Slitherine

Hi All,

I recently received a copy of FOG with the ROR expansion for the PC for Christmas. I have enjoyed the game so far, but since I am not familiar with this ruleset some finer details are still being internalized. One question that I want to ask concerns units under my control automatically pursuing enemy units that have broken contact and fled. What mechanic/rule actually triggers this behavior (which I'm guessing is some sort of momentum advance simulation)? I ask because in several situations I have been extremely annoyed when my units perform this maneuver because it breaks my infantry line. In other words, the advancing unit simply leaves his own left and right adjacent units to move forward, thus leaving a hole in the line. The advancing unit is also now isolated. I don't like this. In some situations I'd rather my unit remain put and let the enemy unit take off so that I can't move the entire line together.

Again, I'm new to this game and ruleset. Any clarification would be very helpful.

Cheers,
Phillip

i dont know if there is any hard and fast rule regarding this , but yes it is meant to simulate the victors surging after the fleeing mass of routed enemy.

However by experiance and observation i would say that troops WILL follow routers if/when:
*they are dedicated melee troops ie pikes offensive spears/ light spears lancers impact , heavy weapons types
**I am not sure if defensive spears follow or not, want to say no but....
*most cavalry will follow except units that are primarily bow armed (ie no impact weapon slot)
same thing wth medium foot missle, they wont follow either

*lights: i am pretty sure lights do chase enemy routed lights but NOT other troops
*sad to say after playing this game over a year but i dont think infantry will follow cavalry they rout but again, not 100% sure...

This is one of the more annoying aspects of what is otherwise a great game. There is a continuing debate on how "historical" the game depicts pursuit and discipline in the ranks. The only thing I can say for sure is that if you are expecting to keep a uniform line after battle is joined, you can forget about it. While not having absolute control over your troops is definately historical, I think the game overdoes it with anarchy and pursuit. But having read many threads in this forum dealing with this subject, it seems that those players who are most adept and experienced with the game accept the pursuit and anarchy rules as within historical tolerance.

Thanks for the quick replies. I really appreciate it.

I understand the need to have pursuit rules, as well as anarchy rules for those less than disciplined warrior units (or other types of units outside of command range). I have no problem with, say, less disciplined units continuing pursuit in the heat of the moment (or any number of other examples). This makes sense. On the other hand, I have already in my very limited exposure to the game (again, I just got it for Christmas) have had this situation occurred in instances that I feel are unjustified.

For example, I was slowing advancing Caesars legions against some Brit skirmishing units (who had been trading blows with my velites). The time game when my line was only two hexes from the skirmishers (a mix of mounted and foot). I first pulled my velites behind my line (so I could close the gap with my infantry). Then I began closing the gap with my entire infantry line. All was going well until one legionary unit (described as both disciplined and drilled) broke ranks. I had it first engage with a mounted skirmishing unit that had become adjacent as as part of moving forward with the rest of the line. Of course, the mounted unit wisely evaded back several hexes. Unfortunately, the legionary unit automatically continued forward an additional hex (and thus ahead of the rest of the line) to occupy the recently vacated hex of the mounted skirmisher. This seems uncalled for and foolish. This supposedly disciplined and drilled foot unit, who is also only two hexes away from Caesar's own command unit, decides to pursue a light mounted skirmishing unit on foot (or at least advance)? In doing so, the unit has isolated itself from the rest of the line and created unnecessary vulnerable flanks in the line. As mentioned earlier, I do not like this and find it hard to justify this move (in game terms or historically).

Cheers,
Phillip

Sorry, I forgot to ask. . . .

How does the program decide which units continue forward (TheGrayMouser's comments are a good start)? Is there a formula, base chance, etc.? In short, I would like to have some more concrete idea on how this is determined by the game. Knowing this will be helpful when moving units and having them engage in the future. For example, if I know the chances are high that my unit would continue to pursue if the enemy flees then I might make another decision during a battle.

Thanks,
Phillip

I can't say whether the whole pursuit-thing is historical or not, since I know bugger-all about ancient battles.
But one way of avoiding the whole broken-line syndrome is to use your skirmishers like they should be, i.e. to chase away enemy skirmishers.
Clear the enemy lights out first, *then* move in your battle line.
Your own skirmishers won't get in the way since they can filter through the line.

Alternatively, if you can't chase away the enemy lights, use your own skirmishers to pin it in melee, and then move your heavies in to kill it.

In short, the rules are a little unclear as to what exactly happens during pursuit (as with a lot of other stuff), so the best way to keep control is to avoid the issue altogether.
Once battle between the main line is joined, you can forget all about order though

Just my 2 cents.

