Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

[erichswafford]

I find that FoG II does a very poor job of modeling ancient combat among foot units due to its frankly ridiculous "Push Back"/ automatic pursuit mechanic. While this system (somewhat) accurately depicts the free-wheeling nature of mounted combat (where soldiers fight as individuals), it does an exceptionally poor, game-wrecking job of simulating infantry combat.

To illustrate:
1) Invariably, there will be a clash of infantry lines in the battle.
2) Inevitably, some units will do better than others, generating "Push Backs" on either side.
3) These "push backs" weaken the losing unit, leading to a runaway cycle of the losing unit getting chased far behind their own lines.
4) The Winning unit (the one doing the push backs) invariably ends up on an impromptu isolated deep recon far behind enemy lines, usually with zero support to either side.

This game mechanic is so wrong, so historically inaccurate, that it's difficult to know where to begin, but I'll try:

1) No infantry unit would advance and leave it's flanks totally unguarded willingly, even in pursuit of a (temporarily disadvantaged) foe. Infantry units fight as a group, not as individuals (see Archer Jones magisterial "The Art of War in the Ancient World" for a great explanation of this). These units would not advance far without flank security.

2) This sort of wild, unguarded pursuit occurred historically among cavalry units (and perhaps among infantry after the battle was effectively over ie during a rout). It did not occur during battle - even among the most undisciplined infantry units. This is because no group of humans needs discipline to feel fear. And Fear of their unguarded, wide-open flanks is what prevents infantry from behaving like Panzers slicing into (and then roaming around behind) an enemy line.

The end result:

Chaotic engagements that bear little resemblance to actual battles. It becomes impossible to maintain any sort of ordered infantry line, because you have no control (nor does your opponent) over these crazed infantry pursuits. Even in the very early stages, whatever formation you may have will disorder itself via this game-wrecking infantry pursuit mechanic.

See the included screenshot for an example of how ridiculous this looks even a mere 2 turns after the initial clash of infantry lines.

[SpeedyCM]

1) No infantry unit would advance and leave it's flanks totally unguarded willingly, even in pursuit of a (temporarily disadvantaged) foe. Infantry units fight as a group, not as individuals (see Archer Jones magisterial "The Art of War in the Ancient World" for a great explanation of this). These units would not advance far without flank security.

Tell that to the Roman centre at Cannae.

[jomni]

I find it a nice mechanic. And that is why roman checker board is useful.

The way I see it. It’s more about physics than tactics. Push back means the sheer weight of the charging formation enable them to literally push back the target unit. The target unit is not actually retreating but they have no choice but to give up the tile as they were pushed back. This is not a case of a voluntary retreat (rout) and a decision to pursue or not . Both units are still engaged in continuous melee in the end. Notice that push back only happens when the unit that initiated combat wins. Not the other way around when the attacking unit chooses to disengage due to losses in an orderly fashion, the passive unit that won stays put.

[rbodleyscott]

As Speedy has mentioned, Hannibal's whole plan at Cannae revolved around the Romans pushing back the Spanish/Gallic troops in his centre.

Another example is the Battle of Pydna, where the Macedonian phalanx pushed the Romans back, leading to it entering rough ground where its formation was disordered, allowing the Romans to get into gaps and attack the flanks of the phalanx.

This mechanism is in the game specifically to allow such historical events to be reproduced.

[julianbarker]

As discussed here before, Polybius, who fought in a pike phalanx, describes the disruption caused when parts of the line push forward or fall back, and how this was exploited.

[MVP7]

There are plenty of examples of overzealous advance resulting in disruption of the greater formation and strategies that exploited that inevitability. It's naive to presume that every man would be constantly aware of the overall situation on the battlefield in the heat of melee or that infantry would somehow be immune to the same impulses that have resulted in countless unwanted cavalry charges and chases. I don't think there are any major issues with the current implementation of those mechanics.

