Pursuits on Horseback

[Old_Warrior]

I am no equestrian but from what I have read on pursuits (and English hunting parties ) they were a very narrow focused race after the prey. The cavalry had very little ability to suddenly veer off as a "cohesive group" to take on some fresh "target of opportunity."

Lets take Rupert's cavalry as an example. Well known to "get the bit in the teeth" and run off the battlefield after Parliament cavalry. And that is just it ... after the foe they had just defeated. Not suddenly veer into some other cavalry that were presenting their flank to them while leaving off the pursuit of the just-routed enemy.

If any of you have ever gotten into a race or fast run you know that its hard to look to the side. You are intent on your objective. Now if you are trotting .. that is another matter. But the pursuit part of the P&S game is done at the gallop or fast pace. That is why they run off the board.

So to suddenly veer off from the pursuit in this game to hit a unit in the flank ... well I just cant buy it.

[rbodleyscott]

Pursuing units certainly did charge fresh enemy that they met. One example would be the Scots Greys at Waterloo, who, in their uncontrolled pursuit after routing the French 1st Corps, charged first Durrutte's Division of infantry and then the French artillery, both without orders.

The pursuit charge mechanism and "extra" pursuit movement is designed to represent occasions when victorious units rolled up multiple units in sequence. An example would be the French right wing cavalry at Rocroi, who, after defeating the opposing Spanish cavalry rolled up the Spanish second line of infantry. Without such a mechanism the Spanish second line infantry, who were not engaged or even threatened to their front, would simple turn to face and not be rolled up.

The issue of the "extra" movement is therefore a deliberate part of the game design. It is based on reproducing such events as cited above and also on the concept that battles were episodic and should be simulated as such rather than everything moving smoothly at a constant speed like some sort of clockwork automaton.

[Old_Warrior]

Yes, the Scots Greys did charge other targets but that is only after they had run through the troops they had pursued and scattered them making them "hors de combat" for the rest of the battle AND the guns they ran over were on their line of charge. They didnt make erratic changes of facing during their attack. No cavalry pursuing an opponent ever did. They would proceed straight on the charge path hitting units that were in their "cone of advance." Light cavalry perhaps might do this but not heavies.

Yet in movement the Imperial Kuirassier units are restrained in movement. I had not played them in my games until I played Nordlingen from the Imperialist player side. They have very little LATERAL movement during their move phase - so why so during the Pursuit moves of the Melee phase (and also in the Movement phase once they have caused a rout during a charge and move onward making turns as if they were a hussar unit).

Its inconsistent. You cant ask the player to be restrained during movement only to see the same unit turn corners like a Grand Prix race car driver.

But someone has said that this is NOT a simulation. Its a GAME. Great - then why go to such detail if its just a GAME? That is the part I cant figure too.

Games have 5-4 units like in a board game. They are meant to be simple affairs. This game is VERY complex. Its NOT a game folks and Richard - its a simulation. Any attempt to say its not goes right against the wargaming design principal that Avalon Hill used and was incredibly successful at unlike SPI which built simulations but had issues with their rules. When AH produced Squad Leader that is where they departed from pure game and descended into the simulation world that would one day become ASL.

Anyway, my initial review is still valid ... its a nice product but just needs the two fixes I am after. The pursuit routine needs to have less movement and there are certain historical (read things you find in a simulation - not a game) values that are incorrect.

[Doyley50]

"Games have 5-4 units like in a board game. They are meant to be simple affairs. "

A sweeping statement indeed. By whose definition are games meant to be simple affairs, apart from your own?

[Old_Warrior]

Not mine. I am just saying what folks are saying here. That P&S is not a simulation but a game.

Game implies Risk, Clue, etc. Or the simplistic board games that Avalon Hill sold for the most part.

Simulation implies a detailed game that takes into account historical accuracy.

[Doyley50]

Sorry, you contradict yourself. You say that games are meant to be simple affairs in one breath, then you say that simulation implies a detailed GAME that takes into account historical accuracy. That is my last word on the subject.

[Old_Warrior]

I was NOT the one that said that it was NOT a simulation. The guys in the other thread did. I thought it was a simulation and its not. I think you keep missing the picture here. If its a simulation it has errors that are serious. If its a game... ok, fine, but I still dont like how the troops routing and pursuing make turns like in the Grand Prix curcuit. This is the end of my comments as its obvious that some folks here cant read.

[Jagger2002]

Imo, the pursuit and new charges are one of the most fun parts of P&S. Cavalry battles, in particular, are a blast because of the attempts to chain rout your opposition. I think historically you can find enough examples to support the mechanism. And I have never seen another game that comes even close to simulating the sudden collapse of a force which P&S is able to achieve. Personally, I would be very disappointed to see the mechanism disappear or significantly modified.

