Alternative Gameplay Mod [DEPRECATED]

[Athos1660]

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.

Very nice !!!!!
I guess Knights will be slower (fewer APs per turn) ?
A totally different experience.

[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.

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.

my brief reading of this battle though is that the Scots were defending a hill with a marsh out front with their schiltrons, archers between and a few noble cav. The English knights charged and drove off the Scottish cav and archers with success, and then repeatedly charged the schiltron as well but were repulsed. So, then the English brought up archers to shoot at the Scots (who were now just a bunch of spearmen with no archers left to retaliate), and then once the Scots were 'disrupted' by ranged fire the English knights charged again and routed them. It doesn't seem like the English pulled their knights up to the Scots and stood there daring them to attack FOG2 style. IE the Scots weren't static because of the threat of the knights charging them while moving, but because they were defending (tactically and strategically) and never intended to move.

[Schweetness101]

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.

yes that sounds just like anarchy charging. So far I am finding a +10% chance to anarchy for each turn you do nothing while in charge range to be pretty decent, and if anything it's too little of an increase.

[stockwellpete]

my brief reading of this battle though is that the Scots were defending a hill with a marsh out front with their schiltrons, archers between and a few noble cav. The English knights charged and drove off the Scottish cav and archers with success, and then repeatedly charged the schiltron as well but were repulsed. So, then the English brought up archers to shoot at the Scots (who were now just a bunch of spearmen with no archers left to retaliate), and then once the Scots were 'disrupted' by ranged fire the English knights charged again and routed them. It doesn't seem like the English pulled their knights up to the Scots and stood there daring them to attack FOG2 style. IE the Scots weren't static because of the threat of the knights charging them while moving, but because they were defending (tactically and strategically) and never intended to move.

Yes, that is my recollection of this battle too. I haven't looked at it for a few years though.

[MikeC_81]

This could be viewed very much like how in Napoleonic warefare, the threat of cavalry had the effect of forcing Infantry in square formation where they would be vulnerable to artillery fire and an infantry attack. If Roman sources are to be belived, the battle of Carrhae saw the Cataphracts pin Roman foot while mounted archery took its toll. Anytime the Infantry tried to move out of its protective and immoble formation, the Cats moved in to cause damage.

[Schweetness101]

This could be viewed very much like how in Napoleonic warefare, the threat of cavalry had the effect of forcing Infantry in square formation where they would be vulnerable to artillery fire and an infantry attack. If Roman sources are to be belived, the battle of Carrhae saw the Cataphracts pin Roman foot while mounted archery took its toll. Anytime the Infantry tried to move out of its protective and immoble formation, the Cats moved in to cause damage.

Pompeytheflatulent did mention Napoleonic warfare as well, but I'm not sure about the relevance. Muskets/Bayonets in square formation, infantry being mostly ranged units with almost no shields or armor, cannons, totally different command and control and social systems, and cavalry from about 800 years after the current end of FOG2...there are so many changed variables I just don't know about making this comparison.

Cataphracts are a pretty different unit from standard lancers both in game and historically, but putting that aside, I'm not sure that the battle of Carrhae supports your interpretation. Again with a brief reading from wikipedia:

Though he [Surena] had originally planned to shatter the Roman lines with a charge by his cataphracts, he judged that this would not be enough to break them at this point. Thus, he sent his horse archers to surround the Roman square. Crassus sent his skirmishers to drive the horse archers off, but they were driven back by the latter's arrows. The horse archers then engaged the legionaries. The legionaries were protected by their large shields (scuta) and armor (reenactment with composite bows does not answer the question whether arrows can penetrate mail), but these could not cover the entire body. Some historians describe the arrows partially penetrating the Roman shields, and nailing the shields to the limbs of the Roman infantry as well as nailing their feet to the ground. However, Plutarch wrote in his accounts that the Romans were met with a shower of arrows that passed through every kind of cover, hard and soft alike. Other historians state that the majority of wounds inflicted were non-fatal hits to exposed limbs.[25] The Romans repeatedly advanced towards the Parthians to attempt to engage in close-quarters fighting, but the horse archers were always able to retreat safely, loosing Parthian shots as they withdrew. The legionaries then formed the testudo formation, in which they locked their shields together to present a nearly impenetrable front to missiles.[26] However, this formation severely restricted their ability in melee combat. The Parthian cataphracts exploited this weakness and repeatedly charged the Roman line, causing panic and inflicting heavy casualties.[27] When the Romans tried to loosen up their formation in order to repel the cataphracts, the latter rapidly retreated and the horse archers resumed shooting at the now more exposed legionaries.

