Slitherine

@Archaeologist1970

I like that idea

Archaeologist1970 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:47 pm Is there no way to tie push backs to experience of the unit? I think this is the key between both views. If i stick all my raw troops/warbands up front at least I could pre-plan that the push back shenanigans is probably going to happen. A good general will probably stick the raw troops on the wings and then it will not look so weird when it happens.

Yes, if there is any degree of random element in what we decide to test, it could be modified according to troop experience/warbands.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:44 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:39 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:14 am
Yes, I think that might be the most sensible change to make.

The question is then whether it applies to the "Faller Back" or to the "Follower up". In the former case the melee would temporarily continue in its current position, in the latter the enemy would still fall back but not be followed up. In my view the latter is easier to reconcile with reality, but the former may be better gamewise. (To avoid lemonisation).

Follower-up. 100%-50%-0%

I could probably live with this, although it may alter game balance in favour of tough shock troops. However, given the good performance of "wall of crap" armies in the tournament, this might not be a bad thing.

Leaving aside the issue of maintaining the battle line, it can be justified on the grounds of the victors needing to "stop for a breather".

One unit type that would have to be re-balanced if it the melee stops after too many push-backs are the pikes. They are already struggling to provide good bang for the buck and pretty much the only thing where they are decent for their price is long melee where they usually push back several times.

Could have it so the units sometimes stay stuck in melee but don't push back, like how pike keils work in Pike and Shot.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:40 pm Could have it so the units sometimes stay stuck in melee but don't push back, like how pike keils work in Pike and Shot.

I guess technically it's the losing side that is giving way rather than the winning side physically pushing them.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:58 pm

julianbarker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:09 pm My question is what is not pushing back meant to represent? An infantry unit will be focused on the enemy it is engaged with. If that enemy is falling back (but not running away) what is the winner meant to do? The game has them doing what the historical record suggest they did, which is continue to exploit the advantage they have over their primary opponent. Is there any record of a winning unit in this period stopping advance to allow the enemy in front of them to rest, reform, and regain the advantage?

The winning unit can't turn and flank the enemy line until their opponent rout because otherwise they expose themselves to the unit they are defeating. So are they meant to just stand their and wait for the unit they are defeating to have a go back?

There is historical record of units pushing through, engaging second line, turning to face flank and rear once the enemy in front rout etc. But any evidence of standing around like lemons?

No-one is talking about "fall backs" where the unit that initiated the melee gets a bad result and disengages. That unit can be engaged by the enemy on the next turn as usual. We are talking about preventing push-backs that take the victorious unit out of contact with friendly units. In these situations the two units would stay in contact with each other and the melee would continue. So no-one would be standing around like lemons.

I think RBS has dealt with this, but so I understand your position, you are suggesting losing units don't fall back when being beaten because the attacker doesn't want to advance? Sorry, but that seems absurd to me. Push back occurs because losers fall back and attackers follow up to retain and maintain the advantage.

The consequence of that is that if losers that are pushed back are not followed up then this will be a disengagement. That is an inevitable consequence of winners not following up when a push back occurs. Otherwise losing defender behaviour is dictated by passive winner behaviour which makes absolutely no sense.

How will the 100:50:0 system work when I have flanked the enemy and am driving the enemy's flank guards back towards the heart of his army at right angles to their front line? Is my successful flanking manoeuvre going to be penalised by this?

julianbarker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:30 pm I think RBS has dealt with this, but so I understand your position, you are suggesting losing units don't fall back when being beaten because the attacker doesn't want to advance? Sorry, but that seems absurd to me. Push back occurs because losers fall back and attackers follow up to retain and maintain the advantage.

But units losing melees will sometimes stay steady, sometimes fall back, and sometimes suffer a cohesion drop. I am saying that if they are beaten in a melee round and have already fallen back to the same opponent then they will either stay steady or suffer a cohesion drop.

The consequence of that is that if losers that are pushed back are not followed up then this will be a disengagement. That is an inevitable consequence of winners not following up when a push back occurs. Otherwise losing defender behaviour is dictated by passive winner behaviour which makes absolutely no sense.

But there would be no push-back on a second occasion so the units would stay in contact and continue the melee.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:39 am There's always the option to simply reduce the probability of push-backs as they start mounting up. If the current probability of five push-backs occurring in an encounter between two units (when the conditions for a push-back are met) is 100%-100%-100%-100%-100%, the propability could be reduced to something like 100%-100%-50%-25%-13%. That would have no effect on the usual liveliness of the battle line but it would make the extreme cases rarer without making them impossible to occur.

