I have a problem with the panic ripple

[MarkShot]

Both TW and FOG2 really encourage you to aggressively go after weakest units you can break. Perhaps, that was life in the ancient world. Because panic ripples through those remaining.

But it seems to me if I am on the battlefield and see a Tiger or Panzer III, the priority should be the Tiger; the greatest threat; not easiest target. So, when and why did this dynamic of combat change?

Thanks.

[Swuul]

Both TW and FOG2 really encourage you to aggressively go after weakest units you can break. Perhaps, that was life in the ancient world. Because panic ripples through those remaining.

But it seems to me if I am on the battlefield and see a Tiger or Panzer III, the priority should be the Tiger; the greatest threat; not easiest target. So, when and why did this dynamic of combat change?

Thanks.

It never changed. Taking your example of Pz III and Tigers, in the battle of Kursk soviets focused on taking out the Pz III's, and then the Tigers and Panthers would leg for it (and that is what they did). Any enemy unit neutralised means the enemy gets weaker, and then the tougher units can be taken out with a dog-pile. It also carries over to games, you can bet your hat who gets focused first in a World of Tanks match, the Tiger or the PzIIIK.

It is only when things go asymetrical this change. Ie airplanes during WW2 went for the toughest targets (who are not AA units, of course), for example the toughest (and slowest moving) tanks and/or the most dangerous ships (ie CV's and BB's).

[MarkShot]

Are you sure the easiest kills were the priority targets as to the greatest threats? This seems like one of those questions which would do well on the Battlefront forums. I think I will ask there.

[sIg3b]

My priority targets in FoG2 tend to be the LARGEST (in manpower) units, since they count most for victory. I may be doing something wrong, of course.

In this game for example, I went for the pike blocks in the enemy centre, assuming breaking them would be near sufficient for a win and I could afford to practically ignore the entire left half of the enemy army. To my own surprise, for once my strategy worked.

[sIg3b]

Keeping about 20 units busy with 3 cavalry and a camel will of course only work against the AI. Successful SP and MP strategies tend to diverge quite a bit.

[Cunningcairn]

Are you sure the easiest kills were the priority targets as to the greatest threats? This seems like one of those questions which would do well on the Battlefront forums. I think I will ask there.

Generally if you can easily eliminate or immobilise a part of the opposing force it won't matter which level of threat they present. It will reduce their overall capability giving you an advantage when the main battle commences. Obviously if the situation presents itself it would be advantageous to rid them of their best troops first but that is not always possible. I think it is sound to go for the low hanging fruit first even if they of poorer quality if it will give an advantage.

[Cunningcairn]

My priority targets in FoG2 tend to be the LARGEST (in manpower) units, since they count most for victory. I may be doing something wrong, of course.

In this game for example, I went for the pike blocks in the enemy centre, assuming breaking them would be near sufficient for a win and I could afford to practically ignore the entire left half of the enemy army. To my own surprise, for once my strategy worked.

Really good looking deployment and plan. If I was your opponent my right flank would be doing a quick about face and heading for safety

[General Shapur]

Morale was the biggest factor on an ancient battlefield. The silver shields for example had essentially seen it all before; some of us get killed, some of them get killed, eventually they run away - so they should be solid on the field. I doubt they would be concerned if a bunch of raw troops ran; but I expect the army would crumble if the silver shields ran. I'm not sure if the game gives a bigger effect of morale ripple for superior units breaking. It probably should be weighted if its not.

[Athos1660]

I doubt they would be concerned if a bunch of raw troops ran; but I expect the army would crumble if the silver shields ran. I'm not sure if the game gives a bigger effect of morale ripple for superior units breaking. It probably should be weighted if its not.

On the other hand, it may sounds unlikely that, in the heat of the battle, all the soldiers of an army were able to have a clear and real-time idea of which friendly units had routed, which had not yet, instead of an overall picture of the %age of their army still on the battlefield. When a large part of one's army is no longer around, a soldier may feel alone and surrounded, unable to accurately assess the strength of the units still fighting each other. Ppl may be not so rational.

[MarkShot]

To get back to my OP point. I am not disagreeing with panic rippling,but instead the command incentive it creates.

As a commander, my goal becomes to focus on the weakest units instead the strongest units as they will crack sooner. My personal experience in fights and war gaming is to prioritize the greatest threat.

Multi-capable units have a hierarchy of combat despite combined arms doctrine.

* Say like strategically supply will determine the outcome of a war. So, the battle for shipping must be won first.

* Say like operationally, you cannot control events on the ground until you control the air. So, air dominance needs to be achieved first.

