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

[-Stormrage-]

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 ?

[Arjos]

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...

[-Stormrage-]

... 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

[Vlixes]

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.

[Arjos]

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

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

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...

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

Precisely, limiting choices on no grounds...

It comes down to a exploit of the cavalry

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

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...

[Vlixes]

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.

[-Stormrage-]

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.

[Vlixes]

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.

[-Stormrage-]

- 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.