Pushed back?!

[Stefan2009]

There has been some talk about lucky dices and historical accuracy on the forum, and i have given it some tought. What if you put in a "pushed back" result after the d but before the f result?! that way the battles would be more historical, with lines locked in battles for many turns going back and forth until one side was driven from the field. As it is now, many times the battles are over after 2-3 turns after the main lines start to fight. The pushed back unit is not broken but stays with the same facing, the next turn it could get a -1 on the dices as a result of being pushed back the last turn, i realy dont know if it would work or if more people share my thoughts or have other ideas even better than mine, its just i love this game and realy want it to live on and become better and better!

[TheGrayMouser]

The concept of units "recoiling" is interesting and certainly is valid historically, but this is not going to happen....
It is not part of the TT game and way too much would have to be changed in the pc version to make it feasable

Also, consider how much time a turn is... Historically I dont believe, in general, troops in formation could slug it out toe to toe for more than 20 minutes or so until exhaustion/disorder (both physical and emotional)would cause one side to give away.

[Stefan2009]

The phalanax was like a big pushing machine and so was alot of the ancient formations, the big losses came not in the battle but when one side decided they had enough. I know its not going to happen you are absolutely right, but maby as an option or in a mod? it would take some of the "luck" element out of the game because of prolonged fighting, if you have the better unit you would stand a much better chance against a weaker one. Thanks for the reply.

Anders

[rbodleyscott]

Push backs would work much better in the PC game than they would in the TT game, because in the TT game the units don't all have the same frontage, and the join between units on one side in a melee may not coincide with the join between units on the other side, so pushbacks cause a lot of technical problems. (We did have them in early versions of the TT rules, but removed them because they caused too much hassle). There is no such problem in the PC game because all units have the same frontage.

However, as the game is currently well balanced without pushbacks, it would need to be rebalanced if they were introduced. It may well be that the PC developers might either not consider this worthwhile, or might not want to move further away from the TT model. (pace Scutarius).

[TheGrayMouser]

The phalanax was like a big pushing machine and so was alot of the ancient formations, the big losses came not in the battle but when one side decided they had enough. I know its not going to happen you are absolutely right, but maby as an option or in a mod? it would take some of the "luck" element out of the game because of prolonged fighting, if you have the better unit you would stand a much better chance against a weaker one. Thanks for the reply.

Anders

I agree it certainly was a big pushing machine, the problem though is that this is a hex based turn based game...
To truly make it "realistic" the main battle line would , in effect , have to be one unit as the phalanx certainly did not have the ability to shift around small sub units... how would this be accomplished in a turn based game? I doudt its possible although the GMT games did have 2 hex sized units.... Gameplay wise, i doudt players would only want 1 unit (really a formation) to control for their main batle line.... Also , how would you factor in break thru, part of the line being disordered etc..... Likly the abslotute realism apoach is only acomplishable by a realtime engine

poking around th TT forums, it appears recoils and the baility for non cvalry units to break off was considered but the rules for it detracted from game play and enjoyment without adding much value

[Stefan2009]

I appreciate both of you for spending some time considering my idea, thanks and see you at the "Field Of Glory"

Anders

[Skanvak]

The concept of units "recoiling" is interesting and certainly is valid historically, but this is not going to happen....
It is not part of the TT game and way too much would have to be changed in the pc version to make it feasable

Also, consider how much time a turn is... Historically I dont believe, in general, troops in formation could slug it out toe to toe for more than 20 minutes or so until exhaustion/disorder (both physical and emotional)would cause one side to give away.

In Thucydide record of the penopolese war, there are several battle during until night with actual engagement for hours.

I dont have definitive answer about recoiling. I play DBA/DBM before (on hex) and it did have recoil. I wonder what is historic? When it comes to ancient games I like realism a lot. I am really puzzled as why the TT game ruled this out? I would like to see some basis for or against.

If we need formation I am ready for it.

[TheGrayMouser]

The concept of units "recoiling" is interesting and certainly is valid historically, but this is not going to happen....
It is not part of the TT game and way too much would have to be changed in the pc version to make it feasable

Also, consider how much time a turn is... Historically I dont believe, in general, troops in formation could slug it out toe to toe for more than 20 minutes or so until exhaustion/disorder (both physical and emotional)would cause one side to give away.

In Thucydide record of the penopolese war, there are several battle during until night with actual engagement for hours.

I dont have definitive answer about recoiling. I play DBA/DBM before (on hex) and it did have recoil. I wonder what is historic? When it comes to ancient games I like realism a lot. I am really puzzled as why the TT game ruled this out? I would like to see some basis for or against.

If we need formation I am ready for it.

I am not sure about why they didnt add it to the TT, however I can see why in a hex based game... I mean if you have a line of hoplites and a Bg in the center recoils, what would happen? it retreats back one hex and the enemy bg follows? Might be kinda odd! The concept of lines bowing and stretching seems historically valid, but would be really hard to tranlate, except for a realtime evironment imho.

