3218 hours in and my first real game gripe- fall back blocking

[nyczar]

I am seeing this more and more in my league play: enemy units being use to block the fallback of an engaged enemy (usually cav) unit, allowing a flanking attack by another enemy unit. I first saw this play when I entered the "B" level ranks. I disliked it when I saws it. I disliked it after I learn it was common among experienced players, I disliked it when I started to use it, I disliked it when I used it well, and dislike it more when it is used well against me.

I have had a fundamental value that anything we all know about is fair game as we can all use it. That is the rationalizations that I have used to not complain about this. That is the thinking that has led me to consistently argue that skill trumps issues with the RNG. That is the reason why I have said over the months that the Official Guide needs to be undated so new players coming into our community are not obliterated into not playing by the experience players.

But to see fall back blocking used as a deliberately as I am observing from many opponents, with no game consequence, only rewards, seems to be like a serious flaw.

If fallback blocking IS NOT a deliberate design attribute of the game, it needs to be addressed. A fix was implemented to reduce the impact of light cav in being able to force a unit to expose a flank. That was good. Time now to fix this fall back blocking tactic. There needs to be consequence for a unit that is coded to fall back but is prevented from doing so. If it is meant to be a game attribute, I will shut up and play planning to face this tactic. If it is an unintended consequence of game design, it needs to be addressed.

A cohesion test for the blocked unit is my suggestion....something that makes the tactic risky as I imagine that it would be a coding nightmare to forbid the tactic (especially as there are many instances where you want units stacked two deep). Yes, if a infantry unit is supposed to fall back due to combat, but can not due to another unit, same as for cav.

please....what is the reasoning that this issue has been put on the back burner? Am I a minority opinion here on this tactic?

[MikeC_81]

please....what is the reasoning that this issue has been put on the back burner? Am I a minority opinion here on this tactic?

No, you are not. The argument against implementing a harsh penalty for blocked fallback squares has always been the "threat" of enemy skirmishers penetrating your line and blocking them from falling back. I personally feel that this threat is overstated and that blocked retreats should be handled as auto cohesion drops. But so far, the will hasn't existed to move on this issue despite it coming up repeatedly.

That said should this happen, the movement speeds and maneuverability of skirmishers need to be examined. Not that this is a bad thing imo as others having pointed out, seeing foot skirmishers chase down cavalry does feel absurd at times.

[TheGrayMouser]

Some things that could be explored:

Fog1 had routed units burst their blocking friends causing a cohesion hit

The TT game caused a cohesion hit for units triggered to break off, but could not do so...

Fog2 lets players move unit A 1 grid, then move unit B , then A back behind B to block, then back to B to charge... simply having s unit “complete it’s move “ once you unselect it after moving or shooting would do wonders on many levels...

Final solution if no changes are ever made: just don’t do it, don’t ever believe a tournament or leagues rules “forces” you to do things you find to be cheesy. Its your choice how you play.

[SnuggleBunnies]

You are correct that this has been brought up before, and I share your concern. However, I think no fix has been implemented because settling on one is difficult, with all the potential solutions creating problems of their own. Let's look at some solutions:

1) Being Fall Back blocked causes a cohesion check/loss. The problem with this is that people would wiggle units of 24pt light javelin horse and the like behind your units and just sit them there to cause a test.
2) Units can Fall Back in place if there is no room behind them. This is used somewhat in Pike and Shot (though I haven't read the code to figure out exactly how it works), but there aren't nearly as many troops that can evade in that game. If units could Fall Back in place, Light Spear Cavalry and the like would be very very slippery and hard to catch. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would need to be considered.
3) Lights blocking a unit simply get pushed back when a Non-Light unit Falls Back. But what happens when there is a second unit behind? What about Lights Falling Back into Lights?

You would first have to decide *exactly* what the problem is - is it the blocking of enemy Fall Backs? Friendly? Both? Is it specifically when Lights are used to do so, or both Lights and Non-Lights? If you did settle on one of these changes, what effect would it have on the current balance? Good? Bad? These questions would need to be looked at before taking action.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, in 1) you could just have a cohesion check if a friendly unit blocks your fallback and not enemy javelin cav, etc.

