Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
@rbodleyscot, What about push backs outside the main battle line? Logically there should be no inhibitions to push-backs outside the battle line. In practice that would mean that the only squares that are ever really checked before push-back are the adjacent squares two squares (marked with circles in the picture) back from the pusher (marked with triangle). Would friendly units in the green and yellow zones prevent push-back? What about units in the white zone? How would this work when fighting is happening at an angle?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Thank you.MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:24 am @rbodleyscot, What about push backs outside the main battle line? Logically there should be no inhibitions to push-backs outside the battle line. In practice that would mean that the only squares that are ever really checked before push-back are the adjacent squares two squares (marked with circles in the picture) back from the pusher (marked with triangle). Would friendly units in the green and yellow zones prevent push-back? What about units in the white zone? How would this work when fighting is happening at an angle?
pushback.jpg
You illustrate one of the many issues with implementing potential changes to the current system of pushbacks.
Richard Bodley Scott
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Pushback is the working of the Attacker and not defender? For main battle line suggestion, it should be the attacker checking against his lines whether he will pursue. Defining the battle line is tricky.
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
There's always the option to simply reduce the probability of push-backs as they start mounting up. If the current probability of five push-backs occurring in an encounter between two units (when the conditions for a push-back are met) is 100%-100%-100%-100%-100%, the propability could be reduced to something like 100%-100%-50%-25%-13%. That would have no effect on the usual liveliness of the battle line but it would make the extreme cases rarer without making them impossible to occur.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
It would prevent flank attacks on enemy units in the centre positions of their formation. You could still get two other of your second line units to attack it diagonally so it would eventually be outnumbered 3:1. The idea of flank attacks in the centre of a melee is a bit questionable to me, flank attacks should happen on the flanks, after all. But even with my idea, once units start to rout then gaps will open up as formations start to fracture and flank attacks will be happening all over the battlefield.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:47 am This would effectively prevent flank attacks on the pushed forward unit, which pretty much defeats the object of the push back mechanism. The flank attack would be prevented either by the ZOC of the neighbour, or physically blocked by the friendly unit fighting that neighbour.
I haven't changed my views as such, but I have accepted your explanation for why larger chunks of the battleline cannot be pushed back at the same time. So, when I read Erich's ideas I felt that they would at least be an important improvement on what we have now. I would prefer that units stayed in contact as a result of the pushbacks as the first part of Erich's formulation suggests, but if you feel that it would be better for them still to be able to break contact by one square then that still represents an improvement on the current situation, in my opinion.Erichswafford's proposal was:
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.
In which they would still follow up even if they would lose contact, but would not follow up further thereafter. So the integrity of the line would be broken, and flank attacks would be possible - which is the intended purpose of the push-back mechanism.
However, forgive me for saying it, the difference from the current situation would then be mainly cosmetic. And having not-followed-up, despite the integrity of the line already being visibly broken, the unit would (as julianbarker put it) "stand around like lemons."
I am guessing that while this might satisfy Erich, it would not satisfy you Pete, assuming you have not changed your previously stated views. Our previous discussions indicate that what you would really like is for post combat effects (pushbacks, routs, pursuits) not to occur at all unless they apply to a substantial chunk of the battle-line. But as previously discussed, that would be a massive change to game balance, and essentially turn the game into a different game, given that the risk of units pushing too far forward and getting flanked is a deliberate part of the game design, based on historical events.
As I have said before, the effect only looks so "wrong" because the battle is played on squares, with the depth of units apparently the same as their width. In reality most units were far wider than they were deep, but we can't visually represent this in game on squares using larger than life figures. We could do it by having units occupy the width of several squares. A pushback of one square would then be a much shorter distance relative to the unit width. But having units occupy more than one square adds in all sorts of complications.
We prefer a simpler representation, but it does require players to overlook certain mismatches of scale in some circumstances. This is one of those circumstances, and I guess whether a player can accept the mechanism or it drives him nuts depends on whether or not he can overlook the apparent mismatch in the interests of playability.
I still don't get this "standing around like lemons" argument though. If the pushback was disallowed because it would take the victorious unit out of contact with other friendly units, or more than one square away from them, then the melee would continue in the same place for another round. The losing unit would not be pushed back in these circumstances. How is that "lemon-like" behaviour?
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
If you completely ignore the historical interaction between the manipular legion and the Hellenistic phalanx.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:47 amIt would prevent flank attacks on enemy units in the centre positions of their formation. You could still get two other of your second line units to attack it diagonally so it would eventually be outnumbered 3:1. The idea of flank attacks in the centre of a melee is a bit questionable to me, flank attacks should happen on the flanks, after all.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 9:47 am This would effectively prevent flank attacks on the pushed forward unit, which pretty much defeats the object of the push back mechanism. The flank attack would be prevented either by the ZOC of the neighbour, or physically blocked by the friendly unit fighting that neighbour.
Which was the whole point of the push-back mechanism in the first place.
