Automatic pursuit is not accurate

[SnuggleBunnies]

Okay, as promised, a lengthier response. First of all, pursuit as it works now is NOT a "flaw" It's a considered decision on the part of the designers, who in all aspects of the game tried to find a balance between gameplay and realism, leaning, might I say, heavily toward gameplay. Richard, the main designer, has been playing, designing, and researching wargames for decades. He knows what he's about. I will also note, as I did before, that non-raw, non-warband infantry NEVER pursue.

PURSUIT

First I'll start with some real life examples of veteran or what the game would call Superior troops pursuing without orders. Let's go back in time.

Waterloo - the charge of the British cavalry, uncontrollably continuing well past the point they were supposed to go

English Civil Wars - many examples of cavalry pursuing a broken enemy cavalry wing and failing to return to the battle

Arsuf - Saladin's horse archers harass King Richard's army. His men are under strict orders not to charge until ordered. Under a hail of arrows, with men and horses being wounded, the Hospitallers break into a spontaneous charge, led by their Master. Richard was forced to commit the rest of his army lest a portion of it be overwhelmed in detail. Thus, the Hospitallers, some of the best trained, experienced troops in the army, disobeyed orders and forced action by the overall commander.

Raphia - The Seleucid cavalry wing pursues their opposing cavalry off of the field, letting the rest of their army be defeated. But hold on! you might say - Antiochus led the pursuing wing (of what would be Superior cavalry in game I might add), so that was the commander's mistake, not a lack of local control! Well, that brings us to:

COMMAND AND CONTROL

So in Field of Glory 2, you are a God-General, surveying the battlefield from the sky and able to give orders that are instantly obeyed by any unit of troops anywhere on the battlefield that is not locked in melee, pursuing, or fleeing. This is already totally unrealistic. For one thing, many generals in this time period and beyond were expected by their cultures to personally take part in battle. Did Gustavus Adolphus pause during the desperate melee amidst dust and powder smoke at Lutzen to scribble out orders for a regiment of pike on the other end of the field to turn 45 degrees and target another unit? No. He had more important things to worry about, like trying not to get shot. Alexander the Great led his Companions in person. While he was doing so, sub commanders would have to control other parts of the battle. See Parmenion at Gaugamela. Classical Greek generals were expected to lead the phalanx in person, on foot, from which position they could not give any real orders, even if there had been something like a chain of command to move them down. Germanic warlords sometimes dismounted from their horses, despite the need for cavalry, to fight on foot amidst the infantry to set an example and show their determination. Could they order their squadron of 240 noble horsemen across the battlefield to "slow up boys, don't chase those men who just killed some of your friends and kin, please wheel 90 degrees now to save the infantry you can't see over that hill"? No. Many battle plans were set up beforehand, and when plans went awry, local commanders took things into their own hands. The game already gives us far more control than existed. To return to Antiochus at Raphia, well, maybe he couldn't see what was going on, what with the clouds of dust. Seeing as he wasn't posted up in the sky looking down.

Well, hoplites and warbands are one thing, what about the disciplined legions of Caesar? Well... sure. The individual units of infantry were well trained and disciplined. But could Caesar see everything all the time? No. Could couriers reach any section of the battlefield and reliably transmit orders within a few minutes? No. Even in the modern era, when the institution of command staffs and couriers existed, things could go terribly wrong - look at the Charge of the Light Brigade, for example.

Basically, you already have far more control than real generals had. Horses and humans are not robots. They don't just do what you want them to do for the sake of "the plan." If they did, great generals wouldn't have been so unusual. In my opinion, the game has chosen a fine compromise point between realism and gameplay, even if I personally would enjoy uncontrolled charges and such. You disagree. That's your right. That does not mean the game is flawed.

[Ludendorf]

I'd add that Hastings was another example of pursuit gone wrong. The plan was to hold the hill, but for whatever reason (their local commanders may have been killed) part of the fyrd went sprinting down the hill after a (possibly feigned) retreat by Norman knights. The result was the fyrd were surrounded and cut down, fatally weakening the Anglo-Saxon position.

That, at least, is my understanding of the battle.

[lapdog666]

if u ask me, i 'd expand or change current system in favor of more realism and make it a challenge to issue so many orders successfuly

[SpeedyCM]

<snip>
All troops do automatically pursue, even elite and superior infantry not just raw and warband infantry.
<snip>

I believe the OP is actually referring to pushbacks and not pursuit of routed troops here. If so there is a simple solution to stop your troops following a unit that is pushed back and that is to not initiate the combat as a defending unit will never follow a push back.

[Nijis]

if u ask me, i 'd expand or change current system in favor of more realism and make it a challenge to issue so many orders successfuly

The game is not a first-person command simulator. Those are *extremely* difficult to do, given that you need to limit the game's feedback to what the commander would reasonably know, but also take into account that a game interface is far more disorienting than real life. The Take Command/Scourge of War series is a valiant effort, but I find it very difficult to play.

