Obsolete

[Londo]

Aristides,

Calm down. By "like a dog with a bone you just won't let go", I understand pantherboy to be suggesting that you're being (overly) tenacious on this issue. I don't read it as an insult, and I'm sure it was not meant as such.

[Aristides]

Well, maybe you're right there... but what about the rest? Am I the only one who cacres? (I am beginning to think so...)

[Londo]

On the general topic of forum moderation, a few points:

1) It's not a human rights or free speech issue. A forum or blog is the private property of its owner. They can remove anyone's comments, or ban anyone, at any time and for any reason.

2) Notwithstanding the above, most fora would not remove comments unless they are so over-the-top as to be potentially defamatory or violating a vilification law. Nothing anyone has written here, that I have seen, comes remotely close to that.

3) Another, much more common, reason for removing comments is that they are off-topic and threaten to derail a thread. I think that was the basis on which pantherboy 'cleaned up' the challenge threads. This is an issue of discretion on a moderator's part. I probably wouldn't have removed the comments myself, but then I'm not the moderator.

4) Maybe we should have a separate criticism and whinging thread. I mean this quite seriously! Let people have a safety valve to complain about the tactics of their opponents, and even moderation, on the strict understanding that they should do so in as good-humoured way as possible, and not get to the defamatory or vilification level.

It could be called the Englishman's thread. For the benefit of any who haven't heard the classic joke ...

Q: When a plane lands in Australia, how do we know it's full of Poms?
A: The whining keeps going long after the engines have been switched off.

*runs away*

[Aristides]

4) Maybe we should have a separate criticism and whinging thread. I mean this quite seriously! Let people have a safety valve to complain about the tactics of their opponents, and even moderation, on the strict understanding that they should do so in as good-humoured way as possible, and not get to the defamatory or vilification level.

I think this would be very healthy. In fact, now you've said it it seems obvious...

[voskarp]

...
4) Maybe we should have a separate criticism and whinging thread. I mean this quite seriously! Let people have a safety valve to complain about the tactics of their opponents, and even moderation, on the strict understanding that they should do so in as good-humoured way as possible, and not get to the defamatory or vilification level.

It could be called the Englishman's thread. For the benefit of any who haven't heard the classic joke ...

Q: When a plane lands in Australia, how do we know it's full of Poms?
A: The whining keeps going long after the engines have been switched off.

*runs away*

That's a good idea, and a good joke!

[Aristides]

...and a good joke!

As an Englishman, I'm not so sure - but then my posts do seem to justify the joke!

[ianiow]

I'm confused (more than usual). ***EDIT: THE DIAGRAM BELOW CANNOT HAPPEN. SCROLL DOWN TO MY SECOND POST FOR AN ACCURATE DIAGRAM.

As a house rule for this competition I believed it to be illegal for cavalry to make a move forward 3 places, swivel, and then hit the opponent in the rear all in one move.



However, I read on another thread that (due to a patch) it is now a perfectly legal move because you no longer get an automatic morale drop for a rear charge. Can someone confirm this please?

[batesmotel]

Yes, the bug is fixed so the restriction on that type of charge should no longer apply. I do not think you can actually pivot in the middle of a charge as your exampl shows. An example of the bug that previously existed was if uour charger had started in the same hex row as the target and facing NW (up and right), then moved one hex to the hex row behind the target. If the player had made the charge as a single move then the cohesoin drop would not occr, but if the player paused at that point and then resumed moving the charging unit to complete the charge, the charger was treated as starting from the rear of the target and hence caused the automatic cohesion drop. Once this was explained so Keith could understnad it, he fixed the issue in the patch for FoG PC released with the Battle Pack (Or just after it).

Chris

[voskarp]

The joke could most certainly be changed to, for example "Denmark" and "Swedes"... or some other appropriate nationality.

[Londo]

Hang on a minute. On the other thread, pantherboy said the rear split-move bug had been fixed, and, in his words, "Now if you perform the same move you will not cause an auto cohesion loss but you will receive the benefits of contacting an enemy to the rear (automatic 2 POA)".

Um, if this is correct, I think it is quite bizarre.

A drilled cavalry unit can calmly trot around the flank of its target while the target sits there helplessly ... charge into the target's rear ... but now it gets one, but not the other, of the two advantages of charging rear.

It is still a very favourable proposition for the cav. If the enemy is say, steady pikes, hitting them with +2 POA is much better than hitting them frontally ... you are quite likely to disrupt the pikes and can finish them off in subsequent turns. So this hasn't really fixed the problem.

And it's logically unsound - if the cav *is* actually hitting them from behind, why doesn't it get both bonuses?

Rather than the quick fix of removing only the cohesion loss, the designers should have changed the charge movement system to make it completely impossible to turn in the middle of a charge, IMHO. Hopefully this can be addressed at some point with the new version.

[pantherboy]

As Chris points out it is not possible to change facing during a charge. All movement must be forward though it can be done in stages. One reason for doing it in stages is to gain a better position in case the BG refuses to charge (e.g. Bows or disrupted).

Cheers,

Steve

[pantherboy]

Hang on a minute. On the other thread, pantherboy said the rear split-move bug had been fixed, and, in his words, "Now if you perform the same move you will not cause an auto cohesion loss but you will receive the benefits of contacting an enemy to the rear (automatic 2 POA)".

