Anyone else think the pushback system is a bit overdone?

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete , we have played several games with shock troops galore, did any single thing in any of those battles lead you to believe that somehow this is really an issue?

In some games that I have played, probably around 25%, I think it has been an issue to a certain extent. In the worst cases, the two armies have approached each other into melee and the weaker units on both sides have been pushed back and then destroyed. So then both armies have to turn round and advance again. I think I described it before as a weird type of American line-dancing (I think all line-dancing is weird, just to be clear).

I think I might make a suggestion to roguedjack, who has done an excellent mod already, and see if he is interested in incorporating these ideas into his mod. Those of us who are interested could then have a good look at it.

Well I cant vouche for some game you have played, did you see it in our games?

Could this be a case where the battle so happens to develop where both side throw every thing in at once ( in a single battle line) ? I generally don't play that way ( unless its galations versus a line of hoplites hehe ) I suspect there would be anarchy and loss of control in terms of what a general could do at that point...

I imagine you would have to script a "tick" so the game remembers every units # of push backs received and recall this # every lost combat... Performance hit?

[stockwellpete]

Well I cant vouche for some game you have played, did you see it in our games?

Could this be a case where the battle so happens to develop where both side throw every thing in at once ( in a single battle line) ? I generally don't play that way ( unless its galations versus a line of hoplites hehe ) I suspect there would be anarchy and loss of control in terms of what a general could do at that point...

I imagine you would have to script a "tick" so the game remembers every units # of push backs received and recall this # every lost combat... Performance hit?

I can't remember now and I would need full replays to point out examples. It can happen anywhere on the battlefield really. Just having two isolated units fighting where one of them is pushed back, say, 3 times looks a bit daft - and it means that the winning unit is probably out of the battle afterwards because it has moved a long way from the action.

I have put the ideas in roguedjack's thread now. I think Richard said to me that the game engine could cope with something along these lines. It depends if roguedjack likes it or not now. I would certainly like to play a few games just to see what it would be like.

[rbodleyscott]

I have put the ideas in roguedjack's thread now. I think Richard said to me that the game engine could cope with something along these lines. It depends if roguedjack likes it or not now. I would certainly like to play a few games just to see what it would be like.

It isn't really anything to do with AI, so roguejack's thread is not really the place to bring it up. If he starts modding non-AI scripts, it will increase the chance of his mod breaking when the game is updated.

[roguedjack]

* stockwellpete writes on a magic scroll and suddenly a wild roguedjack appears *
Hi there! I answered in the mod thread about the mod thing.

I personally like the pushback rules as they are now. I like the chaos and the tactical opportunity it creates, for both the "pushed" and the "pusher". You have to be careful when commiting to a charge. If you want to keep formation, let your opponent charge. Restricting pushbacks depending on temporary local tactical factors like positioning could possibly lead to "gamey" tactics to obtain or deny the pushback cap trigger on specific units.
You'll also have to display the information somewhere for the players in a way that make sense.

For an AI pov, it would give a human player another advantage over the AI. Players are much better at maintaining nice lines.

When global mods will be possible, rules variants should be much easier to do and MP players will able to experiment their own set of rules. Maybe a pushback cap will make MP games play better, I dont know, but we will all be able to experiment rules variants much more easily.

[Archaeologist1970]

Maybe the pushbacks can be coded to be influenced by experience level. Veteran Romans for example are not likely to break lines to pursue being a well disciplined and drilled army. Warbands on the other hand should be impetuous. I think size of corresponding units should influence the pushback. A deep phalanx unit should shove a small irregular foot unit out of the way. A little tweak here could make the game deeper and not be gamey.

[TheJay13]

Thats why I advocate a limitation on how far a unit can be pushed. A unit being pushed 2 or three squares is sufficient to create chaos and uncertainty when attacking but it avoids my troops pushing an opponent half way across the map which is something I have a hard time finding believable.

Some times it feels like the game is punishing me for using powerful units. Last night I was on the last battle of my Sparta vs Greece campaign and the majority of my veterans were elite. I had multiple elite hoplites push units across the map all the while the opposing unit either held firm until auto break or only dropped cohesion/broke after about three pushbacks. The same effect could be had with the limitation I purpose without being so unrealistic and comical. If my spartans had only pushed the unit two squares max they would still be out of position (in fact they wouldve been in far more danger of being flanked) and would still have been occupied for the same amount of time the only difference being that, thanks to the limitation, it gives the impression of a more cohesive link between your troops and forces you to consider exactly where your units will wind up if they push too hard. Ive actually had units escape flank attacks because they just kept pushing a unit back even though by all accounts I shouldve been punished for putting my unit in that position.

