Opportunity charges

Currently it is an interesting tactical choice. But a rather artificial and gamey one.

If unit A is advancing in a straight line as fast as its little legs can go towards unit B, then it is hard to see unit B interrupting its momentum and taking away its (real life) impetus. Unit C from elsewhere, no probs. Countercharge, no probs. Self disorder from trying to close too quickly which B can then take advantage of, likewise no probs.

I find Impetus still has plenty enough decision points to keep it an interesting game (for me) without that particular one.

I don't find this particularly gamey, it depends on how you rationalise the rules with the real world. The units in Impetus represent "brigade" sized formations of 500-800 men, with all the communication and delay problems that entails. The way I see this event is that a brigade in column of march is approaching a "readied" opponent. The column begins its deployment into line when it is pre-empted by the enemy and caught flat footed.

There are tactical plays and options as mentioned earlier to avoid this situation, it is what I find so entertaining about Impetus as a rule set, it is a more dynamic and interactive game than any other rule set I've tried

TD

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: It becomes very important in some circumstances eg CP vs CM - the CM with a movement of 10 will almost always have the movement distance to Opportunity charge the CP before the CP can charge them as they only have movement 8.  Thus medium cavalry become more effective than heavy cavalry in this type of melee.  Is that really the desired effect?

Yes, it is the desired effect. I disagree with your basic point. There is an interesting tactical choice that both players must make in determining their moves. Does the CP actually take 2 moves to get to the CM or 1?

[/quote]

Actually the CM can make it so that the CP must roll for the second move unless the CP start within one movement phase distance AND then auto countercharge (being on Opportunity) once the CP have commenced their second move. Or they can choose to countercharge them as a reaction whilst the CP are somehow assumed to be milling about having begun to move. The drill of walk-trot-gallop for cavalry charges is overridden by a gamey mechanism.

Assuming the CP are 17U away from the CM (i.e. outside of maximum charge distance inc charge bonus of the CM).

The CP move once and get to 9U.

The CM can sit and wait and if the CP declare a charge then they can automatically countercharge as they are on Opportunity. CP must still make their roll for second move. CM can auto countercharge as they are on opportunity.

If the CP start at say 12 then they can move to 4 (assuming their commander doesn't risk the charge bonus disordering them 50% of the time) and then the CM can either wait for them to declare a charge or can hit them standing still according to this thinking. If the CP do go for the charge bonus then the CM can choose the countercharge.

If the CP start at 9 or less then they can automatically get to charge and the CM can respond with an automatic counter charge (being on Opportunity).

If the CP start at 20U+ then the CM can probably have them perform three moves if they desire with a chance to hit them stationary from about 16U.

Reversing the situations.

If the CM are at 17 then they can advance to say 12. The CP will need a 4+ to reach them with a countercharge and thus risk a 50% chance of disorder sitting right in front of enemy cavalry. If they don't charge the CM close on anything except a 1 (the CP can countercharge as they are on opportunity making contact a certainty)

Crazy.

And that's leaving aside the evasion question.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
There are advantages to both. It partially depends on what he thinks the CM is going to do. In declaring a charge he does not have to commit to using his bonus movement dice. The CM player could decide to stand still and hope that the CP rolls a 1 on the movement bonus and be left high and dry disordered right in front of the CM. He could countercharge the CP but in this case he would be guaranteeing that the CP made contact with him (probably to his disadvantage.) Or he could evade back. This is the kind of tactical choices that makes Impetus fun to play.

So you concede it is a gamey mechanism then.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
You also forget GG to consider how the CM and the CP got into this position in the first place. Assuming that the CM was on opportunity in the first place it could have opportunity charged the CP when he came within effective charged range at 11U.

There's that GC arrogance again... I most certainly didn't forget to consider that. It was core to my whole point. No matter how they get there, under the "hit stationary between movement phases" interpretation the CM are always capable of being at a major advantage on the charge! I have no problem with their ability to decide to bug out via evasion, that is sensible in the face of oncoming heavily armed and armoured lunatics, what is not sensible is those same lunatics deciding not to up their movement rate to plough into the less armed and armoured chaps coming the other way.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
Opportunity in Impetus means something and it isn’t always easy to get. It means the unit in question has position on opponents approaching it and that seems fine to my thinking. Approaching a unit on opportunity takes some care.  Giving advancing units automatic impetus would take away part of the flavour of the game to my thinking and make it unnecessarily bland.

So again, it is for reasons of gameyness that you interpret the rules this way.

As an experienced Impetus player GG you should know that losing a few impetus dice doesn't make a great deal of difference in the game nor in any specific melee. In many cases I would be glad to sacrifice the impetus dice on my CP to get the CM to advance forward.

