Alternative Gameplay Mod [DEPRECATED]

[TomoeGozen]

Hi schweetness, something else weird now..
I managed to accept both of the games against you (obviously) , but now , going back in to create a single player game I can not 'accept' my army list as the 'accept' button is hidden/missing.
I have loaded the latest version of the game since I accepted the games against you so I'm guessing something has changed with the resolutions supported in the latest version. What resolution do I need to be using? I'm running 1920x1080.
thanks,
Dave.

edited: all ok now , downloaded it again. must have had an earlier version.

[mceochaidh]

I have now played 3 single player games using the latest version of the mod. Here is a brief report.

The first game was Macedonian 270 BC versus Romans of the same period, large battle. I used as many pike units as there were in order to test the pike versus hastati/princeps outcome and got to combat as quickly as I could. The game has a different feel to it. It was hard at first to manage the lower casualty rate for formed foot versus formed foot. The pike units can stand a long time. There was one double drop for a phalanx unit and none for the Romans. Since I had very few Macedonian cavalry, the battle took a while. The only anarchy charge was a pike unit charging a medium infantry. The Macedonians eventually were able to wear down the Romans, winning near the end. I was never able to achieve a rear charge, although flank charges (+100) were numerous. Visually, I did miss the 4 rank phalanx units. All in all, it was a refreshingly new experience, prompting me to play again.

Next game was Irish 1000 AD with Viking ally versus Viking with Scots ally. The Irish moved up and occupied a low ridge. The Vikings moved to engage, giving the Irish (generally) a slight advantage in initial impact calculations. The Irish mediums stood against the Viking spear units reasonably well, while the Huscarls on both sides dominated. There were a number of anarchy charges on both sides. In this game, I added 2 generals to the Irish, who promptly both were kIA, as I charged in with them. While I liked the command and control rules, it does seem it is best for generals to be added to combat later in the game. This is not quite historical, especially in earlier warfare. The Greek early armies featured commanders in the front ranks to provide the leadership required to charge in. Victor Davis Hanson, in his "Western Way of War" talks about the death rate of commanders being much higher than the rank and file hoplite due to leading from the front. I am mulling over some ideas to suggest about this. Nevertheless, the command and control system works and is certainly an improvement from the vanilla system.

Last game was Frankish circa 700 AD versus Andalusian from same period. Here I wanted to try out lancers, so used a lot. I liked the quick bloody combats. Here again , lots of anarchy charges, making the game more interesting due to the uncertainty. Regarding lancers, I still think that they have too much influence on halting foot units and holding them up for inordinate periods of time. Did lancers really ride up to 30 meters away and sit for an extended period? Would they not charge or feint hoping that the infantry flinch? Maybe (and I seem to remember this was suggested) lancers should have an increased chance of anarchy the longer they sit in front of infantry and if they do charge in, have lower casualties than usual simulating that they did not penetrate the infantry formation. In this case the infantry casualties should be lower as well. I am thinking -10 % for lancers and -20% for infantry, unless the infantry become disordered by the charge.

These comments aside, I think this mod has enormous potential to make a great game even better!

Mac

[Schweetness101]

I have now played 3 single player games using the latest version of the mod. Here is a brief report...

Mac

thanks so much for the feedback!

Yes, later Macedonian armies that are mostly pikes with relatively few cav do rely on grinding down enemies with pikes, as that is the bulk of their army. they are not that flexible of lists. The cav heavy earlier Macedonian lists (especially the one added for the mod called 'macedonian 4th century army for pike mod') definitely give that classic hammer and anvil feel with the mod though, where pikes pin and cavalry get around. It can be especially fun and chaotic against other lists that are rich in cavalry like some Gallic and Carthaginian lists.

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, there is a big question of the general as hero vs the general as commander issuing orders. Of course, real life involved a combination of both, but I felt that the vanilla game implementation leaned too far towards the former, IE in vanilla I tend to just use generals for the +50 POA, and there's very little reason not to just throw them in to combat. For me (as you mentioned the mod motivated) it feels a bit better to keep generals out of combat during initial maneuvers so they can give movement commands, and then at the critical juncture to commit them when it was really needed (and in particular to make committing the CinC an important decision). One idea with the buying of generals is that you could use a few as more commander type generals who have a large contingent of men attached to them for whom maintaining control is most important, while also assigning one or two generals to mere 3 or 4 unit commands on the front line to use mostly as combat generals (command radius, including for morale boost purposes, is reduced to 1 while a general is in combat, hence assigning the combat general to a three man command).

thanks again!

[stockwellpete]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

[nyczar]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

Hi Pete,

I am looking forward to testing this Mod out. As I see you have been a voice in the design of this, are you thinking this might be a part of the digital league some day....similar to the TT mod being used for biblical? I realize TT is cosmetic and this is a tad more . Just curious...

[stockwellpete]

Hi Pete,

I am looking forward to testing this Mod out. As I see you have been a voice in the design of this, are you thinking this might be a part of the digital league some day....similar to the TT mod being used for biblical? I realize TT is cosmetic and this is a tad more . Just curious...