[76mm]

I am not sure about why they didnt add it to the TT, however I can see why in a hex based game... I mean if you have a line of hoplites and a Bg in the center recoils, what would happen? it retreats back one hex and the enemy bg follows? Might be kinda odd! The concept of lines bowing and stretching seems historically valid, but would be really hard to tranlate, except for a realtime evironment imho.

I don't think you would have to physically move a unit back a hex to use this concept: you could keep the unit in place, but give it lesser ability to inflict casualties, sort of a stage between normal and disrupted. I guess this would reflect a state in which unit was being physically dominated (pushed back), but had not yet suffered significant adverse morale consequences. Not sure how long such a state could last before a unit became disrupted.

[Stefan2009]

quote="TheGrayMouser"]I am not sure about why they didnt add it to the TT, however I can see why in a hex based game... I mean if you have a line of hoplites and a Bg in the center recoils, what would happen? it retreats back one hex and the enemy bg follows? Might be kinda odd! The concept of lines bowing and stretching seems historically valid, but would be really hard to tranlate, except for a realtime evironment imho.[/quote]

Thats just what is happening now, you get a rout and the other BG follows! If the unit was pushed back you would still have some kind of line, and you could put in reserves to keep the line from breaking up. This would have the historic effect of keeping a reserve as very important as it is now thats not the case in my opinion.

[rbodleyscott]

I am really puzzled as why the TT game ruled this out?

Mainly for playability reasons. However, although there are recorded instances of battle lines being pushed back a long way, more often the lines just swayed back and forth a bit. On the ground-scale represented by the TT game a certain amount of swaying backwards and forwards by the lines can be taken as occurring within the footprint of the table top units.

Owing to the need to have room for the figures, TT bases are vastly overdepth relative to the actual depths of the formations they represent at the ground-scale used, so there is room for notional push backs to be included in that depth without the need to explicitly represent them on the tabletop. (The disruptive effects of losing the combat are taken into account in other ways - by the cohesion ladder: Steady-Disrupted-Fragmented-Broken.)

The same is true in the PC game - a unit that was one hex wide would only be a fraction of a base deep. Hence a push-back of 1 hex would represent about 40 metres, which is probably rather more than the likely to-and-froing in most battles.

This model does not fit the relatively few battles in which long pushbacks are recorded, but these are by far the minority of historical accounts.

[kujalar]

If we have a scale of 50 yards / hex (or more) then 1 hex push would mean that the whole battlegroup was pushed 50 yards!

I do not believe that a block of people (depth of 8 lines (4 to 8 meters depending the formation), 1 man / meter in a line, for a whole hex width) locked in melee would remain as an effective unit if pushed 50 yards backwards in close combat.

They might propably rout, then rallied and then come back.

With light skirmishers the thing is different. They evade before melee contact. Same is with modern infantry tactics. Unit may retreat to escape encirclement or to avoid too close contact before locked into deadly ground.

So I personally think there is no urgent need for pushed back result.

We have distrupted and fragmented effects. They simulate formation breaking effect where the line is bending and losing its forward momentum. Cohesion check can fix this.

[Skanvak]

Mainly for playability reasons. However, although there are recorded instances of battle lines being pushed back a long way, more often the lines just swayed back and forth a bit. On the ground-scale represented by the TT game a certain amount of swaying backwards and forwards by the lines can be taken as occurring within the footprint of the table top units.

Owing to the need to have room for the figures, TT bases are vastly overdepth relative to the actual depths of the formations they represent at the ground-scale used, so there is room for notional push backs to be included in that depth without the need to explicitly represent them on the tabletop. (The disruptive effects of losing the combat are taken into account in other ways - by the cohesion ladder: Steady-Disrupted-Fragmented-Broken.)

The same is true in the PC game - a unit that was one hex wide would only be a fraction of a base deep. Hence a push-back of 1 hex would represent about 40 metres, which is probably rather more than the likely to-and-froing in most battles.

This model does not fit the relatively few battles in which long pushbacks are recorded, but these are by far the minority of historical accounts.

While I agree on the notional pushed back and that a push of 50yards is quite big. The bqttle where push back happenned. It has a great importance, I think about a battle between Romans and Macedonians where the pike where push in difficult where they where defeated. I would like to do that too. I think in the PC Game we can have complexe rules for unlikely event as the computer care about it.

About the post of the army loosing coherence in a 50yards push, that is not a necessity, as the push takes places over a lomg time and is a drift in some case. So the main problem is that it should be the result of several round of combat and not only one.

[kujalar]

While I agree on the notional pushed back and that a push of 50yards is quite big. The bqttle where push back happenned. It has a great importance, I think about a battle between Romans and Macedonians where the pike where push in difficult where they where defeated. I would like to do that too. I think in the PC Game we can have complexe rules for unlikely event as the computer care about it.

About the post of the army loosing coherence in a 50yards push, that is not a necessity, as the push takes places over a lomg time and is a drift in some case. So the main problem is that it should be the result of several round of combat and not only one.

