Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

[mceochaidh]

This was my idea from March. I humbly submit it again.

"The discussion on massed archers has led me to think about pushbacks in general. Part of what makes the the massed archers (and Indians in general) effective is the number of units compared to heavier armies with more expensive units on average. This, as we all know, allows the extra units to wait and turn and charge enemy that have pushed back friends.

I do not understand the actual calculation used to cause pushbacks. The rules, section 14.4. Pushbacks and Follow Ups, state "If foot lose badly in close combat against foot Shock Troops who originally initiated the close combat, they will be pushed back and the enemy will follow up." The Glossary defines Shock Troops as : Impact Foot, Offensive Spearmen, Pikemen more than 3 models deep, Lancers (except light horse), Heavy Chariots, Scythed Chariots. (I would think elephants would be shock troops but are not included.)

My first question is: How is "losing badly" defined?
Second question: If a unit loses badly and is pushed back, do shock troops follow up through the ZOCS of adjacent enemy who are not in melee? I think they do, but am not sure.
Third question: Does the shock unit winning follow up the enemy losing badly automatically or is there a test of some sort?
Fourth question: Next turn if the unit that was pushed back steadies and does not lose badly again, I presume the shock troops that have followed up will not push the enemy back again that turn, even if they win slightly.
Fifth question: After this turn in which there is not a push back, if in a subsequent turn the shock troops who conducted the original charge cause the enemy to lose badly, do they then push that enemy back and follow up?

This leads me to my thought for consideration. It seems to me that once the momentum of a charge is stopped, then the situation is no different from shock troops being charged rather than charging. In this situation, even if their enemy "loses badly" in their charge, that enemy does not get pushed back and followed up by the non-charging shock troops. If it is not already programmed this way, then I suggest this be considered.

Further to this, perhaps in the calculation to determine losing badly and being pushed back, the shock unit could test to follow up, (if it does not already do so), taking into account moving through a Primary Enemy ZOC. They may still follow up if they "pass" the test. Certain undisciplined types, such as Warbands, could be more likely to pass. I am thinking that, for example, Legions could have a -2 on the test and Warbands a -1, to make it more likely that the winning warband would follow up. This would mitigate the more extreme circumstances in which many push backs occur moving deep into enemy rear right past enemy waiting to charge. The test would reduce the chance of moving right past the front of enemy. I think, especially for disciplined troops, individual units of 500 to 1000 men would be aware of this and hesitate. A 480 man unit 8 deep would only be 60 men wide, so at the most 60 yards. This is a short distance for even men in the middle to see what was going on around them, more so for the leaders of the unit."

Richard answered this point by point then, but I think since the topic keeps coming up it may be worth considering again. In particular, this idea "This leads me to my thought for consideration. It seems to me that once the momentum of a charge is stopped, then the situation is no different from shock troops being charged rather than charging. In this situation, even if their enemy "loses badly" in their charge, that enemy does not get pushed back and followed up by the non-charging shock troops." may be able to be implemented without much programming, although it would certainly need play balance testing. If a charging unit does not push back enemy in the first charge, then, in my view the 2 units in combat, the charging unit and the unit being charged are no different in terms of the momentum of the charge.

Mac

[Soter]

I liked the way DBx games kept infantry formations together.

I would welcome any changes to the rules that gives an incentive for infantry units to maintain formation, which was a compelling survival strategy for infantry historically

I have tried to like FoG2 but this issue is the immersion killer for me, and the reason I only play it occasionally

[rbodleyscott]

My first question is: How is "losing badly" defined?

Because of the way the combat results are calculated, there isn't any easy way to explain this in terms that would be clear to the player during a game. Each game turn, each unit has internal "close combat damage inflicted" and "close combat damage suffered" variables. These are cumulative during a turn over all close combats in which that unit engages. If the cumulative "damage" suffered exceeds the cumulative "damage" inflicted by more than a certain constant, it counts as a bad loss. Not only is the "damage" variable cumulative each turn, but it does not map in a linear fashion to casualties, because the actual casualties are calculated after the script has decided whether a unit won or lost, and are modified according to whether the unit has "lost" overall, or "won or drawn". (Since "winning" and "losing" in this era were more to do with psychology than with relative losses, and ancient armies tended to lose more casualties as they started to give way).

So a "bad loss" cannot be explained in terms of the reported casualties.