The way I see FoG: The player is an experienced, conscientious commander, maybe not a Hannibal but at least a Marius, who has taken the time to thoroughly brief his subordinates on the doctrine he wants used in a wide variety of circumstances. Rather than "simulate" a campaign's worth of dinners in the commander's tend, the pre=battle briefing, and all the other occasions by which subordinates learn the commander's intent, you get to micromanage a bit. A typical commander of the period would be represented in the game by the AI.

[Ludendorf]

I've never found pursuit (or pushbacks) that hard to manage in this game. Pursuit isn't that unpredictable; the enemy run directly backwards/away from their pursuers unless they hit another unit or impassable terrain (I think they route around forests and marsh?). Your unit will follow them, and if they see something tasty on the way, they'll change tack and smash into it. They usually stop chasing a few turns in if they don't hit something; sometimes they get carried away, but most of the time you'll have the pursuing unit back a turn or so later after the initial rout. Pushbacks are equally predictable, and you can even capitalise on them for your own gain; push through an enemy line and then follow up with a carefully placed reserve unit to roll up what is left, or anticipate the enemy driving through and hit their unit from the side as they arrive (this is riskier and more difficult to pull off in my experience as you're gambling on your unit standing its ground long enough).

Warbands and cavalry are the only units to worry about with pursuit anyway. Raw units also have the problem, but you should always be suspicious of your raw units. The only time I willingly throw my raw units into the fray is when I want to flank something and there's literally no one else to ask, or when I need to delay someone's cavalry.

[Shards]

Hi All,

The game mechanic discussion here is interesting, please keep posts on topic.

@RJMI, I'll drop you a PM to discuss

Ta

[Nosy_Rat]

My only problem with the current rules is that sometimes cavalry does some really ridiculous things during the pursuit, like charging into units in the forest, or into elephants. In both cases cavalry just gets slaughtered.

[Ludendorf]

Pursuers can also sometimes wind up doing weird things. If the unit they are chasing hits the enemy battle line and turns 90 degrees, and the pursuing unit doesn't decide to engage the battle line, you can end up with a situation where the pursuers willingly turn 90 degrees also and present their flank to the enemy army. This seems a little farfetched at times.

[MikeC_81]

Pursuers can also sometimes wind up doing weird things. If the unit they are chasing hits the enemy battle line and turns 90 degrees, and the pursuing unit doesn't decide to engage the battle line, you can end up with a situation where the pursuers willingly turn 90 degrees also and present their flank to the enemy army. This seems a little farfetched at times.

Things like that actually happened in the ACW. Ironically it was because a confederate regiment followed orders to the letter that exposed them to exactly this type of situation

[RJMI]

Response to snugglebunnies

I am not saying the main designer does not know what he is doing, but only that he is human and can make mistakes or not make something as good as it could be. After all, do not many of the patches and improvements to the game prove this! I always say that a man who cannot admit when he is wrong or made a mistake will never be ultimately right and perfect. From the information I have so far, I believe the main designers is making the game better, he is improving it, as proof the great improvements from FOG1 to FOG2. But I have found that some designers stubbornly hold on to one or more major things that many have correctly complained about and hence ruined an otherwise very good game by not correctly it.

Your reply proves my point that commanders did give orders to their troops (such as to pursue or not pursue), even if sometimes they are not obeyed. For every example you produced that proves that some troops disobeyed their commanders and pursued when they should not have, I will give you at least ten examples where they did obey and did not pursue. The way the game is now, all troops automatically pursue and thus without option for the commander telling them not to pursue. I agree that some troops disobeyed their commanders and pursued when they should not have, even elite or superior troops. Hence the game should include a percentage chance that all units will disobey their commanders, the greatest percentage being for the raw or inexperienced troops. If the troop fails the text, then it disobeys its commander and pursues or vice versa.

The main commander does not have to be always giving orders to troops during the war. This is impossible. A general order before combat such as do not pursue when this happens or pursue when this happens is sufficient. All the sub-commanders and commanders of individual troops would know this. You would have us believe that the main commander goes into war with no plan or if he does it can never be carried out. Also each troop has its own commander who should be trained in tactics and thus knows what to do even if he does not have access to the main commander. Certainly, it is a stupid, brain-dead, or cowardly commander who allows his Calvary troop to pursue a weak enemy all over the field and out of the main field of battle when he knows he could be better used in the main field of battle. He does not have to be in contact with the main commander to know this. The same applies to a commander of a troop that allows his troop to purse and penetrate so deeply into enemy territory as to be surrounded and outflanked.

I will give you an example, I had my main commander (c-c) who was in control of a superior Calvary troop attack an enemy troop in a gap in the front line to drive him out of the gap. The main commander won and pursued the enemy so far into enemy territory so as to be total removed from any help. I wanted him to just push back the enemy from the gap and not pursue. This way all the other troops that were in his command range would remain so. But instead after his pursuit deep into enemy territory not only was he surrounded by enemies but also the other troops were no longer in his command range. This is certainly not the actions of a good or even average main commander.

At least for the sake of us who believe the game is ruined by automatic pursuit, there should be an option for us to turn off automatic pursuit and turn on pursuit by command.

