Charging broken units

[MVP7]

Currently if you charge a unit that is broken the charging unit will not move into the square that was occupied by the enemy. It seems weird as it would indicate that the attacking unit would stop even before getting to where the enemy started running away or that they are going after the enemy slower than they would normally march.

It would seem far more intuitive and realistic that the unit would "pursue" the enemy at least for their normal marching distance (into the square where the target originally was). This would make fleeing enemy units slightly less obstructive and the dynamic would just make a lot more sense at least in my opinion.

[76mm]

It would seem far more intuitive and realistic that the unit would "pursue" the enemy at least for their normal marching distance (into the square where the target originally was). This would make fleeing enemy units slightly less obstructive and the dynamic would just make a lot more sense at least in my opinion.

hmmm, this is what I usually see, or I thought? In fact, I am really starting to dislike this mechanic, because more and more often players are using it on a regular basis to slingshot units great distances in a single turn. Very gamey in my view.

[MVP7]

It would seem far more intuitive and realistic that the unit would "pursue" the enemy at least for their normal marching distance (into the square where the target originally was). This would make fleeing enemy units slightly less obstructive and the dynamic would just make a lot more sense at least in my opinion.

hmmm, this is what I usually see, or I thought? In fact, I am really starting to dislike this mechanic, because more and more often players are using it on a regular basis to slingshot units great distances in a single turn. Very gamey in my view.

I guess the cavalry and possibly some untrained foot will enter pursue mode when doing this. Not really hoping that behavior for the units that don't usually pursue, just moving into the square in question.

I wouldn't necessarily call using routed units to drive your units around the maps any more gamey than chaining flank attacks.

[rbodleyscott]

Currently if you charge a unit that is broken the charging unit will not move into the square that was occupied by the enemy. It seems weird as it would indicate that the attacking unit would stop even before getting to where the enemy started running away or that they are going after the enemy slower than they would normally march.

It would seem far more intuitive and realistic that the unit would "pursue" the enemy at least for their normal marching distance (into the square where the target originally was). This would make fleeing enemy units slightly less obstructive and the dynamic would just make a lot more sense at least in my opinion.

That is what used to happen, but some people didn't like it, so it was changed in v1.2.5 so that only troops who would normally pursue (i.e. most infantry) will pursue.

We are treading a fine line between people who think that all troops should pursue, and others who think that no troops should pursue.

We are happy with the current balance.

[MVP7]

I know about the change, and while I personally think it applies to a bit too wide spectrum of units, that's not really my point here.

I'm specifically referring to situations where a unit is already routing when it's charged. It just makes no sense to me that a unit sees a fleeing group of enemy, is ordered to pursue and then either takes one step and gives up or runs to where they were a minute ago. When unit is specifically ordered to chase a routing enemy off the battlefield I think they should at very least chase them for their regular movement range.

[rbodleyscott]

I know about the change, and while I personally think it applies to a bit too wide spectrum of units, that's not really my point here.

I'm specifically referring to situations where a unit is already routing when it's charged. It just makes no sense to me that a unit sees a fleeing group of enemy, is ordered to pursue and then either takes one step and gives up or runs to where they were a minute ago. When unit is specifically ordered to chase a routing enemy off the battlefield I think they should at very least chase them for their regular movement range.

I understand what you are referring to, and as I say, they used to do so before v1.2.5

Let's wait and see what anyone else might say on the matter.

[76mm]

I tend to agree with MVP7, my concern is about when a unit attacks a routed enemy unit, pursues it two or three tiles, and then attacks another enemy unit in the rear, etc. Shouldn't units which attack routed enemy units and pursue be unavailable the next player turn?

[GiveWarAchance]

I think the game mechanic is good now cause it was a common problem in Medieval times for both infantry & knights to impetuously charge routed units like, for example, the Saxons leaving their life-giving shield line to charge Normans in the battle of Hastings. Another infamous example was the Teutonic knights at Tannenberg foolishly charging after routing light infantry on the right flank of the army of Poles, Lithuanians and Russians which fatally tired out the knights and removed them from the battlefield for too long so the remaining infantry and crossbow units were overwhelmed by the savage Slavic horde.

And I like the feature where a pursing unit can slam into the flank/rear of another enemy unit and mess up its morale too because it actually happened sometimes, and it makes the game quite fun and can give an smaller army losing a battle a small chance to win.

I am wondering that now when I pursue routers, the routing unit no longer loses casualties like before. I always try to pursue routers, even if I have no cavalry, because it motivates the routers to leave the field instead of rallying.

[76mm]

And I like the feature where a pursing unit can slam into the flank/rear of another enemy unit and mess up its morale too because it actually happened sometimes, and it makes the game quite fun and can give an smaller army losing a battle a small chance to win.

Yeah, but what didn't happen was units teleporting across great distances in the battlefield to do so. As it is, they are (i) attacking a routing unit; (ii) pursuing them across 2-3 tiles; and (iii) then attacking a unit in the rear. Seems like a bit much to me.

While we're talking about charging broken units, let's discuss the possibility of charging broken friendly units...those cowards are continually getting in my way in the most inopportune times/places. I think it would be interesting, and probably not unrealistic, to allow units to move into squares occupied by routing friendly units if (a) the moving unit takes a disruption check; and (b) the routing unit dissolves as a result. Whaddya think about that?

[rbodleyscott]

And I like the feature where a pursing unit can slam into the flank/rear of another enemy unit and mess up its morale too because it actually happened sometimes, and it makes the game quite fun and can give an smaller army losing a battle a small chance to win.

