Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

[SnuggleBunnies]

The diagonal turn thing is obnoxious, though I don't see it too often. I suppose there is no simple fix for it.

[rbodleyscott]

The diagonal turn thing is obnoxious, though I don't see it too often. I suppose there is no simple fix for it.

I think the proposed change is at least a mitigation for it. At least it means that the attacking units won't immediately push back the opposition and expose their flanks. (They may do so on the defending player's turn, but only if they would have pushed the defenders back twice under the current rules - so not all that often and probably not enough to base a "gamey" plan around).

[erichswafford]

I really appreciate the developers presence here and the various suggestions on how to fix this.

TLDR: There needs to be a lot more friction so these infantry units can't just slide past one another.

I'm working on a replay of Raphia with screenshots to show just how insane the game gets in terms of the opposing phalanx lines getting hopelessly intermingled within about 2 turns of first contact.

Deeply intermingled phalanx lines (with alternating units on both sides far behind enemy lines, happily push-backing their way to oblivion) is not something that I can find in my history books.

Anyway, a picture is worth a thousand complaints. Just need a couple hours free time to show in quite dramatic terms what happens in pretty much every battle.

Overall, I feel like this game mechanic was designed for cavalry pursuits - not the slow grind of infantry combat. It makes sense to have this mechanic with notoriously-difficult-to-control cavalry. That way you can have Demetrius taking off at Ipsus and disappearing off the battlefield (while his dad gets surrounded and chopped to pieces).

Again, my suggestion is to have infantry units get progressively disordered as a way to simulate what happened at, say, Pydna (as opposed to pushbacks). At this scale, IMHO, Units really should not be able to advance into an unbroken, healthy unit's frontal ZOC (the three squares to its front).

To "break in" an enemy line, you'd need to get the units on either side of the target unit disordered enough to, say, eliminate their ZOC's. And you'd do that as they did historically: By grinding them down. Having it work this way re-asserts the overriding need to actually turn a flank (and there are many ways to do this, though it was often a matter of having a last reserve or cavalry serendipitously returning from an unexpected quarter) to decisively win the battle. Right now, that's unnecessary - Because your infantry will simply penetrate (to a quite astonishing depth!) the enemy line here and there. And, of course, they'll do the same to you.

The end result is invariably a sort of Hollywood-style melee with units all over the damn place.

[stockwellpete]

I have suggested it already but one way to reduce this rapid disintegration of the infantry lines would be to say that infantry units cannot be pushed back if they have "steady" units on either side of them (the units would have to be facing exactly the same way). So you would have to get a "disrupt" result somewhere in the middle of the line before you could start pushing the centre of it back.

If you imagine 5 infantry units in a line going into the impact phase, the two end units can be pushed back in the same way as units are now because they do not have a "steady" unit on each side. As the three middle units do have "steady" units on either side they cannot be pushed-back during the impact phase. This idea should help to stabilise the centre of infantry lines a bit more without affecting the general gameplay at all.

However, it wouldn't always make a great deal of difference. Imagine a situation where the middle unit of the 5 is "disrupted" on impact, then the whole line is vulnerable to push-backs in the next melee phase as none of the units would now have "steady" units on either side of them.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have suggested it already but one way to reduce this rapid disintegration of the infantry lines would be to say that infantry units cannot be pushed back if they have "steady" units on either side of them (the units would have to be facing exactly the same way). So you would have to get a "disrupt" result somewhere in the middle of the line before you could start pushing the centre of it back.

If you imagine 5 infantry units in a line going into the impact phase, the two end units can be pushed back in the same way as units are now because they do not have a "steady" unit on each side. As the three middle units do have "steady" units on either side they cannot be pushed-back during the impact phase. This idea should help to stabilise the centre of infantry lines a bit more without affecting the general gameplay at all.