In the example of the CP advancing on a CM on opportunity 10U away the CP is actually in a good position. The CP declares a potential charge on the CM.

The CM can.
a. Counter charge the CP.
b. Stand still and hope the CP rolls a 1 on the bonus dice for movement.
c. Evade.

This makes for some interesting decisions on both players parts and is a real test of nerves. It is not gamey at all. It is Impetus. If you don`t like this part of Impetus you really should be playing a different set of rules. What I am can`t agree with is to allow you to get away with crying about your advancing CP getting jumped by the CM. Sorry mate. The whole point of Opportunity is interrupt the I go/You go system. It does this reasonably well. Even so it is only the loss of a few impetus dice. Big deal. As I said above, any experienced Impetus player should know this.

I still tend to agree with GC, not gamey but tactical. It's what makes Impetus such a good game. Well said, Opportunity is used to interrupt the I Go/You Go system.

dadiepiombo wrote:In Baroque I'm simplifyfing this so if the units are facing each other both have the impetus.
In other words if the contacts is between the frontages of the units then both have the impetus.
I think this can be extended to Impetus as it is now.

I like this.

A unit on opportunity still gets a significant say in the timing and location of the fight - interrupting the I go/You go mechanism - but doesn't nullify the impetus bonus of an opponent heading straight for him.

But don't forget accard that Baroque is a brigade level game one level higher than Impetus. Brigade level games tend to abstract tactics and it may make sense to allow moving cavalry the ability to charge while moving. Impetus is more tactical and the back and forth is an essential part of the game in my experience. How many games of Impetus have you played accard?

Hi GC. About 30 or so games so far. Hopefully lots more to come.

However, while my opinion can quite likely be ignored, as noted above, Lorenzo considers it might be a reasonable move too. As does GG, another experienced player. So the position is not one just held by neophytes.

I don't think that this change would cause Impetus to lose much, if any, of its back and forth. As I said earlier, units on opportunity would still get the chance to choose the timing and location of many conflicts. They just wouldn't get to remove the impetus bonus of a unit advancing directly towards it.

While this fits in with my view of how such a conflict would likely play out I realise it is a subjective view and that others are putting forward reasonable alternative views.

But as Lorenzo seems to be looking at this as one possible area of change I want to make sure I participate in the discussion.

Well said accard.

accard wrote:Hi GC. About 30 or so games so far. Hopefully lots more to come.

Glad that its more than 1 which is how many games some people play before wanting to promote changes to the system. I know that it took me at least 100 games before I started to really understand the system and frankly, even today I don't think I've really fully grasped it (which makes it fun.)

I do think to move in the direction you're suggesting would make Impetus a bit less fun. The tactical options would be more limited and the outcomes a bit more cliche. And for what I might ask? What is the benefit?  So that players can advance their troops with less anxiety?

dadiepiombo wrote:In Baroque I'm simplifyfing this so if the units are facing each other both have the impetus.
In other words if the contacts is between the frontages of the units then both have the impetus.
I think this can be extended to Impetus as it is now.

In terms of competition gaming though until there's something 'official' i.e. in writing for all to read it'll have to stay as it is I think.

Gaius Cassius wrote:
I do think to move in the direction you're suggesting would make Impetus a bit less fun. The tactical options would be more limited and the outcomes a bit more cliche. And for what I might ask? What is the benefit?  So that players can advance their troops with less anxiety?

Cliche? Advance with less anxiety?

No mate, not at all, they would be performing more like their historical counterparts would, unless of course you somehow believe that cavalry sort of meander forward, wait to see if the enemy charges them, meander a bit more, await a charge and then if the enemy is not forthcoming they decide to charge.

If the cavalry decide to go in the so be it, they should go in. That's what they do. If the enemy chooses to try and countercharge then that is perfectly reasonable, if the enemy is on opportunity and WAITING to countercharge then they have set themselves and made ready and in they go. As they should do.

I've been thinking GG about your comment around opportunity being gamey. On second thought I totally agree it is gamey. And Impetus is a game first and foremost and every feature of Impetus is gamey. The I Go/You Go system is gamey as well. The CT is gamey.

Opportunity tries to undercut the really gamey feature of I Go/You Go system. I think it does it very well without adding another level of complexity.

There is a distinction in Impetus between moving and charging. This distinction is important. Cavalry did not charge across the battlefield. Units move forward and I would presume sometimes scout their advance, sometimes not. A unit on opportunity could represent a host of battlefield conditions. Impetus doesn't micro manage this by telling us exactly what that is. In simple terms the unit on opportunity has a tactical advantage over its opponent. It is represented by being able to intercept moving enemy units through a charge or missile fire. The tactical advantage is rather small and comes with certain costs and limitations. For one, the unit on opportunity must move forward to intercept the moving enemy. This has real risks.

