Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
ahuyton
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 833
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by ahuyton »

For what it is worth, I don't quite share these strongly voiced opinions. Sources give us an overall view of ancient battle but we can only guess at what really happened, especially at micro level. I think that looking for logical explanations as to whether a group of troops follow-up or not misses the point. The chaos, noise, dust, emotions, etc of a battle would mean that individual decisions were much more arbitrary than we might like them to be.

But FoG2 is a game, strongly rooted in history of course. And as game-playing generals we have overviews that were probably impossible in reality. I have no objection to the push-back mechanisms, precisely because they introduce some chaos into the game. They also give the weaker side a chance, by having a second line to out-flank the pursuer. Equally, I have no objection to trying a change but beware of making the game too predictable. That will suit very strong players with strong armies, but not the rest of us.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by rbodleyscott »

ahuyton wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:05 amI have no objection to the push-back mechanisms, precisely because they introduce some chaos into the game.
Which can be mitigated by having reserves.

Also, although the game makes it very easy for the players to allow their armies to dissolve into chaos, it also has ways to avoid this most of the time, mainly by looking at the longer term effect of actions rather than always taking the immediately expedient action.

The game certainly does reward keeping formation as far as possible.

We simply don't know how chaotic hard-fought battles became in their later stages. Modern descriptions of historical battles have neat battle maps, but it should not be forgotten that these are the positions at the start of the battle, not the position just before the losing side broke. The authors of both contemporary and modern battle accounts are attempting to make sense of the events (in whatever limited detail they were reported to them) for their readers, and will therefore have a natural tendency to simplify the narrative, which will inevitably make the events sound more orderly than they perhaps were.

The push-back mechanism is based on sound history. It is vanishingly unlikely that a whole battle line, which could be 4000 metres wide, all pushed the whole enemy line back at a constant pace all along the front, or even in a significant part of the overall battle line.

Preventing troops from getting out of line would not be historically realistic. The difficulty of keeping troops in line, after all, is the prime reason for the Roman manipular system, and the reason why the Roman system was so effective against Hellenistic armies, because they had the numbers of small independent units that could exploit gaps appearing in the enemy line - owing to them getting out of line, not routing.

I think some of those who are violently opposed to the push back mechanism are getting hung up on cosmetic issues of scale. The reason the pushbacks look so far on the game map is because the game is fought on squares, and pushbacks have to be at least one square or nothing. So yes, the apparent distance moved on the map is therefore further than in reality, but this is largely cosmetic. (Although there are historical accounts of infantry troops being pushed back half a mile - which is about 4 or 5 squares - but such distances don't seem to have been common). And if the distance means that the victorious unit takes some time to get back into the fray, this can be taken as an abstraction for reasons other than distance (e.g. reorganisation after a hard-won fight, re-motivating the troops for further fighting etc.) that might delay their return to the fray historically.

FOG2 is a game, not a pure simulation. Because it is played on squares, it is impossible to keep the scaling for width and depth constantly valid for all game mechanisms, and sometimes things will look a bit odd. (And not like the maps shown in books). This is one of those things.

However, any game must make compromises to allow playability and "fun". A pure simulation, especially one based on a literal representation of events as described in simplified battle accounts, would make a very boring game for most people.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
ahuyton
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 833
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 4:31 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by ahuyton »

Without wanting to sound obsequious, Richard's reply is perfect I think.
Ludendorf
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 825
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by Ludendorf »

I would also note that unless you are in a fight between two superior units and one has a clear upper hand, extreme pushbacks extending longer than one or two squares are actually fairly rare in my experience. The most memorable occasion I can think of was actually during my first multiplayer game, where I matched my veteran hastati/principes against a unit of veteran pikes. The pikes of course got the upper hand on that flank, but the hastati's superior status meant they kept passing cohesion checks and held on for about six pushbacks until both units were in the middle of nowhere relative to the battle line. Even with superior status, passing that many cohesion checks time and again even after casualties is pretty rare, and as a rookie I don't think I fully appreciated just how lucky this event was for me at the time. Generally, if you're losing that many conflicts, your troops will break sooner than that.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:56 am The push-back mechanism is based on sound history. It is vanishingly unlikely that a whole battle line, which could be 4000 metres wide, all pushed the whole enemy line back at a constant pace all along the front, or even in a significant part of the overall battle line.
We are not arguing against the push-back mechanism in its entirety. Just the more ludicrous aspects of it.
Preventing troops from getting out of line would not be historically realistic. The difficulty of keeping troops in line, after all, is the prime reason for the Roman manipular system, and the reason why the Roman system was so effective against Hellenistic armies, because they had the numbers of small independent units that could exploit gaps appearing in the enemy line - owing to them getting out of line, not routing.
We are not arguing that infantry troops should be "prevented from getting out of line". Just that infantry units doing the pushing back should remain in contact with friendly forces and not advance unsupported deep into "enemy territory".
However, any game must make compromises to allow playability and "fun". A pure simulation, especially one based on a literal representation of events as described in simplified battle accounts, would make a very boring game for most people.
Yes, of course, but no-one is asking for a pure simulation. We are just suggesting a possibly more realistic alternative to what we have now.
MVP7
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by MVP7 »