Yeah, but what didn't happen was units teleporting across great distances in the battlefield to do so. As it is, they are (i) attacking a routing unit; (ii) pursuing them across 2-3 tiles; and (iii) then attacking a unit in the rear. Seems like a bit much to me.

FOG2 is not a time-slice simulation, but an episodic simulation.

Real armies did not operate like a clockwork automaton, all units moving in synchrony.

Then, as now, warfare was very much about "hurry up and wait". Most of the units were doing very little for much of the time. Even on-going melees are thought to have had pauses.

There is therefore time, in the interstices, for sudden catastrophic events to happen, as they did from time to time in real battles. This is what the multiple pursuit mechanism is supposed to represent - the sudden sweeping away of an outflanked wing.

It is an integral part of the simulation, because with cavalry being largely useless frontally against steady infantry, the multiple pursuit mechanism is a large part of representing their historical effectiveness.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I am perfectly happy with the present system, though it would be nice if, when you attacked a routing unit with non raw or warband infantry, your unit occupied the square, maintaining facing, instead of stopping short. Just my opinion though, and no big deal either way.

[edb1815]

I think it works quite well. In the last round of the DL I had what RBS noted happen - cavalry on the flank causing a series of routs in pursuit. P&S simulates this quite well also. If the routing unit is in-between your unit and another target why not charge the fleeing mob to get them out of the way.

[Morbio]

I am perfectly happy with the present system, though it would be nice if, when you attacked a routing unit with non raw or warband infantry, your unit occupied the square, maintaining facing, instead of stopping short. Just my opinion though, and no big deal either way.

I support this point. Recently I've had a routed unit next to hoplites and I've charged it because it was blocking my advance and the routed unit moves away, yet the hoplites stay in the current position! I can appreciate the fact that people don't want the hoplites charging down the battlefield after the routed unit, but wouldn't it be reasonable to either allow them to occupy the routed square or to move in the current direction their normal movement amount? given a choice I would have the hoplites move into the vacated square .

[FightingPoultry]

I am perfectly happy with the present system, though it would be nice if, when you attacked a routing unit with non raw or warband infantry, your unit occupied the square, maintaining facing, instead of stopping short. Just my opinion though, and no big deal either way.

I support this point. Recently I've had a routed unit next to hoplites and I've charged it because it was blocking my advance and the routed unit moves away, yet the hoplites stay in the current position! I can appreciate the fact that people don't want the hoplites charging down the battlefield after the routed unit, but wouldn't it be reasonable to either allow them to occupy the routed square or to move in the current direction their normal movement amount? given a choice I would have the hoplites move into the vacated square .

I also agree - if the above hoplites have not moved changed facing or attacked in the current turn , i think it is entirely reasonable that they should be able to occupy the square of the routed unit they just charged. To be clear though this should not alolw them to attack or move any further that turn , ie no chaining etc.

[76mm]

I don't have a problem with units charging routed enemy units moving into their square, but they should be subject to the same variable facing rules as heavy units pursuing skirmishers--you shouldn't be sure that they will maintain their same facing. In my view, if a charge a routed unit there should be some risk that the unit will get caught up in the chase more than intended and end up turning a flank, etc.

[Odenathus]

Probably impossible to script, but how about deliberately charging an already routed enemy unit (to artificially gain an 'extra' square or two) leaves the chargers one cohesion state lower, i.e. a steady unit would become disrupted, representing an over-enthusiastic pursuit?

[MVP7]

Probably impossible to script, but how about deliberately charging an already routed enemy unit (to artificially gain an 'extra' square or two) leaves the chargers one cohesion state lower, i.e. a steady unit would become disrupted, representing an over-enthusiastic pursuit?

That would be trivially easy to script but impossible to justify as a gameplay mechanic. It's not "artificially gaining a square" but walking into a space that the enemy is already leaving at full gallop.

[klayeckles]

And I like the feature where a pursing unit can slam into the flank/rear of another enemy unit and mess up its morale too because it actually happened sometimes, and it makes the game quite fun and can give an smaller army losing a battle a small chance to win.

Yeah, but what didn't happen was units teleporting across great distances in the battlefield to do so. As it is, they are (i) attacking a routing unit; (ii) pursuing them across 2-3 tiles; and (iii) then attacking a unit in the rear. Seems like a bit much to me.

FOG2 is not a time-slice simulation, but an episodic simulation.

Real armies did not operate like a clockwork automaton, all units moving in synchrony.

Then, as now, warfare was very much about "hurry up and wait". Most of the units were doing very little for much of the time. Even on-going melees are thought to have had pauses.

There is therefore time, in the interstices, for sudden catastrophic events to happen, as they did from time to time in real battles. This is what the multiple pursuit mechanism is supposed to represent - the sudden sweeping away of an outflanked wing.

It is an integral part of the simulation, because with cavalry being largely useless frontally against steady infantry, the multiple pursuit mechanism is a large part of representing their historical effectiveness.

i agree completely with RBS on this analysis...this discussion really boils down to what do you want out of the game...is it a simulation? or is it a chess match? for 6 years the debate has waged over the issue of anarchy and chaos vs. control and expected outcomes. Frankly, the older anarchy rules in fog 1, often involved much more uncertainty(and thus was more "realistic")...and a good general takes ALL THAT CHAOS INTO ACCOUNT. in the ancient world, and indeed every battlefield, a general was constantly dealing with unknowns, surprises, wild outcomes, impetuous units or subordinates (and dumb ones). and even the best plan, that is executed to perfection can fall prey to all sort of uncertainties...so as a general-- plan for the worst...what happens when a route occurs (it WILL occur)?...so make it part of a battle plan.
Lamenting the bad dice roles is part of the game...it gives us all something to blame when we lose