Second question: If a unit loses badly and is pushed back, do shock troops follow up through the ZOCS of adjacent enemy who are not in melee?

Yes. They are assumed to be intent on the combat and thus have "tunnel vision".

Third question: Does the shock unit winning follow up the enemy losing badly automatically or is there a test of some sort?

Currently it is automatic.

Fourth question: Next turn if the unit that was pushed back steadies and does not lose badly again, I presume the shock troops that have followed up will not push the enemy back again that turn, even if they win slightly.

Correct.

Fifth question: After this turn in which there is not a push back, if in a subsequent turn the shock troops who conducted the original charge cause the enemy to lose badly, do they then push that enemy back and follow up?

Yes

This leads me to my thought for consideration. It seems to me that once the momentum of a charge is stopped, then the situation is no different from shock troops being charged rather than charging. In this situation, even if their enemy "loses badly" in their charge, that enemy does not get pushed back and followed up by the non-charging shock troops. If it is not already programmed this way, then I suggest this be considered.

Further to this, perhaps in the calculation to determine losing badly and being pushed back, the shock unit could test to follow up, (if it does not already do so), taking into account moving through a Primary Enemy ZOC. They may still follow up if they "pass" the test. Certain undisciplined types, such as Warbands, could be more likely to pass. I am thinking that, for example, Legions could have a -2 on the test and Warbands a -1, to make it more likely that the winning warband would follow up. This would mitigate the more extreme circumstances in which many push backs occur moving deep into enemy rear right past enemy waiting to charge. The test would reduce the chance of moving right past the front of enemy. I think, especially for disciplined troops, individual units of 500 to 1000 men would be aware of this and hesitate. A 480 man unit 8 deep would only be 60 men wide, so at the most 60 yards. This is a short distance for even men in the middle to see what was going on around them, more so for the leaders of the unit."

Richard answered this point by point then, but I think since the topic keeps coming up it may be worth considering again. In particular, this idea "This leads me to my thought for consideration. It seems to me that once the momentum of a charge is stopped, then the situation is no different from shock troops being charged rather than charging. In this situation, even if their enemy "loses badly" in their charge, that enemy does not get pushed back and followed up by the non-charging shock troops." may be able to be implemented without much programming, although it would certainly need play balance testing. If a charging unit does not push back enemy in the first charge, then, in my view the 2 units in combat, the charging unit and the unit being charged are no different in terms of the momentum of the charge.

Good ideas, but they might be a bit complicated to balance, and would introduce an extra element of random behaviour into the game. I also don't really agree that once the pushing back has been halted once the situation is logically as if both sides were not attacking. Although that would do as a rationalisation if we did decide to implement your suggestion, we already have a simpler and I hope workable change to test. This has already been coded, and in internal testing seems to achieve its objectives. Whether the change will be good or bad for the game as a game will need the wider beta test to determine.

The next beta test will initially be started with the existing beta group, who will be sent email invitations. If anyone else would like to get involved in testing this major change to gameplay, please could you send me a PM so I can get you added to the invitation list.

I will repeat the proposed change here, for the benefit of anyone who has lost it in the mass of the thread.

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.

[mceochaidh]

Thanks for the response Richard; I will look forward very much to testing this.

Mac

[stockwellpete]

the whole premise that you the overall general of your army can control what happens...that your troops are robots-- is false...and extremely boring. a good general PLANS on some of this chaos and USES it to his advantage! if we lock our troop lines, then maybe we just line em up and roll one die and see who wins?? If we beta test this...first i would say that there is just some additional "friction" that tends to keep some contact...but the possibility of isolation should always be present...for those relatively new to the FOG universe. we've already eliminated all the anarchy charges that occurred...which again is a nod to those armchair generals that think their troops ought to be automatons--and choose to ignore history...but that's ok, as it made the game more FUN for the majority of folks...but let' be careful we don't get what we wished for...more control....and a much more boring game to play (and anti-historical...which i speak to in the grand view...in that generals never KNEW how their troops would react, or more so how the enemy might react to combat).

But I don't think anybody has been arguing along these lines. We are just suggesting that the push-backs need to be reduced somewhat, particularly the instances of isolated units pushing back enemy units far behind the main battle line. Because that does seem to be unrealistic. We certainly don't want our units to behave like robots and I write as someone who would like to see the "anarchy" rules re-introduced.

