at the beach all the time, right?

---

I respect your opinion but also profoundly do not share it. Is the same opinion everyone gives regarding this matter: "It’s the engine". It's not the engine, is the player, that's the first point you have to change in your mind to understand what is been claimed here. Second point, is about a basic physic intuition: say 2 units of 100 cavalry men aprox. EBO standard, both hitting the same target THROUGH A SPACE THAT WILL NEVER permit both to hit the target at the same time, not even all the ranks of one of them, if it were charging alone. This all you say is nonsensical, all but you fear to have a ball and chain, but is a ball and chain equally fair as the other Fair Play Rules accepted. As for demonstration of this rule, I play like that and it's not even difficult to achieve, is just about abstention and knowing the rule.
But my point has been declared and may good reason only be the one to recognize it: it's as simple as passing two cars through a one lane street at the same time and in the same direction, impossible.
As far as me regards, I'm not closed to criticism, but far as now the only thing I hear is the blame on the engine, equally unjust as would be the blame on the engine for me to phalanx turn and destroy your units.

The problem here, I think, grossly simplified, is something as follows. As a player you can say we will not turn phalanxes in ways that would be unfair, despite possible in-game. Whereas when you have several cavalry units with which you would like to attack an enemy unit, you cannot say I will tell my cavalry to attack in a long line, to cover the length of the enemy unit (as opposed to convergence). We simply cannot, because it is impossible in this particular game.

The example of the phalanx is one in which we are aware of a potential unfair maneuver and choose to avoid it.

But the example of the convergence of cavalry is one in which we are aware of the effects, but are at a complete loss. We have no alternative, it would seem. Unless, that is, you suggest the player use solely one cavalry unit to attack an enemy unit, in which case you completely cut the convergence route of more mass. Maybe he doesn't wish to use his cav elsewhere. Maybe his current goal is to break that unit of yours. What other option does he possibly have.

I'm not being articulate right now, but I feel like there's a categorical difference between these two examples. Let me know if I'm wrong.

Regarding the engine-blaming, as you put it, I don't want it to seem like an excuse so much as an acknowledgement. Our goal, I hope, is not to bend players too much in terms of regulating their in-game tactical choices, even by way of what we deem to be fair play actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vartan

The problem here, I think, grossly simplified, is something as follows. As a player you can say we will not turn phalanxes in ways that would be unfair, despite possible in-game. Whereas when you have several cavalry units with which you would like to attack an enemy unit, you cannot say I will tell my cavalry to attack in a long line, to cover the length of the enemy unit (as opposed to convergence). We simply cannot, because it is impossible in this particular game.

---

One thing everybody seems to be not seeing, is that this particular example, that relates to my picture that Arjos used to counter my arguments, is not the point I'm arguing, in fact, I accept that in that case is fair to charge with 2 units, because those 2 units, if engine was ok, would actually hit two different lengths of the same infantry unit. I accept that and find it fair. But the point I'm still arguing, and which has been my main point is this:
Say you have this particular infantry unit engaged in melee:

******** (enemy unit)
---------- (your unit)

It is not in loose but say in a normal 3 -4 men deep formation, or even to a full extended thin line.

Then, enemy has this particular cav regiment: 2 cav units, which fully extended, double the length of that particular infantry unit engaged in melee and that they wish to attack:

******** ********

So, if I send both to hit the back of the infantry unit, they will overlap, due to an engine's error, I agree. But, what will happen if that engine error was not there? Not an overlapping, he? But only one would charge, the other one will not: it will stay waiting for its proper charge time, once the path is clear for it, or it will pass ahead, as it could not occupy the same space as the other cav by all the common sense laws which I’ve been calling physics law to be more specific.