* Say like tactically, you cannot control the battlefield until you can control lines of communication. As the tank has the greatest striking range and fastest movement, you must first win the armor fight before you can get boots where needed.

In all of these, it is the greatest threat which receives priority not the most vulnerable target.

[Paul59]

Okay, here's just one WW2 example off the top of my head that disproves your theory: when the Soviets counter attacked at Stalingrad they attacked the weak Romanian and Italian armies guarding the flanks, not the powerful German 6th Army in the city.

Normally, any sensible commander will try to attack the enemy at their weakest point, or where an attack is not expected. It's pretty foolish to attack your enemies strongest units head on without trying to weaken them in some way first, unless there is no other option.

[Athos1660]

To get back to my OP point. I am not disagreeing with panic rippling, but instead the command incentive it creates. As a commander, my goal becomes to focus on the weakest units instead the strongest units as they will crack sooner.

As far as I am concerned, it has never triggered the command incentive you describe.
Fortunately, there are many other tactical factors in FoG2 than the strength of the enemy units (such as terrain, opportunities of flank/rear charge , relief...), some decided before you even know the units of your opponent. The game is deep, tactically speaking.

[rbodleyscott]

Mark, you really need to read "Strategy" by B.H. Liddell Hart.

The point of attacking the enemy at his weakest point, is that you may then not have to fight his strongest troops at all. (If his army morale collapses - or in WW2 terms he is forced to retreat or surrounded and forced to surrender).

e.g. German strategy in France in 1940.

[MarkShot]

Okay. Thanks.

[76mm]

Maybe the issue is whether you are looking at the tactical or operational level: in tactical games, taking out the most powerful unit (a particular fortification, a gun battery, MG position, the Tiger platoon) could be decisive, because without them victory might not be attainable; whereas taking out weaker elements would help, but perhaps not by enough. In my view, most, if not all, of these situations arise because of the havoc that can be wreaked by powerful ranged-fire weapons.

At the operational level, however, it is very different--you almost always want to direct your strongest forces against the enemy's weakest forces, to collapse the front and thereby weaken his strongest forces--hit them in the flank, force them to pull back out of prepared positions, etc.

While FOG2 is a "tactical" ancients game, its battles bear the hallmarks of more modern operational-level combat, because ranged fire is typically much less decisive than melee. Even with "shooty" armies, the most powerful units can only cover a small portion of the battlefield.

Regarding the impact of routing units: I disagree that combatants would not be aware if an elite unit on their flank was routed--they would almost certainly know that the elite unit was on their right or left, and a collapse on that side would probably be (correctly) interpreted as a major problem.

[rs2excelsior]

On the topic of panic - I do not find it at all out of place that targeting weaker units to break them is a valid strategy. It makes plenty of sense to me - why smash your face into the teeth of the enemy’s best Tripp’s when you can instead deal with them after their support has been routed and they’re surrounded?

Regarding the impact of routing units: I disagree that combatants would not be aware if an elite unit on their flank was routed--they would almost certainly know that the elite unit was on their right or left, and a collapse on that side would probably be (correctly) interpreted as a major problem.

When I first started playing I thought rout percentage was based on point value of the units relative to the army, not number of troops. It would make a certain amount of sense, as there are historical examples of particularly high reputation units which broke causing morale problems out op proportion to their actual numbers (“La Garde Recule!”). I don’t know if that’s moddable but if so it’d be interesting to try it out and see how it changes things.

[Benedict151]

I rather like the idea of higher quality troops routing having a greater adverse effect on morale (be it at an individual unit level or as a weighting factor towards the % of army lost). 'La Garde Recule' and all that as has been pointed out.
Have played various tabletop games where this has been used and to me it seemed to give a good result.
E.g. on a unit level seeing equal or higher quality friends rout -2, lower quality -1 (this has occasionally led to hilariously quick games if a couple of high quality units break eraly on)

Or for army level morale Elite and Veteran units count 2, Average 1 and Rabble 0.5 and calculate the % lost on this basis (I dimly recall something like Tactica or Armati might have done this?)

For me both the above have some historical justification but they have the drawback of being a bit more opaque and might run into 'unintended consequences' when it comes to MP games. It would also probably put undue strain on the points system (which I don't mind from a SP pov but I can see that others would - which is fair enough).

regards
Ben

[SimonLancaster]

I think the cohesion checks are about right. You don’t want to lose half your army in a turn. Elephants already have a two square cohesion check for friendly troops when they rout. Everything else has one and that in itself can do a lot of damage.