So, that doesn't appear to be Cataphracts charging when the Romans moved, but when the Romans stopped moving and adopted a missile defense formation (testudo) that was weak against cavalry charges. I'm not getting out of the above description some scenario where the Cataphracts stand facing the Romans, waiting for the Romans to attack, and then hitting them with a counter charge a la FOG2. Instead, the horse archers routed the Roman skirmishers, and then rained arrows on the legions without retaliation (like the English Longbowmen at Falkirk), retreating and not charging when the Romans advanced. Then, only once the Legions were disrupted and exhausted by arrow fire, and were standing in place in a testudo formation that was weak against cavalry charges, did the Cataphracts charge in. I feel like I'm seeing a lot of motivated reasoning here to try and support the current implementation of lancers in FOG2 with reinterpretations of historical battles that do not appear to be well supported.

Neither the Scots at Falkirk, nor the Romans at Carrhae, charged the Cataphracts/Knights, and lost when counter-charged, but instead, after having their own ranged units routed, were left helpless in the face of endless arrow volleys, and once disrupted by ranged fire were charged by heavy lancer cavalry (Knights and Cataphracts respectively) while they stood still.

The FOG2 equivalent would seem to be keeping your Cataphracts back a ways, and sending horse archers forward to first rout the enemy ranged, and then disrupt the enemy legions, and only once a legionary unit was disrupted to charge in with cataphracts for the rout, NOT to send the lancers up to stand there stationary in front of the legions to ZoC lock them while the main battle happened elsewhere.

[MikeC_81]

Pompeytheflatulent did mention Napoleonic warfare as well, but I'm not sure about the relevance. Muskets/Bayonets in square formation, infantry being mostly ranged units with almost no shields or armor, cannons, totally different command and control and social systems, and cavalry from about 800 years after the current end of FOG2...there are so many changed variables I just don't know about making this comparison.

Ancient infantry, especially Roman infantry, fought in open formations with enough space for each man to use his sword and shield unless they were in Phalanx (Greek or Macedonian style) in which case they were packed tight as a rule. Napoleonic tactics saw the same principle in action. Infantry exchanged fire at close ranges in open linear formations to maximize firepower but collapsed into dense bodies of men to ward off cavalry.

This is a translation from Plutarch writing about Crassus.

And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, they drew back, and while seeming to break their ranks and disperse, they surrounded the hollow square in which their enemy stood before he was aware of the manoeuvre. 4 And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft.
.
.
.
The cavalry followed after Publius, and even the infantry kept pace with them in the zeal and joy which their hopes inspired; for they thought they were victorious and in pursuit of the enemy, until, after they had gone forward a long distance, they perceived the ruse. For the seeming fugitives wheeled about and were joined at the same time by others more numerous still. 4 Then the Romans halted, supposing that the enemy would come to close quarters with them, p393 since they were so few in number. But the Parthians stationed their mail-clad horsemen in front of the Romans, and then with the rest of their cavalry in loose array rode round them, tearing up the surface of the ground, and raising from the depths great heaps of sand which fell in limitless showers of dust, so that the Romans could neither see clearly nor speak plainly, but, being crowded into a narrow compass and falling upon one another, were shot, and died no easy nor even speedy death. For, in the agonies of convulsive pain, and writhing about the arrows, they would break them off in their wounds, and then in trying to pull out by force the barbed heads which had pierced their veins and sinews, they tore and disfigured themselves the more.
.
.
.
Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2 These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once. After fighting in this manner till night came on, the Parthians withdrew, saying that they would grant Crassus one night in which to bewail his son, unless, with a better regard for his own interests, he should consent to go to Arsaces instead of being carried there


Now I am the biggest proponent of believing that these ancient authors were mainly full of crap and should be taken with a huge grain of salt so make of it what you will. But to me, Plutarch, if he made even a cursory attempt at obtaining any degree of accuracy clearly shows the standoff like nature of Infantry vs Lancer style cavalry. The Cats, even in their heavy (for the time) armour could not engage Roman foot while formed. The Romans while advancing, when encountering mounted lancers stopped to consolidate their ranks for protection. When missile fire drove some formations to desperations and charged the Lancers, they were ineffective.

FoG2 models this description very well in my opinion. Lancers charging Foot give the Foot their full combat capability. Foot charging Lancers and abandoning their tight formation to do so get no combat capabilities and must risk losses before they can push their weight of numbers into the Lancers.

[mceochaidh]

Question on anarchy per rule d) ix. It says anarchy prevented if charging would expose unit to flank threat. In an SP game a phalanx unit had an anarchy charge that did just that and was charged and disrupted next turn. Phalanx is disciplined I think and was in command. I had 2 phalanx units anarchy in this game, both in command. Sorry I did not do screen shot.

[Schweetness101]

...