stockwellpete wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:35 pm
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:56 am Preventing troops from getting out of line would not be historically realistic. The difficulty of keeping troops in line, after all, is the prime reason for the Roman manipular system, and the reason why the Roman system was so effective against Hellenistic armies, because they had the numbers of small independent units that could exploit gaps appearing in the enemy line - owing to them getting out of line, not routing.
We are not arguing that infantry troops should be "prevented from getting out of line". Just that infantry units doing the pushing back should remain in contact with friendly forces and not advance unsupported deep into "enemy territory".
But if infantry is prevented from performing (or following?) a push-back if they can't keep a friendly unit in their adjacent or rear corner then they couldn't really get out of the line.
julianbarker
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 183
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2014 8:10 am

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by julianbarker »

My question is what is not pushing back meant to represent? An infantry unit will be focused on the enemy it is engaged with. If that enemy is falling back (but not running away) what is the winner meant to do? The game has them doing what the historical record suggest they did, which is continue to exploit the advantage they have over their primary opponent. Is there any record of a winning unit in this period stopping advance to allow the enemy in front of them to rest, reform, and regain the advantage?

The winning unit can't turn and flank the enemy line until their opponent rout because otherwise they expose themselves to the unit they are defeating. So are they meant to just stand their and wait for the unit they are defeating to have a go back?

There is historical record of units pushing through, engaging second line, turning to face flank and rear once the enemy in front rout etc. But any evidence of standing around like lemons?
Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by Kabill »

Ludendorf wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 1:31 pm I would also note that unless you are in a fight between two superior units and one has a clear upper hand, extreme pushbacks extending longer than one or two squares are actually fairly rare in my experience. The most memorable occasion I can think of was actually during my first multiplayer game, where I matched my veteran hastati/principes against a unit of veteran pikes. The pikes of course got the upper hand on that flank, but the hastati's superior status meant they kept passing cohesion checks and held on for about six pushbacks until both units were in the middle of nowhere relative to the battle line. Even with superior status, passing that many cohesion checks time and again even after casualties is pretty rare, and as a rookie I don't think I fully appreciated just how lucky this event was for me at the time. Generally, if you're losing that many conflicts, your troops will break sooner than that.
I think my record is something like 8 or 9 successive turns of pushbacks on one unit (which, after routing, hilariously rallied a couple of turns later). But that's very much an outlier, I don't think I've had more than 4 or 5 otherwise.

I'll confess, despite having spent some time looking at a way to mod this (without success - I could never get anything to work), it's not really something that bothers me, and all the solutions I've seen or devised that rely on the local conditions of the fighting units have problems which - for me - made them undesirable.

If it's considered a problem, then, I'm inclined to say the best approach is to limit generally the conditions under which follow-ups can occur. As an example, based on stockwellpete's musings about this a while ago: making it so that a unit will only follow up if the opposing unit is disordered/disrupted. This would implicitly curtail extreme follow-ups, because units that are pursued would already be a cohesion level down and be getting penalties to further cohesion tests, so they will have fewer opportunities to fall back before they break relative to the current system. This isn't a neutral change though, and has consequences for various unit types:

- Heavy foot and high quality units are more resilient to being followed-up, because they are less likely to become disrupted. However, I think this actually makes sense: I would expect hoplites, pikes or legionaries to be better at holding their position and be better at falling back in good order in a fashion which discourages pursuit.
- Impact Foot would be stronger, because there'd be more instances of units breaking off without a follow-up. A way to balance this would be to *always* follow-up on pushbacks from impact, regardless of the cohesion level of the opposing unit, and limit follow-ups to disordered/disrupted units only from ongoing melee. This simulates the momentum of an initial charge causing the attacking unit to pursue as their opponents retreat regardless of whether their opponents are falling back in good order. This wouldn't completely offset the increased number of break-offs vs. follow-ups but would I think it would mitigate a lot of it.

If anything were done to change follow-ups then, I'd prefer a solution like this because it avoids all the potential problems and edge cases arising from contextual application of follow-ups; it doesn't rely on any additional randomness (which would have been my other suggestion); and has a plausible basis in reality for how it works.
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

MVP7 wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:02 pmBut if infantry is prevented from performing (or following?) a push-back if they can't keep a friendly unit in their adjacent or rear corner then they couldn't really get out of the line.
It would be prevented from achieving a push back result if that push-back meant it lost contact with adjacent friendly units. The two units would just stay in contact and continue the melee. But you could have a situation where, say, 5 pike units in a straight line were fighting 5 legionary units in a straight line, and at the end of the first round of melee-ing 2 pike units had moved 1 square forward because they were victorious and had pushed back their opponents, and 2 pike units had moved 1 square backwards because they had lost a melee round and had got pushed back by the legionaries. So from starting the melee in just two rows of squares (5v5), by the end of the first round of the melee the 10 units could be spread over 4 rows of squares (a lot would depend on the order in which the melees were resolved). So the idea that this would inevitably lead to sterile play with everything in nice straight lines is just wrong. Added to that, as battles progress and units start to rout, all sorts of gaps open up so units can penetrate deep into the enemy position just by moving there normally when it is their turn. So flanking attacks would still happen and nothing much would be lost from the game as far as I am concerned. The gain would be that the armies would retain coherent battle lines for far longer and you wouldn't have single units pushing deep into the enemy position without support.
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

julianbarker wrote: Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:09 pm My question is what is not pushing back meant to represent? An infantry unit will be focused on the enemy it is engaged with. If that enemy is falling back (but not running away) what is the winner meant to do? The game has them doing what the historical record suggest they did, which is continue to exploit the advantage they have over their primary opponent. Is there any record of a winning unit in this period stopping advance to allow the enemy in front of them to rest, reform, and regain the advantage?