[MikeC_81]

I think the issue is being exaggerated. Push backs occur only when a unit has decisively lost a combat round. Most units in the game can't exactly stand up to multiple rounds if combat loss without straight up routing.

My experience is that while you can have a unit pushed back 3-4-5 squares and still is somehow holding on, it is a rare issue. I also think that battles are way more chaotic than what the average table top game represents.

Having unlimited push backs encourages proper support of attacks and defence in depth and that is a good thing

[hjc]

I realize some might see more extreme behavior but in my mp games a unit might get pushed once or twice before it : routes, can’t do to friendly troops or terrain , or another enemy makes contact.

A while ago I was testing German Foot Tribes vs Romans. On several occasions I had legions push back a warband a long way beyond the fight. Not just a couple squares, or even four, but IIRC something like seven or more. It looked a bit odd. It exposes the 'victorious' unit that is 'gaining' ground - because they become vulnerable to being swamped from behind.

Now, people have suggested "don't charge or initiate the contact if you don't want to end up pushing back units beyond the lines". That's fine unless both players don't want to suffer this, so their lines end up just glaring angrily at each other.

I understand the point of the push-back, but I would imagine that a unit that has been pushed back way beyond even their initial deployment zone, should perhaps suffer cohesion tests for every square pushed back beyond X. e.g. 2, or 3, whatever.

Having said all this, it doesn't upset me terribly, it just seems odd when we run into extreme cases - which will happen regularly with some match-ups, and not-so with others. With particular match-ups multiple, long distance push-backs aren't rare at all. I think it might be the very large units (warbands) where we see this happen more often, because smaller units usually end up breaking if they've suffered less lost melee rounds, than larger units.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't recall which battle it was, but there was a medieval battle in the highlands of Scotland where the losers were pushed back half a mile from their starting position before they broke. That would be about 15 squares.

This was one example which made it hard for us to justify the lack of pushbacks in the tabletop version of the game, but it was too hard to implement them when multiple units in the opposing lines could be offset from each other so that every unit was fighting more than one enemy unit.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't recall which battle it was, but there was a medieval battle in the highlands of Scotland where the losers were pushed back half a mile from their starting position before they broke. That would be about 15 squares.

I seem to recall a Hellenistic one (Sellasia?) which involved a substantial pushback.

[stockwellpete]

Richard and Nik, presumably you are talking about a whole army, or a substantial part of an army being pushed back, rather than one "unit" being pushed back out of the centre of a larger body of soldiers? Nobody is arguing against pushbacks in general in this thread, it is just on occasions that bizarre things happen and maybe there is a way of dealing with them.

[vakarr]

The pushback mechanic benefits historical deployments such as the Roman chequerboard and though I don't like it's unpredictability, I'm willing to live with its effects. In my last game, I charged a Light infantry unit with pikes, the light infantry evaded, then the pikes hit the unit behind it, which got pushed back, and my pike unit suddenly was sitting in a world of trouble, completely surrounded by enemy units - wow! There is a benefit to deep deployments! I remember reading about Roman legionaries who went bezerk and followed up their enemy all the way to a nearby town, so I don't think there's a need to put a limit on it. The battles do not look like ancient battles in that they seem to break up the lines and become individual skirmishes but if what I have seen on YouTube is any guide its partly because players don't seem to have an overall strategy. This is a game vs simulation thing that really works well for the game aspect, you can't have everything being totally predictable, especially as there aren't any bezerk rules requiring certain units (Irregular "A") to attack.

[TheJay13]

The pushback mechanic benefits historical deployments such as the Roman chequerboard and though I don't like it's unpredictability, I'm willing to live with its effects. In my last game, I charged a Light infantry unit with pikes, the light infantry evaded, then the pikes hit the unit behind it, which got pushed back, and my pike unit suddenly was sitting in a world of trouble, completely surrounded by enemy units - wow! There is a benefit to deep deployments! I remember reading about Roman legionaries who went bezerk and followed up their enemy all the way to a nearby town, so I don't think there's a need to put a limit on it. The battles do not look like ancient battles in that they seem to break up the lines and become individual skirmishes but if what I have seen on YouTube is any guide its partly because players don't seem to have an overall strategy. This is a game vs simulation thing that really works well for the game aspect, you can't have everything being totally predictable, especially as there aren't any bezerk rules requiring certain units (Irregular "A") to attack.