However, it wouldn't always make a great deal of difference. Imagine a situation where the middle unit of the 5 is "disrupted" on impact, then the whole line is vulnerable to push-backs in the next melee phase as none of the units would now have "steady" units on either side of them.

Pete, I suspect what you envision is not really possible in the land of hexes and grids, perhaps not even in free form map where units “ foot print” are established ( ie like a tt game or DBA online). It likely would reqire a 1 to 1 representation of model to soldier, and be real-time to boot).

But the question is, could individual subunits rout independently of the battle line? I don’t see why not , and I don’t believe history speaks to us in so great detail that we can say absolute conviction one way or the other, even if one types in big fonts and boldface

[Delbruck]

Great thread, which I just read for the first time. The proposed alternate (infantry) push backs seems like a good compromise given current mechanics. One positive side effect of the current rules is that you are encouraged to put your elite infantry units on the flanks of your battle line. A center breakthrough often leads to disaster.

Ironically, I don't believe the original miniatures game had any push backs, for many of the reasons mentioned here. The main two justifications for (infantry) fall back rules seem to be the pike/maniple dynamic and Cannae. Personally, I think any pike disruption was more tactical in nature and was not the result of long distance follow ups of Roman or Macedonian units. In the original miniatures game I thought the idea was:
Pikes/Romans: equal on impact
Melee (both good order): advantage pikes.
Melee (both disrupted): advantage Romans.
As far as Cannae goes, I don't think any rules can simulate this battle. The chances of an entire battle line of Spanish and Gauls being uniformally pushed back in reasonable order seems next to zero, unless it was a part of a planned fall back BEFORE contact.

[stockwellpete]

Pete, I suspect what you envision is not really possible in the land of hexes and grids, perhaps not even in free form map where units “ foot print” are established ( ie like a tt game or DBA online). It likely would reqire a 1 to 1 representation of model to soldier, and be real-time to boot).

I don't know. Obviously a check would have to be made each time a unit is melee-ing and I would imagine that is possible, but it may not be.

But the question is, could individual subunits rout independently of the battle line? I don’t see why not , and I don’t believe history speaks to us in so great detail that we can say absolute conviction one way or the other, even if one types in big fonts and boldface

Yes, as the game is now they could and would continue to do with this idea. I am just suggesting a way to strengthen the centre of battle lines a little bit.

[rbodleyscott]

Ironically, I don't believe the original miniatures game had any push backs, for many of the reasons mentioned here.

Actually, for none of the reasons mentioned here.

The reason we abandoned it for the tabletop game is that it is possible in the tabletop game for units to be offset from each other. For example a line of 5 units could be fighting a line of 4 units, with most of the units partially facing two enemy units.

Managing push backs in those circumstances was a nightmare. That was the reason we abandoned it.

[sdw1000]

Ahh...you never played tabletop wargaming, have you? lol

People who sit around complaining about the rules clearly have never played DBA.

[Kabill]

Again, my suggestion is to have infantry units get progressively disordered as a way to simulate what happened at, say, Pydna (as opposed to pushbacks). At this scale, IMHO, Units really should not be able to advance into an unbroken, healthy unit's frontal ZOC (the three squares to its front).

To "break in" an enemy line, you'd need to get the units on either side of the target unit disordered enough to, say, eliminate their ZOC's. And you'd do that as they did historically: By grinding them down. Having it work this way re-asserts the overriding need to actually turn a flank (and there are many ways to do this, though it was often a matter of having a last reserve or cavalry serendipitously returning from an unexpected quarter) to decisively win the battle. Right now, that's unnecessary - Because your infantry will simply penetrate (to a quite astonishing depth!) the enemy line here and there. And, of course, they'll do the same to you.

Regardless of questions about "realism" - since they can't be answered reliably anyway - I think it's important to think about this issue from a gameplay perspective as well.

