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

**-Stormrage-** · 07-05-2013, 00:15

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 ?

**Vlixes** · 07-05-2013, 00:19

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.

**-Stormrage-** · 07-05-2013, 00:24

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!

**Arjos** · 07-05-2013, 05:06

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

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...

**Vlixes** · 07-05-2013, 05:48

Originally Posted by Arjos

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

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 ;) )-

**Vlixes** · 07-05-2013, 06:19

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

Click image for larger version.

Name: CavChargeRationality.JPG
Views: 483
Size: 5.5 KB
ID: 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.

**-Stormrage-** · 07-05-2013, 06:55

Originally Posted by Ulises

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

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

**antisocialmunky** · 07-05-2013, 06:20

Lol, I have been missing all the horsie drama.

**-Stormrage-** · 07-05-2013, 06:27

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.

**vartan** · 07-05-2013, 20:15

Too many commas Storm =]

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Lol, I have been missing all the horsie drama.

Aren't you the rascal ^^

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

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?

**Vlixes** · 07-05-2013, 22:43

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.

**vartan** · 07-06-2013, 00:11

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.