My letter to Santa Claus

[Athos1660]

Christmas is coming so, as a nod, here is a new (partly cosmetic) item to the list : more shooting, smoke and noise :
(...)
- smoke and noise for Impact pistol and melee pistol during the charge and the melees. It could help, for example, distinguish Impact pistol det. horses and Impact mounted ones acoustically. Kuirassiers's charges would be nicer. Etc.

Differentiation in animating the charge of Impact Foot P&S and the charge of 'standard' P&S would be nice too :
- Impact foot : some shooting at close range first (with smoke and noise), then the charge
- 'Standard' : the charge

[Cronos09]

Differentiation in animating the charge of Impact Foot P&S and the charge of 'standard' P&S would be nice too :
- Impact foot : some shooting at close range first (with smoke and noise), then the charge
- 'Standard' : the charge

Something like this

[Athos1660]

Indeed

I guess there are two options to display the outcome of a charging Impact foot P&S unit with the musketeers shooting at close range first, then the pikemen charging :
1) The 2-step option (your pics)
- The shooting at close range -> the casualties from shooting are displayed
- Then a normal charge -> the casualties from the charge are displayed
Casualties from the shooting + Casualties from the charge = the high casualties of 'Impact foot'

2) The 1-step option (FoG2) :
- The shooting before the charge is just cosmetic (= just noise, smoke and animation, no casualty numbers displayed)
- Then an Impact foot charge -> High casualties are displayed
This is what happens with e.g. the Praetorian Guard in FoG2: Ancients : they throw Spears while charging, then there is the impact, then the total number of the casualties during the 2 steps is shown.

(edit)
btw this would make a nice animation with 3D miniatures à la FoGII :
- The musketeers discharge their musket
- The pikemen charge
- The musketeers catch up with them

[Cronos09]

My version is cosmetic with 'non-cosmetic' losses:

Code: Select all

	if ((IsFoot(me) == 1) && (IsShockTroops(me) == 1))
		{
			Unit_Shoot(me, unit);
		}	

I added this script block to FUNCTION UNIT_ASSAULT(me, unit, pursuit) in Assault.BSF. If you wish to improve the feature you will have to write a new function instead of Unit_Shoot(me, unit) there.

[Athos1660]

Than you for sharing

I put this bit of code at the end of the FUNCTION. The order of the steps is mixed up : charge, shooting, impact, casualties, opportunity fire by enemy in melee. Np, I saw how it could look like

[Cronos09]

I put this bit of code at the end of the FUNCTION. The order of the steps is mixed up : charge, shooting, impact, casualties, opportunity fire by enemy in melee. Np, I saw how it could look like

You could put my code under // ResolveSupportShooting(me); string. Though the result is the same.
Last night Santa Claus told me how I could improve this feature So he said that I could tell Athos that this

Differentiation in animating the charge of Impact Foot P&S and the charge of 'standard' P&S would be nice too :
- Impact foot : some shooting at close range first (with smoke and noise), then the charge
- 'Standard' : the charge

was done. After the script block

Code: Select all

	else // Already in adjacent square
		{
			adjacent_X = GetUnitX(me);
			adjacent_Y = GetUnitY(me);
		}

you should put the next one

Code: Select all

		if ((GetAttrib(me, "Impact_Foot") > 0) || (GetAttrib(me, "Salvo") > 0))
		{
			AddVizAnim(me, "FIRE", 255);
			AddVizFunctionCall("RemoveShootCasualties", unit, me);
		}

And at the end of the file (Assault.BSF) you should put the next function

Code: Select all

FUNCTION RemoveShootCasualties(me, enemy)
{
	int current_strength;
	int men_lost;
	int new_strength;
	int distance;
	int percent;
	int max_lost;

	current_strength = GetAttrib(me, "TotalMen");
	distance = GetDistanceBetween(me, enemy);
	
	percent = Max(3, 6 / distance); // May need tweaking
		
	max_lost = current_strength * percent;
	max_lost /= 100;
	
	men_lost = SkewedRandom(2, max_lost, 1);
	
	if (men_lost > 0)
		{
			DisplayCasualties(me, men_lost, 0);
	    new_strength = current_strength - men_lost;
			SetAttrib(me, "TotalMen", new_strength);			
		}
}

Now we have the nice charge for Impact Foot and Salvo Foot. I even think of including it to my General mod.

1) Start of a charge 2) Shooting at close range (with smoke, noise and some casualties) 3) Impact

The casualties are displayed according your first option:

1) The 2-step option (your pics)
- The shooting at close range -> the casualties from shooting are displayed
- Then a normal charge -> the casualties from the charge are displayed
Casualties from the shooting + Casualties from the charge = the high casualties of 'Impact foot'

[Athos1660]

Very nice !! I'll test it asap. Thank you very much.
And this Santa Klaus is very nice. Thank him for me the next time you see him

Just a thought before any test :

With option 2, in average, some casualties from the shooting + the casualties from Impact foot > Vanilla casualties from Impact foot, right ?

