I've struggled hard to like this game...

[Cunningcairn]

Yes, it can be 90 degrees from the last direction of their pursuit, as I said above. But they will only turn 45 degrees from what would have been the next direction of their pursuit.

So they are only in fact veering off the projected pursuit path by 45 degrees, even though that may mean a 90 degree turn from their previous facing.

If you look at a projected path as progression through the squares, when leaving the last square they were heading to the bottom right corner of the next square when on entering that square they turned 90 degrees and initiated combat with a unit across from the bottom left corner of the square they were entering.

Yes, you don't have to convince me that they may turn 90 degrees, I have already said so myself twice.

But the issue is where they would have gone next if they had continued to pursue instead of charging the new unit. The angle between those directions will not be more than 45 degrees. As I have said, this does mean that units will sometimes change direction by 90 degrees, but it will be no more than 45 degrees from where they would have gone if they had continued to pursue.

I seem to be repeating myself, but I don't know how else to explain it.

I have the same feeling and I am also finding it difficult to explain but I think we are not saying the same thing. Where they would have gone next is the bottom right corner of the square but where they are going is the bottom left corner which is a 90 degree turn seeing they started their move in the top left corner heading towards the bottom right corner.

[rbodleyscott]

I have the same feeling and I am also finding it difficult to explain but I think we are not saying the same thing. Where they would have gone next is the bottom right corner of the square but where they are going is the bottom left corner which is a 90 degree turn seeing they started their move in the top left corner heading towards the bottom right corner.

Where they would have gone next is not the bottom right hand corner of the square, that is just the facing resulting from their move into their current square from their previous square. Where they would in fact have gone next is the next square that the routing unit moved through.

If that was the square directly to the bottom of their current square, then turning to charge the unit in the bottom left corner of the square only represents a 45 degree deviation from their pursuit route, even though it results in an overall turn of 90 degrees from their prior facing.

[Cunningcairn]

I have the same feeling and I am also finding it difficult to explain but I think we are not saying the same thing. Where they would have gone next is the bottom right corner of the square but where they are going is the bottom left corner which is a 90 degree turn seeing they started their move in the top left corner heading towards the bottom right corner.

Where they would have gone next is not the bottom right hand corner of the square, that is just the facing resulting from their move into their current square from their previous square. Where they would in fact have gone next is the next square that the routing unit moved through.

If that was the square directly to the bottom of their current square, then turning to charge the unit in the bottom left corner of the square only represents a 45 degree deviation from their pursuit route, even though it results in an overall turn of 90 degrees from their prior facing.

This is what happened. So although they entered in one direction they can turn to face the fleeing units direction of deviation and then can turn again to face one of the two new units therefore making two 45 degree turns in the same square. In still form it is understandable but still seems to make more sense they would carry on in the direction they were heading before the pursued unit deviated to avoid.

Pursuit.jpg (155.29 KiB) Viewed 1327 times

[gamercb]

So what you are saying is that if they would have turned 45 degrees to continue the pursuit, they can turn another 45 degrees to charge a new unit. That seems wrong and definitely looks wrong when you suddenly find yourself being flanked by a unit that was in pursuit. I would have thought that units pursuing should not attack another unit until they have stopped pursuing.

[Cunningcairn]

So what you are saying is that if they would have turned 45 degrees to continue the pursuit, they can turn another 45 degrees to charge a new unit. That seems wrong and definitely looks wrong when you suddenly find yourself being flanked by a unit that was in pursuit. I would have thought that units pursuing should not attack another unit until they have stopped pursuing.

They can target a new enemy unit while pursuing if the fleeing unit deviates passed this new unit. They don't always do that and sometimes continue the pursuit. I'm not sure what the decision criteria is in that case. My point is why when seeing the new unit did they not just carry on straight forward into that unit. They are in pursuit and complex turns don't make sense.

[Nosy_Rat]

I'll just throw in my own little gripe with the cavalry pursuit mechanics - sometimes pursruing cavalry decides that charging elephants in the flank is a great idea.
It obviously isn't and most of the time just means that your cavalry gets swiftly destroyed.
Any chance it could be addressed in the future?

[rbodleyscott]

I'll just throw in my own little gripe with the cavalry pursuit mechanics - sometimes pursruing cavalry decides that charging elephants in the flank is a great idea.
It obviously isn't and most of the time just means that your cavalry gets swiftly destroyed.
Any chance it could be addressed in the future?

Yes. I will look into preventing it.

[Nosy_Rat]

Many thanks, Richard.