[rbodleyscott]

The next beta test will initially be started with the existing 4th DLC beta group, who will be sent email invitations. If anyone else would like to get involved in testing this major change to gameplay (and other changes), please could you send me a PM so I can get you added to the invitation list.

Here is the change to push backs that we are 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.

[mceochaidh]

Regarding Klay's observation, too much control is an issue I raised in FOG1. I suggested that heavy and medium foot units not in command range should be limited in movement allowance. Pete and I even play tested a simple change reducing movement for foot troops. I propose something like this. "Heavy and medium foot who begin the turn not in command range or not adjacent to a friendly heavy and medium unit in command range have their movement allowance reduced by 1 square, unless charging enemy. Impact cavalry units not in command range or adjacent to friendly non-light units in command range have to test to not charge enemy (not elephants or camels) in open terrain in charge reach." This would make generals more valuable and encourage battle lines to be maintained. Of course, light troops would have to be evaluated (again) for play balance. I believe this would require much forethought on initial dispositions and advances.

Mac

[stockwellpete]

Regarding Klay's observation, too much control is an issue I raised in FOG1. I suggested that heavy and medium foot units not in command range should be limited in movement allowance. Pete and I even play tested a simple change reducing movement for foot troops. I propose something like this. "Heavy and medium foot who begin the turn not in command range or not adjacent to a friendly heavy and medium unit in command range have their movement allowance reduced by 1 square, unless charging enemy. Impact cavalry units not in command range or adjacent to friendly non-light units in command range have to test to not charge enemy (not elephants or camels) in open terrain in charge reach." This would make generals more valuable and encourage battle lines to be maintained. Of course, light troops would have to be evaluated (again) for play balance. I believe this would require much forethought on initial dispositions and advances.

Mac

Yes, I remember that experiment, Mac.

It resulted in a very interesting battle with both of us concentrating much more on keeping our units clustered around the various commanders. There were far fewer units wandering off and operating independently. I think something along the lines that Mac is suggesting would be a fabulous feature for the medieval period, where the various contingents that made up one side often operated as separate armies (or "battles").

[MVP7]

Regarding Klay's observation, too much control is an issue I raised in FOG1. I suggested that heavy and medium foot units not in command range should be limited in movement allowance. Pete and I even play tested a simple change reducing movement for foot troops. I propose something like this. "Heavy and medium foot who begin the turn not in command range or not adjacent to a friendly heavy and medium unit in command range have their movement allowance reduced by 1 square, unless charging enemy. Impact cavalry units not in command range or adjacent to friendly non-light units in command range have to test to not charge enemy (not elephants or camels) in open terrain in charge reach." This would make generals more valuable and encourage battle lines to be maintained. Of course, light troops would have to be evaluated (again) for play balance. I believe this would require much forethought on initial dispositions and advances.

Mac

Why would the infantry start taking every third step backwards when no general is in immediate vicinity? Units already lose their free 45 degree turn without general and that makes sense since their maneuvering can be presumed to be less planned ahead and deliberate.

Reducing the movement range by a square would also either prevent diagonal movement entirely or not affect it. This would also unnecessarily hit medium infantry hard as it often operates on the flanks with the light infantry without dedicated general.

[klayeckles]

if we go back to FOG tabletop, the rules allowed for ADDITIONAL movement if the battle group was sufficiently far away from the enemy...RBS might comment, but i found this to be very clever way to abstractly represent the molasses that seems to often occur when battle lines get very close together...but more fluidity of movement far from the front. if i recall, the movement of MF has been reduced from the tabletop, as a move of 3 allowed too much manouverability. RBS...curious if you ever considered giving MF more movement if more than say...a cav charge away from the enemy...(or did that present too many programming nightmares etc?
one thing i will say...when we went from TT to computer, and the acompanying individual units (say cohort level) (vs. the larger unit size (the equivalent of 3+ squares wide each) we introduced many more maneuver possibilities. this makes maneuvering much easier, and allows for many more "gamey" tactics...which by the way, makes it enormously fun to play. it also introduces much more of the pushback issue.

[rbodleyscott]

As you say, the units in the computer game are already more manoeuvrable than on the tabletop - this is mainly a result of the ratio between their move distance and the unit width. In the computer game infantry move 2 unit-widths per turn, whereas on the tabletop them move about 1.5 unit-widths per turn (if a 6 base unit). We felt that adding in "march moves" as well would make troops excessively manoeuvrable, and reduce the value of getting your initial deployment right.