[MikeC_81]

Final solution if no changes are ever made: just don’t do it, don’t ever believe a tournament or leagues rules “forces” you to do things you find to be cheesy. Its your choice how you play.

You have to admit though that not using friendly units to block potential "fallbacks" is like bringing a knife fight when everyone else has guns. ZoCs are so critical in this game and using a sacrificial lamb unit to strip ZoCs away for even one turn can be critical. I just had a game with Cunningcairn where I used that tactic multiple times to zip through his lines and do flank and rear charges galore. Fixing this problem would go a long way towards reducing the tendancy for swarm style armies to dominate in competitive play vs smaller elite armies.

[nyczar]

Final solution if no changes are ever made: just don’t do it, don’t ever believe a tournament or leagues rules “forces” you to do things you find to be cheesy. Its your choice how you play.

Yes, I have considered this, but at my core I am a competitive person. I will use the tactic myself because to not do so is a competitive disadvantage. Reminds my of what one side said to the other about campaign finance here in the USA; something like "I'll stop taking money when you stops as well, no unilateral disarmament".

I dont like having to account for this when playing an experience cav foe....It does make me wonder how effective Cav armies really are if hey had to act like Cav armies.

[rbodleyscott]

You are correct that this has been brought up before, and I share your concern. However, I think no fix has been implemented because settling on one is difficult, with all the potential solutions creating problems of their own. Let's look at some solutions:

1) Being Fall Back blocked causes a cohesion check/loss. The problem with this is that people would wiggle units of 24pt light javelin horse and the like behind your units and just sit them there to cause a test.
2) Units can Fall Back in place if there is no room behind them. This is used somewhat in Pike and Shot (though I haven't read the code to figure out exactly how it works), but there aren't nearly as many troops that can evade in that game. If units could Fall Back in place, Light Spear Cavalry and the like would be very very slippery and hard to catch. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would need to be considered.
3) Lights blocking a unit simply get pushed back when a Non-Light unit Falls Back. But what happens when there is a second unit behind? What about Lights Falling Back into Lights?

You would first have to decide *exactly* what the problem is - is it the blocking of enemy Fall Backs? Friendly? Both? Is it specifically when Lights are used to do so, or both Lights and Non-Lights? If you did settle on one of these changes, what effect would it have on the current balance? Good? Bad? These questions would need to be looked at before taking action.

Exactly. It is not that we are happy with deliberate fallback blocking, but the issues with each of these options is what has stopped us from implementing any of them so far.

Yes, in 1) you could just have a cohesion check if a friendly unit blocks your fallback and not enemy javelin cav, etc.

But other than pure pragmatism, where would be the logic of that? Falling back into friends has worse morale effect than falling back into enemy?

[Athos1660]

If this issue can't be easily addressed by the code, what about a rule shown as a warning in red on the MP login page : "Any player blocking fallbacks (once or maybe twice per game ?) immediately loses the game" ?
During tournaments, the other player takes a couple of snapshots as evidences and immediately stops the game.

Does fall-back blocking (often) happen per chance, unintentionally :

I first saw this play when I entered the "B" level ranks.

?

Final solution if no changes are ever made: just don’t do it, don’t ever believe a tournament or leagues rules “forces” you to do things you find to be cheesy. Its your choice how you play.

+1. A behaviour of gentleman. I like it !

[nyczar]

"B" = division "B" in the FOGII Digital League.

I understand the potential issue with 24 point light cav being used to block fallbacks and cause cohesion checks given what I offered as a solution to the fallback blocking tactic. In the pre fallback fix days, I can imagine how a light cav blocking tactic like that could devastate (particularly) a pike army when fall-backs/push-backs were so common. Now with the fall back fix, the number of fallback is significantly reduced and I think this option ought to be considered again and play tested.

