Anyone else think the pushback system is a bit overdone?

[TheGrayMouser]

To get pushed back you need to lose the combat badly. YET if it happens many times that mean you are losing, rolling for cohesion test with a mal modifier yet somehow "passing", over and over.
Extreme luck, extreme results.
Perhaps there's to many foot general s now giving umbrella cohesion modifier coverage to everyone

[TheJay13]

To get pushed back you need to lose the combat badly. YET if it happens many times that mean you are losing, rolling for cohesion test with a mal modifier yet somehow "passing", over and over.
Extreme luck, extreme results.
Perhaps there's to many foot general s now giving umbrella cohesion modifier coverage to everyone

Unfortunately extreme results are not terribly uncommon. Its more difficult than it may seem at face value to fail a cohesion test, this is why it is possible for a unit to hold out for multiple turns in a row. Besides a unit doesnt always need to hold firm every turn, just lose combat. Typically in the course of the unit being pushed back multiple times it will drop a cohesion level or two but most units dont drop cohesion one turn after another without extra -ve modifiers and as such have a tendency to hold for many turns in a row, even at fragmented.

In short the phenomenon is far too common to just be "extreme" luck.

Also this occurred before the generals update.

[TheGrayMouser]

To get pushed back you need to lose the combat badly. YET if it happens many times that mean you are losing, rolling for cohesion test with a mal modifier yet somehow "passing", over and over.
Extreme luck, extreme results.
Perhaps there's to many foot general s now giving umbrella cohesion modifier coverage to everyone

Unfortunately extreme results are not terribly uncommon. Its more difficult than it may seem at face value to fail a cohesion test, this is why it is possible for a unit to hold out for multiple turns in a row. Besides a unit doesnt always need to hold firm every turn, just lose combat. Typically in the course of the unit being pushed back multiple times it will drop a cohesion level or two but most units dont drop cohesion one turn after another without extra -ve modifiers and as such have a tendency to hold for many turns in a row, even at fragmented.

In short the phenomenon is far too common to just be "extreme" luck.

Also this occurred before the generals update.

Just so you know, one could get 4 generals and put them into the infantry pre patch, many just did not know how to do it.

So I have made a quick test scenario with 15 superior warbands versus 16 average protected hoplites. no generals

end of turn one we have 8 pushbacks of which 4 hoplites were disrupted 1

[TheGrayMouser]

End of Turn 2

The red arrow is to denote the original Hoplite battle line
Things are looking grim

[TheGrayMouser]

End of Turn 3

Again, red arrow denotes original Hoplite battle line ( which now is shattered but still looks like a battle line, no?

[TheGrayMouser]

End of turn 4 ( and the battle)

The top yellow arrow denotes the original hoplite battle line, the bottom yellow is the farthest push back which was 3 grids

To me, this does not seem unrealistic or ahistorical.

Yes, I am sure with general it could be different, also with superior versus superior it could be different and no I didn't run it 100 times. I beleive people when they say that occasional a unit gets pushed back more, maybe "much more" I think the mechanic is good as is and to mess with it could invite problems.

Also, could I have posted all those screenies in one post??

[TheJay13]

Your images support exactly what I am saying. Note that none of your units were pushed more than what looks like two spaces away from the initial point and thus the line of battle is retained albeit in a bit of a ragged state. The pushing you demonstrated is perfectly fine and could represent natural undulations in the line of battle as it progresses, no one is saying that ALL pushbacks are bad here and the changes suggested here would not effect this battle at all it seems.

Now imagine that a few of those units had been pushed back four or five spaces, that is perposterous as something like that would probably never occur in reality as troops would be reticent to completely leave the line of battle like that. by limiting the distance which a unit can be pushed away from the tile which it originally engaged from it creates a more cohesive, logical, and realistic looking line of battle while also not discouraging agressiveness.

And before you cite your battle here as being proof that extreme pushbacks are not overdone or are extraordinarily rare, out of the last 8 or so battles I have fought, in 6 of them I had at leas one unit, sometimes more, break completely past the line of battle and push a unit across the countryside.

