|
|
Post by scottrick on Feb 23, 2022 14:42:57 GMT
I love this game and It want to help to make it even better
We have been play testing units not bouncing back after the attack sequence?
- To prevent the constant moving we have had units stay base to base and may elect to withdrawl backwards (half speed). This still enables ranged units to shoot or units to withdraw to prevent taking more damage from retaliation.
- What advantage does this add to the game? it seems to add tedious movement (it's not like you can go anywhere else after you move back.
I love this game lets make it even better
|
|
|
|
Post by barrys on Feb 23, 2022 17:14:35 GMT
I didn't write the rules but I'd guess the the 1" consolidation move exists to avoid the need for rules on interlocked melee situations.
I think it's a good solution and don't find it tedious at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacing on Feb 23, 2022 19:41:20 GMT
it is just to indicate there is no locking into melee. OPA has admitted to not even doing the move lol
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrick on Feb 25, 2022 5:12:01 GMT
Great hopefully it is omitted in the next update
|
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Feb 25, 2022 9:13:38 GMT
It won’t be omitted. It does balance out situations like 3+ units in single combat which would complicate combat resolution way more. As per rules units should maintain 1” gap between each other (friend or foe alike) unless they are in combat - and that’s why there is bounce back move. Once units fight and there have been combat resolution, units are not longer in combat. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Post by menacing on Feb 25, 2022 18:23:29 GMT
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
|
|
|
|
Post by scottrick on Mar 3, 2022 14:42:04 GMT
Why can't a unit just move backwards if to get out of combat otherwise you assume it will just fight in combat. We play half move sideways and backwards and it is working great.
|
|
|
|
Post by hirvaan on Mar 7, 2022 7:16:31 GMT
Because units are NOT in combat immediately after they trade blows - that’s what “move 1” away” represents. They do not get stuck/bogged down in combat. You can’t “choose” to remain in combat because how then you would work out combat resolution once third or fourth unit appears? What is on your mind seems doable, but bear this thought: OPR in its heart is meant to be balanced and NOT COMPLICATED. So things like that are purposely avoided to diminish potential rules bloat akin to WFB. And I like that honestly. By all means, use houserules when playing with your friends, just don’t expect creators to accommodate you in future editions for the sake of rules simplicity.
:edit:
Also, in lore reason would be that charge got pushed back by defenders instead of defenders yielding and/or running away. Units on the battlefield very rarely get permastuck in combat with other units, and basically when they are so, the commander effed up and there are no tactics left to use, just hoping they’ll survive longer than forces of the opponent. Thus, charge->win and trample/loose or draw and move away scheme is way better to represent the nature of medieval battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Post by ariktaranis on Mar 14, 2022 16:41:19 GMT
From a historical/realistic point of view this rule makes LOTS of sense.
"Units"/warbands/formations etc never really stayed locked in combat.
A battle wouldn't be one big swirling melee like we see in movies unless something has gone profoundly wrong (your line has been broken and you have been routed and you're getting trampled by your mates and stabbed in the back by the enemy as you flee for example for example)
What would more frequently happen is one group "charging in" and most likely even bottling it before they met the enemy lines, slowing down, throwing insults and throwing things, then a cautious advance, killing or hurting the enemy a little bit for a few minutes and then falling back to a safe distance to regroup, catch breath and regain courage with very few actual deaths.
Rinse and repeat, sometimes for HOUUUURS... until one side broke and fled... Then the real killing would begin and the casualties would be VASTLY higher for the side that's running away.
So the 1 inch move makes alot of sense (and a full move backwards makes even more sense to me)
|
|
|
|
Post by leadjunky on Mar 21, 2022 3:37:46 GMT
I respectfully disagree. It was very difficult for battle lines to break contact once engaged. With the exception of mounted troops and some light infantry, most units fought until one side broke. I have not read of too many accounts of lines voluntarily separating. I get the reason for the mechanics across the rules, but I don't think it works well for the regiments version.
|
|
|
|
Post by ariktaranis on Mar 21, 2022 10:52:31 GMT
I respectfully disagree. It was very difficult for battle lines to break contact once engaged. With the exception of mounted troops and some light infantry, most units fought until one side broke. I have not read of too many accounts of lines voluntarily separating. I get the reason for the mechanics across the rules, but I don't think it works well for the regiments version. Just out of interest, have you got any sources so I can understand how you came to that conclusion? Because sources I've read state the opposite. Always interested in learning more about this kind of stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by leadjunky on Mar 23, 2022 6:26:56 GMT
Thucydides-History of the Peloponnesian War would be a good start and and probably as good a primary source as one would find. A more contemporary author would be Nicolas Sekunda. He wrote the victor of the battle was the line that did not collapse due to fear, death or retreat.
Another general example would be the Roman army at Cannae. They were unable to break contact in the center and were enveloped and destroyed. The disparate number of casualties between the victors and defeated in most ancient battles would also suggest a slaughter once battle lines gave way.
|
|
|
|
Post by forficule on Mar 23, 2022 15:40:07 GMT
Well, speaking of cannae, we have celts warbands in the center, retreating after each assault and the romans pursuing and pushing because they were stronger. The slaughter comes from the wings with phalanxes and the rear with cavalry (coming back from a pursuit). AoF have a simple and elegant way of dealing with this kind of movement.
Else, as a simple set of rules, no need for multi melee specific cases, you activate, melee, then break away. Simple, easy to explain, easy to play, and historicaly effective for most cases.
The only interlock melee I can see is Phalanx melee, you can house rule that if both units are phalanxes, they do not break away... But you will loose the pushing effect that phalanxes want to achieve in ancient greece. With a tendancy to push to the left because it is the protected side (special rules in GBoH GMT classic wargame).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2022 21:20:13 GMT
I do love that this thread has gone from someone who doesn't like certain very specific things about the ruleset & extrapolating that to "What's wrong with this game & why you're all playing it wrong, by Me" to dudes mansplaining about whether or not it fits *their* particular preference for a particular style of pretend wars by reaching for that universal go-to of fantasy warfare involving giant monsters, heavy cavalry, magic-using wizards & ratmen, fucking Thucydides.
Not complaining or nuffink, v. entertaining. Please continue to explain why Artaxerxes' preferred deployment of horse-archers means that Elves should get +1 to flanking attacks.
|
|
|
|
Post by leadjunky on Mar 23, 2022 23:38:20 GMT
Forficule,
You do make some good points as far as the game representing the flow of battle. I have to remember that the entire battle is compressed into a limited number of turns including lulls and maneuver. That is one of the many things I do like about OPR games, which is the ability to actually finish a large game in an evening of play. No the phalanx rule is well represented. Even with forces separating, the charge bonus is negated and units must charge them repeatedly if they wish to attack, ouch!
Ariktaranis,
After rereading your post, I don't think we disagree all that much on the outcome of the combat and how it is represented in the rules. Locking units into prolonged melee combat for the regiment rules would just mean I would have to remember the rule is different when transitioning between OPR games.
khuli0,
I am not familiar with Artaxerxes' treatise on the use of light horse. Also, I am not sure I care to learn further concerning any alleged relationship between Thucydides and the ratmen or the wizards for that matter. I am not judging, it is just none of my business.
|
|
