Anyone else think the pushback system is a bit overdone?

[TheJay13]

It wouldnt be too much of an issue if pushbacks were limited to one or two squares of the units initial position but it is a little ridiculous to see a bunch of units getting pushed five squares back way out of the line of battle and just makes some fights a clustered, silly mess. I dont really know of any situation historically where a singular section of troops pushed another group of troops out of their battle line and halfway across the countryside.

[zakblood]

no, at first when the game, not this one, but the first was made, pike and shot etc, i would have agreed and said yes, but now, no

[TheJay13]

What? P&S didnt have a pushing mechanic. Im not talking about chasing after routing units, Im talking about the tendency for powerful units to push weaker units across the map.

[zakblood]

no when i first saw it, in Pike and Shot i meant i would have agreed, but now after the same sort of moves made in several games since, including this one, then no, for me now it's fine and i;m used to it, not always perfect or how i'd like it to be, when a heavy horse chasers a light unit across the map and then wanders off etc and doesn't come back, but command and control is like that for me, sometimes you have it, and sometimes they get carried away, the red mist risers and they forget what they maybe should be doing and get a blinkered and non focused glassed over look about them, and carry on the rout, way pass what i'd hope for, bit in the heat of battle, i';m sorry it happens

[zakblood]

What? P&S didnt have a pushing mechanic. Im not talking about chasing after routing units, Im talking about the tendency for powerful units to push weaker units across the map.

putting it another way, how would you like it to be? please explain more your feelings on the mechanics etc

[TheJay13]

It just seems silly to me to have my infantry break completely out of line and push back a unit for a bunch of turns in a row. To me it would make more sense if a unit could only be pushed back a square or two or a pushback would happen less often like if a unit holds firm for two or more turns in a row then it gets pushed back. I feel that limiting the distance a unit can be pushed from its initial square it engaged from would lead to more cohesive battle lines and a more realistic experience. Alternatively making the push mechanic rare enough that moving more than two spaces before breaking is highly unlikley would also solve the problem albeit while being a more round about solution.

[zakblood]

i'm not 100% of the mechanics of the push back, bit either and when it happens and i win i think its great as it give me access to push into there back lines and rear troops area's for flank attacks, but when it happens to mine, and my lines breaks and one unit back steps and keeps getting pushed i also question the move, but the developer would had to quote the rules, either a unit gets pushed back and stays alive and in the fight, or it would break and rout, either way it's going back, the whole is there, and the line is broken and you either plug it, or fight with a non straight line, which i guess is what happened really in history, as this checker box pattern everyone goes on about is just that, a pattern and while it looks nice in the heat of battle, i'd guess also the line is nothing like a line at all and is just a small band of lines trying to stay alive, no matter where they are, with none wanting to be attacked in the rear or flanks etc

[zakblood]

it's a good topic and also a good issue to debate, and i hope more join in, as my opinion is just that, a opinion, and like everything in life, i'm wrong as many times as i am right, so who knows, all i know for sure, is i've won as many battles with it, and lost the same amount because of it, either one breaks and the domino effect and the pack of cards all come down, its great to watch when its the other side, but not so good to watch when the AI does it to you, so come on everyone, debate your best success and also your worse defeat

[TheJay13]

Indeed, I started this precisely to see what others thought, see if there were possibly some ways to mitigate it, or even find out if there was any interest in altering the mechanic. Based on my experience, I doubt that altering the mechanic via the methods I purposed above (mostly the limited push range) would really have any massive game changing effects besides making combat flow more nicely and create a more realistic battlefield.

[devoncop]

Personally I really like the mechanic as it makes the players think carefully before they push the "charge button". Does the enemy have reserves that can flank any break through units that succeed in pushing his battle line back? Do you if you're are pushed back?

When I started playing FOG2 in MP I often went with a long extended line and found I was getting beat by players who used reserves properly for exactly that reason.

Not all will agree but as it stands it is one of the few games that rewards such tactics.

[jomni]

If you don’t want to push, have the enemy initiate close combat instead.

[stockwellpete]

It wouldnt be too much of an issue if pushbacks were limited to one or two squares of the units initial position but it is a little ridiculous to see a bunch of units getting pushed five squares back way out of the line of battle and just makes some fights a clustered, silly mess. I dont really know of any situation historically where a singular section of troops pushed another group of troops out of their battle line and halfway across the countryside.

Yes, I agree. I did raise this in the beta. I think a stronger unit should be able to push back a weaker unit up to a maximum of two squares in a continuous melee.

I also suggested that units could not be pushed back at all if they had steady friendly units either side of them and facing in exactly the same direction. I think this would reward players who organise their armies into coherent battle-lines.

[Lysimachos]

It wouldnt be too much of an issue if pushbacks were limited to one or two squares of the units initial position but it is a little ridiculous to see a bunch of units getting pushed five squares back way out of the line of battle and just makes some fights a clustered, silly mess. I dont really know of any situation historically where a singular section of troops pushed another group of troops out of their battle line and halfway across the countryside.

Yes, I agree. I did raise this in the beta. I think a stronger unit should be able to push back a weaker unit up to a maximum of two squares in a continuous melee.

I also suggested that units could not be pushed back at all if they had steady friendly units either side of them and facing in exactly the same direction. I think this would reward players who organise their armies into coherent battle-lines.

I completely agree with Stockwellpete and Jay13. The actual mechanism tends to break the sense of linear battle that was the essence of ancient battles.
A maximum of two squares would be optimal, giving adequate space to the mechanism but also avoiding it to ruin the overall trend of the fight.

