3 things I don like about gameplay...

[Aryaman]

and I would be glad they are changed, although not sure how to do it

1. The advantage that cheap armies have over high quality armies. Quantity is superior to quality because outflanking is relatively easy

2. Units rallying in the far corner of the battlefield deciding the outcome in a match

3. The chaos of the battlefield, no battlelines after some turns, individual fights, units running and being followed all over the battlefield...

[stockwellpete]

2. Units rallying in the far corner of the battlefield deciding the outcome in a match

Yes, this can be very frustrating if you are on the receiving end. Maybe one way of modifying this would be to say that units can only continue with their rallying rolls if they are within a certain number of squares of a non-routed commander. So if they go beyond this range they can never recover. There are probably counter-arguments to this idea but I cannot think of them at the moment.

[Ludendorf]

On the other hand, if you rout a unit, you should be prepared for the possibility of a unit coming back, especially if the enemy army contains units of Superior quality or higher. If your victory was so close that one unit rallying was enough to lose you the battle, and you didn't account for that... you could argue it's tough luck to an extent.

That said, I have been left feeling slightly robbed when this has happened to me. It feels harsh... but on the other hand, it's also frustrating when that unit of superior pike break within two turns of impact, take barely any casualties, and then flee for five turns and disperse.

[Paul59]

2. Units rallying in the far corner of the battlefield deciding the outcome in a match

Yes, this can be very frustrating if you are on the receiving end. Maybe one way of modifying this would be to say that units can only continue with their rallying rolls if they are within a certain number of squares of a non-routed commander. So if they go beyond this range they can never recover. There are probably counter-arguments to this idea but I cannot think of them at the moment.

That's not a bad idea, but one argument against would be that not all capable leaders are represented in the game by a "General".

In an army there might be any number of junior leaders who are capable of using their initiative to influence a battle. One good example that springs to mind is Kynoskephalai, where the battle was won by a Roman tribune who led a few maniples in a flank attack on the Macedonian phalanx. His name is not even recorded by Plutarch and Livy.

[melm]

It happened to me that one cav just rallied on the flank of my melee horses. After one turn, it rallied again. =D

Pete's idea sounds good. Rally possibility shall be related with the general command range. What I think a little tuning is that rally probability should also be with the quality of units, say high quality unit like superior has the current rally probability and lower quality unit has even lower rally probability.

The most annoying thing is the unit with general. They keep rally test for every turn. But let's keep it as it is.

[Benedict151]

FWIW I like Pete's idea as well

ben

[stockwellpete]

3. The chaos of the battlefield, no battlelines after some turns, individual fights, units running and being followed all over the battlefield...

This is being partly considered in the latest beta with regards to infantry pushbacks, the thought being that maybe this happens too often and leads to the premature break up of the battle lines. So we will have to see what the outcome is with this beta testing.

There is also an issue with cavalry pursuit that I think might merit further consideration. I am not playing FOG2 much at the moment so I might not be getting this right, but it seems that pursuing cavalry will move through secondary ZOC's of non-routed enemy cavalry to follow the enemy cavalry unit they have just routed. Whereas they seem to stop pursuing if they move into a primary ZOC of a non-routed enemy cavalry unit. What I am not sure about is whether there is some random element to this or whether these are the default outcomes. If they are the default outcomes then maybe the pursuing cavalry should always stop in a secondary ZOC?

Because at the moment if the victorious unit continues to pursue the routed enemy unit, it often ends up behind all the other enemy cavalry units in that area and they then have to turn round to chase it. This can lead to cavalry getting spread out all over the place prematurely in a battle if the victorious unit then has to flee to avoid being attacked by multiple units. If the victorious cavalry unit stops in the secondary ZOC square then on the next turn a new melee can begin if the opponent wants it to. This would be much tidier and would delay the dispersal of cavalry which is almost bound to happen in the later stages of a battle (as it should do).

[TheGrayMouser]

I don’t like the idea of changing what is to be considered a core game mechanic since fog1. Units that are routed are not going to be influenced by a leader 500 yards away anyhow, it’s going to be the men or any local officer that gets them back into the battle. Also, if the leader providing the “rally” umbrella is in combat, do the rallies stop?

A better solution, if one is needed, would be to prevent rallying by a routed unit at all if there is a non fragged/non routed enemy in the “vicinity”. ( to be defined but 2-4 grids would be good). This would leave light Cavalry an important role , harrying routed enemies so they never rejoin.