[TheGrayMouser]

Your images support exactly what I am saying. Note that none of your units were pushed more than what looks like two spaces away from the initial point and thus the line of battle is retained albeit in a bit of a ragged state. The pushing you demonstrated is perfectly fine and could represent natural undulations in the line of battle as it progresses, no one is saying that ALL pushbacks are bad here.

Now imagine that a few of those units had been pushed back four or five spaces, that is perposterous as something like that would probably never occur in reality as troops would be reticent to completely leave the line of battle like that. by limiting the distance which a unit can be pushed away from the tile which it originally engaged from it creates a more cohesive, logical, and realistic looking line of battle while also not discouraging agressiveness.

And before you cite your battle here as being proof that extreme pushbacks are not overdone or are extraordinarily rare, out of the last 8 or so battles I have fought, in 6 of them I had at leas one unit, sometimes more, break completely past the line of battle and push a unit across the countryside.

Well no need to guess, the yellow arrow shows you: 3 grids was the maximum pushback...

NO I wont cite that as proof ( why even say it that way man?) I even posted that certainly other things can and will happen, geesh.

I fail to imagine how ( if the battle lasted longer) how a single hoplite or two being pushed back an additional grid or even two ( from MAX 3 to 4 or 5) would radically alter the battle lines, which you indicate you seem to think are fine.

I don't know what to tell ya, maybe we should play a match so I can see what wackiness you are. I just haven't seen it in AI or MP battles.

[TheJay13]

Your images support exactly what I am saying. Note that none of your units were pushed more than what looks like two spaces away from the initial point and thus the line of battle is retained albeit in a bit of a ragged state. The pushing you demonstrated is perfectly fine and could represent natural undulations in the line of battle as it progresses, no one is saying that ALL pushbacks are bad here.

Now imagine that a few of those units had been pushed back four or five spaces, that is perposterous as something like that would probably never occur in reality as troops would be reticent to completely leave the line of battle like that. by limiting the distance which a unit can be pushed away from the tile which it originally engaged from it creates a more cohesive, logical, and realistic looking line of battle while also not discouraging agressiveness.

And before you cite your battle here as being proof that extreme pushbacks are not overdone or are extraordinarily rare, out of the last 8 or so battles I have fought, in 6 of them I had at leas one unit, sometimes more, break completely past the line of battle and push a unit across the countryside.

Well no need to guess, the yellow arrow shows you: 3 grids was the maximum pushback...

NO I wont cite that as proof ( why even say it that way man?) I even posted that certainly other things can and will happen, geesh.

I fail to imagine how ( if the battle lasted longer) how a single hoplite or two being pushed back an additional grid or even two ( from MAX 3 to 4 or 5) would radically alter the battle lines, which you indicate you seem to think are fine.

I don't know what to tell ya, maybe we should play a match so I can see what wackiness you are. I just haven't seen it in AI or MP battles.

And all that has been requested here was a limit to how far a unit can push back to avoid the wacky occurence of units getting pushed across the map so the change would not have effected your battle very much if at all. I feel that two or three spaces is sufficient to demonstrate bulges and undulations developing in a line of battle while still suggesting a continuous line of troops engaging. Troops wouldnt fight another unit completely out of and far behind a battle line unless a section of troops was routing which is not what is being discussed.

It seems like a lot of people think that this thread is about removing pushbacks entirely which it is not at all so referring to examples where units are pushed only two or three spaces is not really relevent as that is not what i am concerned with. I just want to stop my Veteran legionaries pushing warbands half a mile away from the actual battle.

How would you prefer me to state it? It seems you are thinking I am being hostile but I'm not, just covering all my bases. Sorry if it came off that way, I can be a bit blunt at times.

[stockwellpete]

It seems like a lot of people think that this thread is about removing pushbacks entirely which it is not at all so referring to examples where units are pushed only two or three spaces is not really relevent as that is not what i am concerned with.

Yes, I know. It is a bit frustrating, isn't it? Push backs in general are fine. We are only concerned with those situations such as when an isolated unit is pushed back 3 or 4 times out of a battle line when adjacent friendly units have maintained their position. Apart from anything else it just looks daft. And then if both sides are doing it at the same time then we start moving into American line-dancing territory. It can easily happen when two lines approach because the strongest units on each side do not necessarily come into contact so there can be some very uneven match-ups.

