A few questions about FoG II

[CharlesdeBatz]

Hi all,

I've just purchased FOG II after a considerable time playing SJ/P&S, and have already run into some of the major differences:

- player-adjustable order of melee adjudication
- flank charges not leading to a cohesion drop unless the unit being charged is already in melee
- no reactive fire by ranged units

So, my questions on these topics:

1. Does the AI, on its turn, select individual melees to adjudicate (as opposed to having them run in order in the melee phase following its turn)? I am assuming that the order of adjudication in melee phase remains unchanged from the previous games (i.e., that melees are adjudicated in the order that they were initiated).

2. What is the reasoning behind the change in flank charge mechanics? I'm not questioning the accuracy of this change, but am curious about why it was implemented (and, more broadly, why it wasn't present in the previous game).

Thanks in advance for any information

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[CharlesdeBatz]

I do have a (potential) argument to support the lack of an auto-drop if the unit being charged is not already in melee.

If we consider that the turn-based system inherently "groups" multiple actions into a single click (such as when you select the 'charge' icon), then the charge encompasses all of the following:

1. The initial command to charge given to the charging unit
2. Any changes in formation by the charging unit prior to beginning the charge (possibly able to be observed by the unit receiving the charge, especially if they are non-committed)
3. The initial movement to charge (of course, assuming that the unit charging is far enough away in order to build momentum for the impact; again, potentially observable by the receiving unit)
4. The pre-impact phase of the charge; acceleration from walk->trot->canter->gallop (at this point, likely observable by a non-committed unit, which can then at least partially change its facing prior to impact)

Basically, there is a relatively high likelihood that the receiving unit will observe the impending charge and take some action (whether complete or not) to react to it, which means that a unit starting the charge on the flank would not necessarily impact the flank of its target at impact. This would, in reality, depend on the target unit's level of experience (in game terms, above average/superior/elite/etc.) as that would affect the speed of such a formation change. But I suspect making auto-drops dependent on the target's experience level might be veering into the "bottom-up" approach which these games avoid.

I have recalled, also, that the auto-drop in P&S is not universal, as Keils and Later Tercios are immune to flank attacks, while Early Tercios are additionally immune to rear attacks. It appears that this differentiation by unit type has not made it into FoG (for better or worse).

Then again, this could also reflect the lesser role of cavalry in the Ancient period (due to various factors, including the lack of stirrups and overall smaller mounts); perhaps there could be a classification of Heavy/Shock cavalry which is able to generate an auto-drop from a flank/rear attack?

Anyway, these are my thoughts; undoubtedly a long post, but hopefully interesting.

[Gaznak]

Ai fights its melees from most advantaged to least advantaged.

In P&S non-light cavalry stand and eat charges where they are disadvantaged. In FOG2 many will evade, pulling your attacking troops along behind them. You will often find your lancers partially surrounded by enemy horse after their charge. Making them not auto-drop on flank attacks makes them much more survivable after they have pursued into the enemy formation.

[CharlesdeBatz]

That's true. I had been thinking mostly about flank charges against infantry (which are generally in closer formation than cavalry, especially on the defensive), but I definitely agree with your point regarding cavalry pursuits.

[CharlesdeBatz]

Ai fights its melees from most advantaged to least advantaged.

Is there any way to prevent it from doing this (i.e., to restore the P&S/SJ method which has the melees automatically adjudicated in the melee phase, without an option to do so during one's turn)?

[Athos1660]

I've just purchased FOG II after a considerable time playing SJ/P&S, and have already run into some of the major differences:
(...)
- flank charges not leading to a cohesion drop unless the unit being charged is already in melee
(...)
2. What is the reasoning behind the change in flank charge mechanics? I'm not questioning the accuracy of this change, but am curious about why it was implemented (and, more broadly, why it wasn't present in the previous game).

This is a big change that surprises SJ/P&S aficionados. I think the rationale is that an unengaged unit is assumed to have some time to become prepared and organized, so that some (or most) of its soldiers can turn over and face the charger, and the charge is not as devastating as in the case of an engaged unit. As for the reason why this change was implemented in FoG2, I don't know whether it comes from SJ/P&S reviewers complaining about the mechanics and/or a pure decision of game design.

[SimonLancaster]

Flank attacks against committed troops happens frequently in FoG 2. They can often have a large effect on the outcome of the battle. I think the POA advantage you get for flank attacks on uncommitted troops is enough as it stands.

[Athos1660]

Basically, there is a relatively high likelihood that the receiving unit will observe the impending charge and take some action (whether complete or not) to react to it, which means that a unit starting the charge on the flank would not necessarily impact the flank of its target at impact. This would, in reality, depend on the target unit's level of experience (in game terms, above average/superior/elite/etc.) as that would affect the speed of such a formation change. But I suspect making auto-drops dependent on the target's experience level might be veering into the "bottom-up" approach which these games avoid.

Maybe it'd hurt the approach of the game. I don't know. However that's interesting food for thought to reintroduce devastating flank/rear charges on unengaged units in the game. Moreover, basing the effect of them on the target's level of experience seems logical. I recently played P&S again after a break : flank/rear charges on unengaged units causing auto-drops are pure fun (especially when it applies to mounted units, as charger and charged). But I can also understand that 'raw' units flank/rear-charging 'Superior' ones and destroying them at impact can be felt as a bit frustrating, unfair or unrealistic.

[GiveWarAchance]

.

[SimonLancaster]

Do I remember rightly that in one of the main mods for FoG 2 they took out all flank attacks that caused auto drops?

[CharlesdeBatz]

Interesting commentary/input from all, and much appreciated.