If so, is it possible to moderate the effect of Impact Foot ? Does it work to write e.g. "90% Impact Foot" in the Squads file ? So that :

The casualties from the shooting + the casualties from 80% or 95% Impact foot = Vanilla casualties from Impact foot

(I knew Santa Klaus was real ! )

[Cronos09]

If so, is it possible to moderate the effect of Impact Foot ? Does it work to write e.g. "90% Impact Foot" in the Squads file ? So that :

The casualties from the shooting + the casualties from 80% or 95% Impact foot = Vanilla casualties from Impact foot

I am not sure, but it hardly be done I think (see FUNCTION ResolveCloseCombat in CloseCombatLogic.BSF)
Correction for the above feature:
1) the condition should be put after the script block (Assault.BSF)

Code: Select all

			// Turn unit to face tile it is assaulting.
			if (evaded == 0)
				{
					AddVizUnitTurnToFace(me, GetUnitX(unit), GetUnitY(unit));
				}

in order to turn in the direction of the enemy before shooting
2) I changed the function RemoveShootCasualties to have the final losses about 10

Code: Select all

FUNCTION RemoveShootCasualties(me, enemy)
{
	int current_strength;
	int men_lost;
	int new_strength;
	int distance;
	int percent;
	int max_lost;

	current_strength = GetAttrib(me, "TotalMen");
	distance = GetDistanceBetween(me, enemy);
	
	max_lost = current_strength * 4;
	max_lost /= 100;
	
	men_lost = SkewedRandom(5, max_lost, 1);
	
	if (men_lost > 0)
		{
			DisplayCasualties(me, men_lost, 0);
	    new_strength = current_strength - men_lost;
			SetAttrib(me, "TotalMen", new_strength);			
		}
}

[Athos1660]

Would a sequel of P&S give Arquebusiers (the Horse, not the LH) the ability to evade Cuirassiers and such, like say the Mounted Crossbowmen in FoG2: M ?

[rbodleyscott]

Would a sequel of P&S give Arquebusiers (the Horse, not the LH) the ability to evade Cuirassiers and such, like say the Mounted Crossbowmen in FoG2: M ?

Probably not. They didn't really act as skirmishers. The ones that did are already rated as light horse.

[Athos1660]

Logical. Thank you, Richard, for the quick answer.

So they didn't skirmish while being very weak at (head-on) impact against the other types of non-light cav.
I'll keep on cautiously using them combined with Armoured Horses with pistols or Kurassiers. That's fun

[Athos1660]

This is only a personal impression. I find the French 1635-1642 in P&S, both a bit dull (except for the presence of Commanded shots) and showing a radical break with the previous French list.

In P&S :

• the French 1623-1634 have only Horses (Arquebusier, Horse, Kurassiers) and are above all an Infantry army

• the French 1635-1642 have only Determined Horses (mostly Average ones, a few Veteran) and I also have the feeling that the proportion of cavalry compared to infantry has hugely increased in one go.

in FoG TT Wars of Religion, the army lists seem more put together for this period (and maybe also more similar to some of my reading) :

• French 1635-1642 : only Horses (Arquebusier, Horse)

And it reads in the TT text :
'In the early stages of their participation in the war, French armies contained a relatively low proportion of cavalry, and these continued to fight in deeper formations than most contemporary cavalry according to Montecuccoli writing in about 1640.'

In the same vein, in the French Armies of the TYW, Thion writes about 1635-48 :
’The French squadron was 3 to 6 rows deep, while the depth was 6-12 rows for the Germans, 5 rows for the Dutch and 3 for the Swedes ». He adds in the French version of the book : 'But because of the Swedish influence, the whole French cavalry quickly adopted the 3 row formation'.

(It is surprising that this sentence does appear in the English translation )

• French 1643-1648 : some Horses and, from then on, determined Horses (average and superior)

I guess these changes in the P&S French were made to balance changes in other army lists. I noticed e.g. that Spanish have the same Army list covering 1635-1648 with both Horses and determined Horses while TT Spanish get Determined Horses only from 1640.

It certainly makes the French list stronger. Nonetheless I have the feeling that the French 1635-1642 army list lost part of its flavour.

Btw both TT lists have Miquelets as LF.
I for one would add to the P&S list some LF (Enfants perdus as in the previous TT list were used then) too.

(Of course, all these small changes can be easily modded.)

[Athos1660]

There could be a few Impact mounted determined horses in the French 1691-1697 list.

In a letter about the weapons used during cavalry charges, written on August 1689, Marshall Duras, commander of the Army in Germany and user of the pistols, wrote to minister Louvois (trying to discourage Louvois and Louis XIV from imposing charges with the sword as the official doctrine and encourage them to let the officiers choose for themselves) : "I found here old officers who agreed with me. I also found young ones who had never heard of using the pistols and who use only their swords".

According to V. Belhomme (L'armée française en 1690), Louvois did write such official order in 1690 and the following years (which of course doesn't mean it was fully followed on the battlefield).