I tend to agree with GC. Opportunity has its risks as well. You still need to decide whether to Opportunity Charge or wait to see what the opponent does and maybe Counter Charge. Risks for both sides. Just adds a little spice to your life.

Also, Cavalry does not move at full gallop everywhere it goes and if it charges, it's a build up of speed and the Charge is over a very short distance or you run the risk of blowing the horse out.

Dennis

Gaius Cassius wrote:I've been thinking GG about your comment around opportunity being gamey. On second thought I totally agree it is gamey. And Impetus is a game first and foremost and every feature of Impetus is gamey.

If your argument has descended to the level of equivocation then it is time to simply admit you are in the wrong mate.

I suggest Lorenzo's idea of Impetus applying if the charge is frontal is the correct solution.

In order for this to become canon it requires official sanction.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: If your argument has descended to the level of equivocation then it is time to simply admit you are in the wrong mate.

I suggest Lorenzo's idea of Impetus applying if the charge is frontal is the correct solution.

In order for this to become canon it requires official sanction.

Equivocation? Very strange response. I am reminding you that Impetus is a game. Any techniques in a game are gamey. From the stand point of Impetus being a game Opportunity works fine. And as an aside, I didn't hear any commitment from Lorenzo to change how Opportunity works in Impetus. Just an observation that Baroque handles charging/opportunity differently than Impetus.

I would suggest GG that you read Keegan's book Face of Battle. He demonstrates in compelling terms the chaos of the battlefield. The idea of units advancing forward in the manner you describe above is fanciful and hardly conforms to reality. The truth is far more complicated.

Gaius Cassius wrote:

Granicus Gaugamela wrote: If your argument has descended to the level of equivocation then it is time to simply admit you are in the wrong mate.

I suggest Lorenzo's idea of Impetus applying if the charge is frontal is the correct solution.

In order for this to become canon it requires official sanction.

Equivocation? Very strange response. I am reminding you that Impetus is a game. Any techniques in a game are gamey. From the stand point of Impetus being a game Opportunity works fine. And as an aside, I didn't hear any commitment from Lorenzo to change how Opportunity works in Impetus. Just an observation that Baroque handles charging/opportunity differently than Impetus.

I would suggest GG that you read Keegan's book Face of Battle. He demonstrates in compelling terms the chaos of the battlefield. The idea of units advancing forward in the manner you describe above is fanciful and hardly conforms to reality. The truth is far more complicated.

There is a fundamental difference between "game" and "gamey".

If you don't mind "gamey" then I would suggest Warhammer, Mars Attacks, Blood Bowl, Gruntz, Dust and the like. I prefer my games of ANCIENTS warfare to bear as much a resemblance to the sort of tactics that occurred as possible whilst maintaining a high level of playability.

I agree that a battlefield is chaotic, and as such you support the argument of the moving cavalry maintaining impetus bonus, the ability for a perfectly timed opportunity charge to hit moving cavalry during a brief pause is exceptionally remote. Why you believe cavalry on opportunity are above the confusion is a logical inconsistency that is yet to be explained.

Troops move in a different formation than they charge so if a mounted unit moving across a battlefield is charged by a unit prepared to charge, even if it counter charged it probably would still be at a disadvantage. In the rules (and I cannot remember the page number) I think it states that if you are moving while in the proximity of units on opportunity you have to state what your full move is and cannot change your mind if your opponent then says he will oppertunity charge you on the second move or whatever.

Geoff

well, in Baroque the reaction of a unit can be one and just one. Or better only one attempt. Once you tried to make a reaction you place a marker, no matter if the attempt was succesuful or not. At this stage we are making some test to see if evasion (less important in Baroque than Impetus due to the troop types on the field) can be considered a reaction like Others or can make an exception. This is just to give a quick update on the rules to come.
Now if these ideas will enter in Impetus 2 is early to say. What I can say is that with Baroque we are trying to simplifying many things. Some make sense just for Baroque (impetuous troops will be one) some, maybe, will be good also for Impetus. Early to say now, but I like to share some ideas while on the process.

Are you thinking about a discipline test here Lorenzo when you talk about attempting to make a reaction ?

yes, a test with modifiers according to situation and troop type

dadiepiombo wrote:yes, a test with modifiers according to situation and troop type

Great .... sounds like a good solution

If it's already on Opportunity then there is no need to test.