Routing Mechanics

[Athos1660]

btw I guess that the 'function' of rallying is realism (as opposed to capturing chess pieces once and for all).

Units in FOG2 rally randomly. (...) How's that realistic?

Randomness simulates all the unpredictable factors that can lead a unit to rally on the battlefield, you being a general far off with no mean of action on it (but moving a general to this unit), dealing with the events that happen, some of them being incontrollable. That's realistic.

The idea of committing combat troops to chasing down broken units in order to prevent them from random rallying is gamey, in my opinion.

Well... what you call 'gamey' is History : IRL, units frantically pursued beyond the « map », other rallied, light troops and cavalry chased routed ones to hinder them from going back and fight again.

Besides, gameplay wise, most of the time when routing happens, Lights’ ammunition is on low, most non-light units fight in melee and most fights between light troops are (about to be) over, so what can you do with (some of) your Lights that is more efficient and useful than attacking routed units ?

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, as Mr Smith said, we don’t want FoG 2 to become like chess!

[kraff]

Randomness simulates all the unpredictable factors that can lead a unit to rally on the battlefield, you being a general far off with no mean of action on it (but moving a general to this unit), dealing with the events that happen, some of them being incontrollable. That's realistic.

You're preaching to the converted, I'm afraid.

I'm not arguing against randomness in FOG2. Not at all. What I'm saying is that the rallying mechanics is - in my opinion - implemented in a way that makes the game, well, gamey, as opposed to make it closer to a simulation of ancient/medieval warfare. Again, I'm not assessing FOG2 in whole now, I'm just discussing the rallying mechanics, that's all. I get what is the purpose of randomness in FOG2. It's just routing/rallying isn't random in real life. It's human psychology, and it's actually quite predictable.

Well... what you call 'gamey' is History : IRL, units frantically pursued beyond the « map », other rallied, light troops and cavalry chased routed ones to hinder them from going back and fight again.

And what historical battle have you just described?

[TheGrayMouser]

Randomness simulates all the unpredictable factors that can lead a unit to rally on the battlefield, you being a general far off with no mean of action on it (but moving a general to this unit), dealing with the events that happen, some of them being incontrollable. That's realistic.

You're preaching to the converted, I'm afraid.

I'm not arguing against randomness in FOG2. Not at all. What I'm saying is that the rallying mechanics is - in my opinion - implemented in a way that makes the game, well, gamey, as opposed to make it closer to a simulation of ancient/medieval warfare. Again, I'm not assessing FOG2 in whole now, I'm just discussing the rallying mechanics, that's all. I get what is the purpose of randomness in FOG2. It's just routing/rallying isn't random in real life. It's human psychology, and it's actually quite predictable.

Well... what you call 'gamey' is History : IRL, units frantically pursued beyond the « map », other rallied, light troops and cavalry chased routed ones to hinder them from going back and fight again.

And what historical battle have you just described?

Kraff, are you really suggesting that the mindsets of hundreds of men, compounded by many variables such as bravery, fear, pain loyalty, etc , super compounded by group/ mob/ crowd mindset is predicable???

The great leaders of the past , Napoleon ,De Saxe etc. all knew “courage is reborn everyday”, some days thus, it just isn’t there.

I would have no problem though if the rallied units didn’t change the score until they become disrupted AND in LOS to one enemy unit...

[Athos1660]

Randomness simulates all the unpredictable factors that can lead a unit to rally on the battlefield, you being a general far off with no mean of action on it (but moving a general to this unit), dealing with the events that happen, some of them being incontrollable. That's realistic.

You're preaching to the converted, I'm afraid.

I'm not arguing against randomness in FOG2. Not at all. What I'm saying is that the rallying mechanics is - in my opinion - implemented in a way that makes the game, well, gamey, as opposed to make it closer to a simulation of ancient/medieval warfare. Again, I'm not assessing FOG2 in whole now, I'm just discussing the rallying mechanics, that's all. I get what is the purpose of randomness in FOG2. It's just routing/rallying isn't random in real life. It's human psychology, and it's actually quite predictable.