So, how can you define this not as an engine exploit as I'm purposely overlapping two cav units to hit at the same time what they really could never do, even if I wanted? Is the same case as phalanx, engine permits me to exploit the phalanx unit to non real effects, do we allow it or not? The fact is that we can stop doing that, simple as not doing that. Same goes for the cav: My two cav overlap, but is at all fair that they overlap? Not at all! It is like phalanx turning, is a not fair action permitted by the broken engine. Next question: Do I have to live with it as if I'm forced to do it and blame it to the engine as I can not change it (as if it were a unit animation!)? Of course not, I can stop doing that! The engine doesn't push me to do it, for what I'm intending to do is not correct, is a foul action not allowed by any sense of reality.

This problem is widely seen when a player outflanks the whole melee line or when there is a blob of infantry and the player starts to position 2, 3 ...n cav regiments to hit one single spot. The player should hit different spots. In the melee line, you can order charge to different enemy units (see my pictures of Aedui cav). If, hypothetically, the line was composed of a single engagement, 1 v 1 infantry, and I have a surplus of 4 cav, wouldn't be a exploit to order charge of 4 cav to a single enemy unit? So I'm hitting 1 infantry where I should be hitting 4 infantry units, as the length of the spot of charge is less or equal to that of a single cav unit.

Sirs, that's all my point. I repeat, it comes to a rationality of space, and following that principle I recognize that the loose formation unit showed above can and must suffer more than one cav charge at the same time, since its actual extension allows that other cav could hit the rest that couldn't been hit by the other cav. But, if my infantry is not in loose and whit a matching space for one cav charge? Why the hell would I want to hit it with 2, 3, 4 cav units? But clearly, to exploit the engine in my favor, not more, not less.

Is this seriously a major issue? Because this happens every game with infantry. Each battle you play against the AI in a campaign, or against people online, has spots at various moments during the battle in which two or more units of infantry or cavalry overlap (that is, a significant portion of the units overlap). There's no way around this. As I said, if you view it as more men as opposed to more "units", it might not seem much of an issue.

I know you can roleplay "units" as companies of men. And I know, the engine can't help itself. It is programmed like any other game in this genre. It needs to treat chunks of men as objects we call "units". An arbitrary term on its own, it is significant in terms of increasing the effects of charge (and the duration, sometimes). It's a bitch to deal with. But what would you rather do? No matter how you decide to have players use their units, I can't see a situation in which two units do not overlap. Have you checked the formations, or tried dragging to form lines containing multiple men? The game was intended to have an overlapping of units.

You will never see people fight battles with individual units spaced apart, as if they were making cookies in the oven. The only time this has happened (especially with units so far as to avoid morale effects) has been when I or others have been working together on statistical experiments to determine the effectiveness of certain units, or matchups.

Oh good Lord,
Also the game was designed to phalanx turn. What is the situation in which the phalanx would not turn? As if for your logic, there is no situation too, every time phalanx will turn. So, why don't we go on breaking every Fair Play Rule because the game was designed to break them?
I think 2 things: or you have lost every contact with the actual EB play or you still don't get the point. Is it too important you ask. Games are decided to a high rate through double, triple ...n charging.
The main problem is that you don't think is wrong to overlap cav units. Your premise is that it is correct, so, in reality you don't see it as an engine error, but as an engine minor issue which would not change anything to the real state of things if it would not existed.
I'm pretty tired of this. I will leave this desert of reason whit an image: your fists are each one equal to the size of your enemies face, can you hit the face with the two fists at same time and same direction? No.

Then let's start using one fist. Tell you what, put up a poll or a vote thread (like, people reply to cast votes). I'll vote for the Way of the One Fist, too! It's just my hunch that the rest of the players might rather keep playing the current way just because both sides can use the exploit, let's call it.

Sorry Uly but this is just plain bulls , with cavalry in EB as they are, this sorta makes massed cavalry charges useless. As pretty much every competetive faction has access to Charge cavalry or counters to it, this is in no way a serious problem gameplay wise .

EDIT

I'd say Arjos has it pretty much spot on. And lets do a vote on it .

"So this is how Democracy dies....

With thunderous applause." - Star wars