I did almost suggest something like this before. However, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not keen on it as it's inconsistent with the otherwise deterministic rules which govern which units can break off/follow up and under what circumstances. An exception is not catastrophic but I like the implicit philosophy underpinning those rules (i.e. that the unit interactions are predictable) and I'm not sure the game needs another hidden random roll.

The 100-50-0 solution I guess is not so terrible in that respect, as there's only very limited randomness. But the automatic break after two pushbacks would seem to preclude the kinds of situations Richard has described previously (i.e. accounts of real battles where units were pushed back the equivalent of 4-5 squares).

This is why I'd favour instead a system which limits follow-ups in terms of deterministic conditions, e.g. only in situations where the victorious unit has momentum like I suggested above (i.e. on impact or when the opposing unit has lost cohesion; I guess you could add in warbands and raw troops as always following up as well if you wanted to simulate their impetuousness/lack of discipline).

One problem with phalanx not doing pushback when the opponent backs off is they might be subject to another painful impact round if against strong impact foot units. They would rather keep the melee going until the opponent breaks.

I am not going to rehash all the things I have discussed before but I personally feel that limiting pushbacks to this system is a major negative in terms of a player skill check.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:56 am

ahuyton wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:05 amI have no objection to the push-back mechanisms, precisely because they introduce some chaos into the game.

FOG2 is a game, not a pure simulation. Because it is played on squares, it is impossible to keep the scaling for width and depth constantly valid for all game mechanisms, and sometimes things will look a bit odd. (And not like the maps shown in books). This is one of those things.

However, any game must make compromises to allow playability and "fun". A pure simulation, especially one based on a literal representation of events as described in simplified battle accounts, would make a very boring game for most people.

I disagree that "realistic" has to be "boring". Look at Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War. That's an incredible game, is easy/fun to play, and yet beautifully captures the strategic dilemma facing Hannibal. What is boring to me is a game that wastes my time by purporting to be a wargame when it's not.

I'm sorry to be harsh, but perhaps I've missed the entire point of this game. If I wanted something merely "fun" that was cool to look at and captured the "flavor" of ancient warfare, why wouldn't I simply fire up Rome II Total War? At least in that game, you see the AI trying to maintain some modicum of cohesion -- as opposed to blindly chasing units all around the map. The AI tries to protect its flanks and will actually pause to maintain a proper line of advance. You tend to get results that are at least plausible.

Right now, FOG2 simply cannot reproduce anything resembling the ancient battles of history. Every battle inevitably devolves into a mish-mash of AI units seeking some temporary tactical advantage - even when doing so is obvious suicide. Additionally, your own units will prove uncontrollable as they "push back" enemy units here and there - leading to bizarre near-instantaneous penetrations of the enemy line, with units here and there wandering around far beyond any hope of retreat or support.

Obviously, I expected something that, while simple, would at least somewhat reward proper tactics. What I got is so abstracted that it seems to have completely lost touch with the underlying subject matter. What's the point of that?

PS - The game does do some things really well. I love how skirmishers can avoid attacks. I love how light troops can fall back through their own ranks. These are outstanding features. Please just go a little bit further and you might just end up with something quite good.

erichswafford wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 3:25 am I'm sorry to be harsh, but perhaps I've missed the entire point of this game. If I wanted something merely "fun" that was cool to look at and captured the "flavor" of ancient warfare, why wouldn't I simply fire up Rome II Total War? At least in that game, you see the AI trying to maintain some modicum of cohesion -- as opposed to blindly chasing units all around the map. The AI tries to protect its flanks and will actually pause to maintain a proper line of advance. You tend to get results that are at least plausible.

Right now, FOG2 simply cannot reproduce anything resembling the ancient battles of history. Every battle inevitably devolves into a mish-mash of AI units seeking some temporary tactical advantage - even when doing so is obvious suicide. Additionally, your own units will prove uncontrollable as they "push back" enemy units here and there - leading to bizarre near-instantaneous penetrations of the enemy line, with units here and there wandering around far beyond any hope of retreat or support.