Either you are misreading Erich's proposal, or he did not write what he intended to write. He wroteI would prefer that units stayed in contact as a result of the pushbacks as the first part of Erich's formulation suggests
"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). ",
not
Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if after they have advanced they will have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally).
It is possible that that is what Erich meant, but it isn't what he wrote, and I have been working on the assumption that he meant what he wrote.
I think the assumption was that the enemy would still fall back, but the victors would not follow up. What you propose could be done, but it is hard to see the historical logic. The enemy is already falling back, but they obligingly stop when the victors decide they have moved far enough forward.I still don't get this "standing around like lemons" argument though. If the pushback was disallowed because it would take the victorious unit out of contact with other friendly units, or more than one square away from them, then the melee would continue in the same place for another round. The losing unit would not be pushed back in these circumstances. How is that "lemon-like" behaviour?
Bear in mind that the only difference in the game between a "Break Off" and a "Push Back" is whether the victors follow up or not. If the victors are shock troops who are attacking they follow up, and the game displays "Push Back", if not, they don't follow up, and it displays "Break Off". The Fall Back would have occurred either way. (Although we can of course prevent it if we want).
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Yes, I think that might be the most sensible change to make.MVP7 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:39 am There's always the option to simply reduce the probability of push-backs as they start mounting up. If the current probability of five push-backs occurring in an encounter between two units (when the conditions for a push-back are met) is 100%-100%-100%-100%-100%, the propability could be reduced to something like 100%-100%-50%-25%-13%. That would have no effect on the usual liveliness of the battle line but it would make the extreme cases rarer without making them impossible to occur.
The question is then whether it applies to the "Faller Back" or to the "Follower up". In the former case the melee would temporarily continue in its current position, in the latter the enemy would still fall back but not be followed up. In my view the latter is easier to reconcile with reality, but the former may be better gamewise. (To avoid lemonisation).
Another possibility is to only allow two pushbacks in the course of any close combat, and then the next time the enemy fall back, the victors "stop for a breather" instead of following up. (And yes, I know this, or something like it, has been suggested before).
This has the advantage of removing the random element, which is something a lot of players don't like in troop behaviour.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Follower-up. 100%-50%-0%rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:14 am
Yes, I think that might be the most sensible change to make.
The question is then whether it applies to the "Faller Back" or to the "Follower up". In the former case the melee would temporarily continue in its current position, in the latter the enemy would still fall back but not be followed up. In my view the latter is easier to reconcile with reality, but the former may be better gamewise. (To avoid lemonisation).
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
I could probably live with this, although it may alter game balance in favour of tough shock troops. However, given the good performance of "wall of crap" armies in the tournament, this might not be a bad thing.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:39 amFollower-up. 100%-50%-0%rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:14 am
Yes, I think that might be the most sensible change to make.
The question is then whether it applies to the "Faller Back" or to the "Follower up". In the former case the melee would temporarily continue in its current position, in the latter the enemy would still fall back but not be followed up. In my view the latter is easier to reconcile with reality, but the former may be better gamewise. (To avoid lemonisation).
Leaving aside the issue of maintaining the battle line, it can be justified on the grounds of the victors needing to "stop for a breather".
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Not really. They are still being attacked on three sides even though it is not formally a "flank attack" as designated in the game.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:05 am
If you completely ignore the historical interaction between the manipular legion and the Hellenistic phalanx.
Which was the whole point of the push-back mechanism in the first place.
Sorry Richard, but I think I am understanding Erich correctly. The second half of his formulation would mean that an advancing unit would be completely detached from any friendly unit. This would allow flank attacks on units in the centre of battle formations. I am not so enthusiastically in favour of this idea as requiring units to remain in physical contact (albeit diagonally) after a push-back, but I do think it would still be an improvement on what we have now. It would stop the ludicrous situation where an isolated unit, often with a commander, can push back an enemy unit 5, 6, 7 or 8 times in succession. Is this what you are thinking about for beta testing?Either you are misreading Erich's proposal, or he did not write what he intended to write. He wrote
"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). ",
not
Make it where an individual small unit will only advance if after they have advanced they will have at least one friendly unit either adjacent, or one square back (diagonally).
It is possible that that is what Erich meant, but it isn't what he wrote, and I have been working on the assumption that he meant what he wrote.
But if they stay in contact with no push-back, it is just the same situation as if the victors had actually followed up, just in a slightly different place. They are still locked in combat.I think the assumption was that the enemy would still fall back, but the victors would not follow up. What you propose could be done, but it is hard to see the historical logic. The enemy is already falling back, but they obligingly stop when the victors decide they have moved far enough forward.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:52 amNot really. They are still being attacked on three sides even though it is not formally a "flank attack" as designated in the game.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 11:05 am
If you completely ignore the historical interaction between the manipular legion and the Hellenistic phalanx.
Which was the whole point of the push-back mechanism in the first place.
Indeed, but the historical accounts say that the maniples got into the gaps and attacked the exposed flanks of the phalanx, not that they merely overlapped the phalanx.