[w_michael]

I like the mechanic, and contributes to making the battle look more like what I imagine to be a good depiction of the maelstrom of battle. We have all read accounts where troops have been pushed back in battle. Units obtain local superiority over their opponent, who withdraws out of contact to recover and avoid destruction. The solid battle lines becomes fragmented upon contact with the enemy, with some units advancing; some retreating. Some unit's flanks wills be exposed, some units will be pushed back frequently. Gaps will be created that can be exploited.

I think that solid, inflexible battle lines would be boring, and unrealistic.

[stockwellpete]

I like the mechanic, and contributes to making the battle look more like what I imagine to be a good depiction of the maelstrom of battle. We have all read accounts where troops have been pushed back in battle. Units obtain local superiority over their opponent, who withdraws out of contact to recover and avoid destruction. The solid battle lines becomes fragmented upon contact with the enemy, with some units advancing; some retreating. Some unit's flanks wills be exposed, some units will be pushed back frequently. Gaps will be created that can be exploited.

I think that solid, inflexible battle lines would be boring, and unrealistic.

No-one is saying get rid of it though. Just that it might be moderated a bit. Battle lines would only stay "solid" under my second suggestion until a unit "disrupted" somewhere. That can often be on impact so in many cases there wouldn't be any difference at all. But over a number of battles I think you might find that the centre of the battle lines would be a bit more resilient and players would be more concerned to deploy historically than can be the case at the moment.

[TheGrayMouser]

I like the mechanic, and contributes to making the battle look more like what I imagine to be a good depiction of the maelstrom of battle. We have all read accounts where troops have been pushed back in battle. Units obtain local superiority over their opponent, who withdraws out of contact to recover and avoid destruction. The solid battle lines becomes fragmented upon contact with the enemy, with some units advancing; some retreating. Some unit's flanks wills be exposed, some units will be pushed back frequently. Gaps will be created that can be exploited.

I think that solid, inflexible battle lines would be boring, and unrealistic.

No-one is saying get rid of it though. Just that it might be moderated a bit. Battle lines would only stay "solid" under my second suggestion until a unit "disrupted" somewhere. That can often be on impact so in many cases there wouldn't be any difference at all. But over a number of battles I think you might find that the centre of the battle lines would be a bit more resilient and players would be more concerned to deploy historically than can be the case at the moment.

I say leave it alone. The game already encourages reasonable deployment and battlines. I don’t think we need xtra rules of “double elbow courage” or limit push backs to two(why 2? It’s just arbitrary). I realize some might see more extreme behavior but in my mp games a unit might get pushed once or twice before it : routes, can’t do to friendly troops or terrain , or another enemy makes contact.
Perhaps too people are forgetting cannae?( how that actually looked who knows though)

[w_michael]

No-one is saying get rid of it though. Just that it might be moderated a bit.

Your suggestion is very reasonable.

[stockwellpete]

I say leave it alone. The game already encourages reasonable deployment and battlines. I don’t think we need xtra rules of “double elbow courage” or limit push backs to two(why 2? It’s just arbitrary). I realize some might see more extreme behavior but in my mp games a unit might get pushed once or twice before it : routes, can’t do to friendly troops or terrain , or another enemy makes contact.
Perhaps too people are forgetting cannae?( how that actually looked who knows though)

2 is not arbitrary at all. It is the number of pushbacks required to take a unit through enemy lines and then leave it open to a possible flank attack from enemy units in a second line. Which is my understanding of exactly what is desired by the game designers.

[TheGrayMouser]

I say leave it alone. The game already encourages reasonable deployment and battlines. I don’t think we need xtra rules of “double elbow courage” or limit push backs to two(why 2? It’s just arbitrary). I realize some might see more extreme behavior but in my mp games a unit might get pushed once or twice before it : routes, can’t do to friendly troops or terrain , or another enemy makes contact.
Perhaps too people are forgetting cannae?( how that actually looked who knows though)

2 is not arbitrary at all. It is the number of pushbacks required to take a unit through enemy lines and then leave it open to a possible flank attack from enemy units in a second line. Which is my understanding of exactly what is desired by the game designers.

Well RBS would have to address the intent but I think your letting the exceptions drive the rule. I personally don't think the intent was to have victorious troops push back "just enough but not one step more" so as to be flanked but rather represent ruptured lines, (but clearly the risk is there to the push-backer...) Reminds me of anarchy in FOG1 Boo hoo, I cant control my troops but I want them to anarchy cause I want the feature but I want to control exactly when and how they anarchy Sorry Fog 1 flashbacks!

So not arbitray, but such a change is to turn the violent pushing back and retreating of troops that are like "oh crap" into a neat known event. (that no doubt will be exploited)

Pete , we have played several games with shock troops galore, did any single thing in any of those battles lead you to believe that somehow this is really an issue?

[stockwellpete]

Pete , we have played several games with shock troops galore, did any single thing in any of those battles lead you to believe that somehow this is really an issue?

In some games that I have played, probably around 25%, I think it has been an issue to a certain extent. In the worst cases, the two armies have approached each other into melee and the weaker units on both sides have been pushed back and then destroyed. So then both armies have to turn round and advance again. I think I described it before as a weird type of American line-dancing (I think all line-dancing is weird, just to be clear).

I think I might make a suggestion to roguedjack, who has done an excellent mod already, and see if he is interested in incorporating these ideas into his mod. Those of us who are interested could then have a good look at it.