Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

[TheGrayMouser]

If nothing else, the seemingly small amount of players that take extreme umbrage with pushbacks ( which Im fine with as is) has exposed some other issues that are somewhat interrelated.

This really only has to do with infantry:

Fallbacks: As I noted a few post back, troops that fall back from a diagonal get a bonus advantage in that their opposing unit CANNOT charge back the next turn because the distance is now too great. Any attempt to fix pushbacks by allowing the enemy to disengage with NO follow up is the same as a fallback and going to aggravate the issue with diagonals even more.


Diagonals: Ludendorf has mentioned the battle line that suddenly turns on a diagonal as soon as the enemy battle line is ready to attack. This is an exploit of the zoc rules and diagonal fallback rules by experienced players and too me is very gimmicky and I hate it. The advantages gained by this is very evident if you load a quick game of warband versus pike for example, and play a quick game in hotseat mode.

A partial solution that would go a long way is that (infantry)units that "fall back" from a diagonal don't move a full grid back, they simply disengage and both units remain adjacent on the diagonal.


I have no solution for the "tactic" of flipping a battle line on a diagonal because the root cause that leads to the ( what we must safely assume is unintended) advantage is deeply rooted in the ZOC rules and the nature of grids.

[rbodleyscott]

First push-back followed by "half" push-backs sounds pretty good.

@Ludendorf, Do you mean the attacker getting actually flanked or just getting attacked by multiple opponents from adjacent squares? I can't think of a way how you could go from straight line of battle to having unit getting properly flanked without playing at least one turn in between.

Even if the line isn't diagonal, it can currently happen in the "defending" player's turn because he can trigger the melee before moving his troops, giving the possibility of a 2nd pushback that could allow skilfully placed units to flank them. Of course these units would have to be in the line of squares immediately behind the defender's front line, and pre-angled at least 45 degrees.

i.e. The gamey trap that Steve (pantherboy) described.

[rbodleyscott]

A partial solution that would go a long way is that (infantry)units that "fall back" from a diagonal don't move a full grid back, they simply disengage and both units remain adjacent on the diagonal.

I like this idea.

I have no solution for the "tactic" of flipping a battle line on a diagonal because the root cause that leads to the ( what we must safely assume is unintended) advantage is deeply rooted in the ZOC rules and the nature of grids.

Actually you do. It is the same as your solution for fall backs - which would be that diagonal "pushbacks" don't actually move.

Alternatively, for consistency with orthogonal pushbacks, since a diagonal move is very approximately 1.5 times the distance of an orthogonal move, they could only move on the 2nd "pushback", and every 3rd "pushback" thereafter. But I suspect that is an unnecessary complication, and not moving will do the job. Anything that discourages diagonal facing as a form of gamesmanship would be a good thing.

It rather depends on whether facing diagonally to avoid being pushed back at all might become an exploit if there is not such thing as a diagonal pushback - even if only 1 in 3 diagonal "pushbacks" actually moves.

[SpeedyCM]

Melee being broken off after a couple of pushbacks is going to make Impact foot armies a hell of a lot more effective.

[rbodleyscott]

Melee being broken off after a couple of pushbacks is going to make Impact foot armies a hell of a lot more effective.

You need to read further down the thread.

The current proposal is that melee won't be broken off. Instead only every alternate "pushback" will actually move. (Simulating as closely as possible the push back distance being half a square).

[SpeedyCM]

Ah ok much better.

[TheGrayMouser]

A partial solution that would go a long way is that (infantry)units that "fall back" from a diagonal don't move a full grid back, they simply disengage and both units remain adjacent on the diagonal.

I like this idea.

I have no solution for the "tactic" of flipping a battle line on a diagonal because the root cause that leads to the ( what we must safely assume is unintended) advantage is deeply rooted in the ZOC rules and the nature of grids.

Actually you do. It is the same as your solution for fall backs - which would be that diagonal "pushbacks" don't actually move.

(Alternatively, for consistency with orthogonal pushbacks, since a diagonal move is very approximately 1.5 times the distance of an orthogonal move, they could only move on the 2nd "pushback", and every 3rd "pushback" thereafter. But I suspect that is an unnecessary complication, and not moving will do the job. Anything that discourages diagonal facing as a form of gamesmanship would be a good thing).

HAHA, right in front of my face and I didnt even consider that!

[Jagger2002]

As an aside, is there a penalty to a unit that suffers a pushback result but can't retreat. I vaguely seem to remember an automatic morale drop from P&S if a unit could not fallback from a pushback? From reading this thread, it sounds like people are putting units directly behind the defensive front line so that they can flank attack any units penetrating the front line. But if there is an automatic morale drop if a unit can't fallback, then putting units directly behind the frontline is risky. So maybe I am mistaken about a morale drop if a defending unit can't fallback. As you can tell, I have only recently started playing FOG2 extensively.