Lars

PSEg, as far as i know there is no formula on whether a unit actually follows a router , nor how far they chase a router, they either follow or not and it is definaletly tied into the type of troop that is following: Good rule of thumb is if the chaser is a unit that likes to melee, it will follow, if it is a crossbowman or bow unit/ horse-archer etc it likly will not.....
The unit will chase the router until it leaves the map or is destroyed, the routed unit loses x amt of men every turn until they "evaporate".

You can likly use the editor to test if certain units will follow, for example i do not believe defensive spears will, nor sword armed mediums if they are in rugged terrain.....

Evaders (like your example of a legion chasing away a light)
Now for how many hexes a unit will give chase... There is a random dice that both the attacking unit and the evading unit roll to see how many hexes over and under both will move. This is why very rarely a heavier unit sometimes can catch a more nimble one ( ie the heavier rolled high , the lighter low)

There is no "disciplined" unit charactoristic units are drilled or undrilled. Drilled units will have a better chance to avoid anarchy but if they are "shock troops" (lancers, impact foot which means legions, offensive spears and pikes) they will need to test to charge if they are in range of a target.

As CheerfullyInsane advsied, best keep your shock troops out of range, screen them etc until you decide when they should strike, otherwise they will do it on their own piecemeal.
Having a leader in range/adjacent and being drilled can mitigate but not avoid anarchy completely

I have put my two cents in on prior posts that perhaps a new unit attribute should be created, call it discipline or impetuosity, whatever , and have THAT factor in towrds the likly hood of anarchying (or even chasing routers) and keep it seperate from drilled/undrilled... That way Alexanders pikes wont leave formation but Swiss ones might very well do so..... any way nothing is always going to make sense historically in a game system that covers 2 millenium of warefare.

Again, thanks to everyone for the replies. I appreciate the assistance. I'll keep all of your comments in mind as I play through some scenarios.

TheGrayMouser . . . forgive my mentioning the characteristic "discipline." I meant to write that it was a "superior" unit. I've since gone through and read up on what things like "superior," "drilled," and so forth mean for the various units mechanically in this game. I do agree, however, that another trait that monitors chances for anarchy and pursuing routing units would be nice. Maybe in a tabletop ruleset such an addition might slowdown gameplay and over complicate things. But since the digital version has a program to take care of everything I do not see it as a problem.

CheerfullyInsane . . . I agree that skirmishers are good for keeping the opponent's skirmishers occupied, or for chasing them away. However, even distribution of skirmishes for both sides doesn't always come up. Sometimes the enemy has far more fast, skirmishing units making it impossible to chase them all away with your own skirmishers (whether that velites, light mounted, etc.). Still, I agree with your comments for when this is a possibility and thank you for your comments and advice.

Again, thanks for all the helpful comments.

Cheers,
Phillip

PS I apologize for all my typos. I really should proof my posts.

Regarding who pursues, I believe it comes down to who intiated the combat, i.e. units that charged into contact in impact pursue if victorious while chargees stay put if they win.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Regarding who pursues, I believe it comes down to who intiated the combat, i.e. units that charged into contact in impact pursue if victorious while chargees stay put if they win.

Deeter

Him I never considered that might be what happens but i tend to think maybe not... Will need to test this

Thanks for the the reply, deeter.

I'll also look into this.

Cheers,
Phillip

In FoG TT, the only times that a BG does not always pursue broken opponents when all their opponents have broken is when foot have broken mounted. Then they need to take a CMT to not pursue if the foot are shock troops, otherwise they must take a CMT if they want to pursue.

In FoG digital the behavious I think I've seen is:

- Fragmented BGs do not pursue (this is different from TT).
- Disrupted BGs appears to often not pursue but I don't think this is always the case.
- Non shock foot, at least missle equipped, seem not to pursue mounted (but may may not always be true)
- Shock foot (or at least non missile armed) seem to some times pursue mounted.

Chris

well i did a real quick rudimenatry test on this:

created army A, pike, offensive spear, impact, medium bow(no swords), lt spear cavalry and lancer, facing army B of all mobs, all units spread out to reduce other factors

Test one army A initiated the impacts and after 3 turns routed every B mobs. without exception every Army A chased the routed B bg's (to my surprise the medium bows followed as well...)
The only anomaly was the spear only chased one hex and lost contact with the router which implies there is a variable move roll when pursuing...

test two: B, the mobs, initiated the impacts and after 3 turns they were all routed and the victorious army A bg's pursued....

Synopsis; i have no idea!
My own experiances indicates that many times Bg's dont pursue, but of course in a real game so many other factors come into play including terrain etc so who knows...

I m thinking Chris has got the right idea by looking at the TT rules.....