That being said, especially the pikes can cause pretty extreme drifting even though the reason for that is usually the lack of reserve units that could have taken advantage of that situation one way or another. Maybe the probability of push-backs in same melee could be diminishing? The first push-back could work as it currently does, the second could have only 50% probability of triggering, thirds 25% etc. That way even a one sided melee would most likely only have 1 or 2 squares of push-backs with higher amounts occurring rarely.

[erichswafford]

Cannae is a terrible example. I'm not talking about steadily pushing back the entire enemy center!

What I am describing is relatively small, tactical subunits of several hundred infantry suddenly abandoning the rest of their entire army and going on a cavalry-like mad pursuit of a single enemy unit.

That is ridiculous and simply did not occur. Look at the screenshot I've included. That pike unit (which is under AI control) is the equivalent of several hundred meters behind enemy lines, with zero flank protection. I can find no historical examples of isolated small units of pike-armed (or armed with anything, for that matter) infantry suddenly deciding to do this (except for the rout/pursuit phase after the battle was over). It makes zero sense, and betrays an almost total lack of understanding about how these units operated.

Flank security was everything to warriors in this era. There are innumerable examples of units holding together under fierce frontal pressure, but instantly wilting when presented with a threat to their flank(s). In fact, that's pretty much the story of every ancient battle.

And here we have a game mechanic that literally spits in the face of all that history. Yes, an individual small unit might "push back" another - until it realized it had moved far beyond its flank security. But at the point, it is highly unlikely that the men on the flanks (who could clearly see that there was no longer anyone to their right or left, depending on what side of the unit you're talking about) would continue to advance. Because such an advance would clearly place them at great risk for just the sort of flank attack that these ancient infantry units feared the most.

Again, I am not talking about the entire center of an army advancing (as at Cannae). I am not talking about a unit getting confused due to the dust and chaos and pressing forward a bit too far. All of that is reasonable and did happen. What I'm talking about are piecemeal individual units (who are supposed to be part of an infantry line) taking off individually for deep raids hundreds of meters behind the enemy line, bereft of any support or hope of relief.

Pydna sounds like a good example initially, but at Pydna you had the equivalent of the phalangists going into "Disordered" status (due to the rough terrain) and having their combat efficiency greatly reduced as a result. That's a great way to represent the relative ineffectiveness of the phalanx on anything but very smooth terrain.

But here is what assuredly did not happen: An isolated unit of several hundred pikemen suddenly deciding to abandon their entire army for a jaunt several hundred meters behind the lines.

In most every other respect, I think the game does an OK job. But this, IMHO, is such a game-breaking mechanic that it prevents the battles from proceeding along anything barely approaching what happened historically. Instead, what inevitably happens is that the entire battle devolves into a sort of Hollywood-style melee with individual units going at each other, with no regard for their own security or the units who started out with them.

My suggestion: Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if they have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally). That would at least place some sort of check on these mad dashes behind enemy lines. This would only apply to infantry, of course.

[AlexDetrojan]

+1

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don't have as much of a problem with the mechanic as you do, but your solution would be completely reasonable I think. That being said, the designers are very knowledgeable, and there is a difference of opinion here, not ignorance. You have legitimate points, but you are coming on a little strong.

[MVP7]

I have nothing against limiting the extreme cases that mostly seems to happen with pikes and phalanxes. Making it impossible for gaps to be pushed into the front with hard limits related to the surrounding friendly units would be too strict though and tricky to code in consistent manner.

[rbodleyscott]

My suggestion: Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if they have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally). That would at least place some sort of check on these mad dashes behind enemy lines. This would only apply to infantry, of course.

I am not averse to this. It would not alter the intended effect of the mechanism, as it would still allow them to get flanked, but as you say it would stop them advancing very far from the main battle line.

We could try it out in the next beta.