[Ludendorf]

The 'pushback every second occasion' mechanic would have to be explained in the manual and ideally come up as a tooltip in tutorials, as a player who sees pushbacks sometimes appear to move the line back and sometimes not will be potentially baffled and possibly quite annoyed. I'd certainly have questions if I saw 'Pushed Back' come up only for nothing to happen, and not everyone is going to check the forum.

[rbodleyscott]

The 'pushback every second occasion' mechanic would have to be explained in the manual and ideally come up as a tooltip in tutorials, as a player who sees pushbacks sometimes appear to move the line back and sometimes not will be potentially baffled and possibly quite annoyed. I'd certainly have questions if I saw 'Pushed Back' come up only for nothing to happen, and not everyone is going to check the forum.

Well not really, because the game would not display "Pushed Back" on the turns when no push back actually occurs. There is no reason why this should seem odd, because there are already losing melees that don't trigger a push back. Something in the manual to say that push backs cannot occur more frequently than once every two turns, and that this is to represent a pushback being in reality less than a whole square's distance, should, I think, suffice.

But we would need to explain it for diagonal "Break Offs/Fall Backs" if they don't actually move.

[rbodleyscott]

As an aside, is there a penalty to a unit that suffers a pushback result but can't retreat. I vaguely seem to remember an automatic morale drop from P&S if a unit could not fallback from a pushback? From reading this thread, it sounds like people are putting units directly behind the defensive front line so that they can flank attack any units penetrating the front line. But if there is an automatic morale drop if a unit can't fallback, then putting units directly behind the frontline is risky. So maybe I am mistaken about a morale drop if a defending unit can't fallback. As you can tell, I have only recently started playing FOG2 extensively.

No penalty, because having one is highly exploitable, which is (in our view) even worse than players deliberately blocking their own retreat.

[Jagger2002]

As an aside, is there a penalty to a unit that suffers a pushback result but can't retreat. I vaguely seem to remember an automatic morale drop from P&S if a unit could not fallback from a pushback? From reading this thread, it sounds like people are putting units directly behind the defensive front line so that they can flank attack any units penetrating the front line. But if there is an automatic morale drop if a unit can't fallback, then putting units directly behind the frontline is risky. So maybe I am mistaken about a morale drop if a defending unit can't fallback. As you can tell, I have only recently started playing FOG2 extensively.
No penalty, because having one is highly exploitable, which is (in our view) even worse than players deliberately blocking their own retreat.

Ok, thanks. So in P&S, do units suffer morale drop if they can't fallback or was I just completely confused.

[MVP7]

I'd much rather see diagonal push-backs happen at the second or 3rd push rather than no diagonal push-backs at all. If the push-backs don't happen diagonally at all it could and would be used in very gamey manner and it would just feel really inconsistent.

If the push-backs happen at pushes 1-2-2-... and diagonal push-backs at pushes 2-3-3... I think it's far more consistent and it's not going to be something your average player is aware of anyway so "complicated" rules aren't really an issue here at least in my opinion.

[rbodleyscott]

As an aside, is there a penalty to a unit that suffers a pushback result but can't retreat. I vaguely seem to remember an automatic morale drop from P&S if a unit could not fallback from a pushback? From reading this thread, it sounds like people are putting units directly behind the defensive front line so that they can flank attack any units penetrating the front line. But if there is an automatic morale drop if a unit can't fallback, then putting units directly behind the frontline is risky. So maybe I am mistaken about a morale drop if a defending unit can't fallback. As you can tell, I have only recently started playing FOG2 extensively.
No penalty, because having one is highly exploitable, which is (in our view) even worse than players deliberately blocking their own retreat.

Ok, thanks. So in P&S, do units suffer morale drop if they can't fallback or was I just completely confused.

They do in the tabletop rules, but not, as far as I can recall, in P&S.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd much rather see diagonal push-backs happen at the second or 3rd push rather than no diagonal push-backs at all. If the push-backs don't happen diagonally at all it could and would be used in very gamey manner and it would just feel really inconsistent.

If the push-backs happen at pushes 1-2-2-... and diagonal push-backs at pushes 2-3-3... I think it's far more consistent and it's not going to be something your average player is aware of anyway so "complicated" rules aren't really an issue here at least in my opinion.

I tend to agree. It is then logical, with each "notional" pushback being half a square distance, and the frequency of each actual pushback being based on the number of half-square-sides distance covered by each actual pushback.