The second half of his formulation would mean that an advancing unit would be completely detached from any friendly unit. This would allow flank attacks on units in the centre of battle formations. I am not so enthusiastically in favour of this idea as requiring units to remain in physical contact (albeit diagonally) after a push-back, but I do think it would still be an improvement on what we have now.
Ah, I see.
Currently I favour your 100:50:0 proposal instead. And allowing the losers to fall back without being followed up if the victors choose not to follow up the second time.It would stop the ludicrous situation where an isolated unit, often with a commander, can push back an enemy unit 5, 6, 7 or 8 times in succession. Is this what you are thinking about for beta testing?
I can't see any logic in the losers somehow being superglued to the position the victors choose to remain in. If the victors aren't willing to advance further, the losers are entitled to a breather.
Of course this does mean that they will have to take another Impact if the (shall we say) Roman player chooses to charge again on his next turn, despite the potential positional disadvantage. But they may have recovered some Cohesion in the meantime, or had a chance to shoot at the legions, so the balance effect may be fairly neutral.
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
OK, well that's interesting. I would like to have a go at testing that.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:04 pm
Currently I favour 100:50:0 instead. And allowing the losers to fall back without being followed up if the victors choose not to follow up the second time.
(I can't see any logic in the losers somehow being superglued to the position the victors choose to remain in. If the victors aren't willing to advance further, the losers are entitled to a breather.)
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
It has the advantage of being simpler, and not requiring any arcane positional analysis. It should significantly reduce the incidence of the line breaking up completely without the player's volition, and will eliminate the more excessive multiple pushbacks completely. (And the historical cases where this in fact occurred can be represented by the unit charging again, and then pushing the enemy back further).stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:14 pmOK, well that's interesting. I would like to have a go at testing that.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:04 pm
Currently I favour 100:50:0 instead. And allowing the losers to fall back without being followed up if the victors choose not to follow up the second time.
(I can't see any logic in the losers somehow being superglued to the position the victors choose to remain in. If the victors aren't willing to advance further, the losers are entitled to a breather.)
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Major-General - Jagdtiger
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Sounds great to me. Shouldn't alter the gameplay too much, will look nicer, and frankly, I think warbands and phalanxes won't be made OP by the change. And the need for a breather to rest and reform makes sense as an explanation. Legions might be a little strong, but then they were, weren't they? I look forward to how it all works in practice in the next beta.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
-
- Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:17 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
I'm jumping into the discussion to say that I, and maybe a quiet majority of players, like the current system very much.rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 12:04 pm It has the advantage of being simpler, and not requiring any arcane positional analysis. It should significantly reduce the incidence of the line breaking up completely without the player's volition, and will eliminate the more excessive multiple pushbacks completely. (And the historical cases where this in fact occurred can be represented by the unit charging again, and then pushing the enemy back further).
As it is now players have to choose carefully when and where to charge with own heavy foot units. With the suggested changes, no human player would intentionally charge again after the first followup.
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4999
- Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Question before I give my opinion. If the units are on diagonal, a push back occurs but turns into a fall back( do to the new proposed rules) then if I recall , the unit that would have followed up, cannot charge into combat next turn because it won’t have enough ap’s to cross a diagonal and into the pushed back units grid. Effectively you have given way more advantage to a unit that should be hard pressed...
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Well, just to throw in my two cents
I could live with the current system, but Richard's proposal also sounds OK. For me, ideally though I would tweak Richard's proposal so that less experienced troops, and maybe certain types of troops (warriors, etc.?) would still have some chance of further pushbacks.
While I know that Richard has cited the instances of phalanxes being attacked in the flank by legions, I would have to think that trained and disciplined troops would generally refrain from pushing far beyond the line; this isn't complicated and would simply involved "dressing right" (or left) on the guy next to you, and AFAIK there were officers/NCOs in each subunit whose precise role was to maintain the formation.
I could live with the current system, but Richard's proposal also sounds OK. For me, ideally though I would tweak Richard's proposal so that less experienced troops, and maybe certain types of troops (warriors, etc.?) would still have some chance of further pushbacks.
While I know that Richard has cited the instances of phalanxes being attacked in the flank by legions, I would have to think that trained and disciplined troops would generally refrain from pushing far beyond the line; this isn't complicated and would simply involved "dressing right" (or left) on the guy next to you, and AFAIK there were officers/NCOs in each subunit whose precise role was to maintain the formation.
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28014
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Good point.TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Fri Sep 21, 2018 1:31 pm Question before I give my opinion. If the units are on diagonal, a push back occurs but turns into a fall back( do to the new proposed rules) then if I recall , the unit that would have followed up, cannot charge into combat next turn because it won’t have enough ap’s to cross a diagonal and into the pushed back units grid. Effectively you have given way more advantage to a unit that should be hard pressed...
Richard Bodley Scott
-
- Corporal - Strongpoint
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:45 pm
Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game
Is there no way to tie push backs to experience of the unit? I think this is the key between both views. If i stick all my raw troops/warbands up front at least I could pre-plan that the push back shenanigans is probably going to happen. A good general will probably stick the raw troops on the wings and then it will not look so weird when it happens.