Well... what you call 'gamey' is History : IRL, units frantically pursued beyond the « map », other rallied, light troops and cavalry chased routed ones to hinder them from going back and fight again.

And what historical battle have you just described?

Sorry but I don't understand what you are getting at. What is your suggestion to make routing/rallying better in game ?

PS : Routing is not random in game. It depends on casualties, death of generals, flanking, etc. Rallying depends on the presence of a general in the unit. The mechanism of Cohesion Test summarises all the factors that drive "human psychology".
PS 2 : Human behaviour being "predictable" ?

[Athos1660]

If rallying foot are such a big issue that Light troops can't handle, just... make... foot... pursue... again...

(You saw this one coming, right ? )

[kraff]

Kraff, are you really suggesting that the mindsets of hundreds of men, compounded by many variables such as bravery, fear, pain loyalty, etc , super compounded by group/ mob/ crowd mindset is predicable???

What I'm saying is that since time immemorial military drill has been set to flatten all those variables in military men, to effectively get rid of individual mindsets and replace it with a unified mindset of a unit. So the people could be controlled better. So there is less unpredictability on the battlefield. So you, as a commander, could say: I can rely on my men to do their job.

What's predictable is that even the best trained men have their breaking point. The question is not if a unit can be broken, but rather when and how it can be broken. Now, a broken or routing unit is not a unit that is falling back or retreating. There is no order in a routing unit. We can imagine that groups of soldiers of such a routed unit can make a valiant last stand if cornered, but not as a unit. They are just men fighting to the death, with absolutely nothing to lose.

To me when a unit's state changes from ordered to chaotic: from formation to stampede, a rout, there is really a substantial organisational effort required to even try to reorganize those men back into a formation. And since they have just been battered and traumatized, it may not be possible at all to bring them back to the battle they have just run away from. This to me is also predictable that people with broken morale, scared and wounded won't just turn around and slowly march back to fight like nothing happened. They will need a serious reason to do so. Human beings don't just randomly go from "flight" mode to "fight" mode.

And as it is now in FOG2, there's often no reason at all for a unit to get back to Fragmented state. Often there is no commander nearby. The fight is too far away for this unit to make any difference in combat. There are not friendly units nearby that could lend their support to such a unit. There's no certainty it will ever get back to Disrupted to be able to participate in fight, to make any difference. It just rallies, because of in-game luck. Period. And often such a Fragmented unit stays Fragmented until the battle ends. So what those men are doing there? Imagine you are a member of a broken unit. You could get away with your life, but no, you and your mauled pals decide to stay at the party even though you are unable to put any resistance anymore. Mad, isn't it? And you are constantly in danger of being mauled even more badly by any nearby ragtag mob that is not Fragmented.

Too often the only difference in such a situation are simply points. And that's gamey. There shouldn't really be any chance for a routed unit to rally. Maybe off the field, but certainly not on the field. If it's been broken, it's broken.

If rallying foot are such a big issue that Light troops can't handle, just... make... foot... pursue... again...

(You saw this one coming, right ? )

Yup, haven't expected anything more. Are you really suggesting I should redirect any troops from my main battleline to chasing any rallied unit? That would be quite a maneuver, thank you very much.

[TheGrayMouser]

Kraff, are you really suggesting that the mindsets of hundreds of men, compounded by many variables such as bravery, fear, pain loyalty, etc , super compounded by group/ mob/ crowd mindset is predicable???

What I'm saying is that since time immemorial military drill has been set to flatten all those variables in military men, to effectively get rid of individual mindsets and replace it with a unified mindset of a unit. So the people could be controlled better. So there is less unpredictability on the battlefield. So you, as a commander, could say: I can rely on my men to do their job.

What's predictable is that even the best trained men have their breaking point. The question is not if a unit can be broken, but rather when and how it can be broken. Now, a broken or routing unit is not a unit that is falling back or retreating. There is no order in a routing unit. We can imagine that groups of soldiers of such a routed unit can make a valiant last stand if cornered, but not as a unit. They are just men fighting to the death, with absolutely nothing to lose.