[Archaeologist1970]

Please at least try it. Others have been advocating for this since the beginning and have been dismissed outright like at the beginning of this thread. Lucky for us, erichswafford is much more eloquent and nimble with screenshots to point out. Maybe tie in to experience of the unit as well so that RAW troops might go a extra step but veterans will almost certainly not.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I agree that it's worth testing

[Kabill]

It's worth noting that the proposal would result in some situations where a unit cannot follow up even when it might be sensible for them to. E.g. two infantry units fighting each other alone cannot follow up; and a unit which has been pushed back from a line cannot then itself push back and follow up to reform the line without reserve units or other adjacent units also being pushed back first. These issues are less problematic if it is only the follow-up move which is restricted (e.g. a unit can push the opposing unit back under the same circumstances as now, but can only follow up if it has adjacent/rearward supporting units), as the player could voluntarily choose to re-engage on the following turn. However, that is implicitly a buff to units with impact PoA as it is creating more opportunities for impact rounds (e.g. it's better for Roman cohorts to *not* follow up and just push their opponent back in most circumstances, since they then get to charge again with their Impact Foot bonus).

EDIT: Actually, I'm wrong about not being able to reform a line, since that's not how pushbacks work anyway (i.e. only the attacking unit can follow-up, so a countermove to restore the original position can't happen anyway).

[stockwellpete]

My suggestion: Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if they have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally). That would at least place some sort of check on these mad dashes behind enemy lines. This would only apply to infantry, of course.

I agree pretty much with everything you have written in this thread and I think your suggestion is a good one. Infantry units will only advance if they retain physical contact with at least one friendly unit. The other idea that I suggested some time ago that is partly relevant here was that infantry units could not be pushed back if they had steady friendly units on either side of them facing in exactly the same direction. This was to give the centre of infantry lines a bit more resilience and to reward players for superior deployment.

I also feel the game "Pike and Shot" was ruined by a similar mechanic and resulted in nearly every battle ending in a chaotic mess. I hardly play P+S or FOG2 now because of this.

[stockwellpete]

I am not averse to this. It would not alter the intended effect of the mechanism, as it would still allow them to get flanked, but as you say it would stop them advancing very far from the main battle line.

We could try it out in the next beta.

Yes please.

[stockwellpete]

Please at least try it. Others have been advocating for this since the beginning and have been dismissed outright like at the beginning of this thread. Lucky for us, erichswafford is much more eloquent and nimble with screenshots to point out. Maybe tie in to experience of the unit as well so that RAW troops might go a extra step but veterans will almost certainly not.

Yes, that is worth trying as well.

[jomni]

My suggestion: Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if they have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally). That would at least place some sort of check on these mad dashes behind enemy lines. This would only apply to infantry, of course.

I am not averse to this. It would not alter the intended effect of the mechanism, as it would still allow them to get flanked, but as you say it would stop them advancing very far from the main battle line.

We could try it out in the next beta.

Sounds good.

[TheGrayMouser]

It would certainly be worth testing yet at the same time it assumes significant amounts of awareness that the player has but the hyper aggressive victorious unit would not. ( FOG1 comes to mind where some player wanted to control the anarchy of WHEN their units disobeyed orders LOL)


It s not clear to me how this could be much better though . As the suggestion implies, you could still push back an enemy 2 grids as long as you started with a friendly adjacent unit. The screen implies a unit that was pushed back 3... I havnt seen too many games where more than three happened, although I believe players that say it can happen. If the support unit just follows up you still can have a unit push back all the way to the end zone, in theory... Except for the more one off situations, would this change the game enough to matter? ( plus as Kabil pointed out, in one on one actions the mechanic would be voided altogether...) Now, if the adjacent FLANKING unit was "pulled along for the ride" ( either it got excited at its fellow units prowess and wants the glory too, or its simply following up to try to protect the dumbasses flank, that could be an interesting mechanic, especially of being pulled along for the ride might mean impact charging an enemy in it path

[stockwellpete]

My record is 5 pushbacks, TGM.

What it will also stop is the all too common ridiculous situation where two lines of infantry approach each other, melee, and then the victorious units on each side have to turn round and move back towards their base line to engage each other.