Well for one the Romans didnt actually enter battle in a chequerboard formation, just marched to the enemy like that. It really doesnt give any advantage to engage in that way as all it does is allow your opponent local supuriority over every other unit. As for the legionaries following the enemy to a nearby town, it was probably a large section, or even entirity of the roman force, not some random cohort which jumped out of line to fight in a continuous battle for 15 miles.

In regards to your pikeman example, note that your pike only needed to push the enemy once and he was in a poor position, now imagine that he continued to do that for five more turns. Not only would he no longer be out of position, it would be ridiculous and completely remove the unit as a factor in the battle through such an unrealistic means. Alas the way the mechanic is implemented currently it is not uncommon to see such a thing.

There is little reason or advantage gained from having more than two or three pushes away from the starting tile, most of the time when a push causes a a unit to become vulnerable it was only pushed a couple of squares.

[vakarr]

I'll tell you what I'll support your rules change if you will also support having a mechanism to allow light infantry to attack heavier troops (e.g. can charge fragmented troops) or at least shoot at them from the rear, instead of sitting there behind heavy infantry and having a cup of tea and discussing the latest soap opera.

[TheJay13]

I'll tell you what I'll support your rules change if you will also support having a mechanism to allow light infantry to attack heavier troops (e.g. can charge fragmented troops) or at least shoot at them from the rear, instead of sitting there behind heavy infantry and having a cup of tea and discussing the latest soap opera.

Youve got yourself a deal good sir. I for one would appreciate some mechanism to allow for greater involvement of LF in open field battles (within historical bounds of course).

[stockwellpete]

I have started to keep a record now of how many 3 square or more pushbacks I get in my games to see what proportion of games are affected by it. I played against the AI last night and an enemy Veteran pike unit pushed back my veteran hoplites 3 times, disrupting it on the last pushback. I was able to flank charge the enemy pike unit and destroy it

[Najanaja]

[quote="w_michael"]I like the mechanic, and contributes to making the battle look more like what I imagine to be a good depiction of the maelstrom of battle. We have all read accounts where troops have been pushed back in battle. Units obtain local superiority over their opponent, who withdraws out of contact to recover and avoid destruction. The solid battle lines becomes fragmented upon contact with the enemy, with some units advancing; some retreating. Some unit's flanks wills be exposed, some units will be pushed back frequently. Gaps will be created that can be exploited.

I think that solid, inflexible battle lines would be boring, and unrealistic.[/quote]

I agree.

The troops pushing at the pointy end - covered in blood, dust and sweat are not thinking about whether they should move 2 squares or not - their focus would be killing the man in front and moving forward.

Too many wargames allow the player/General to micro-mange troops at the tactical level.

[Najanaja]

[quote="stockwellpete"]I have started to keep a record now of how many 3 square or more pushbacks I get in my games to see what proportion of games are affected by it. I played against the AI last night and an enemy Veteran pike unit pushed back my veteran hoplites 3 times, disrupting it on the last pushback. I was able to flank charge the enemy pike unit and destroy it[/quote]

So what do you conclude from this one-game test?

Is it "historical"? Bearing mind that you, Commander, are probably sitting on horse about 100m away.

[stockwellpete]

So what do you conclude from this one-game test?

Nothing.

Is it "historical"? Bearing mind that you, Commander, are probably sitting on horse about 100m away.

Is it historical that one section of soldiers in the middle of a line gets pushed back while the others hold their position? Probably not.

[stockwellpete]

The pushback mechanic benefits historical deployments such as the Roman chequerboard and though I don't like it's unpredictability, I'm willing to live with its effects. In my last game, I charged a Light infantry unit with pikes, the light infantry evaded, then the pikes hit the unit behind it, which got pushed back, and my pike unit suddenly was sitting in a world of trouble, completely surrounded by enemy units - wow! There is a benefit to deep deployments!

Nothing of what we are arguing for in this thread would affect the situation that you have described.