Pushbacks play a really important role in creating tactical opportunities which can be exploited to arrive at a decisive advantage. I.e. pushing a unit back creates space for a player to deploy reserve units and therefore apply more pressure at particular points in an opponent's formation; and also creates opportunities for flank attacks etc. Getting rid of pushbacks, or seriously reducing them, would result in large infantry clashes will become primarily die-rolling exercises where luck rather than player skill plays a more significant role in the outcome. Whether or not that system would be more realistic is irrelevant because it would be a worse game.

To take your suggestion as a proposal: what are the players doing while each side is being "ground down"? That to me reads like several turns of little more than die-rolling, hoping that you get the rolls needed to actually then do something to affect the outcome. That doesn't sound like a very interesting game to me. In contrast, having a system where lines are more dynamic leads, ultimately, to a more tactical game.

This aside, I think it's also important to emphasise how much of this game is ultimately an abstraction. Even if we accept that the amount units push each other back is unrealistically excessive, as an abstraction of the kinds of micro-level tactical opportunities that might arise during a battle I think it works very well. This argument can be applied to the game as a whole: the very high level of control the player has over individual units is exceptionally unrealistic, but it functions effectively as an abstraction of small-scale tactical decisions and manoeuvres which may have occurred spontaneously or which were the product of devolved command structures. And again, while it would be "more realistic" (maybe) to remove those things, the game would be much less tactically interesting for it.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that appeals to realism - even if we agree on what is "realistic" - are not always (or even often) very helpful for producing a good game. One of the things I really like about FoG2 is that it manages to produce battles which are both interesting to play and which flow in a fashion which feels fairly plausible. That's quite an achievement, and while I do think there's some scope for winding in some of the most egregious instances of line penetration (and I think the solution Richard's come to will do that), I don't think a more extensive overhaul will improve on that and may in fact be detrimental to it.

[nyczar]

The 'pushback every second occasion' mechanic would have to be explained in the manual and ideally come up as a tooltip in tutorials, as a player who sees pushbacks sometimes appear to move the line back and sometimes not will be potentially baffled and possibly quite annoyed. I'd certainly have questions if I saw 'Pushed Back' come up only for nothing to happen, and not everyone is going to check the forum.

This has been a fascinating debate. I am in the camp of reducing pushbacks.

I am quoting Ludenorf here to second the importance of publishing the core insights/watch outs that are identified to prevent frustrating our new or even intermediate level players as we need them to keep play vibrant and expanding. Mike's videos are an example of ensuring that lessons beyond the game manual get passed on to build player competitiveness. Another great "learning place" is the thread on "things we learned the hard way" which began, I believe in humor but morphed into an valuable place of tips on things to avoid. That thread is now beyond the first page. I would suggest that, like the videos, that thread be made a sticky.

Thanks all for the thoughtful dialog.

[julianbarker]

I have not see nan answer to my question above about whether limiting push backs disadvantages successful flanking manoeuvres. If my infantry get behind the enemy, I am not sure why they should find it as hard to push back as if they were assaulting the frontline.

[Ludendorf]

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?

Hmm... fair point. And that is an excellent tactic; driving your opponent's army in on itself so when they break, you're in a better position to hit their sides. It does seem like it would be a casualty in scenarios where diagonal pushbacks take longer.

On the other hand, look at it like this; when you push back a unit diagonally, you are pushing it back a greater distance than if you were just pushing it straight backwards. You've moved two squares; across one and up one. It's not quite two squares, because you're moving diagonally; you've basically moved a range of 1.5 squares. It does make sense that that would take longer.

Another thing that needs to be acknowledged is this change would not prevent unavoidable flanking by reserve units; merely delay the event. A unit that is pushed back twice, where the second push-back occurs on the opponent's turn, will still be vulnerable to flanking reserves with no chance of reinforcement by its own allies. I've taken the view that this is a danger inherent in using impact forces, but as it may be the subject of frustration amongst some players, I felt it needed to be brought up.

[shadowblack]

Regardless of questions about "realism" - since they can't be answered reliably anyway - I think it's important to think about this issue from a gameplay perspective as well.

