Pushbacks (again)

[Odenathus]

I know we discussed this in relation to units that would otherwise be pushed back holding firm without any penalty if prevented by terrain, but I see that players are using the same technique for friendly units. If you position even a fragmented light behind one of your units in melee, and the latter would normally be pushed back, it cannot physically move so 'holds firm'. Without suffering any penalty. An excellent device and I'm ashamed to admit that I've started using it myself.

Is that really what happened? I know about Epaminondas forming his hoplite phalanxes extra deep to give them more weight, and that very solid infantry might refuse to let fleeing comrades disorder their lines (e.g. Zama).

But did Ancient/Commanders really use this technique: it feels more like a cunning widdle to me? I can't help but think that either the supporting unit should go back as well, or that the one being held in place should suffer some extra penalty - one level cohesion loss? I realise that it would probably depend upon the morale and formation of the unit actually fighting, and that of the one preventing it moving, or that it's impossible to amend the engine to accommodate any changes, but a line of fragmented lights holding their comrades in place until other friends or a better dice throw comes along just doesn't sit comfortably with me.

Am I alone, or have I misunderstood it? Probably.

[devoncop]

That is really interesting.

I had realised that this happened occasionally but hadnt realised it was a 100% feature. That is not good and no doubt it gives a use for the untrained rabble keeping an outmatched phalanx in line....

I would have thought a step cohesion loss would make most sense as troops in front panicked as they found the crush from behind preventing them falling back.

[stockwellpete]

Any tactic that reduces the number of pushbacks that we get at the moment is OK with me. I don't mind one pushback; two pushbacks between the same units will often mean that the units lose contact with other friendly units on either side of them and that is where the problem starts for me. My record so far for pushbacks between the same two units is five! A pike unit (with commander) pushed a hoplite unit up a hill and down the other side before routing it. All the other units stopped fighting and applauded!

[rbodleyscott]

Allowing enemy psiloi to effectively prevent pushbacks and cause disruption like this would be even more egregious. (Anyone recall the DBM tactic of "buttocks of death")

[MVP7]

I always presumed that preventing push back with another unit automatically resulted in cohesion loss. Seems extremely cheesy that being blocked results in no loss of cohesion even though that is what would literally happen if the front of a formation started pushing back, compressing the formation against another unit.

Easy way to avoid the potential light infantry exploit that would result from fixing this exploit would be to make any light infantry automatically evade one tile if a unit is pushed into the light infantry's tile.

[rbodleyscott]

We made a design decision that less cheesiness would result from units not falling back when there is a unit behind them, than would arise from allowing other troops to disrupt them merely by blocking their recoil. This was the mechanism in DBM and it sucked because of the opportunities for gamesmanship.

If a unit behind an enemy unit that is in combat wants to mess it up, they can charge them in the rear, not merely block them.

This is not a thought experiment, we have seen what happens when units can be disrupted merely by blocking their recoil, and we did not like what we saw. It may sound realistic in theory, but it produces unrealistic player behaviour and hence unrealistic results overall.

[devoncop]

Allowing enemy psiloi to effectively prevent pushbacks and cause disruption like this would be even more egregious. (Anyone recall the DBM tactic of "buttocks of death")

Agreed.

That comes under the law of unintended consequences. Surely it would be possible for only medium or heavy troops to have this effect?

In other words a pushed back phalanx would displace an enemy or friendly light unit (as in the normal game mechanics) but a friendly medium or heavy unit would cause a step reduction in any unit unable to be pushed back.

[MVP7]

I agree that the suggested mechanic would be far more severely exploitable than the current situation if light units worked like the others.

If light units simply evaded when someone is pushed back towards them there is very little to be gained by the pushing player that couldn't already be gained by having non-light units behind the enemy line. Not only would this prevent forcing the line to stay still without penalties, it would also entirely prevent players from doing so with their own light units which often end up loitering behind the friendly line anyway.

[nikgaukroger]

Allowing enemy psiloi to effectively prevent pushbacks and cause disruption like this would be even more egregious. (Anyone recall the DBM tactic of "buttocks of death")

Ah the glory days

[Najanaja]

[quote]Allowing enemy psiloi to effectively prevent pushbacks and cause disruption like this would be even more egregious. (Anyone recall the DBM tactic of "buttocks of death")[/quote]

Yep

[ahuyton]

Allowing enemy psiloi to effectively prevent pushbacks and cause disruption like this would be even more egregious. (Anyone recall the DBM tactic of "buttocks of death")

Ah the glory days

It was often a case of a millimetre or so and your prize superior Spartans would die what seemed a very unjust death. Any mechanism, not matter how well meant (as was the case with the dbm anti recoil device), will be gamed so it is a case of the least worst option, I guess. I find that it works fine in FoG2 and is not at all frustrating.

Sometimes it can be frustrating when your pike general pushes back the enemy troops only to find himself isolated and surrounded, and therefore flanked and soon dead. But that seems to me perfectly realistic.

[Odenathus]

Interesting tales, but maybe I didn't make my original point very clearly: my beef was with friendly fragmented lights being used to hold their heavier colleagues in place.

I understand the reluctance to let light units do it just to cause extra disruption to enemy units fighting other friends, although I've never experienced the buttocks of death, or at least not while wargaming.

My thoughts were that it seems a bit widdly to be able to position your own (friendly) fragmented light units behind, say, a line of (friendly) hoplites, in order that the hoplites, if defeated, neither get pushed back nor suffer any extra penalty.

Started doing it myself, but know on my guts that it isn't right.

[w_michael]

Started doing it myself, but know on my guts that it isn't right.

I've done something similar accidentally when up against enemy Impact/Swordsmen foot. I found that if I had a double line of troops (I didn't try a second line of lights) then I greatly reduced the number of times that I suffered secondary and tertiary Impact charges because of push-backs. Two lines of medium or heavy troops doesn't seem as cheesy as a second line of lights.