This is very much a symptom of poor play and strategy. The only reason why there are battle results which appear similar to your image in the first post is the lack of reserves and the lack of planning for potential outcomes. There is no reason why the blue Pike unit should not have been immediately punished for attacking and breaking through without units in support from behind. Nor was there a reason for the blue pike unit to attack in that direction in the first place if follow-on units could not protect and or exploit the flanks of a breakthrough.

julianbarker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 6:30 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Sep 20, 2018 8:58 pm No-one is talking about "fall backs" where the unit that initiated the melee gets a bad result and disengages. That unit can be engaged by the enemy on the next turn as usual. We are talking about preventing push-backs that take the victorious unit out of contact with friendly units. In these situations the two units would stay in contact with each other and the melee would continue. So no-one would be standing around like lemons.

I think RBS has dealt with this, but so I understand your position, you are suggesting losing units don't fall back when being beaten because the attacker doesn't want to advance? Sorry, but that seems absurd to me. Push back occurs because losers fall back and attackers follow up to retain and maintain the advantage.

The consequence of that is that if losers that are pushed back are not followed up then this will be a disengagement. That is an inevitable consequence of winners not following up when a push back occurs. Otherwise losing defender behaviour is dictated by passive winner behaviour which makes absolutely no sense.

Logically I agree. On the other hand, if it makes the game better than allowing them to break off, it might be better to do it this way. Cavalry vs Cavalry combats already work like this - the losers can't break off if they were attacked by shock troops, but they don't get pushed back either.

It won't be readily apparent to the user anyway, because already not all losing melees (with red casualty numbers) result in a pushback, only those where the loser "lost badly".

Making them stay in contact, but not move, would avoid altering the dynamic between the various troop-types.

Kabill wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 7:57 pm I did almost suggest something like this before. However, I've come to the conclusion that I'm not keen on it as it's inconsistent with the otherwise deterministic rules which govern which units can break off/follow up and under what circumstances. An exception is not catastrophic but I like the implicit philosophy underpinning those rules (i.e. that the unit interactions are predictable) and I'm not sure the game needs another hidden random roll.

Well, as I have said before, the real problem with the system is that a whole square is too far for a realistic pushback (given the current frequency of pushbacks), but it is the smallest distance that the game can use.

So a deterministic way of dealing with the issue would be to only allow alternate pushbacks to occur.

i.e. The first time a pushback occurs, it occurs as normal. The second time it would occur, it is ignored and the units stay put and stay fighting. The third time a pushback result occurs, the pushback occurs as normal. And so on.

This would immediately halve the overall depth of multiple pushbacks.

And the logic is that the pushback is really assumed to be half a square per pushback, but the game represents this by moving the units 1 square every two "pushbacks".

And before anybody suggests it, making the first actual pushback occur on the second pushback occasion rather than the first would not get the intended design effect. Half a square - 100 paces - dysjunct in the line should be plenty in real life to allow the unit to be flanked. Which (because of ZOCs or physical blockage by another unit) will only be possible if the unit had no friendly unit beside it in the first place - in which case it should not have attacked unless it was facing the end of the enemy line - or it followed up at a funny angle. Either way it is fully predictable, so the player can avoid it by not charging if a push back will lead to the unit being flanked. The second actual pushback cannot occur for at least 2 combat rounds, meaning that the player will always have a chance to move his other units before the 2nd pushback occurs. Always supposing that he does have other troops to move up in support - and if he doesn't, that is just poor play.

One thing that does bother me a bit from a gameplay perspective is the fact that it can be almost impossible to prevent flanking after your units pushback on the enemy's turn even if you do have follow-up reserves. If your opponent turns their line on a diagonal, one pushback is enough to put your units in the line of fire of the back line, and if it happens on enemy turn, you won't even get a chance to move someone up to support. This can essentially make it impossible for the impact foot of an attacking line to avoid being flanked, as no amount of planning can avoid that situation.

Getting one unit flanked isn't always the end of the world if you've got enough reserves to deal with the situation, but it creates a very harsh situation for attacking impact foot. On the other hand, seeing as impact foot can potentially shatter a section of the line quickly and create an early advantage, it's possible that this is a good balance to that. You should have more than one potential line of advance planned out anyway.

First push-back followed by "half" push-backs sounds pretty good.

@Ludendorf, Do you mean the attacker getting actually flanked or just getting attacked by multiple opponents from adjacent squares? I can't think of a way how you could go from straight line of battle to having unit getting properly flanked without playing at least one turn in between.