Um, if this is correct, I think it is quite bizarre.

A drilled cavalry unit can calmly trot around the flank of its target while the target sits there helplessly ... charge into the target's rear ... but now it gets one, but not the other, of the two advantages of charging rear.

It is still a very favourable proposition for the cav. If the enemy is say, steady pikes, hitting them with +2 POA is much better than hitting them frontally ... you are quite likely to disrupt the pikes and can finish them off in subsequent turns. So this hasn't really fixed the problem.

And it's logically unsound - if the cav *is* actually hitting them from behind, why doesn't it get both bonuses?

Rather than the quick fix of removing only the cohesion loss, the designers should have changed the charge movement system to make it completely impossible to turn in the middle of a charge, IMHO. Hopefully this can be addressed at some point with the new version.

I agree with you Londo but be mindful that the image above is incorrect. I always felt if the charge can reach the rear then both effects should apply. The reason this happens is because you contact the enemy rear side on. What should really apply is that to charge the enemy they must end up in one of your two frontal hexes otherwise you can't charge. But in this digital version of the game making side contact counts as a charge. Go figure!

Cheers,

Steve

[Londo]

So, to be crystal clear, it can't happen like ianiow suggested, but it can happen as Chris explained ...

1) On the diagram, start off in the position of the second blue arrow (the one just under ROTATE) facing NW.

2) Could charge directly west into the pikes, but don't like the POAs, so instead I shall ...

3) Go NW one hex, then turn 60 degrees counter-clockwise, then go west to hit the pikes from behind ... getting the +2 POA but not the cohesion loss.

[fogman]

the move seen in the first post can no longer be done, period. Even if you move the cavalry one hex to the right it cannot be done. Now if you move the cavalry two hexes to the right it can hit the rear of the phalanx IF it is turned to face 10 o'clock, in which case it will not result in an automatic loss of cohesion (but you will get a +2). Note that you cannot turn to face 10 o'clock and charge to the rear in the same turn. In effect, if you're facing an enemy unit it's impossible to get to its rear. You'd have to be coming from an angle two hexes away on the x-axis.

If you're only one hex away on the y-axis, you still need those two hexes of separation on the x-axis, and be facing 10 o'clock to get the rear attack (but no automatic cohesion loss)

If you're on the same y-axis, you only need to be 1 hex away on the x-axis (and facing 10 o'clock) to get the rear attack, but again you will not get an automatic cohesion loss.

The only way to get an automatic cohesion loss is to start from one hex (or more) behind on the y-axis.

[ianiow]

My bad.

Yes, the charge in the first picture I posted could not be performed on testing it. The rear charges that were actually causing the problem are as pictured below.


Moving the cav 1 hex up andthen charging the remainder was causing an auto morale drop. But after the fix it just causes a +2 for hitting someone in the rear (albeit with a side and not the front of the cav unit).

Thanks for explaining Chris. I think I've got it now!

[Turk1964]

Aristides
You have been asked by Steve to drop it and move on. Yet you continue to post your opinion ,which may or may not be waranted. The point is the founder of Loeg has asked for everyone to move on from this issue and we should respect his wishes.If your not happy read the last part of Steves message.

[Aristides]

Hi Turk - yes, I think it is fading out and moving on to a fair outcome.

I'm not sure about the thread idea; it could be very useful.
Imagine if we had had such a thread before: SP and I would have moved (or been moved by eric) to that thread to continue our discussion/disagreement there. Then those who just wanted to focus on the loeg game results would have ignored the thread, and those who wanted to try and turn things around to a constructive discussion on draws/slow games would have joined in - and I think it would have ended there. No bannings, etc.

Others have suggested it might encourage disagreements; this might be true, but imo people on this forum are very well behaved and the occasional squabble would resolve itself (and not have to be resolved by someone else) and it would allow open discussion and some good ideas might come from that.

[dave_r]

It was myself who made the statement that Aristides quoted on the first post. To give a bit of background - this is only my second season in LoEG, I'm in division three. I only really play FoG digital in LoEG, so some I win and some I lose, it's not something I take very seriously, but I enjoy the games. This season I seem to be be winning more than I'm losing (just). I take the tabletop game a lot more seriously.

I must admit I've been a bit disapointed by how the whole affair has panned out. I don't really follow this forum - but from what I can see, Aristides and StockwellPete had a disagreement over a game. In essence they requested the help of Eric to sort it out. Eric sorted it out (in the end by removing StockwellPete from the league). This then ended in StockwellPete requesting a second opinion, at which point Eric resigned as league organiser. Following some further stuff Eric then decided he didn't want to play in LoEG anymore.

Pantherboy comes in, deletes a swathe of posts and essentially does nothing. The only loser in this is Eric as he won't play in LoEG anymore. Which is a shame. Disagreements happen - once the umpire (in this case Eric) made his decision - that should have been final.

[voskarp]

I think that in this situation (pikemen not being engaged in front) the pikemen sees the charging cavalry and should be able to turn and face them(i e no +2 for rear charge). The fix needs to be fixed!

[Tiavals]

The original problem in the, well, problem was that it was unequal to players since some knew how to abuse it and others didn't. Now it's universal to all. I wouldn't mind it either way as long as it works identically to all players, as it does now. I suppose I prefer how it is now, since it means that a rear-charge doesn't always mean instant doom.