FoG2 models this description very well in my opinion. Lancers charging Foot give the Foot their full combat capability. Foot charging Lancers and abandoning their tight formation to do so get no combat capabilities and must risk losses before they can push their weight of numbers into the Lancers.

It's not that I disagree with this tactic being used, I just think that anarchy charges, especially the newest idea of increasing anarchy the longer the period you stand there staring at each other within charge range, would make it seem a bit more realistic. In the absence of ranged units, would the Legions and Cataphracts have just stared at one another forever? I guess that would never happen in real life because both sides would bring ranged units, but in FOG2, especially because you cannot shoot over other units on flat ground, it happens all the time that lancers and infantry just stare at each other while also both being out of range of one another's arrows.

It still seems from most of the descriptions of Carrhae I've read though, that the lancers acted as a relatively small complement to the horse archers in the Parthian army, and that for the most part the Parthian modus operandi was to fire endless arrows at the Romans, run away while shooting backwards when the Romans charged, and then start over when the Romans stopped. The Cataphracts apparently charged whatever particularly vulnerable Roman targets of opportunity they could find, whether because they were disrupted and cutoff, or because they had adopted the weak to cavalry charges testudo formation, or because they were the unarmored gallic cavalry complement to the Romans, but I'm not seeing any description of cataphracts just standing in front of the whole Roman infantry line (or box I guess...) in a big line of their own like lancers in FOG2, and counter charging whenever the Romans moved. I'm not sure why other descriptions of Carrhae seem a bit distinct from the Plutarch one in that regard, but like you said he wasn't there and could be wrong, or he could be right and others are wrong, dunno. Back to the original point though, basically all I'm arguing for here is that adding anarchy charges might tip the use of Lancers towards a bit more realistic use I hope.

[Schweetness101]

Question on anarchy per rule d) ix. It says anarchy prevented if charging would expose unit to flank threat. In an SP game a phalanx unit had an anarchy charge that did just that and was charged and disrupted next turn. Phalanx is disciplined I think and was in command. I had 2 phalanx units anarchy in this game, both in command. Sorry I did not do screen shot.

there is a function that already exists in the vanilla code that I rely on to calculate flank threat. It should detect flank threat if the future charge position would put the phalanx in position to be immediately flanked, but it can't know if it could be flanked after some other maneuvers by the enemy because it can't know anything other than the current position of the forces. I'd have to see the exact situation to see what happened exactly.

[PDiFolco]

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.

Well it was an image to represent what a rank&file infantryman had to face from an heavy lancer, even half of a cannonball is pretty impressive...Plus late Dark Age cav did have stirrups, and weren't that far from chivalry.
I 'm aware than in ancient time heavy cavalry wasn't really decisive, but as other pointed out lancers don't have much of an use ingame other than ZOC pinning or rare flank charges, I don't think they did that historically.
A bit more oompf to impact would help.

[tmac11]

Hi are these the most up to date versions as we are getting a message saying we have different versions in our game

[Schweetness101]

Hi are these the most up to date versions as we are getting a message saying we have different versions in our game

if you are getting a script mismatch then one of you has an older version, and must install the most recent version (still at the same link, the link itself was just updated).Specifically, if you installed it prior to around 9:00AM MST on July 31st, then please re-download and reinstall. To be safe, you might be best off just both redownloading and reinstalling. Sorry for the inconvenience.

also make sure that you are NOT using the global version for multiplayer games

[ZeCid]

Hello, what is the difference between alternative gameplay, and the global version ?

I have switch from rise of AI to this one to test it. Work on light troops is really appreciated

[Schweetness101]

Hello, what is the difference between alternative gameplay, and the global version ?

I have switch from rise of AI to this one to test it. Work on light troops is really appreciated

the global version is not as updated as the normal version, and is not for multiplayer games or custom battles, but really the only difference is in some UI stuffthat you won't notice for most global mod purposes.

[stockwellpete]

Work has just resumed on this mod.

[stockwellpete]

Screen_00000014.jpg (944.81 KiB) Viewed 1782 times

For Schweetness101

This is in the middle of the battle. You can see that the formations on the right of the screen are broken up and one Viking unit (blue) has routed. The two pushed back Anglo-Saxon units (yellow) and the victorious unit on the right should not be getting any +1 CT for supported flanks, nor should the Viking unit that has pushed the hirdsmen unit back. The two Viking units on their left flank (including the commander) are getting one lot of +1 CT, as are all the units on the end of a line of units with an empty square on one of their flanks. If you look at the left flank of the Anglo-Saxon line, you will see that the two end units are at 45 degrees. They are still getting their +1 CT bonuses as they should.