Ludendorf wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:01 am One thing that does bother me a bit from a gameplay perspective is the fact that it can be almost impossible to prevent flanking after your units pushback on the enemy's turn even if you do have follow-up reserves. If your opponent turns their line on a diagonal, one pushback is enough to put your units in the line of fire of the back line, and if it happens on enemy turn, you won't even get a chance to move someone up to support. This can essentially make it impossible for the impact foot of an attacking line to avoid being flanked, as no amount of planning can avoid that situation.

Getting one unit flanked isn't always the end of the world if you've got enough reserves to deal with the situation, but it creates a very harsh situation for attacking impact foot. On the other hand, seeing as impact foot can potentially shatter a section of the line quickly and create an early advantage, it's possible that this is a good balance to that. You should have more than one potential line of advance planned out anyway.

Yes, I agree with this. That is why I would prefer units staying in contact (albeit diagonally) following a push-back. I don't actually think flank attacks (where automatic cohesion loss occurs) should generally happen in the middle of larger melees at all. Flank attacks should happen on the flanks throughout a battle and only usually in more central areas if gaps open up as formations start to rupture as the battle proceeds.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:06 am First push-back followed by "half" push-backs sounds pretty good.

@Ludendorf, Do you mean the attacker getting actually flanked or just getting attacked by multiple opponents from adjacent squares? I can't think of a way how you could go from straight line of battle to having unit getting properly flanked without playing at least one turn in between.

I mean being properly flanked. Try turning your battle line to diagonals just before your opponent's infantry make contact with you. Any pushbacks should push your units back and diagonally to your line, presenting the enemy's open flank to any reserves waiting behind your battle line. The only reason I'm aware of this trick is because I've fallen victim to it myself.

The worst case scenario basically works like this:

Defenders turn: Defender turns his or her line to face diagonally.
Attackers' turn: Attacker engages front of defending line with impact foot. Because of the diagonal facing, the engagement breaks out diagonally. By chance, no pushback happens here, so there's no chance for the attacker to move up reserves. They can wait behind the line, but that's it.
Defenders turn: Some of the attacking units score a victory and push back the defending units. Because of the diagonal facing, the pushback pushes the infantry back one square sideways and one square backwards. This presents a side of the attacking infantry which can be flanked. Because the pushback happened on the defender's turn, the defender can flank with well-positioned infantry or cavalry before the attacker can do anything.
Attacker's turn: The attacker can move up reserves at this point, but it's too late; the defender has already flanked one of their units.

Ludendorf wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:58 am

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:06 am First push-back followed by "half" push-backs sounds pretty good.

@Ludendorf, Do you mean the attacker getting actually flanked or just getting attacked by multiple opponents from adjacent squares? I can't think of a way how you could go from straight line of battle to having unit getting properly flanked without playing at least one turn in between.

I mean being properly flanked. Try turning your battle line to diagonals just before your opponent's infantry make contact with you. Any pushbacks should push your units back and diagonally to your line, presenting the enemy's open flank to any reserves waiting behind your battle line. The only reason I'm aware of this trick is because I've fallen victim to it myself.

The worst case scenario basically works like this:

Defenders turn: Defender turns his or her line to face diagonally.
Attackers' turn: Attacker engages front of defending line with impact foot. Because of the diagonal facing, the engagement breaks out diagonally. By chance, no pushback happens here, so there's no chance for the attacker to move up reserves. They can wait behind the line, but that's it.
Defenders turn: Some of the attacking units score a victory and push back the defending units. Because of the diagonal facing, the pushback pushes the infantry back one square sideways and one square backwards. This presents a side of the attacking infantry which can be flanked. Because the pushback happened on the defender's turn, the defender can flank with well-positioned infantry or cavalry before the attacker can do anything.
Attacker's turn: The attacker can move up reserves at this point, but it's too late; the defender has already flanked one of their units.

good point, well made

I'm not a big fan with the way push back is currently implemented either. I dislike the ability to use a cheap line of troops who you support intermittently with full or partly perpendicular units that prevents the unit to front from being pushed back but the other units to be pushed or routed opening up the flanks of a more expensive unit that is coming through. It feels too gamey. I prefer the idea of maintaining contact with your line or eliminating flank impacts. What I mean by this is that if you push through then any adjacent enemy units that appear on your flanks are automatically drawn into the melee rather than having the option to charge your flank. This would reflect the natural drawing in of surrounding units into the brawl. Flank charges would be possible though if they originate from two or more hexes away.