To me when a unit's state changes from ordered to chaotic: from formation to stampede, a rout, there is really a substantial organisational effort required to even try to reorganize those men back into a formation. And since they have just been battered and traumatized, it may not be possible at all to bring them back to the battle they have just run away from. This to me is also predictable that people with broken morale, scared and wounded won't just turn around and slowly march back to fight like nothing happened. They will need a serious reason to do so. Human beings don't just randomly go from "flight" mode to "fight" mode.

And as it is now in FOG2, there's often no reason at all for a unit to get back to Fragmented state. Often there is no commander nearby. The fight is too far away for this unit to make any difference in combat. There are not friendly units nearby that could lend their support to such a unit. There's no certainty it will ever get back to Disrupted to be able to participate in fight, to make any difference. It just rallies, because of in-game luck. Period. And often such a Fragmented unit stays Fragmented until the battle ends. So what those men are doing there? Imagine you are a member of a broken unit. You could get away with your life, but no, you and your mauled pals decide to stay at the party even though you are unable to put any resistance anymore. Mad, isn't it? And you are constantly in danger of being mauled even more badly by any nearby ragtag mob that is not Fragmented.

Too often the only difference in such a situation are simply points. And that's gamey. There shouldn't really be any chance for a routed unit to rally. Maybe off the field, but certainly not on the field. If it's been broken, it's broken.

If rallying foot are such a big issue that Light troops can't handle, just... make... foot... pursue... again...

(You saw this one coming, right ? )

Yup, haven't expected anything more. Are you really suggesting I should redirect any troops from my main battleline to chasing any rallied unit? That would be quite a maneuver, thank you very much.

Well, sure , situationally sometimes it make no sense yet the reality is ancient commanders took considerable efforts to chase routers...implying they very well could rally and come back into the fight. No , you shouldn’t waste Cavalry units chasing down routed lights, but it might be hoof you to to worry a routed pike unit til it’s wiped off the map!

[Athos1660]

If rallying foot are such a big issue that Light troops can't handle, just... make... foot... pursue... again...

(You saw this one coming, right ? )

Yup, haven't expected anything more. Are you really suggesting I should redirect any troops from my main battleline to chasing any rallied unit? That would be quite a maneuver, thank you very much.

No, I am not.

I was talking about game mechanics, not actual tactics.

Some players dislike rallying foot that end up 'alone' at the edge of the map after fleeing. I was just suggesting that maybe it was because of the FoG2 mechanics of most foot not pursuing. In P&S, most foot pursue, so rallying foot tend to be less alone at the edge of the map. It seems to me that in P&S, pursuing units, rallying ones and Light troops tend to fight each other more often, the battlefield being more scattered. This may justify rallying more easily in players' mind. In FoG2, foot keep on rallying but don't pursue anymore (compared to P&S).

I guess it is a choice of game design (lines vs scattered units).

And, as Richard has already said, in FoG2, LF can/must do the job against enemy routed/rallying units. So that would be my suggestion about actual tactics.

PS : I for one like wild pursuing foot and scattered units. This is a kind of soft anarchy for all units.

[kronenblatt]

... Too often the only difference in such a situation are simply points. And that's gamey...

From the perspective of points, I agree: once a unit's been broken, it would be good if it's considered remaining broken for the sake of the upper-left points (even if rallying to fragmented and so on). In order to avoid having to seek out and re-rout rallied units just for the points. Although it should still be possible for the unit to rally from broken to fragmented, to disrupted, to steady, in accordance with current rules, and potentially take part in combat again and in that sense affect point standing again, through contributing to enemy units routing or protecting friendly units from routing. But point wise, it would be irrevocably treated as routed.

[MikeC_81]

Too often the only difference in such a situation are simply points. And that's gamey. There shouldn't really be any chance for a routed unit to rally. Maybe off the field, but certainly not on the field. If it's been broken, it's broken.

You have the cart in front of the horse here. It isn't gamey that rallied units restore army points. It is gamey that the game is decided by points. Rallying units restoring army points is an artifact of how the game uses an arbitrary line in the sand to determine when an army decides to give up the fight, not the other way around.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, the game is almost perfect for me. A few tinkerings are needed not major surgery. Units rallying and counting towards the army points is fine and makes for an enjoyable game.