In his dissertation in 1701, Marshall Villars swear by the charge with the sword only.

[StuccoFresco]

THere is always some cool historical reference in this kind of threads. I just love it.

[CharlesdeBatz]

A very nice addition to the combat logic. Just one point of inquiry:

As written, won't this code result in excessive losses from a charge by Impact Foot (since the losses will be additive, combining the vanilla "Impact" casualties and the additional casualties from the shooting prior to impact)? Or am I misunderstanding the logic?

Edit: That is, wouldn't we need to change the PoA for these units to reduce the casualties generated on "Impact" such that the total casualties are the same as before? I think the easiest way to do that would be to adjust the PoA for Impact Foot and Salvo units in the GetImpactPOA() function, but I'm not sure where that is located (I can't find it in Assault.BSF or CloseCombatLogic.BSF).

[Cronos09]

As written, won't this code result in excessive losses from a charge by Impact Foot (since the losses will be additive, combining the vanilla "Impact" casualties and the additional casualties from the shooting prior to impact)? Or am I misunderstanding the logic?

Edit: That is, wouldn't we need to change the PoA for these units to reduce the casualties generated on "Impact" such that the total casualties are the same as before? I think the easiest way to do that would be to adjust the PoA for Impact Foot and Salvo units in the GetImpactPOA() function, but I'm not sure where that is located (I can't find it in Assault.BSF or CloseCombatLogic.BSF).

I use this feature for Impact Mounted and Bombs throw prior to impact. Based on my notice the losses are not additive (since counting them in two different functions), though it helps to drop the enemy morale.

GetImpactPOA() function is in CombatTools.BSF. Try, experiment - any result in scripting can be obtained from one's personal experience.

[companion]

Effect (or interpretation thereof) of close range shooting is already baked in the impact POA and cohesion roll penalty of Salvo and Impact Foot. Rolling for extra casualties and another cohesion roll from shooting is too much.

If I understand it correctly, this is the bottom-up designing method that may not be compatible with rest of the ruleset based on top-down method.

[Cronos09]

Effect (or interpretation thereof) of close range shooting is already baked in the impact POA and cohesion roll penalty of Salvo and Impact Foot. Rolling for extra casualties and another cohesion roll from shooting is too much.

If I understand it correctly, this is the bottom-up designing method that may not be compatible with rest of the ruleset based on top-down method.

I do not make you to use the innovation. If you can make this more suitable for the game rules from your point of view, please, do it and we will see the result.

[Athos1660]

I don't see what would be incompatible with the top-down method but I may be mistaken.

That said, the method that'd stick to the current P&S build would be to keep the scripts and rules as they are currently in game and just lengthen the animation to show the 2 phases (the shooting, then the charge) without any effect on the numbers/CT, ie just a cosmetic change.

[companion]

Effect (or interpretation thereof) of close range shooting is already baked in the impact POA and cohesion roll penalty of Salvo and Impact Foot. Rolling for extra casualties and another cohesion roll from shooting is too much.

If I understand it correctly, this is the bottom-up designing method that may not be compatible with rest of the ruleset based on top-down method.

I do not make you to use the innovation. If you can make this more suitable for the game rules from your point of view, please, do it and we will see the result.

No need to be defensive, there is nothing wrong with playing with house rule modifications. I'm just chipping in my opinion about the content that you posted on this public forum and neither you nor I are required to follow anyone's rule mod or interpretations.

Here are some details of my concern:
In P&S, the act of "shooting" simulates at-range combat where the shooting unit(s) is not intending to engage in close combat anytime soon.
The act of "impact" simulates any and all act performed by the involved units right at or before the moment of physical melee contact. This includes point blank shooting by impact pistol, impact foot, and salvo.
Obviously, no unit is allowed to perform both actions within a single order phase; it will either engage in at-range combat or impact for melee.

What your impact foot modification does is that it breaks down the impact action into constituent parts: the unit will move up, the unit will shoot, then the unit will impact. However, by P&S rule this is tantamount to performing two incompatible actions in one go because the rule already assumes that the close range shooting happens during the act of impact.

Thus,
If you felt that the impact foot needed more impact power, then your modification will indeed fill that deficiency.
But if you do not intend to change the combat power balance between impact foot and other units, then I think you will need to substantially tweak the POA values and cohesion roll modifiers for both shooting and impact.

After all, board game rules are about how best to represent a set of interpretations regarding records of past events, such that the rules are sufficiently simple/complex and logically plausible for a fun play session. Quite obviously, interpretations differ from person to person and supposed suitability of any piece of rule/modification should only be judged by the particular interpretation that it intends to represent.


Edit:

RE: design philosophies
As I understand it, bottom-up is about paying attention to details and accepting the combined effects of the details. Top-down is about abstracting the details to arrive at desired effects. The scales are not binary; some design choices may lean more to one side than another.
Your impact foot modifications seem to lean more into bottom-up territory compared to the default ruleset's abstractions that does not give shooting pistols to Kurassiers nor lancer attributes to Sipahis.