The "problem" actually starts for me with the second push back, because then both units are likely to have lost contact with adjacent friendly units, but you need to have the second push back so that there is a possibility for the second line units to flank the stronger enemy unit coming through (e.g. Romans v Macedonians in one of their battles, Pydna perhaps?). So that is why I say two pushbacks maximum.

[TheGrayMouser]

No problem man, I also don't write with absolute clarity at all times

Anyway, to me the abstraction of the possibility of a unit getting pushed back "too many grids" ( which is subjective) is the lessor of the evil of an abstraction of limiting to "2" What would cause a fragged unit that literally had been pushed from the battle line to not get pushed back a third time? "Now we really going to try harder darnit"

Since we are playing with little battle groups and maneuvering them individually ( unlike some (any?) actual battle line in a real battle where the line often was the unit, but who would want to play a game where you had one unit, that can go forward or stay still, or maybe not even be allowed to go forward ( ie Saxons at Hastings)), players often spin troops offline anyhow so any semblance of a line is often gone by player design sometime before combat even starts.

The certainly of such a limit to me has the danger of it becoming an exploit that will result in gamey or odd behaviors. This engine (versus FOG1) has to date minimized such things and I would hate to see it revert.
This is just my opinion, perhaps I will add 4 generals to my hoplite army versus gauls test to see if they are driven off the board. If that happens I will agree there is a problem ( although the problem IMHO would be the generals and cohesion test bonus' and not the mechanic

[Archaeologist1970]

Maybe someone can shed light on how the push back mechanic works? Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, I think it needs to be tied to unit size doing the pushing and tempered by the level of drill of the unit.

[TheGrayMouser]

It seems like a lot of people think that this thread is about removing pushbacks entirely which it is not at all so referring to examples where units are pushed only two or three spaces is not really relevent as that is not what i am concerned with.

Yes, I know. It is a bit frustrating, isn't it? Push backs in general are fine. We are only concerned with those situations such as when an isolated unit is pushed back 3 or 4 times out of a battle line when adjacent friendly units have maintained their position. Apart from anything else it just looks daft. And then if both sides are doing it at the same time then we start moving into American line-dancing territory. It can easily happen when two lines approach because the strongest units on each side do not necessarily come into contact so there can be some very uneven match-ups.
.

I don't recall anyone saying that??

Although...Pete, it almost sound like you are proposing that units flanked by friendlies should not get pushed back at all (until they rout that is...) Now if those units were part of a "battle group" then maybe that would be cool, but likely would have need been part of the initial design of the game too so no go I would imagine.

I think the analysis you present has some holes when you look at the reality of how players and the Ai often forms battle lines. As you say, shock troop versus non shock, superior versus duds and luck vs bad luck don't line up symetrically. Sometimes though ( Theban oblique approach) It is intentional.
Even with two push back limits, what if alternating units in line get alternating pushback results, two turns of these results in: 4 grid gap!! , just what you think is extreme( is that what you mean by American line dancing?) If so what are you preventing from happening?

Anyway, you don't seem to want to acknowledge the cohesion test bonus as a possible factor here so no need for me to go on about it

Well, I have said enough on this subject. Jay, I would love to play you to see what you think Is xtreem, maybe you could convince me, who knows

Pete, you have conveniently forgotten our last battles and if you saw any wackyness ( 3 of them which you won all of so I should be the one that cant remember the details haha) But I'm sure we will fight again so pay attention next time.

Peace out and may your pushbacks be as long or short as you desire them to be.

[stockwellpete]

Although...Pete, it almost sound like you are proposing that units flanked by friendlies should not get pushed back at all (until they rout that is...) Now if those units were part of a "battle group" then maybe that would be cool, but likely would have need been part of the initial design of the game too so no go I would imagine.

Well, I have also suggested that as long as units have steady units on either side of them then they should not get pushed back, but that really is a slightly separate issue from the main one in this thread. I have not said that they should never be pushed back until they rout. This is what I was talking about - ideas being attributed to various posters without any justification.

Even with two push back limits, what if alternating units in line get alternating pushback results, two turns of these results in: 4 grid gap!! , just what you think is extreme( is that what you mean by American line dancing?) If so what are you preventing from happening?