The winning unit can't turn and flank the enemy line until their opponent rout because otherwise they expose themselves to the unit they are defeating. So are they meant to just stand their and wait for the unit they are defeating to have a go back?

There is historical record of units pushing through, engaging second line, turning to face flank and rear once the enemy in front rout etc. But any evidence of standing around like lemons?
No-one is talking about "fall backs" where the unit that initiated the melee gets a bad result and disengages. That unit can be engaged by the enemy on the next turn as usual. We are talking about preventing push-backs that take the victorious unit out of contact with friendly units. In these situations the two units would stay in contact with each other and the melee would continue. So no-one would be standing around like lemons. :?
SnuggleBunnies
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2789
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by SnuggleBunnies »

No pushbacks on steady units could be an easier solution to program, though I'm unsure as to what the effects on balance would be.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
AlexDetrojan
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by AlexDetrojan »

Maybe follow ups to pushbacks should/could be optional, with a button appearing after each combat asking if you wish to pursue? This would be for infantry not cavalry and would lend a more thoughtful stance to your generalship. More along planning your attack and its result several moves ahead as per chess?
Just a thought.
Cheers
Alex
Jagger2002
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 491
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2014 7:31 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by Jagger2002 »

When I see some of these pursuits, the first thing I think of is the Battle of Hasting. We have far more tactical information on that battle than most. And we see several examples of troops pursuing and breaking the integrity of the line when I imagine King Harold would have preferred they remain in place. In at least one pursuit, the results were disastrous for the pursuers. So if common at Hastings, how common in other times and places?
melm
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by melm »

If there is no push-back, I am afraid the game will be dull. The theme will become impact - either melee at where they are/ break contact - melee until one side break/waiting for another impact. Plus stretching wings. Phalanx could be powerful in such theme.
Meditans ex luce mundi
Lysimachos
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1234
Joined: Tue Dec 08, 2009 9:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by Lysimachos »

rbodleyscott wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 4:10 pm
erichswafford wrote: Wed Sep 19, 2018 2:39 pmMy 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.
In my humble opinion this would be a really great advancement in the historical accuracy of the game.

Let's go this way at full steam!!!! :mrgreen:
"Audentis fortuna iuvat"
- Virgilius

(Good luck favours the brave)
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

melm wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:07 am If there is no push-back, I am afraid the game will be dull. The theme will become impact - either melee at where they are/ break contact - melee until one side break/waiting for another impact. Plus stretching wings. Phalanx could be powerful in such theme.
No-one is saying there should be no pushbacks. :?
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

Jagger2002 wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 2:56 am When I see some of these pursuits, the first thing I think of is the Battle of Hasting. We have far more tactical information on that battle than most. And we see several examples of troops pursuing and breaking the integrity of the line when I imagine King Harold would have preferred they remain in place. In at least one pursuit, the results were disastrous for the pursuers. So if common at Hastings, how common in other times and places?
The "Hastings-type" scenario would still happen in the game. We are not talking about pursuits, we are talking about repeated pushbacks by the same unit.
melm
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 820
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by melm »

To what extend the push-back should stop? Diagonally linked with neighbor or one square away from neighbor?
What if there is no neighbor?
Or we say the repeated push-back mechanism still functions when there is no neighbor at the time of contact but doesn't if when the unit have neighbors at the time of impact.
Meditans ex luce mundi
stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 14500
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by stockwellpete »

melm wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:30 am To what extend the push-back should stop? Diagonally linked with neighbor or one square away from neighbor?
What if there is no neighbor?
Or we say the repeated push-back mechanism still functions when there is no neighbor at the time of contact but doesn't if when the unit have neighbors at the time of impact.
The idea is that it would be diagonally linked to a neighbour so that physical contact with a friendly unit is maintained. For isolated units I would suggest a maximum of one pushback for either unit. All this would need to be tested in the next beta phase for anomalies/issues.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Automatic pushback/pursuit with infantry absolutely ruins this game

Post by rbodleyscott »

stockwellpete wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:39 am
melm wrote: Fri Sep 21, 2018 8:30 am To what extend the push-back should stop? Diagonally linked with neighbor or one square away from neighbor?
What if there is no neighbor?
Or we say the repeated push-back mechanism still functions when there is no neighbor at the time of contact but doesn't if when the unit have neighbors at the time of impact.
The idea is that it would be diagonally linked to a neighbour so that physical contact with a friendly unit is maintained.
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.

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.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”