[MVP7]

As you say, the units in the computer game are already more manoeuvrable than on the tabletop - this is mainly a result of the ratio between their move distance and the unit width. In the computer game infantry move 2 unit-widths per turn, whereas on the tabletop them move about 1.5 unit-widths per turn (if a 6 base unit). We felt that adding in "march moves" as well would make troops excessively manoeuvrable, and reduce the value of getting your initial deployment right.

Has there been any consideration to give medium infantry 3-square marching move with some limitations like disrupted formation until next turn and no attacking with the extra move?

[rbodleyscott]

As you say, the units in the computer game are already more manoeuvrable than on the tabletop - this is mainly a result of the ratio between their move distance and the unit width. In the computer game infantry move 2 unit-widths per turn, whereas on the tabletop them move about 1.5 unit-widths per turn (if a 6 base unit). We felt that adding in "march moves" as well would make troops excessively manoeuvrable, and reduce the value of getting your initial deployment right.

Has there been any consideration to give medium infantry 3-square marching move with some limitations like disrupted formation until next turn and no attacking with the extra move?

Yes it has been considered.

But reducing their move to the same distance as other battle line foot (they had a longer move allowance than heavy foot in the tabletop rules) was an intentional part of the FOG2 game design, in line with modern thinking about ancient formations. The ancients did not recognise the existence of "medium infantry", troops were either battle line troops or skirmishers. Troops that could do either (like thureophoroi) adopted one or other role for the entire battle. Their battle line role is reflected in their greater resilience against mounted troops than in the tabletop rules.

The sort of hybrid "loose order" infantry beloved of the Ancient Wargames rules writers of yesteryear were largely speculation.

In fact their move was nearly reduced to match heavy foot in version 2 of the tabletop rules, but this change was vetoed by one of the three authors, so did not make the cut.

Anyway FOG2 has adjusted them to fill their historical battle-line role, while still acknowledging their reduced susceptibility to rough terrain.

Game balance also needs to be considered. Samnites are already an (unacknowledged) tournament tiger army. With the extra move they would certainly be OP.

[erichswafford]

Nothing has changed.

1. 4 years later and games still become a horrible mess as infantry units pursue other units (including, laughably, cavalry) across the map, with zero regard for any flank security. There's absolutely nothing the player can do about it, because this "foot pursuit" madness appears to be baked into the CRT itself. You can't order your units to not pursue, which is insane when you're discussing infantry. It's as if every unit of drilled, disciplined legionnaires or phalangists has suddenly morphed into Viking Berserkers, drunk on mead and looking for Valhalla. Right now.

2. Attacking with a formed line of infantry results in some units winning, which results in a bizarre "foot pursuit" deep into enemy lines with unguarded flanks, and other units (which didn't happen to "win") staying behind. Not a single scenario I've played has resulted in anything other than a disordered mess of infantry units wandering around deep behind enemy lines as a result.

3. Just played another game of Granikos, and it was the same nonsense I saw ~4 years ago: If you attack, with a phalanx no less, then they will pursue the enemy unit, while abandoning their place in line, resulting in a bizarre, disordered mess in short order. Their behavior totally contradicts every known facet of ancient warfare, where units (especially phalangists) were absolutely paranoid about advancing (or even standing around) with unguarded flanks.

4. Because I have zero control over this "foot pursuit" mechanic, it becomes impossible to maintain a formed line of infantry on the attack. Consequently, it's best to simply never attack with infantry. There's simply no way to restrain you units (even highly disciplined legionnaires and phalangists) from running off in pursuit of a beaten enemy, deep into the enemy formation. It is truly bizarre to watch. Show me a playthrough of Granikos where your units (playing as Macedonia) don't end up spread out all over the map willy-nilly, and where you actually attack occasionally (the system "works" as long as you do absolutely nothing with your infantry besides sit there).

5. Here's a suggestion: Just get rid of the "foot pursuit" mechanic altogether. Or at least give me the option to do so via a checkbox. Do that, and the game would work much better. Either that, or show me a single historical account where a formed body of drilled infantry in ancient times took off on their own in pursuit of cavalry, without regard to what everyone else around them was doing. Because that happens constantly in the game as it is today. It is a game-ruining problem that no amount of DLC can fix.