[kronenblatt]

Being new to this forum and to this game, what implied Codes of Conduct and Gentlemen Agreements are there in FoG2 MP? Stuff like being no-no (as considered gamey or similar) despite being allowed by the game itself.

[MikeC_81]

Being new to this forum and to this game, what implied Codes of Conduct and Gentlemen Agreements are there in FoG2 MP? Stuff like being no-no (as considered gamey or similar) despite being allowed by the game itself.

If it's in the game, its in the game.

[kronenblatt]

Being new to this forum and to this game, what implied Codes of Conduct and Gentlemen Agreements are there in FoG2 MP? Stuff like being no-no (as considered gamey or similar) despite being allowed by the game itself.

If it's in the game, its in the game.

That's what I thought, but just wanted to ask to be 'safe', if and when I happen to win sometime in the future.

[Nijis]

From snugglebunnies:

2) Units can Fall Back in place if there is no room behind them. This is used somewhat in Pike and Shot (though I haven't read the code to figure out exactly how it works), but there aren't nearly as many troops that can evade in that game. If units could Fall Back in place, Light Spear Cavalry and the like would be very very slippery and hard to catch. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would need to be considered.

This would seem to be the least-bad option. Maybe units that Fall Back in place would then receive a no-evasion tag until the end of the next enemy turn, similar to the one for units that have evaded already.

[ahuyton]

There are different scenarios. If I block fallback with a heavy unit, that seems quite legitimate and easy to rationalise. I can see that it gets irritating if you do this with a unit of disrupted slingers or something like that. So maybe, yes, as TheGrayMouser suggests, self-abstinence in those situations might be the best solution.

I have to confess that I sometimes use a unit to block my own fallback so that I can subsequently charge in the flank. I think that I can rationalise this, though I take Nyczar's point that it is pretty gamey. Maybe I should desist with this.

It reminds me a lot of the old discussions in tabletop dbm and the infamous 'buttocks of death' whereby an element could prevent a defeated enemy from recoiling in combat (the normal outcome of losing) and as a result be eliminated. Just a fraction of a centimetre was enough to achieve this. Very galling when it happened to you but easy to rationalise when you committed the sin yourself.

[Ludendorf]

You know... this is probably more of an FoG III idea, but what if light troops could, either under certain circumstances or just as a mechanic, stand on the same square as heavy/medium troops? This could simulate skirmishers taking cover inside a heavier units (which they sometimes did) or resting just behind the unit (since skirmishers often did retire to rest behind a unit of heavy soldiers once the skirmish drew to a close).

If the heavy unit is engaged, it is the heavy unit, not the light unit, which is forced into combat.The light unit could still move out as long as it doesn't move directly towards the melee. You could even slightly disorder units or disorder different units more (or not at all) according to type if they have skirmishers amongst them. This would kill blocking in your own units with lights stone dead... but it would also alter the way the light game worked dramatically.

I'm not sure being blocked in by enemy skirmishers is an especially big problem. I'm not sure anyone already trying to execute a difficult fallback manoeuvre while already engaged from the front would want to do it straight into a nest of angry skirmishers. If anything, that should cause even greater cohesion problems; even elite heavy infantry couldn't afford to completely ignore a bunch of angry young men with javelins and slings stalking around their back lines.

As for heavy/medium cavalry blocked in by other heavy/mediums... I don't know. I don't have a great suggestion for that. I'd also express some caution, as forcing medium cavalry into a fight is practically the only way a fully mounted melee medium list can actually mount a successful attack against some heavy infantry lists, especially if they are offensive spear (pikes might be a bit easier to deal with as it is easier to surround and flank the expensive pike blocks).

[nyczar]

I try very hard not to talk in terms of historical examples or tactical knowledge because I know much less history on the FOGII time periods compared to many of you and I know nothing about how men with swords, shield, spear, horse, etc actually fought. I know we have serious historians, writers, hobbyist, game designers, etc.. as part of this community. I don't have knowledge like you. I don't need that in my background, however, to say that fallback blocking can not be defended in terms of history or in terms of real, common place real fighting practice. There is no way that routine fall back blocking can be labeled anything but an unintended consequence of the otherwise great coding that powers this game, the only thing I have played, really, over the last two years or more.