No, explicitly not. I have given an undertaking to Slitherine that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament.

[Schweetness101]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

I've got an implementation of this up on my local machine. What do you think the values should be? +x% chance to anarchy for each turn you are within charge range of a valid target without charging, up to a max of y%?

[PDiFolco]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

IMHO all of this comes from cav weakness in game, even heavy lancers have bad odds vs any correct infantry.
I think they should have a better impact POA from charge, as they had horses their impact was much heavier than infantry (as a fact, the tip of a lance from chivalric types cav had the same kinetic energy than a cannonball...)

[Schweetness101]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

IMHO all of this comes from cav weakness in game, even heavy lancers have bad odds vs any correct infantry.
I think they should have a better impact POA from charge, as they had horses their impact was much heavier than infantry (as a fact, the tip of a lance from chivalric types cav had the same kinetic energy than a cannonball...)

yeah I would be interested to hear what the proper role of lancers is supposed to be in the vanilla game, because it just doesn't seem like their current role of pinning infantry by standing in front of them was their intended one. From what I can tell, it looks like the vanilla game wants you to pair lancers with ranged units, and to then charge infantry once they've been disrupted by ranged fire (lancers lose poa against steady spear/pike foot if they initiate the charge, but not against non steady foot). That works well with mixed lancer and horse archer armies, and even ranged heavy Arab armies, but what am I supposed to be doing with lancers as, say, the Normans or the Frankish?

It could also be that the type of lancer impact you are describing, the kinetic energy of a cannonball type, will be represented in game with knights in a future medieval DLC, but that ancient and early middle ages lancers weren't quite at that level (I don't know if that's true historically, I'm just guessing that's how the game is).

[stockwellpete]

I've got an implementation of this up on my local machine. What do you think the values should be? +x% chance to anarchy for each turn you are within charge range of a valid target without charging, up to a max of y%?

Been thinking about this. I think it should be quite a high penalty. The first turn they are in charge range they suffer the standard anarchy penalty if they don't move. For the second stationary turn maybe go up 25%. Third turn possibly 100% likelihood of charging.

[Athos1660]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

Yes, I would agree with this idea. An important part of the anarchy rules is to force players to time their approach to the enemy line with troops like lancers. I think the anarchy penalty for just sitting in front of the enemy with shock troops should be quite heavy.

IMHO all of this comes from cav weakness in game, even heavy lancers have bad odds vs any correct infantry.
I think they should have a better impact POA from charge, as they had horses their impact was much heavier than infantry (as a fact, the tip of a lance from chivalric types cav had the same kinetic energy than a cannonball...)

If I am not mistaken, atm there is no "heavy lancer" in game, only lancers (as a capability). Heavy lancers will come with the late(r) middle ages.

Cavalry strength and weakness seem to me accurate in FoG2.

yeah I would be interested to hear what the proper role of lancers is supposed to be in the vanilla game, because it just doesn't seem like their current role of pinning infantry by standing in front of them was their intended one. From what I can tell, it looks like the vanilla game wants you to pair lancers with ranged units, and to then charge infantry once they've been disrupted by ranged fire (lancers lose poa against steady spear/pike foot if they initiate the charge, but not against non steady foot). That works well with mixed lancer and horse archer armies, and even ranged heavy Arab armies, but what am I supposed to be doing with lancers as, say, the Normans or the Frankish?

Flank and rear charges ?

[rbodleyscott]

There really isn't much point in talking about the kinetic energy of a lance point. Particularly as applied to a later period than the game currently covers. Talk of kinetic energy is an example of the bottom up approach that leads to many errors in wargames design.

This is a "top down" set of rules based on what actually happened in historical battle accounts, not on what theoretically "should have" done.

The bottom line is that Ancient and "Dark Age" cavalry were generally not capable of riding down competent infantry in a frontal charge. This is clear from battle accounts. Theoretical considerations of kinetic energy are exactly that, theoretical. We prefer to go on the evidence of actual battles.

[Schweetness101]

There really isn't much point in talking about the kinetic energy of a lance point. Particularly as applied to a later period than the game currently covers. Talk of kinetic energy is an example of the bottom up approach that leads to many errors in wargames design.

This is a "top down" set of rules based on what actually happened in historical battle accounts, not on what theoretically "should have" done.

The bottom line is that Ancient and "Dark Age" cavalry were generally not capable of riding down competent infantry in a frontal charge. This is clear from battle accounts. Theoretical considerations of kinetic energy are exactly that, theoretical. We prefer to go on the evidence of actual battles.

Yes this makes sense. By mentioning Ancient and Dark Age, but not medieval, cav as being generally incapable of riding down competent infantry, that implies that the knights in an upcoming medieval DLC will be capable of doing that?

[rbodleyscott]

There really isn't much point in talking about the kinetic energy of a lance point. Particularly as applied to a later period than the game currently covers. Talk of kinetic energy is an example of the bottom up approach that leads to many errors in wargames design.

