RJMI wrote:Regarding non-raw and non-warband infantry, I was wrong. They only automatically pursue when attacking fragmented troops that break before contact. But they still pursue. Also there may be circumstances in which these infantry troops may want to pursue non-fragmented troops and thus they should be given the option of pursing them. As it is now, non-raw and non-warband infantry troops can never pursue non-fragmented troops, unless there is a rule I do not know about.
...
I have a question, Do all infantry troops automatically follow after evading troops? It seems they do. If so, then this is as bad as the automatic pursuit. I believe I had a superior infantry troop attack a week slinger and when the slinger evaded he followed him. Instead of my infantry troop merely causing the slinger to retreat from near my line, it followed him deep into the enemy line.
The answer is yes, Infantry will automatically chase evading troops. Whether this is an issue or not is up for debate. We can examine this from two aspects: historical accuracy and playability.
The first is to examine whether this behaviour is "historically accurate" or not. The correct answer here for
everyone is to respond with
*I don't know*. Until the ability to read or write was commonplace among the rank and file troops, we have very few primary sources to draw on in terms of how battles were actually conducted and how soldiers and units behaved. Everyone can argue until they are blue in the face about what it was like but no one actually knows. Most of the written material we do have on this subject doesn't go down to this granular level of how individual maniples or companies would behave. The reason for this almost certainly because even the Generals in charge did not have enough visibility over the battlefield to determine what happened.
Was it possible that troops would not chase very far and some would not? Absolutely, but that is already modelled in. When a pursuit happens, a random number is rolled by the pursuing unit and that determines how far they chase based on AP. I have had troops not chase at all past the initial square to units that run headlong into the enemy line. I don't think you as a person today can sit here and say *for certain* that troops, well trained or not would *never* chase unless given orders to do so. Unless we are allowed to run our own Hunger Games with prisoners and dress them up in ancient weapons and told to fight melees en masse, no one will ever know for sure how these formations really interacted with each other with any great detail.
There is the other matter of whether this mechanic ruins playability in some way. For myself, I am not so concerned with historical accuracy down to this minute level vs whether the game gets the overall flavour right. In that respect it actually does. We all want a game where our decisions matter, I get that. We all want a good degree of control as well outside what was historically possible. Otherwise, it would be absurd to be view battles with a bird's eye view and be able to give orders to troops on opposite ends of the line simultaneously. But we also all want a game where the rules offer room for random chance to occur to simulate the "feel" of chaos. We all draw that line at different places. For example, many in the forum actually want spontaneous unordered advances and charges by Warband and other "rabble" type troops. I will tell you right now that is a bridge way too far for me. But I can also appreciate where they are coming from. If this game current draws the line too far for you and it is bothering you this much then you really have two choices. Either learn to adapt to the rules or play a different game like that archaeologist fellow.
I will say that the current rules are skill-intensive ones that reward players who can create plans that are sturdy and flexible enough to encompass a multitude of random chance outcomes. This particular rule rewards the proper use of skirmishers since they can be used to break up an orderly enemy advance in the game much like you described. At the end of the day isn't that what skirmisher and other screening type forces are designed to do up to modern times? Armoured Cavalry Regiments in today's modern day armies do the exact same thing that ancient skirmishers do. The only difference is they do it in tanks and infantry fighting vehicles and induce disorder on the enemy as they advance on main force.
It somewhat reminds me of the old DBA PiP mechanic where every turn you roll a die to determine how many units you can move that turn. Any monkey can play the game well rolling 6 every turn but their game always fell apart when they got a string of bad pip rolls. True masters of the game learned to create plans and formations that could withstand bad pip and combat rolls. Will there be times when excessive bad luck in this game means you lose through only minor faults on your part? Sure, but you can look at the tournaments that have been played so far. The best players keep doing well over and over and over again. So if you are upset about this mechanic from a gameplay point of view thinking that this ruins your ability to execute plans, I think you should look in the mirror a bit as well.
The thing I confused with pursuing was push backs and follow-ups. But there is a problem with this also. When on offence all (at least I think all) infantry troops push back and follow up. The problem with this is that sometimes (such as when ZOC does not block them) they follow up to far, more the one space. And this places them behind the enemy line and susceptible to flank or rear attacks. In my opinion, they should only follow up one space and only more than that upon special command. I also believe they should be given the option of not following up at all and thus remain in the space they were when combat was initiated. In this case, they would actually be retreating from the space where the combat took place. They may want to do this to not break the formation line. For example, if my defensive line gets attacked in one place, my troops flanking my attacked troop my want to go on offence to help repel that attack but not follow up if victorious and thus remain where they were when combat was initiated so there is no gap in the defensive line caused by the follow up.
You are not alone here, there have been several topics that have been brought up from time to time about excessive pushbacks. I belong to the camp that it is both historically reasonable and that it is good for the game. Indeed there are secondary sources at Pynda that specifically cite the fact that the solid Phalanx wall broke up as some advanced while others were repulsed and that the Romans got in those gaps and routed the Macedonians in that fashion. So it is not implausible that this could occur.
This mechanic is also a good skill testing mechanic because, once again, it forces good players to think before they act and make them attempt to forecast what they will do if certain circumstances like this occur. Simultaneously, it punishing bad players who don't take the time to think through the possible outcomes of their attack. I have personally played against people who willingly shove units forward into areas where I have clearly have numerous reserves ready to flank and crush any breakthroughs. But they attack into it anyways. To top it off, they don't even bother supporting the attack with follow-on forces to protect the lead unit! Game mechanics like this are great as skill differentiators and should be kept as much as possible.
PS: The reason you may not get many who hold that my opinion on pursuit is valid is that they no longer play the game and thus no longer read this forum. And I would estimate there are good amount of them, as I myself have stopped playing many war games which no longer listen to good opinions, let alone make important corrections. It does no game designer any good to surround himself with those who feel they must parrot his beliefs or flatter him.
Would it be fairer to say that you stopped playing many war games that don't follow
*your* opinions (which may or may not be good)? You can ask anyone on this forum; I have been among one of the harshest critics over certain design mechanics including what I term 'black box' mechanics which are random chance events but the game doesn't show you what the odds. Examples include not knowing the odds of an enemy unit attempting to evade prior to charging it. Still seems nonsensical to me but it still persists. I am also on record as heavily criticising the costing of certain units including Irregular Foot. If RBS wanted to surround himself with those who parrot his beliefs, I wouldn't be in the latest beta where I also have scorched him on several topics in the beta forum.
You can review the patch history for this game. The majority of changes were all rooted in player concerns and complaints. So there isn't the need for this particular Ad Hom attack.