[Ludendorf]

It does seem a little strange that your commander in chief's unit pursues without thought. Alexander turning his cavalry around at Gaugamela comes to mind when he realised Parmenion was in trouble, and this was someone who was at the head of his unit and who actively fought in melee. I suppose they might well pursue if they didn't realise the rest of their army is in trouble; once in melee, a commander becomes just another fighter, and his view of the battle becomes very limited. It would make more sense if an unplanned pursuit by the C-in-C was unlikely, and I don't think it would hurt the game to have the C-in-C not pursue at all. It would make placing your generals even more important.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think another lengthy response of mine would just be repeating myself. However, I have to object to this statement -

"But I have found that some designers stubbornly hold on to one or more major things that many have correctly complained about and hence ruined an otherwise very good game by not correctly it."

Let's break this down piece by piece. Is it a major thing? Sure, it's a major thing that sets the game apart from most other games, that give more control to the player.

"many" - how many? What do you mean by that? Most people? A hundred people?

"correctly complained about" - so I am incorrect in my enjoyment of these mechanics?

"...and hence ruined an otherwise very good game by not correctly it." Well, in my opinion, to "correct" the game as you wish would in fact ruin an otherwise very good game. Your opinion is not universally shared. I won't pretend to have any knowledge as to what % of the playerbase shares it, because I don't have that data.

[SpeedyCM]

I for one love the routing and pursuit mechanisms of this game and Sengoku Jidae and Pike and Shot.
To me it is one of the very things that gives this game some randomness and brings it to life, otherwise it would just be some stale robotic chess game.

[jomni]

I for one love the routing and pursuit mechanisms of this game and Sengoku Jidae and Pike and Shot.
To me it is one of the very things that gives this game some randomness and brings it to life, otherwise it would just be some stale robotic chess game.

Pursuit is now more toned down in FoG II than Pike & Shot and Sengoku Jidai. Richard is acknowledging feedback on this topic and is making a balance between control and chaos. There are arguments for and against both sides of the coin as indicated in this thread.

[MikeC_81]

RI am not saying the main designer does not know what he is doing, but only that he is human and can make mistakes or not make something as good as it could be. After all, do not many of the patches and improvements to the game prove this! I always say that a man who cannot admit when he is wrong or made a mistake will never be ultimately right and perfect. From the information I have so far, I believe the main designers is making the game better, he is improving it, as proof the great improvements from FOG1 to FOG2. But I have found that some designers stubbornly hold on to one or more major things that many have correctly complained about and hence ruined an otherwise very good game by not correctly it.

I have given this topic some thought but I guess it is important to understand where you are coming from in terms of advocating these changes. Is it for the sake of perceived realism? Some of your comments seem to indicate come from that line of thought. Is it because you feel that the game is a better skill tester if these changes are implemented given the additional degree of control? I guess it is important for you to outline on what basis you are making these suggestions given that you seem to feel that the designer has 'made a mistake' with.

Also, it would be best if you clarified exactly what you are referring to. The only units that actively pursue are cavalry units, and Warbands or Raw quality units when ordered to attack. If on the defensive these units do not pursue. Or are you referring to the "push back" mechanic which sees all categories of shock troops following up on an enemy unit they attacked and were forced to fall back?

[Archaeologist1970]

I brought this up when the game first dropped. The response was that's the way it is. So, I stopped playing and did not support the expansions, even though I love the Roman imperial era. I voted with my wallet. I think the OP is spot on with assessment of pursuit and military units doing completely dumb and non realistic actions. It ruins a otherwise pretty darned good game.

[Nijis]

I for one love the routing and pursuit mechanisms of this game and Sengoku Jidae and Pike and Shot.

I agree with this. I'd add that the consequences of out-of-control pursuit are somewhat toned down from P&S/SJ, as it's much harder to get the auto-disrupt on a flank attack against cavalry.

[TheGrayMouser]

I brought this up when the game first dropped. The response was that's the way it is. So, I stopped playing and did not support the expansions, even though I love the Roman imperial era. I voted with my wallet. I think the OP is spot on with assessment of pursuit and military units doing completely dumb and non realistic actions. It ruins a otherwise pretty darned good game.

To bad for you, it s a great game and getting better. There are likley HUNDREDS of points of conflict in opinion in any game design, whether is be historical interpretation or just plain game play decisions based on target audience, system specs, cost , whatever. How one of those hundreds can be a deal breaker is hard to fathom, especially when a little elbow grease you could have modded pursuit out altogether.

The OP is NOT spot on, his opinions are just that, Doesnt anyone have imagination of what pursuit could mean? it could very well be a running fight, and only in games do we have a distinct " routed " and no longer a threat "flags:. When exactly in a fight between two units does the "fight" end and the "chase" begin? Especially for cavalry. Pretty grey area IMHO and possibly the last to know are the victors (after they collapse in exhaustion)

[Archaeologist1970]

But wait, there is no exhaustion in fog2. Units can just stand there and pound away at each other for hours and hours. You can attempt to charge round after round at units with no cohesion problems or fatigue. Yet another unrealistic aspect that ultimately turned me off from this game.