I actually think there is a lot going on here and it is much closer to a shield wall dynamic than the vanilla game, where essentially you have autonomous units who may sometimes form a line.

[Schweetness101]

Ok cool, sent you over the latest build. We are currently working on a Dark Ages Mod that uses parts of the the alt mod v1.3 as a base, with modifications. So, there's anarchy, charge refusals, flank changes, command and control changes, and such. Additionally, we're testing out:

1) generals being able to always move once per turn, and maintaining 4 command radius always for rallying and other purposes (+1 ct still only adjacent while in combat)
2) all generals beyond CinC being purchased, costing more (40pts for now)
3) Adjacency rules that provide +25 Melee POA, up to +50, to non-light foot for each adjacent, steady non-light around them, plus a +1 CT if there are 2 or more adjacents. Still experimenting with exactly what should count as adjacent, what the bonus values should be, etc...
4) Custom units and unit lists, currently just looking at an anglo-saxon and a viking list. Adding custom units as well, like various equipment levels of offensive and defensive spears (as Bondi, Fyrdmen, Ceorls, maybe Thralls, Thegns, etc...might be distinguished, haven't figured that out yet), 'berzerker' just being an Impact POA boost for heavy weapon huscarls, and getting rid of the dedicated berzerker unit. Boosting huscarl and hirdsmen stats but halving their unit size. Lists with only a very small, fixed numbers of skirmishers, a very small number of non-light, lightly protected riders (all huscarls dismounted for now though). Adding some shooting ability to standard shieldwalls in addition to or instead of skirmishers potentially, etc...probably at least going to look at one or two earlier versions of those mentioned lists, plus various celtic warrior lists, and a romano-british list. Will basically be a Dark Ages Britain mod, taking some inspiration from the wargaming ruleset Dux Bellorum.
5) heavy foot only slightly rather than moderately disordered in rough, still severely disordered in difficult
6) thinking about doing anarchy just for warrior units, but making it a very high value, maybe even 100% chance.
7) various edits to anarchy and charge refusal rules, especially around command and control.
8 ) maybe changing (reducing) pushback odds a bit

If the forum has any ideas about more particular historical unit types and lists as well that would be great, ie going narrow but deep into a few unit lists in a very narrow dark ages time period, so making some subtle distinctions even between different spear units, like adding well-equipped bondi, or raw defensive spearmen ceorls, or fyrdmen of different qualities and armor levels, peasant thralls even, maybe levy quality skirmishers, etc...thinking about what cav, if any, on certain lists and what should they be called? what scots-irish, irish, pictish, welsh, units, variations on subroman foot, etc...if anyone is really interested in the history of the time period and has Unit/Unit List ideas, that would be a big help. Trying to be historical, while also keeping the mod fun and balanced, with very different feels from a small number of distinct lists.

And ideas about rules/mechanic changes that would help the game mod specialize around Dark Ages Britain units in particular that would also be great.

I also need to find that costings chart somewhere for the new unit costs, if anyone knows where that is? Probably we'll make a new thread as well for this mod once it's a bit further developed.

[Schweetness101]

for adjacency rules, if you think about an image like this:

https://imgur.com/JeOrw75


which Units should and should not be considered to have 0, 1, or 2+ adjacent friendly Units? Strictly 90 degree adjacency, adjacency from any of the 8 squares around any given square, or somewhere in between? I do like the idea of keeping it simple with it just counting in every direction, but not sure 100%.

[stockwellpete]

for adjacency rules, if you think about an image like this:

https://imgur.com/JeOrw75


which Units should and should not be considered to have 0, 1, or 2+ adjacent friendly Units? Strictly 90 degree adjacency, adjacency from any of the 8 squares around any given square, or somewhere in between? I do like the idea of keeping it simple with it just counting in every direction, but not sure 100%.

Basically, I think adjacency should be counted as just the two flanks squares, so in a basic formation with 3 melee units side by side, the unit in the middle will get 2 adjacent bonuses, the units on the end of the line will get 1 adjacent bonus. if one of these units is at 45 degrees that is OK - they should still get the bonus in our first phase of testing.

So looking at this screenshot and starting with the yellow hirdsmen unit in the bottom left hand corner, that gets 0 adjacent bonuses as nearest friendly units are on the diagonal; the next unit is a shieldwall unit with a general and that gets 1 adjacent bonus for the shieldwall unit on its right; similarly that shield wall unit gets 1 adjacent bonus for the shield wall/general unit on its left; the unit in directly in front of the shield wall unit does not get any adjacent bonuses at all as it has no units adjacent to its flank at all (only to its rear and right front diagonal); the two yellow units furthest forward both get 1 adjacent bonus for being side by side.

I would say that both armies are in a fairly disorganised state for shield wall armies.