Pete’s already addressed the battline thing, leaving the question of quality v quantity. That is too wrapped up in the points system for skirmish battles, the heart of the game, for any simple solution. It likely would need a robust command and control rule. A very simple change, would be simply to get rid of flank attack auto cohesion loss followed up by the 200 poa. Just retain a simple 50 poa advantage.
There appears to be some school of thought that flank attacks are really not at all what we imagine, and really were rear attacks coming from an angle. ( if you think of how shallow units depth was to width , a 90 degree attack doesn’t allow for many flankers to even come into contact with the flanked). Rear attacks only giving the “big bonus” would certainly change in game play coupled with tighter battle lines with the push back changes.

[MVP7]

I wouldn't mind if far gone routers didn't rally at all since they usually won't contribute to the battle beyond the victory percentage and that contribution is very questionable as well. It seems weird that a unit of fragmented men shivering in a forest at the far edge of the map counts towards victory.

I wouldn't tie it to the location of generals though but rather have something simple like units dispersing automatically if they have routed for 5 or 6 turns for example. Any pursuits should be done by that time and if they haven't been able to rally by then it seems very unlikely that they could be rallied and brought back to that fight at all (both realistically and in terms of gameplay).

[stockwellpete]

A better solution, if one is needed, would be to prevent rallying by a routed unit at all if there is a non fragged/non routed enemy in the “vicinity”. ( to be defined but 2-4 grids would be good). This would leave light Cavalry an important role , harrying routed enemies so they never rejoin.

Yes, that would be an interesting idea to try.

Pete’s already addressed the battline thing, leaving the question of quality v quantity. That is too wrapped up in the points system for skirmish battles, the heart of the game, for any simple solution. It likely would need a robust command and control rule. A very simple change, would be simply to get rid of flank attack auto cohesion loss followed up by the 200 poa. Just retain a simple 50 poa advantage.
There appears to be some school of thought that flank attacks are really not at all what we imagine, and really were rear attacks coming from an angle. ( if you think of how shallow units depth was to width , a 90 degree attack doesn’t allow for many flankers to even come into contact with the flanked). Rear attacks only giving the “big bonus” would certainly change in game play coupled with tighter battle lines with the push back changes.

Yes again. I would like to try that as well. I wonder if someone could mod these two ideas if they are deemed not suitable for a beta test? With betas you can only really change one variable so there may not be enough time to test all these things even if they were thought worthwhile..

[TheGrayMouser]

I wouldn't mind if far gone routers didn't rally at all since they usually won't contribute to the battle beyond the victory percentage and that contribution is very questionable as well. It seems weird that a unit of fragmented men shivering in a forest at the far edge of the map counts towards victory

No weirder than when in a tight battle a light foot on the very edge of the battle, out of sight of the main forces is caught by a prowling light Cavalry and routed, ending the battle at 61 to 59

Perhaps routed units that rally shouldn’t push back the % for victory conditions? This would build in an abstract combat fatigue for the armies, and allow for vulnerability for large armies of cheap troops that have more opportunity to rally as is.

[MVP7]

I wouldn't mind if far gone routers didn't rally at all since they usually won't contribute to the battle beyond the victory percentage and that contribution is very questionable as well. It seems weird that a unit of fragmented men shivering in a forest at the far edge of the map counts towards victory

No weirder than when in a tight battle a light foot on the very edge of the battle, out of sight of the main forces is caught by a prowling light Cavalry and routed, ending the battle at 61 to 59

Perhaps routed units that rally shouldn’t push back the % for victory conditions? This would build in an abstract combat fatigue for the armies, and allow for vulnerability for large armies of cheap troops that have more opportunity to rally as is.

If the routed unit has already been running away for several turns the most sensible depiction of fatigue would be that they can't join the fight at all. By that time it is clear that the rout was not just some tactical retreat gone temporarily a bit out of control but a full on uncontrolled flight. The rallied units are already combat ineffective most of the time and if they didn't count towards victory percentage they would be nothing but a waste of time to rerout for the other side as well. I can't think of any historical examples where a completely broken unit would have returned to the same battle and contributed.

Dispersing the "pointless" units would of course sometimes solve a battle that would otherwise go on for a bit longer but mostly in situations that would already have degraded into spread out units chasing each other around the map. That kind of unorganized "cleanup" is not the game's strongest suit so nothing of value would be lost in my opinion. For compensation the victory requirements could be made a little bit stricter (like needing 30% advantage rather than 25% to win with 40-59% of the enemy routed).

[rbodleyscott]

3. The chaos of the battlefield, no battlelines after some turns, individual fights, units running and being followed all over the battlefield...

This is being partly considered in the latest beta with regards to infantry pushbacks, the thought being that maybe this happens too often and leads to the premature break up of the battle lines. So we will have to see what the outcome is with this beta testing.