This is a "top down" set of rules based on what actually happened in historical battle accounts, not on what theoretically "should have" done.

The bottom line is that Ancient and "Dark Age" cavalry were generally not capable of riding down competent infantry in a frontal charge. This is clear from battle accounts. Theoretical considerations of kinetic energy are exactly that, theoretical. We prefer to go on the evidence of actual battles.

Yes this makes sense. By mentioning Ancient and Dark Age, but not medieval, cav as being generally incapable of riding down competent infantry, that implies that the knights in an upcoming medieval DLC will be capable of doing that?

When we cover the High Medieval period, Knights will have a significantly higher chance of defeating infantry frontally. They should easily defeat most medium foot types in open ground. They will have a reasonable chance of defeating heavy spearmen, much better than for Ancient or Dark Age lancers, but it still won't be a walkover.

Because, once again, we are following the history, and not theory or popular reputation.

[Schweetness101]

I've got an implementation of this up on my local machine. What do you think the values should be? +x% chance to anarchy for each turn you are within charge range of a valid target without charging, up to a max of y%?

Been thinking about this. I think it should be quite a high penalty. The first turn they are in charge range they suffer the standard anarchy penalty if they don't move. For the second stationary turn maybe go up 25%. Third turn possibly 100% likelihood of charging.

those are high values! Right now I have been testing +10% per turn waiting within charge range (with no cap) and it is adding a few more anarchy charges per battle already. Perhaps +20% per turn of standing within charge range would be sufficient? It looks though like you want a non linear curve there, and to more or less guarantee that a unit cannot stand for more than 3 turns in front a valid target within charge range without attacking. That would certainly up the anarchy.

Also, do you think that the global anarchy modifier should also be a bit more significant? right now it just adds +2% per incidence of anarchy up to max 20% modifier.

[pompeytheflatulent]

I am also doubtful as to the historical accuracy of the typical in game (mod or vanilla) use of lancers to walk up to infantry and stand there waiting to be charged. I suspect that it is a kind of unintended artifact of the various rules and POA matchups that more veteran players noticed, and then started exploiting. At the very least, anarchy charges make it a less viable option. I do like the idea of increasing odds to anarchy charge for a unit for every turn they sit unmoved within charge range of an enemy (at least doing that for anarchic units. I doubt for example that either elite lancers or barbarian axemen would just stand a few dozen meters from the enemy line and hang out for a few hours). It would likely force the player to use lancers as an attacking and not pinning unit, which I think would be good.

I think a better way of picturing the situation is the presence of cavalry forcing the infantry into a static defensive posture, lest they get charged while moving. Examples of this type of behavior can be seen at the battle of Falkirk, where the Scottish schiltrons was forced to remain static under the threat of charges by mounted English knights until English longbowmen were brought up to deal with them. Outside of this period there's the Napoleonic wars where the mere presence of enemy cavalry would force infantry into immobile squares until the'r own cavalry or artillery could be brought up to drive the enemy cavalry away.

[stockwellpete]

Also, do you think that the global anarchy modifier should also be a bit more significant? right now it just adds +2% per incidence of anarchy up to max 20% modifier.

Possibly. I am not playing at all at the moment. You can try 4% or 5% until we get a balance that feels right.

[mceochaidh]

I would start with an extra 2% per turn if more than 1 square away and increase to 4% per turn if in ZOC of formed enemy. So after 1 turn in ZOC the percentage would rise from 4% to 6% then 8% after that turn. This may not be enough but testing will show that.

Regarding the discussion of ZOC in the main forum, does it make sense to couple this with the idea proposed in the main forum to eliminate the secondary ZOC of enemy charged for that one turn if cavalry bounces? That would give something back to cavalry while potentially taking away something, i.e, the ability to stand forever. Not sure how difficult that is to implement.

Mac

[mceochaidh]

This is from the Britannica web site on Falkirk:

"The English first line, under Earl Marshal Roger Bigod and the earls of Hereford and Lincoln, tried the marsh in vain and then rode around its western side. The second line, commanded by Antony Bek, the warlike bishop of Durham, quickly circumvented the marsh to the east and then halted to await the arrival of the third line under the king. The undisciplined barons in Bek’s formation grew impatient—reportedly shouting, “’Tis not for thee, bishop, to teach us war. Go say mass!”—and charged the nearest infantry square, which repulsed them with heavy losses. The earls on the English left, their flank march completed, charged Wallace’s forest of spearmen with the same result."

This seems like anarchy charges to me. It is unclear how close the English cavalry were when they began their charge. I think that the closer that cavalry is the more likely they will charge. That is why I advocate a higher percentage for anarchy and escalating with each turn in charge reach.

[Schweetness101]

Regarding the discussion of ZOC in the main forum, does it make sense to couple this with the idea proposed in the main forum to eliminate the secondary ZOC of enemy charged for that one turn if cavalry bounces?

this is actually already in the mod, and there is also a note on the charge tooltip if the effect will take place (ie when charging non light infantry with non light cavalry). I find it to be quite a nice chance that is very useful once or twice a battle on average