Yes, that would be a perfect example of American line-dancing. It would be ridicuIous and could mean that the two lines would pass through each other and then have to turn round to continue the melee.

[MikeC_81]

To Jay13's point about troops being unwilling to continue to push past the line of battle, there is one recorded battle in history that I know of where the battle line definitely broke apart into 3 separate pieces, resolved their own individual smaller engagements before line dancing to a relatively static part of the battle for a finale. This particular battle was the battle of Verneuil between the English and the French/Scot alliance during the Hundred Years war. Its clear from first hand accounts of that battle that separate divisions of each army met the enemy and ended up fighting isolated engagements before "line dancing" back to the centre for a finale.

The English right composed of foot, primarily of Longbowmen, could not drive their defensive stakes into the ground due to terrain and their position was overrun by the mounted Lombards of the French left. The retreat carried the survivors to the baggage train some distance back behind the English army where the mounted Lombards met the cavalry of the French right who launched a furious assault on the English baggage trains. The English centre-right led by Bedford comprised of dismounted knights and men at arms steadily pushed the French infantry in front of them back and separated themselves from Salisbury commanding the English left and the Scots who formed division on the French right. After 45 minutes or so of pushing the French forward they finally broke and ran for Verneuil. Bedford halted the chase, turned and began to march back to what was now the left flank and rear of the Scots division. Meanwhile the archers and English reserves routed the cavalry attacking the baggage trains and attack the Scots right flank nearly surrounding them. It is said Scots were butchered to man given the hatred between the two sides.

So in this case at least we can safely say that such an occurrence happened at least once in history. Battles of Antiquity however do not have even the scant first hand accounts that Medieval battles have so we do not know to what extend fragmentation of the line occurred. I suspect though that it would have been equally chaotic. Certainly at Gaugamela it seems readily accepted that once Alexander's heavy cavalry charge to the centre of the Persian line occurred, there existed 3 separate and distinct engagements of some distance from each other until Alexander turned to aid Parmenion.

So I think saying that such events would be "preposterous" is going a bit far.

In any case, the primary offender in all of this which is causing some folks consternation tends to be superior/elite heavy foot units that can repeatedly lose combat rounds (and thus be eligible to be pushed back) but sturdy enough to continuously survive cohesion checks to avoid getting fragmented and then routed. Any troops with quality ratings below average certainly cannot mathematically sustain multiple rounds of lost combat and not break with any regularity. Remember that negative penalties kick in fairly quickly. -1 if you suffered 5% or more casualties (easily attainable on a 480 man unit which is 25 men) in close combat that round, another -1 if you lose close combat by a large amount (another almost automatic negative) and yet another -1 if total casualties sustained has hit 25% (not hard to reach at all 120 men).

Will there be miracle cases where a lower quality unit manages to do this stunt? Yeah, you can check my Greek vs Warbands AAR I did way back for an example of that. But it is exceedingly rare.

I really would not want much of anything to be changed by this. The current pushback system heavily incentives properly supporting attacks especially in higher point limit games and also highly incentives defense in depth. This extreme push back happens only when 2 armies are strung out so extensively that neither side can exploit the gap that occurred or plug the hole so to speak. A good player should be able to spot vulnerable parts of their line or their opponent's line and have support readily at hand. It means a player has to be able to forecast in advance where these potential breaks occur and that is definitely a skill.

In lower point limit games such as medium or under, there is sometimes not enough units for that to occur but even then these occurrences that stretch reality are really rare from my experience.

[TheJay13]

To Jay13's point about troops being unwilling to continue to push past the line of battle, there is one recorded battle in history that I know of where the battle line definitely broke apart into 3 separate pieces, resolved their own individual smaller engagements before line dancing to a relatively static part of the battle for a finale. This particular battle was the battle of Verneuil between the English and the French/Scot alliance during the Hundred Years war. Its clear from first hand accounts of that battle that separate divisions of each army met the enemy and ended up fighting isolated engagements before "line dancing" back to the centre for a finale.