[fogman]

you have to look at it from a different perspective to see the problem:

why would a unit allow itself to be rolled up from the flank without making any counter-move? surely it would be aware a friendly unit was routed nearby and would react accordingly. right now it stands there helpless, whether it is a mob or an elite unit.

the rout/pursuit routine gives the winning unit double movement. in effect, it moves faster with a fleeing enemy in front than without anything in front, all of that while keeping cohesion.

in relation to infantry pursuit, I cannot see a tercio breaking out in pursuit and running as fast of the unit it routed, presumably throwing pikes and muskets in order to keep up. those units need to keep formation to be effective and just do not run.

I still don't understand why all units engaged in a melee pursue. or why there must be a pursuit at all. it may not be easy to rein in a wild cavalry melee but infantry units should be able to not pursue. there is the same issue in FoG but the much greater number of units there mitigates the problem.

[Jagger2002]

why would a unit allow itself to be rolled up from the flank without making any counter-move? surely it would be aware a friendly unit was routed nearby and would react accordingly. right now it stands there helpless, whether it is a mob or an elite unit.

Units were rolled up from the flank all the time and not by choice. One thing to bear in mind is the tunnel vision and psychology stress on most soldiers when on a battlefield. Often the focus is so intent on the front that they pay little to no attention to the flank. In particular if they have another friendly unit on the flank. And then, the slightest surprise on the flank is often enough to turn a formation into a mob in the blink of an eye. Often just someone shouting, "they are on our flank" or "our neighbors are running", was enough to panic a unit into disorder or worse. So how to model this battlefield phenomenum? I think the mechanism of taking command of units away from the player during the rout, pursuit, and evade process does a fantastic job of producing these sudden battlefield routs. If there is a better way of modeling these results, I am all for it. As long as we retain the ability of a single unit to create a chain reaction of routs.

[fogman]

what you are describing is the cohesion test taken when a friendly adjacent unit is routed which is indeed the main mechanism for mass collapse, but a different issue than pursuit. why can't units about to get rolled up also take a test of leadership and quality? properly led, elite level troops should not be paralyzed as if they were mere militia.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Elite troops still have a good chance of holding their ground against raw troops if they get flanked. Disruption leaves them less vulnerable than raw troops disrupted in a similar situation.

[fogman]

One thing to bear in mind is the tunnel vision and psychology stress on most soldiers when on a battlefield.

but that also applies to the pursuing unit. if it has the ability to disengage from pursuit, shift its course and attack a new unit, then I see no reason why a unit that is unengaged cannot react. right now a unit engaged in pursuit has better command and control than a unit standing in reserve.

[fogman]

Elite troops still have a good chance of holding their ground against raw troops if they get flanked. Disruption leaves them less vulnerable than raw troops disrupted in a similar situation.

that doesn't answer the question as to why they can't react in the first place.

[Old_Warrior]

you have to look at it from a different perspective to see the problem:

why would a unit allow itself to be rolled up from the flank without making any counter-move? surely it would be aware a friendly unit was routed nearby and would react accordingly. right now it stands there helpless, whether it is a mob or an elite unit.

the rout/pursuit routine gives the winning unit double movement. in effect, it moves faster with a fleeing enemy in front than without anything in front, all of that while keeping cohesion.

in relation to infantry pursuit, I cannot see a tercio breaking out in pursuit and running as fast of the unit it routed, presumably throwing pikes and muskets in order to keep up. those units need to keep formation to be effective and just do not run.

I still don't understand why all units engaged in a melee pursue. or why there must be a pursuit at all. it may not be easy to rein in a wild cavalry melee but infantry units should be able to not pursue. there is the same issue in FoG but the much greater number of units there mitigates the problem.

I see both sides to the story here ... folks want the opportunity to roll up a flank - hey, it WILL happen if units are in the wrong position anyway.

However, Fogman makes some very valid points here. We need to see his viewpoint too.

[Old_Warrior]

One thing to bear in mind is the tunnel vision and psychology stress on most soldiers when on a battlefield.

but that also applies to the pursuing unit. if it has the ability to disengage from pursuit, shift its course and attack a new unit, then I see no reason why a unit that is unengaged cannot react. right now a unit engaged in pursuit has better command and control than a unit standing in reserve.

Exactly!

Now guys, if the pursuit were toned down to where BOTH routing and pursuing units did not move AS FAR in the Melee phase then in FUTURE rout/pursuit moves if the pursuing unit runs into an enemy unit and hits the flank - right on! No problem with that.