[TheGrayMouser]

Nothing has changed.

1. 4 years later and games still become a horrible mess as infantry units pursue other units (including, laughably, cavalry) across the map, with zero regard for any flank security. There's absolutely nothing the player can do about it, because this "foot pursuit" madness appears to be baked into the CRT itself. You can't order your units to not pursue, which is insane when you're discussing infantry. It's as if every unit of drilled, disciplined legionnaires or phalangists has suddenly morphed into Viking Berserkers, drunk on mead and looking for Valhalla. Right now.

2. Attacking with a formed line of infantry results in some units winning, which results in a bizarre "foot pursuit" deep into enemy lines with unguarded flanks, and other units (which didn't happen to "win") staying behind. Not a single scenario I've played has resulted in anything other than a disordered mess of infantry units wandering around deep behind enemy lines as a result.

3. Just played another game of Granikos, and it was the same nonsense I saw ~4 years ago: If you attack, with a phalanx no less, then they will pursue the enemy unit, while abandoning their place in line, resulting in a bizarre, disordered mess in short order. Their behavior totally contradicts every known facet of ancient warfare, where units (especially phalangists) were absolutely paranoid about advancing (or even standing around) with unguarded flanks.

4. Because I have zero control over this "foot pursuit" mechanic, it becomes impossible to maintain a formed line of infantry on the attack. Consequently, it's best to simply never attack with infantry. There's simply no way to restrain you units (even highly disciplined legionnaires and phalangists) from running off in pursuit of a beaten enemy, deep into the enemy formation. It is truly bizarre to watch. Show me a playthrough of Granikos where your units (playing as Macedonia) don't end up spread out all over the map willy-nilly, and where you actually attack occasionally (the system "works" as long as you do absolutely nothing with your infantry besides sit there).

5. Here's a suggestion: Just get rid of the "foot pursuit" mechanic altogether. Or at least give me the option to do so via a checkbox. Do that, and the game would work much better. Either that, or show me a single historical account where a formed body of drilled infantry in ancient times took off on their own in pursuit of cavalry, without regard to what everyone else around them was doing. Because that happens constantly in the game as it is today. It is a game-ruining problem that no amount of DLC can fix.

Your original post in 2018, although somewhat exaggerating the situation, resulted in some good discussions and RBS modified the code for push backs in way that I believe worked out for the majority of players.

This post seemingly has little to do with pushbacks, and I’m pretty sure now the issue for you is pursuits after evades. You keep bring up Granicus as somehow a test bed, even in your OP. That battle is kind of an outlier anyhow, and perhaps not ideal to use as an example of the game in its entirety?

Maybe start a new thread on pursuits after evades? ( there likely are a few already!)

[SimonLancaster]

Infantry pursuing after routing units is rare. A unit may go pursuing for one turn but it usually then returns to the fold. I think Warbands may be an exception. Okay, cavalry does go crazy sometimes but that is historical with many accounts of that happening on the battlefield.

[Schweetness101]

shameless plug here:
viewtopic.php?f=492&t=106417

the dark ages britain mod eliminates the pushbacks if you are in 'shieldwall'. see the pdf download for more details, but you might find that the mod's rules for shieldwall armies at least mitigates your concerns here substantially (of course anarchic armies go the other way, but in a way that's more interesting imo). I updated it so it should work now with the newest fog

[erichswafford]

Did this ever get fixed?

My 11 year old son is now playing FoG2 Medieval and complained that his infantry units are auto-advancing all over the map - often in pursuit of cavalry ffs.

Can anything be done to rectify this ahistorical behavior?

[erichswafford]

Did this ever get fixed?

My 11 year old son is now playing FoG2 Medieval and complained that his infantry units are auto-advancing all over the map - often in pursuit of cavalry ffs.

Can anything be done to rectify this ahistorical behavior?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Did this ever get fixed?

My 11 year old son is now playing FoG2 Medieval and complained that his infantry units are auto-advancing all over the map - often in pursuit of cavalry ffs.

Can anything be done to rectify this ahistorical behavior?

Infantry almost never pursue routing cavalry. What you are probably seeing is evasion. Cavalry that is not Lancers or Knightly Lancers will evade if they consider the matchup unfavorable. Dealing with them requires either your own cavalry, or combined arms - infantry and missile troops. Charging them with foot is almost always a waste of time.