Routing Mechanics

[SimonLancaster]

A few thoughts and ideas...

1. I wonder if troops that rally from routing should get a cohesion test of some kind every turn or whenever.

2. Perhaps the routed troops could be clearer as in the heat of the battle sometimes I forget which are the enemy troops and which to pursue or not especially if fighting against another Greek faction, etc.

3. The pursue mechanic perhaps could be altered slightly in favour of the pursuer so as a. not let them be flank charged and b. spend less time running around like headless chickens.

[Athos1660]

1. Cohesion tests without a specific event/threat that causes them ? A unit had the courage to rally and then keeps on asking itself : 'did I make the right choice, shouldn't I be more frightened' ?

2. The banner of the routed unit becomes white, doesn't it ? And the routed unit (generally?) runs towards its side.

3.
a. The pursue mechanic has already been massively altered in favour of the pursuer as in P&S, cases of pursuing were more numerous, some probabilities of pursuing higher and the flank-charged pursuer (that was thus unengaged) automatically dropped 1 cohesion level while the flank attacker got a Net PoA +200. Moreover, there is no logical reason why pursuers wouldn't be impacted by flank-charge, isn't there ? (Exciting) things must happen in FoG2.

b. only 5 turns, right ?

[SimonLancaster]

1. Well, the men would be seeing the action on the battlefield and sometimes it may be getting worse. I think in Napoleon Total War (as one example) a unit rallying from routing does undergo a cohesion check and sometimes it doesn’t return.

2. All units turn white for both sides. I am talking about making it a clearer distinction between armies (one player has told me that he frequently gets confused as well as to who is the enemy and who is not especially when the battle gets messy).

3. a) I am not sure I would call pursuing a routed unit as a proper engagement as such. Yes, penalise perhaps when attacked but not a full flank attack with cohesion drop. A bit like elephants not being flanked by cavalry or light cav v non-lights. An exception to the general rule of engagement.

b) 5 turns is quite a lot when a game is only 24 turns and the chasing cavalry is in the corner of the map with no hope of making it back to the battle..

These are just ideas but I think they could be worth considering!

[SnuggleBunnies]

3) It isn't a set five turns. There's a % chance to stop after the first turn of pursuit. And it's not an automatic cohesion drop already, just your standard guaranteed +50POA for charging an unengaged unit in the flank.

[MVP7]

Pursue mechanics are already very favorable and controllable for the pursuer. Overzealous pursuits were common and regularly resulted in loss of the pursuing unit or even the entire battle. Personally I'd rather see the pursuing rules returned to what they were in P&S/SJ.

[kbo1915]

3) It isn't a set five turns. There's a % chance to stop after the first turn of pursuit. And it's not an automatic cohesion drop already, just your standard guaranteed +50POA for charging an unengaged unit in the flank.

This brings up my pet peeve about routing/pursuing. That is, I regularly see broken units stop routing a few squares away from the battle even though their path is not blocked, and the pursuing horse, for example, will just be immobilized there for an unknown number of turns, which makes them very vulnerable. I feel that a pursued router who stops routing should be dispersed (because they're being slaughtered), or at the very least when a pursed unit stops routing, the pursuer should be automatically released from pursuit.

Oh, and one of my other pet peeves is, why in this day and age is SSL not enabled on this server?!

[SimonLancaster]

3) It isn't a set five turns. There's a % chance to stop after the first turn of pursuit. And it's not an automatic cohesion drop already, just your standard guaranteed +50POA for charging an unengaged unit in the flank.

This brings up my pet peeve about routing/pursuing. That is, I regularly see broken units stop routing a few squares away from the battle even though their path is not blocked, and the pursuing horse, for example, will just be immobilized there for an unknown number of turns, which makes them very vulnerable. I feel that a pursued router who stops routing should be dispersed (because they're being slaughtered), or at the very least when a pursed unit stops routing, the pursuer should be automatically released from pursuit.

Yes, this was one of my points.. often the enemy will gain an advantage from his troops routing in just the right way!

[Paul59]

3) It isn't a set five turns. There's a % chance to stop after the first turn of pursuit. And it's not an automatic cohesion drop already, just your standard guaranteed +50POA for charging an unengaged unit in the flank.