The fallback rules have been modified. Time to modify fallback blocking as well. There has to be a risk for a unit that is coded to fallback but that has been prevented from doing so. From now on that will be my "Carthage must be destroyed" battle cry. Note I don't say we should eliminate this use of the code, that would require a "code of behavior" that Dkalenda has shown doesn't exist as widely as we all thought it did. No, I am saying we cant let this play continue without a a programmed risk.

I would much prefer the challenge of protecting my interior lines form a swarm of annoying light cav than having to see a light cav unit and it wing-man used to engage a heavy unit when that would not otherwise happen in game coding, history, or real battle practice.

If using fallback blocking is the only way a medium cav force can defeat heavy infantry, I would say then the medium cav commander will have to think of some other form of play to mount an assault....one based in play intended by the game designers. If this was Lundendorf it is a foregone conclusion that another way would be uncovered and soon the community at large would relearn how to play cav as intended vs. learning to master competitive play by being the best at planing/reacting a fall back block maneuver.

[MikeC_81]

You are correct that this has been brought up before, and I share your concern. However, I think no fix has been implemented because settling on one is difficult, with all the potential solutions creating problems of their own. Let's look at some solutions:

1) Being Fall Back blocked causes a cohesion check/loss. The problem with this is that people would wiggle units of 24pt light javelin horse and the like behind your units and just sit them there to cause a test.
2) Units can Fall Back in place if there is no room behind them. This is used somewhat in Pike and Shot (though I haven't read the code to figure out exactly how it works), but there aren't nearly as many troops that can evade in that game. If units could Fall Back in place, Light Spear Cavalry and the like would be very very slippery and hard to catch. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would need to be considered.
3) Lights blocking a unit simply get pushed back when a Non-Light unit Falls Back. But what happens when there is a second unit behind? What about Lights Falling Back into Lights?

You would first have to decide *exactly* what the problem is - is it the blocking of enemy Fall Backs? Friendly? Both? Is it specifically when Lights are used to do so, or both Lights and Non-Lights? If you did settle on one of these changes, what effect would it have on the current balance? Good? Bad? These questions would need to be looked at before taking action.

Exactly. It is not that we are happy with deliberate fallback blocking, but the issues with each of these options is what has stopped us from implementing any of them so far.

Yes, in 1) you could just have a cohesion check if a friendly unit blocks your fallback and not enemy javelin cav, etc.

But other than pure pragmatism, where would be the logic of that? Falling back into friends has worse morale effect than falling back into enemy?

I think the fear of this is greatly overstated. There are two situations where blocking fallbacks occur actively occurs by players.

1) The first is to pin enemy units that are likely to fall back and avoid sustained melee such as cavalry vs foot. To effect this, the LH or other mobile unit needs to abandon its skirmishing duties and go wide or find a gap to penetrate the line. Their opponent then needs to allow this unit to roam behind their lines at will. They then need to then accurately predict exactly which unit is going to do a fall back on an attack to cause a negative effect if they intend to abuse it. That is a legitimate use IMO. In fact, it happens already when I am trapping units like cavalry from breaking off of friendly infantry to force them into sustained melee so I can break them when I play cav poor armies. The change here is minimal except that players can no longer be so cavalier with their mounted units and make sure their rear is clear when faced by infantry.

2) The second and far more common situation is the outright abuse of blocking inferior units from falling back in order to lock them in melee and thereby stripping powerful opposing units of their ZoCs. Surely the entire idea of having weak units "bounce" off of powerful units and allowing them to retain ZoC control was done intentionally. From a game/rule design point of view, the answer is clear. The fallback mechanic is in place for a reason, "gamey" tactics to dodge this mechanic should be punished, and harshly as a disincentive. From a "realism" point of view, the answer is clear. The unit after impact doesn't like its chances of sustained melee and is now actively trying to remove itself from this predicament and is blocked by other soldiers friendly or otherwise. There would obviously be additional stress there placed on them.