Pushbacks play a really important role in creating tactical opportunities which can be exploited to arrive at a decisive advantage. I.e. pushing a unit back creates space for a player to deploy reserve units and therefore apply more pressure at particular points in an opponent's formation; and also creates opportunities for flank attacks etc. Getting rid of pushbacks, or seriously reducing them, would result in large infantry clashes will become primarily die-rolling exercises where luck rather than player skill plays a more significant role in the outcome. Whether or not that system would be more realistic is irrelevant because it would be a worse game.

To take your suggestion as a proposal: what are the players doing while each side is being "ground down"? That to me reads like several turns of little more than die-rolling, hoping that you get the rolls needed to actually then do something to affect the outcome. That doesn't sound like a very interesting game to me. In contrast, having a system where lines are more dynamic leads, ultimately, to a more tactical game.

This aside, I think it's also important to emphasise how much of this game is ultimately an abstraction. Even if we accept that the amount units push each other back is unrealistically excessive, as an abstraction of the kinds of micro-level tactical opportunities that might arise during a battle I think it works very well. This argument can be applied to the game as a whole: the very high level of control the player has over individual units is exceptionally unrealistic, but it functions effectively as an abstraction of small-scale tactical decisions and manoeuvres which may have occurred spontaneously or which were the product of devolved command structures. And again, while it would be "more realistic" (maybe) to remove those things, the game would be much less tactically interesting for it.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that appeals to realism - even if we agree on what is "realistic" - are not always (or even often) very helpful for producing a good game. One of the things I really like about FoG2 is that it manages to produce battles which are both interesting to play and which flow in a fashion which feels fairly plausible. That's quite an achievement, and while I do think there's some scope for winding in some of the most egregious instances of line penetration (and I think the solution Richard's come to will do that), I don't think a more extensive overhaul will improve on that and may in fact be detrimental to it.

I agree with Kabil. Ultimately it's a game and made to be enjoyed. Once again, the phalanx brigade is shouting loudly about things being unfair. I fear that the changes suggested here will result in no benefit from the rule changes to the digital league. Be prepared to send your unstoppable phalanx into the woods or up the difficult slope to beat MI because if the phalanx line is impervious and under perfect control, I'm not sending the MI out to meet them and I'm not going to change the terrain. I'll take the 0-0 draw and no points for either side.

I hope my concerns are unfounded and these proposed changes are good for the game. Lots of beta testing please, because it's going to have a big impact on how the game was originally envisaged and designed. With luck, a good compromise has been reached here without altering the feel of the game too much.

[rbodleyscott]

I have not see nan answer to my question above about whether limiting push backs disadvantages successful flanking manoeuvres.

That is what we will find out when we beta test the proposed change.

[rbodleyscott]

I hope my concerns are unfounded and these proposed changes are good for the game. Lots of beta testing please, because it's going to have a big impact on how the game was originally envisaged and designed. With luck, a good compromise has been reached here without altering the feel of the game too much.

Indeed. We do intend to give it a good long beta test.

[harley9699]

My suggestion: Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if they have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally). That would at least place some sort of check on these mad dashes behind enemy lines. This would only apply to infantry, of course.

I am not averse to this. It would not alter the intended effect of the mechanism, as it would still allow them to get flanked, but as you say it would stop them advancing very far from the main battle line.

We could try it out in the next beta.

That sounds like an excellent idea!

[julianbarker]

But a force that beat your flank and has got behind you and is beating your flank guards and reserves will be disadvantaged when they should be advantaged because they are no longer in touch with flanking units (whatever that means when you have turned a flank). As it is the game does not effectively acknowledge the impact of finding the enemy advancing behind you, and this would make it worse.

[MVP7]

The latest plan is to test a system where location of friendly units doesn't effect push-back but the push-backs occur less often.