This brings up my pet peeve about routing/pursuing. That is, I regularly see broken units stop routing a few squares away from the battle even though their path is not blocked, and the pursuing horse, for example, will just be immobilized there for an unknown number of turns, which makes them very vulnerable. I feel that a pursued router who stops routing should be dispersed (because they're being slaughtered), or at the very least when a pursed unit stops routing, the pursuer should be automatically released from pursuit.

Below is a quote from the FOG2 Manual:

"15.3. Rallying
There is a chance at the start of each of its side’s turns that a Disrupted,
Fragmented or Routed unit will take a Cohesion Test to improve its cohesion
state. The chance of testing is much lower if it is routing. However, a unit with
a general will always test.
If it does take a test and scores 6 or more, it rallies and goes up one cohesion level.
Units cannot test to rally if they dropped Cohesion in the previous own or
enemy turn. Routing units cannot test to rally if they are being pursued, or if
they suffered more than 10% losses from shooting in the previous enemy turn."

So what you have described, a routed unit rallying while still being pursued, should not be possible. In over three years of playing this game I don't think I have ever seen that happen.

[SimonLancaster]

Paul, my reading is when he says “stops routing” he just means the unit physically stops moving. What we are talking about (or at least I have making the point in this thread) is that when a routed unit stops and the pursuer is pursuing this can lead to easy flank attacks on the pursuer because he is still engaged in pursuing.

Kbo is saying that the pursuer then becomes very vulnerable. He is suggesting that the routed unit should disperse in this instance.

Apologies if this is the wrong interpretation but it is my point of view, anyway. Dispersal being up for debate.

[Athos1660]

often the enemy will gain an advantage from his troops routing in just the right way!

I think that’s the point of the Routing/Pursuing mechanism. Adding a little bit of unpredictability to the game as in IRL, having units behaving like real troops, not like chess pieces that capture the opponent's pieces and stay put. Troops pursue at the risk of becoming targets. More risk, more fun.

Paul, my reading is when he says “stops routing” he just means the unit physically stops moving. What we are talking about (or at least I have making the point in this thread) is that when a routed unit stops and the pursuer is pursuing this can lead to easy flank attacks on the pursuer because he is still engaged in pursuing.

Kbo is saying that the pursuer then becomes very vulnerable. He is suggesting that the routed unit should disperse in this instance.

Apologies if this is the wrong interpretation but it is my point of view, anyway. Dispersal being up for debate.

While I think I noticed lonely routed units stoping running and staying on the same square during a few turns (generally before dispersing), I have never seen pursuers stuck behind them freezing in pursuing mode during several turns.

[Paul59]

Paul, my reading is when he says “stops routing” he just means the unit physically stops moving. What we are talking about (or at least I have making the point in this thread) is that when a routed unit stops and the pursuer is pursuing this can lead to easy flank attacks on the pursuer because he is still engaged in pursuing.

Kbo is saying that the pursuer then becomes very vulnerable. He is suggesting that the routed unit should disperse in this instance.

Apologies if this is the wrong interpretation but it is my point of view, anyway. Dispersal being up for debate.

Yes, I was wondering if kbo meant something other than what I thought he meant. But surely a routing unit does disperse if it cannot move any further, such as when it's path is blocked by other units?

[kbo1915]

Yes, I meant exactly that the router flees for 2-3 turns, for example, and then stops for some number of turns, or permanently but the pursuing horse stays locked in pursuit the whole time. I've seen this happen times over the course of hundreds of MP games over the last three or so years, that I worry about it and watch them closely. This is for routers who are not blocked in any way. Next time it happens I'll take a picture of it.

[Paul59]

Yes, I meant exactly that the router flees for 2-3 turns, for example, and then stops for some number of turns, or permanently but the pursuing horse stays locked in pursuit the whole time. I've seen this happen times over the course of hundreds of MP games over the last three or so years, that I worry about it and watch them closely. This is for routers who are not blocked in any way. Next time it happens I'll take a picture of it.

A screenshot would be good, because I don't understand what you are describing, a routing unit only stops if it rallies to fragmented, and it cannot rally until the pursuers stop pursuing!

[kbo1915]

A screenshot would be good, because I don't understand what you are describing, a routing unit only stops if it rallies to fragmented, and it cannot rally until the pursuers stop pursuing!

It won't happen in our current game (Clontarf, so no horse) but I'll keep an eye out for it and post a pic. (it's not a question of the routers rallying , they just stop fleeing)

[SimonLancaster]

I think the key point is that the pursuer is 'locked in' when running after a routing unit. The routing unit can move x amount of spaces. Does it vary how many spaces it can actually move? Sometimes the routing unit will 'stop' in a very convenient position for a flank attack to occur (I think this is what kbo means). By "stop" I/we mean where the routing unit finishes its turn!