The fact that an enemy skirmisher can slip in and block this movement is even less of an abuse than in scenario 1 since in this case, the player voluntarily subjected themselves to this scenario by attacking knowing full well they have an enemy unit to its rear.

[kronenblatt]

You are correct that this has been brought up before, and I share your concern. However, I think no fix has been implemented because settling on one is difficult, with all the potential solutions creating problems of their own. Let's look at some solutions:

1) Being Fall Back blocked causes a cohesion check/loss. The problem with this is that people would wiggle units of 24pt light javelin horse and the like behind your units and just sit them there to cause a test.
2) Units can Fall Back in place if there is no room behind them. This is used somewhat in Pike and Shot (though I haven't read the code to figure out exactly how it works), but there aren't nearly as many troops that can evade in that game. If units could Fall Back in place, Light Spear Cavalry and the like would be very very slippery and hard to catch. Perhaps that wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would need to be considered.
3) Lights blocking a unit simply get pushed back when a Non-Light unit Falls Back. But what happens when there is a second unit behind? What about Lights Falling Back into Lights?

You would first have to decide *exactly* what the problem is - is it the blocking of enemy Fall Backs? Friendly? Both? Is it specifically when Lights are used to do so, or both Lights and Non-Lights? If you did settle on one of these changes, what effect would it have on the current balance? Good? Bad? These questions would need to be looked at before taking action.

Exactly. It is not that we are happy with deliberate fallback blocking, but the issues with each of these options is what has stopped us from implementing any of them so far.

Yes, in 1) you could just have a cohesion check if a friendly unit blocks your fallback and not enemy javelin cav, etc.

But other than pure pragmatism, where would be the logic of that? Falling back into friends has worse morale effect than falling back into enemy?

I think the fear of this is greatly overstated. There are two situations where blocking fallbacks occur actively occurs by players.

1) The first is to pin enemy units that are likely to fall back and avoid sustained melee such as cavalry vs foot. To effect this, the LH or other mobile unit needs to abandon its skirmishing duties and go wide or find a gap to penetrate the line. Their opponent then needs to allow this unit to roam behind their lines at will. They then need to then accurately predict exactly which unit is going to do a fall back on an attack to cause a negative effect if they intend to abuse it. That is a legitimate use IMO. In fact, it happens already when I am trapping units like cavalry from breaking off of friendly infantry to force them into sustained melee so I can break them when I play cav poor armies. The change here is minimal except that players can no longer be so cavalier with their mounted units and make sure their rear is clear when faced by infantry.

2) The second and far more common situation is the outright abuse of blocking inferior units from falling back in order to lock them in melee and thereby stripping powerful opposing units of their ZoCs. Surely the entire idea of having weak units "bounce" off of powerful units and allowing them to retain ZoC control was done intentionally. From a game/rule design point of view, the answer is clear. The fallback mechanic is in place for a reason, "gamey" tactics to dodge this mechanic should be punished, and harshly as a disincentive. From a "realism" point of view, the answer is clear. The unit after impact doesn't like its chances of sustained melee and is now actively trying to remove itself from this predicament and is blocked by other soldiers friendly or otherwise. There would obviously be additional stress there placed on them.

The fact that an enemy skirmisher can slip in and block this movement is even less of an abuse than in scenario 1 since in this case, the player voluntarily subjected themselves to this scenario by attacking knowing full well they have an enemy unit to its rear.

This makes sense and constitute good arguments for implementing a CT or equivalent. Or that they simply fall back "in place" (which I assume means that they break off combat but stay in their square).

[SimonLancaster]

I tend to agree with Mike. I am not bothered too much by blocking fallbacks. You also have to use up units to guess where they are best placed.

Someone can also pick up on this but I seem to recall units being used historically to ‘block fallbacks’. I may be thinking of the Napoleonic period but generals often put units right behind other units to keep them in place. In this game it might be skirmishers I know..