[klayeckles]

Again, my suggestion is to have infantry units get progressively disordered as a way to simulate what happened at, say, Pydna (as opposed to pushbacks). At this scale, IMHO, Units really should not be able to advance into an unbroken, healthy unit's frontal ZOC (the three squares to its front).

To "break in" an enemy line, you'd need to get the units on either side of the target unit disordered enough to, say, eliminate their ZOC's. And you'd do that as they did historically: By grinding them down. Having it work this way re-asserts the overriding need to actually turn a flank (and there are many ways to do this, though it was often a matter of having a last reserve or cavalry serendipitously returning from an unexpected quarter) to decisively win the battle. Right now, that's unnecessary - Because your infantry will simply penetrate (to a quite astonishing depth!) the enemy line here and there. And, of course, they'll do the same to you.

Regardless of questions about "realism" - since they can't be answered reliably anyway - I think it's important to think about this issue from a gameplay perspective as well.

Pushbacks play a really important role in creating tactical opportunities which can be exploited to arrive at a decisive advantage. I.e. pushing a unit back creates space for a player to deploy reserve units and therefore apply more pressure at particular points in an opponent's formation; and also creates opportunities for flank attacks etc. Getting rid of pushbacks, or seriously reducing them, would result in large infantry clashes will become primarily die-rolling exercises where luck rather than player skill plays a more significant role in the outcome. Whether or not that system would be more realistic is irrelevant because it would be a worse game.

To take your suggestion as a proposal: what are the players doing while each side is being "ground down"? That to me reads like several turns of little more than die-rolling, hoping that you get the rolls needed to actually then do something to affect the outcome. That doesn't sound like a very interesting game to me. In contrast, having a system where lines are more dynamic leads, ultimately, to a more tactical game.

This aside, I think it's also important to emphasise how much of this game is ultimately an abstraction. Even if we accept that the amount units push each other back is unrealistically excessive, as an abstraction of the kinds of micro-level tactical opportunities that might arise during a battle I think it works very well. This argument can be applied to the game as a whole: the very high level of control the player has over individual units is exceptionally unrealistic, but it functions effectively as an abstraction of small-scale tactical decisions and manoeuvres which may have occurred spontaneously or which were the product of devolved command structures. And again, while it would be "more realistic" (maybe) to remove those things, the game would be much less tactically interesting for it.

The point that I'm trying to make here is that appeals to realism - even if we agree on what is "realistic" - are not always (or even often) very helpful for producing a good game. One of the things I really like about FoG2 is that it manages to produce battles which are both interesting to play and which flow in a fashion which feels fairly plausible. That's quite an achievement, and while I do think there's some scope for winding in some of the most egregious instances of line penetration (and I think the solution Richard's come to will do that), I don't think a more extensive overhaul will improve on that and may in fact be detrimental to it.

Hey Clearly...this is one of those discussions that mixes the play-ability aspects of the game with historical understandings and misunderstandings. for what it's worth i agree whole heartedly with Kabill,...and do not support the argument. i find examples all over the history books of "isolated units". and there is some control for this ...DOUBLE STACK your line...or checkerboard. that's what the ancients did.

the whole premise that you the overall general of your army can control what happens...that your troops are robots-- is false...and extremely boring. a good general PLANS on some of this chaos and USES it to his advantage! if we lock our troop lines, then maybe we just line em up and roll one die and see who wins??
If we beta test this...first i would say that there is just some additional "friction" that tends to keep some contact...but the possibility of isolation should always be present...for those relatively new to the FOG universe. we've already eliminated all the anarchy charges that occurred...which again is a nod to those armchair generals that think their troops ought to be automatons--and choose to ignore history...but that's ok, as it made the game more FUN for the majority of folks...but let' be careful we don't get what we wished for...more control....and a much more boring game to play (and anti-historical...which i speak to in the grand view...in that generals never KNEW how their troops would react, or more so how the enemy might react to combat).
(RBS, i'd be available for beta testing.)