[rbodleyscott]

Here is what I am currently planning to test in the next beta:

First note that infantry "Push Backs" are in fact driven by "Fall Backs", which currently occur in infantry vs infantry combats every time a unit suffers a "lost badly" combat result. What makes it a "Push Back" rather than a "Fall Back" is the enemy following up. So "Fall Backs" are what the new system will be tracking.

Once a close combat has begun, each time a "lost badly" combat result occurs, instead of a Fall Back being automatically triggered, the program will check whether a Fall Back should actually occur. If not, no text will appear above the units, and the combat will continue in the current position.

This will depend on the facing of the losing unit.

1) Losing unit facing orthogonally:

First “lost badly” result will result in a Fall Back, second will be ignored, third will result in a Fall Back and so on.

2) Losing unit facing diagonally:

First “lost badly” result will be ignored, second will result in a Fall Back, third will be ignored, fourth will be ignored, fifth will result in a Fall Back.

When a unit does Fall Back, the enemy unit will follow up in exactly the same circumstances as currently, and if it does the game will display "Push Back" instead of "Fall Back". (As it does currently).

If a unit switches from facing orthogonally to diagonally, or vice versa, the fall back counter will be adjusted accordingly.

The effect of this (compared with the current rules) is that one in two of the current orthogonal (and two in three diagonal) “Push Backs” will not occur. Instead, the units will carry on fighting in their current position.

Troops that would fall back without being followed up will still do so as normal if facing orthogonally, but (if infantry) will not do so till the second “lost badly” result if facing diagonally. The latter because I think it will be less confusing for players than having the unit break off from close combat without the unit moving. However, this might prove too harsh as it means they have to survive two "bad losses" before they break off. OTOH, once they do fall back, they get a longer respite than orthogonal breakers-off because the enemy will take two turns to charge them again. So hopefully the overall balance will be acceptable, and if it does slightly favour fighting orthogonally, in my opinion that is no bad thing.

Once a unit is out of combat, the fall back counter is reset until the next close combat occurs.

[pinwolf]

[...]Half a square - 100 paces[...]

What is 1 pace in this game in meter? 0,75m ?

[rbodleyscott]

[...]Half a square - 100 paces[...]

What is 1 pace in this game in meter? 0,75m ?

It has deliberately been left vague. Especially as we don't know the exact modern equivalent of ancient measurements, so we cannot be sure exactly how much frontage each man occupied in the standard ancient formations.

It isn't really possible to have a truly constant scale for width and depth when shallow rectangular units fight on squares (or hexes), and use larger-than-scale figures.

The same issue affects tabletop miniatures games, even though those are not fought on a grid, because the over-scale figures always make unit depth much greater than it should be.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Although I like the current proposal, it will be yet another thing that advanced players can cudgel newbies with. If detailed combat reports are turned on, a player could make the calculation - well I lost one combat badly and got pushed back, so I have no danger of being pushed back in the next round of melee, and act accordingly. Unless I'm misunderstanding - even if a unit loses badly, is there only a % chance of a pushback, and no guarantee of one?

But I do think it sounds like a good change overall.

[rbodleyscott]

Although I like the current proposal, it will be yet another thing that advanced players can cudgel newbies with. If detailed combat reports are turned on, a player could make the calculation - well I lost one combat badly and got pushed back, so I have no danger of being pushed back in the next round of melee, and act accordingly. Unless I'm misunderstanding - even if a unit loses badly, is there only a % chance of a pushback, and no guarantee of one

No it is absolute. Currently it is 100% - 100% - 100% - 100% - 100%. With the change it will be 100% - 0% - 100% - 0% - 100% if orthogonal, and 0% - 100% - 0% - 0% - 100% if diagonal.

To be honest, newbies don't do much planning ahead with regard to push backs anyway. And hardly anyone likes random consequences.

Obviously we will need to put the information somewhere - in the manual when it gets redone, in the patch notes until then. I think such arcane details are beyond the scope of the tutorials.

Obviously the current system is simpler to grasp (though I doubt if most newbies, or even more experienced players, really know what causes a pushback even so) but it isn't possible to have a completely simple system if we don't want the distances pushed back to be as long as they are currently, as we are restricted to a minimum distance of 1 square.

If anything the new rules will be more newbie friendly, because it will be a bit harder for them to get themselves into trouble with the "pick the highest quality troops in the list and Attack! Attack! Attack!" approach that most newbies seem to adopt. And certainly harder for them to be humbugged by the "turn all the units in the line to face diagonally" ploy.