The Cannae is also a place where "drift" did take a place for a long distance. I think that difficulty with this kind of warfare tactic, is that propably (my best guess) the lines were not engaged too close. I would imagine that the Carthagean infantry propably tried to keep some distance to Romans, maybe some 20+ meters. Giving ground when romans advance, shouting insults, banging shields , throwing stones etc, propably doing some probes but not engaging in all or nothing try to push Romans back. This could be seen as a sign of weakness and lure Romans to advance. Romans did believe that the barbarian onslaught is usually strong at first, but gets exhausted fast. So if the barbarian was giving ground he should propably give up soon...

With Romans vs Macedonian pikes, I would believe the Romans would like to try a same kind of a tactic. They need to keep some pressure in front of a pike, but they cannot push too hard if the phalang is in good order. Pushing would result into disaster. So they need to give ground and try to maneuver their units to the flanks to get better changes.

Now we have a gaming system where the hex is of a size maybe 50 yards and turn based movement. Units walk at least 2 hexes / turn while the opponent waits. How can you simulate tactic where one side tries to keep a distance of less than 50 yards and give ground slowly so as not to engage into decisive melee? Hard question I believe.

[cothyso]

I think the push back occurred in most common and also in some of the unusual instances on the ancient battlefields. I also think no ancient wargame can correctly model these battles without having them. There's no way the greek hoplite phalanx battles can be modelled without this!

the most common should have been at a moment when one of the two locked opponent groups was sensibly stronger (better armed/better equipped/favoured by terrain) than the other. because of this, the pressure and casualties started to mount up (mostly wounded, not dead). Also because of this, the cohesion of the weaker group would start to suffer (first lines drifting back trying to ease the pressure would be countered by the natural forward push of the support back lines). the natural tendency of any weaker battlegroup would be to get down/stop its own casualties.

at this point, what happened depended on a series of factors from which the most important ones were army military organization, battle group's training/battle experience and morale:
- an army with a better organization would have line changing (lines rotation inside the same battlegroup), second/third battle line replacements (roman famous triplex acies) and special reserves (to commit in the most problematic points of the front line) - stated in all historical sources regarding the roman military organisation
without the above, the weaker battle locked group would have only two other options:
- troops with weaker morale/little battle training/experience would not know how to deal with this pressure/formation disorder and would rout (dissolve/turn and flee) - plenty of historical sources for this
- troops with battle experience/drilled and/or with strong morale would try to release the pressure by drifting back in a controlled way or stay put and die to the last one -> the unintended controlled pushback or the heroic stance - plenty historical evidence for this too

the second instance of the pushback would be the controlled driftback in order to mantain front line cohesion. this might not apply for undrilled/battle frenzied troops

and at last the third instance of pushback would be from the battle tricks category, and could only be driven by veteran troops (vast battle experience/strong morale/good officers) with the intention of creating combat local advantages (disrupting enemy's front line/creating front line gaps, disorder in pursuer's formation, etc):
- intended controlled pushback (like in Cannae)
- feigned flight (like at Chaeronea)

all of the above would also depend on battlegroups weapons (unlike an above statement, pikes could not be pushed back, I don't remember even a single historical source for this, all the eventual occurrences I can think of were controlled driftback's to preserve front line cohesion): at least medium/big shields or a heavy weapon (falxes) for the attacker, no pikes/shields for the defender) and battle orders (veteran troops can be forced to take casualties and mentain position far longer than conscript troops via battle orders)

Again, all of the above intended for the design of the ancient wargame personal project I am working on.

PS: Cannae's intended and controlled driftback of the gaul troops from the center frontline was NOT a local encirclement pre-panned battle movement. It was a local battle movement deployed by the troops being under a tremendous pressure with the intent of lowering casualties/mentain battlegroup morale and cohesion, maintain the frontline and also buy time, time needed for the other parts of the frontline (wings) in order to complete their pre-battle general plan encirclement maneuvers. the fact that it created a larger bag for the roman troops to push themselves in was only a consequence of this.

[Skanvak]

I have to check, may it is the legion that were push back in the difficult terrian without losing cohesion. I might have incorrectly remember, but this battle definetly had a drift.

[Blathergut]

This would have the historic effect of keeping a reserve as very important as it is now thats not the case in my opinion.

It is critical to keep a 2nd line in the PC game. Not a solid one, but a BG tucked in behind every two front line BGs. This allows for rout/break offs. It also gives that critical +1 on cohesion tests. The true way to win these battles is not cause casualties (since that ends up fairly random), but to win/pass cohesion tests. This is one (slim) advantage a line of HF have versus lancers. The second "line" doesn't need to be top quality (that stuff should be up front). But you do need it.

[cothyso]

later edit: removed due to wrong posting

[Skanvak]

removed as refering to removed post.

[cothyso]

I'm sorry you feel offended that I miss-interpreted your post. I assure you I've read it, but thought you were referring to something else. English being not my native language is the culprit in here.

The battle you're talking about is one of the two of the second (cynoscephalae) and thrid (pydna) macedonian wars, and in both the phalanx pushed back the roman frontline.