It’s true that the PoA from a flank attack are likely to result in a cohesion drop anyway; nevertheless, having a cohesion drop before even the impact phase can make a major difference in the eventual outcome.

I also agree that the autodrop in previous games is powerful (perhaps too powerful, as it does stretch credibility somewhat to have 3/4/5 units overrun consecutively, from a flank charge/pursuit chain, without any of them adjusting facing).

Athos, what are your thoughts on introducing a “heavy/shock” cavalry class (perhaps with reduced maneuverability) that will achieve an autodrop on unengaged units when executing a flank charge? Is this realistic for the period?

I’m thinking cataphracts in particular, as the Roman cavalry wouldn’t really fit this category as far as I’m aware.

[Athos1660]

Athos, what are your thoughts on introducing a “heavy/shock” cavalry class (perhaps with reduced maneuverability) that will achieve an autodrop on unengaged units when executing a flank charge?

I like it very much ! (btw I suggested something very close to it somewhere in the forums).

[Athos1660]

Is this realistic for the period?

I’m thinking cataphracts in particular, as the Roman cavalry wouldn’t really fit this category as far as I’m aware.

I agree with you : only the cataphract type could be part of this “heavy/shock” cavalry class during this period imho. I was also a little bit hesitant about them too but after some reading I think they could qualify for it.

[Athos1660]

Athos, what are your thoughts on introducing a “heavy/shock” cavalry class (perhaps with reduced maneuverability) that will achieve an autodrop on unengaged units when executing a flank charge?

I like it very much ! (btw I suggested something very close to it somewhere in the forums).

Here is some reasons why I like it. I like that autodrops concern…

1) … only cavalry, not foot.
- in terms of rationale : if the main rationale about flank charges on unengaged units is : ‘Does the attacked unit have the time to react ?’, then only a ‘fast’ unit can attack and cause autodrops on an unengaged one.

- in terms of fun : in P&S, most of the autodrops by foot comes from pursuing units getting caught and flanked, which is sometimes a bit frustrating and not tactical at all. (btw what I for one like in P&S is precisely its randomness, brutality and lack of control on the units, but this is not the subject here). In FoG2, this issue is solved : most of the foot won’t pursue. On the other hand, pursing cavalry getting flanked because of frenzy and a lack of lucidity and suffering autodrop is less common and more acceptable imho. I for one like it. Moreover, flanking by cavalry often requires preparation and thus seems more tactical. In short, flanking by foot seems often a matter of luck/randomness, flanking by cavalry seems often deliberate and rewarding.

2) … only part of the cavalry, not the entire class. It’d prevent weak units from being devastating during flank charges on strong ones — such as, in P&S, e.g. the Arkebusiers (an average unit without any Impact capabilities) vs Kurassiers (a Superior unit with Pistol Impact) :



imho for this very reason, in the current state of P&S, a strong cavalry such as that of the Spanish 1621-1634 is at disadvantage compared to the weaker but cheaper (and thus often more numerous on the battlefield) cavalry of the French 1623-1634, so that the latter can 'easily' trap the former in flanking position. (It doesn't seem very historical that the pre-1635 French cavalry easily defeats the Spanish one.)


Finally, from an historical perspective, making charges on unengaged units devastating, when the chargers are Cataphracts, Knights, Men-at-arms, Gendarmes or Determined horses with Impact Mounted (or any ?) seems consistent, as they are (quite) fast and always frightening during the charge while being strong at impacts.

Morevover, it would kinda emphasise their impact over their melee, which would be imho realistic.

[SnuggleBunnies]

One thing to keep in mind with Pike and Shot is that in addition to there being certain unflankeable infantry units, many infantry battles in the 17th, especially later 17th century are primarily decided by musketry, not close combat. In that situation, if cavalry didn't cause auto drops, then flanking the enemy army often wouldn't be that effective, thanks to the infantry lines often being engaged at range and not melee. English Civil War maps often include large numbers of hedgerows which prevent flanking and hamper cavalry. Finally, cavalry are in more danger overall, with your standard 42pt Pike and Shot unit being 66% muskets, and thus able to inflict casualties at 4 squares. 33% Pike entirely cancels cavalry Impact and Melee capabilities if Steady, and 66% musket ensures that 2/3 of cavalry armor advantage is negated in melee.

So cavalry arguably needs the help in Pike and Shot. Overall, I prefer the Pike and Shot system (especially the lack of manual melee adjudication to keep things a little less in control of the player), but it could be a bit harsh at times, and favors cheap units which is already somewhat the case in FoGII balancing. FoGII is certainly a more balanced game than Pike and Shot, as it has received far longer patch support.

I do wish at least non-light cavalry in FoGII could be guaranteed +100POA when flank or rear charging unengaged enemies, instead of the current somewhat underwhelming +50.

[Athos1660]

I do wish at least non-light cavalry in FoGII could be guaranteed +100POA when flank or rear charging unengaged enemies, instead of the current somewhat underwhelming +50.

imho several weak non-light cavalry of the ancient and medieval periods (who are like infantrymen tossed around on their horseback, without stirrups nor proper saddle, proper formation, proper weapons) may not deserve it.

[Karvon]

Maybe only give it to cavalry who pass some sort of elan check? That way lower quality guys would be less likely to get it.

[CharlesdeBatz]

Is it possible to stop the AI from manually adjudicating the melees? I don't like doing it for the same reason as SnuggleBunnies (feeling it gives too much control to the player), but it appears the AI will do it regardless.

Edit: I'm also interested in the feasibility of re-enabling reactive fire; I know this would likely unbalance most of the pre-coded scenarios due to ammunition limits, but it still provides a further level of 'simultaneity' in the current IGOUGO system.

[Athos1660]

Reactive fire was discussed here : https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... 92&t=97236