There is also an issue with cavalry pursuit that I think might merit further consideration. I am not playing FOG2 much at the moment so I might not be getting this right, but it seems that pursuing cavalry will move through secondary ZOC's of non-routed enemy cavalry to follow the enemy cavalry unit they have just routed. Whereas they seem to stop pursuing if they move into a primary ZOC of a non-routed enemy cavalry unit. What I am not sure about is whether there is some random element to this or whether these are the default outcomes. If they are the default outcomes then maybe the pursuing cavalry should always stop in a secondary ZOC?

They don't stop in either primary or secondary ZOC unless they have run out of AP.

[rbodleyscott]

and I would be glad they are changed, although not sure how to do it

1. The advantage that cheap armies have over high quality armies. Quantity is superior to quality because outflanking is relatively easy

3. The chaos of the battlefield, no battlelines after some turns, individual fights, units running and being followed all over the battlefield...

The changes to push backs that are currently being beta tested go a long way to addressing both of the above issues.

[stockwellpete]

3. The chaos of the battlefield, no battlelines after some turns, individual fights, units running and being followed all over the battlefield...

This is being partly considered in the latest beta with regards to infantry pushbacks, the thought being that maybe this happens too often and leads to the premature break up of the battle lines. So we will have to see what the outcome is with this beta testing.

There is also an issue with cavalry pursuit that I think might merit further consideration. I am not playing FOG2 much at the moment so I might not be getting this right, but it seems that pursuing cavalry will move through secondary ZOC's of non-routed enemy cavalry to follow the enemy cavalry unit they have just routed. Whereas they seem to stop pursuing if they move into a primary ZOC of a non-routed enemy cavalry unit. What I am not sure about is whether there is some random element to this or whether these are the default outcomes. If they are the default outcomes then maybe the pursuing cavalry should always stop in a secondary ZOC?

They don't stop in either primary or secondary ZOC unless they have run out of AP.

OK, then my point would be that perhaps they should always stop pursuing when entering a non-routed enemies' primary or secondary ZOC.

[rbodleyscott]

This is being partly considered in the latest beta with regards to infantry pushbacks, the thought being that maybe this happens too often and leads to the premature break up of the battle lines. So we will have to see what the outcome is with this beta testing.

There is also an issue with cavalry pursuit that I think might merit further consideration. I am not playing FOG2 much at the moment so I might not be getting this right, but it seems that pursuing cavalry will move through secondary ZOC's of non-routed enemy cavalry to follow the enemy cavalry unit they have just routed. Whereas they seem to stop pursuing if they move into a primary ZOC of a non-routed enemy cavalry unit. What I am not sure about is whether there is some random element to this or whether these are the default outcomes. If they are the default outcomes then maybe the pursuing cavalry should always stop in a secondary ZOC?

They don't stop in either primary or secondary ZOC unless they have run out of AP.

OK, then my point would be that perhaps they should always stop pursuing when entering a non-routed enemies' primary or secondary ZOC.

If we wanted cavalry engagements to be less chaotic and more easily predictable then that would be one way of making them so.

But we don't.

We cannot please everybody, and prefer to stick to our vision on this. Cavalry engagements were not static or neat.

[stockwellpete]

If we wanted cavalry engagements to be less chaotic and more easily predictable then that would be one way of making them so.

But we don't.

We cannot please everybody, and prefer to stick to our vision on this. Cavalry engagements were not static or neat.

Fair enough, but if I was rbodleyscott for a day I would introduce what I have suggested along with the old "anarchy rules". Just as much chaos no doubt, and probably a bit more realistic.

[rbodleyscott]

If we wanted cavalry engagements to be less chaotic and more easily predictable then that would be one way of making them so.

But we don't.

We cannot please everybody, and prefer to stick to our vision on this. Cavalry engagements were not static or neat.

Fair enough, but if I was rbodleyscott for a day I would introduce what I have suggested along with the old "anarchy rules".

Is this a competition prize that Slitherine should consider?

"Be rbodleyscott for a day!"

[Barrold713]

If we wanted cavalry engagements to be less chaotic and more easily predictable then that would be one way of making them so.

But we don't.

We cannot please everybody, and prefer to stick to our vision on this. Cavalry engagements were not static or neat.

Fair enough, but if I was rbodleyscott for a day I would introduce what I have suggested along with the old "anarchy rules".

Is this a competition prize that Slitherine should consider?

"Be rbodleyscott for a day!"

Would there be a fancy hat involved?

[ianiow]

I must say I like TGM's idea of dropping the auto-cohesion drop for flank attacks (while keeping it for rear attacks). It makes sense historically, and is probably the reason for the imbalance in effectiveness of Wall of Crap armies.