Yes, bring some excitment and unpredictability to the game. All for that. A unit getting flank charged while pursuing a routing unit not so sure about...

[kraff]

Implementation of routing in FOG2 is definitely too gamey for my taste.

It often leads to situations when a few routing units rally, but they are too far away from the frontline and too far away from each other to be of any help to their army. They are a huge annoyance for the opponent, though, because they steal valuable points. There simply is no other function to such a rout'n'rally than to make your life miserable by prolonging combat and refusing you the win, when you are actually winning. Or, it may lead to a situation when your opponent's two units rally at the latest possible moment and they can hide in the woods, and that ends in a draw, because there is no way you can catch those guys.

[Athos1660]

Implementation of routing in FOG2 is definitely too gamey for my taste.

It often leads to situations when a few routing units rally, but they are too far away from the frontline and too far away from each other to be of any help to their army. They are a huge annoyance for the opponent, though, because they steal valuable points. There simply is no other function to such a rout'n'rally than to make your life miserable by prolonging combat and refusing you the win, when you are actually winning. Or, it may lead to a situation when your opponent's two units rally at the latest possible moment and they can hide in the woods, and that ends in a draw, because there is no way you can catch those guys.

Logic has it that too many lonely rallying units means :
- not enough unit types pursuing
- and/or players not using enough Light troops to deal with routed units

btw I guess that the 'function' of rallying is realism (as opposed to capturing chess pieces once and for all).

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, I am perfectly fine with units rallying on the edge of the map. It really doesn’t happen that much in my games. Honestly, in my last 30 games or so I haven’t seen large numbers of units rallying from routing anywhere. It is usually one unit that is actually fairly close to the battle. It has never impacted the result.

I am beginning to suspect this is more of a problem for games with large armies. I almost always play with medium sized armies.

[kraff]

btw I guess that the 'function' of rallying is realism (as opposed to capturing chess pieces once and for all).

Units in FOG2 rally randomly. This leads to random situations and random outcomes. More often than not those rallied units don't form any coherent fighting force that can have any real impact on actual fighting. Their only value is points, nothing more. In edge case scenarios these points can decide between victory/defeat or a draw. Often they cause a battle to unnecessarily drag on, because before those units can be usable again (meaning committed to fight) the battle ends. How's that realistic?

The idea of committing combat troops to chasing down broken units in order to prevent them from random rallying is gamey, in my opinion. In real life a broken unit is a broken unit, it leaves the battlefield to reform in the rear (and the rear in FOG2 is off the map, I imagine). There's no random switching between levels of organisation in such a unit. First the people need to get out of harm's way (off the battlefield), and then someone has to put them back together into a fighting unit. It takes time. In FOG2 it happens in no time, directly on the battlefield and often without any indication as to who is behind a rally (because a rallying unit is out of command range of its general or its general is dead).

I am beginning to suspect this is more of a problem for games with large armies. I almost always play with medium sized armies.

It depends on what you mean by large numbers. Two phalanxes and one medium foot unit - that something around 13 points? It happens often that 2 or 3 units rally, and you need to break 2 or 3 other in order to get your points back. One time it did affect the outcome of a battle I played - my opponent moved his fragmented units from the main fight and out of my reach, I tried to catch them later with my cavalry, but we reached time limit and the battle ended with a draw. It was a clever move on his part, actually, although very frustrating for me, because he really didn't have any coherent formation to fight me. His units were not broken, but his army was scattered and unable to give any resistance.

It happens also with medium sized armies.

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, it can be frustrating, and I have seen it happen but very rarely. As I said, in my last 30 games or so I have never seen units rally from routing at the edge of the map. I played all my Digital League games and there was no problem with rallying units far away.

I just think that with 1600-point armies you have more units and perhaps it is more likely that you will see the kind of situations that you are talking about. Battles tend to go on in different parts of the map. With medium sized armies, you generally shatter one flank and then the battle gets going in the middle pretty quickly with no questions asked.

I also suspect that this problem may happen more in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages, especially with warbands. Sometimes pike units can rally but I haven't seen too many rallying recently. Nothing that changed a game, anyway.

I know it bothers some people because we discussed the issue of rallying in another thread.