The English right composed of foot, primarily of Longbowmen, could not drive their defensive stakes into the ground due to terrain and their position was overrun by the mounted Lombards of the French left. The retreat carried the survivors to the baggage train some distance back behind the English army where the mounted Lombards met the cavalry of the French right who launched a furious assault on the English baggage trains. The English centre-right led by Bedford comprised of dismounted knights and men at arms steadily pushed the French infantry in front of them back and separated themselves from Salisbury commanding the English left and the Scots who formed division on the French right. After 45 minutes or so of pushing the French forward they finally broke and ran for Verneuil. Bedford halted the chase, turned and began to march back to what was now the left flank and rear of the Scots division. Meanwhile the archers and English reserves routed the cavalry attacking the baggage trains and attack the Scots right flank nearly surrounding them. It is said Scots were butchered to man given the hatred between the two sides.

So in this case at least we can safely say that such an occurrence happened at least once in history. Battles of Antiquity however do not have even the scant first hand accounts that Medieval battles have so we do not know to what extend fragmentation of the line occurred. I suspect though that it would have been equally chaotic. Certainly at Gaugamela it seems readily accepted that once Alexander's heavy cavalry charge to the centre of the Persian line occurred, there existed 3 separate and distinct engagements of some distance from each other until Alexander turned to aid Parmenion.

So I think saying that such events would be "preposterous" is going a bit far.

In any case, the primary offender in all of this which is causing some folks consternation tends to be superior/elite heavy foot units that can repeatedly lose combat rounds (and thus be eligible to be pushed back) but sturdy enough to continuously survive cohesion checks to avoid getting fragmented and then routed. Any troops with quality ratings below average certainly cannot mathematically sustain multiple rounds of lost combat and not break with any regularity. Remember that negative penalties kick in fairly quickly. -1 if you suffered 5% or more casualties (easily attainable on a 480 man unit which is 25 men) in close combat that round, another -1 if you lose close combat by a large amount (another almost automatic negative) and yet another -1 if total casualties sustained has hit 25% (not hard to reach at all 120 men).

Will there be miracle cases where a lower quality unit manages to do this stunt? Yeah, you can check my Greek vs Warbands AAR I did way back for an example of that. But it is exceedingly rare.

I really would not want much of anything to be changed by this. The current pushback system heavily incentives properly supporting attacks especially in higher point limit games and also highly incentives defense in depth. This extreme push back happens only when 2 armies are strung out so extensively that neither side can exploit the gap that occurred or plug the hole so to speak. A good player should be able to spot vulnerable parts of their line or their opponent's line and have support readily at hand. It means a player has to be able to forecast in advance where these potential breaks occur and that is definitely a skill.

In lower point limit games such as medium or under, there is sometimes not enough units for that to occur but even then these occurrences that stretch reality are really rare from my experience.

Perhaps I was being hyperbolic but I would like to point out that the descriptions you give of those battles suggest that they were large bodies of troops, not small 400 man chunks, breaking off on their own. It would be an interesting feature if a whole chunk of line were pushed back at a time (say 3 units) but that would probably require extensive redesigning and isnt really the point of the thread.

After reading your post and some further reflection I did note that I play a lot of smaller battles which can make it difficult to act in force and support attacks which may be skewing my sample size and experience quite a bit and the AI does not really do much as far as defence in depth is concerned. Perhaps if I played online I would not have this problem so severely (I have horrible anxiety about playing these kinds of games online) and I may change my views.

I also thought up a couple of other alternative solutions, one involves changing the AI to allow it to make better use of defense in depth and reserve units and my other would be to lessen the frequency of pushes. Perhaps they could only happen upon charge impact and after losing badly a couple of times in a row or if a unit panics and immediately drops to fragmented.

[MikeC_81]

That might explain a lot.

Online, people simply do not allow isolated units to just go unpunished like that where a unit has a chance to go it alone for multiple squares. No one is going to pass up on juicy flanks at any time. An unsupported units breaking through usually gets punished within a one or turns of offering flanks. If that section of the line is doing so poorly no reserves are available to do something about it....well....things have gone terribly wrong and most units are crumbling around the one being pushed back.

The AI, like all games, is simply terrible. Stop playing the AI and hop online. There is no need for anxiety. I haven't met a rude player yet and the game is still new enough that everyone except the pros still make lots of mistakes.