Field of Glory 2 Developers Diary - A.I.

[JaM2013]

Personally, i think there should be slightly higher penalty for having enemy on flanks though.. watching all those videos, battles usually end up completely broken up, with multiple battles all over the map.. yet ancient battles were formation battles, where penetrating enemy line had dire consequences.. here, it looks like you can keep fighting and not care about having few enemy units in your back.. (but of course im making this assumptions only from what i saw in youtube battles so far)

maybe some small morale penalty if enemy is on the flanks? (slightly bigger than it is now, if there is any) it would make battles a bit more about tactics i think

[Igorputski]

I actually meant evading troops not retreating; couldn't think of the word at the time so used retreating. At any rate this needs to be toned down a bit and still be something a horn command would stop in the real world.

It still leads into a death trap and I don't think someone was standing there recording this activity for every battle in that era. Maybe some troops did do this like once and somebody in a far off place heard some chumps in a bar or inn laughing about it and thus recorded in history that this was a military maneuver that all armies used all the time. I just highly doubt it. I don't believe for a second every army was that ignorant.

[Igorputski]

To be fair there are multiple examples of even "disciplined" troops displaying exactly this type of behaviour in this era (and later). I do agree though that veteran infantry should be much less likely to uncontrollably pursue....cavalry were always more likely to pursue regardless.....inconvenient and annoying for players...but not unrealistic.

I have to ask; were you there? Do you believe everything you read some supposedly historian wrote? Were they sitting on the sidelines watching "every" battle in history? Were they even really there? You weren't there so you can't really know if any of it is true. Remember; Fake News existed in those times as well and the winners wrote history not the losers.

[devoncop]

No I certainly wasn't there (though often feel that old )..........Historical accounts like modern "news" are not 100% accurate........BUT......they are the best we have.

I get what you are saying about the chasing of evading troops but the player always has a choice as to whether to go careering off after light troops. In all the battles I have seen in FOG2 so far LI and LC may be a nuisance but they won't destroy a well commanded Army. If they were as significant as they say a Parthian Army would be unbeatable......I suspect this will not be the case !!

[JaM2013]

i'd say if some ancient historians specifically mention it, there is a salt of truth in it.. For example, Pyrrhus of Epirus campaign in Italy is documented from both sides of conflict, and one thing mentioned by Greek historians was how fed up were Epirote pikemen when they realized they couldnt push forward when they defeated one maniple because other would quickly surround them and defeat them..

[devoncop]

Which as is pointed out above doesn't happen in FOG2 as infantry do not uncontrollably follow up a melee victory. At Magnesia however the Selucid Cavalry wing under Antiochus despite being "good quality" effectively lost control after defeating the Roman Left. Hence Cavalry does tend to charge after fleeing enemies (or indeed evading light cav if sent to drive skirmishes off.

Interesting discussion though. Only a few days to wait to see if you think it is a real issue.

[rbodleyscott]

The issue of heavy foot charging skirmishers is over-emphasized in some of the You Tube videos, because some of the You-Tubers, who are relatively inexperienced with the game, have not yet realised that it is a futile exercise, and entirely unnecessary. They should instead be ignoring the skirmishers and attacking the enemy heavier foot.