Extend the Drilled and the Undrilled traits to the Cavalry and the Medium Foot?

[Dux Limitis]

I think the digital version should add the Drilled and the Undrilled traits to the Cavalry and the Medium Foot like the Tabletop version.

I remember I had read a few discussions about the OP Medium Foot before, but I only could remember two of these topics now:

https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewto ... ilit=trash
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=98310

After I had played for around 2000 hours, I think I found the problem was lacking the Drilled and the Undrilled traits. Currently, all Medium Foot units in the game are treated as "Drilled" de facto, which has enlarged and exaggerated the historical efficiency of such units from certain factions. Such units from these factions, which didn't have consistently drilled standing armies in history, e.g. the Jewish revolt, the Early Italians and Iberians, the Ligurians, etc. should be re-adjusted to "Undrilled", non-professional Medium Foot should not be getting an assumed maneuverability advantage at all. On the other hand, units such as the re-equipped skoutatoi, the rodeleros, etc. should remain as "Drilled".

And speaking of the Cavalry units, I think the best way to simulate the advantage of the French and Burgundian ordonnance company men-at-arms, the Byzantine cavalry, the military order knights/men-at-arms, etc. to the other cavalry in the same Troop Quality is by adding the "Drilled" trait to them like the Tabletop version, to simulate they were historically drilled in formations and could do more complex maneuvers.

[Athos1660]

The addition of a trait that was discarded and that would now need a substantial overhaul of a game – that is not in developement anymore (in the sense of new features, new DLCs...) - does not seem to me that feasible. But of course I may be mistaken.

Anyway there is still an option, suggesting (or modding) changes in unit costs and/or troop quality (altering the "Experience" and "Elan" attributes in the squads.csv file. You certainly know it, Quality is the average of these two attributes).

2000 hours of playing the game ? Bravo !

[Dux Limitis]

that is not in developement anymore (in the sense of new features, new DLCs...) - does not seem to me that feasible.

I don't think so, the game is still under developement, just like the Armour Ratings alongside the other things were overhauled a few patches before, only need a few months for the testing.

[Athos1660]

Richard is indeed a passionate designer who works and reworks and fine-tunes his game system on and on for years which makes his games apart. It also means he's already certainly considered adding this trait to FoGM and discarded it for good reasons.

I guess fine-tuning Armour Ratings is one thing, adding a new attibute such as Drill is another, in terms of development.

Note that I have actualy nothing against or in favour of this idea. I had found it interesting when reading the tabletop books.

Have fun with the game. I hope you'll find a solution to your problem.

[Dux Limitis]

Richard is indeed a passionate designer who works and reworks and fine-tunes his game system on and on for years which makes his games apart. It also means he's already certainly considered adding this trait to FoGM and discarded it for good reasons.

Have fun with the game. I hope you'll find a solution to your problem.

The Drilled and the Undrilled traits actually already existed in the game, but these differences were only limited to the Heavy Foot, I'm just asking to extend it to other classes like in the Tabletop version, which will make the game more historically accurate, and will solve some existing problems.

I'll wait for Mr. Richard's decision, as the arguments have already been listed.

[MVP7]

I guess it's pretty unlikely that something this major would be patched in this late in the development but I do like the idea.

I wouldn't recommend unmaneuverable as a "default" for the cavalry but there are some that the trait would fit. For example, the Early Cavalry always seemed like a bit too efficient to me. The same thing with classical Greek, and possibly early Roman cavalry. The Indian cavalry that was originally below average would be another candidate. In later eras it has always seemed a bit weird that Mounted Huscarls (being practically mounted infantry) are just as good as their contemporary dedicated cavalry counterparts. I would still keep most of the cavalry from cultures that put any real emphasis on the cavalry arm as drilled.

Balancing the unmaneuverable cavalry would probably be the hardest part. Ever since the Indian cavalry nerf, RBS has been pretty adamant about maintaining the average quality with 100 swordsman and 100 light-spear as the performance and price floor for cavalry (at least in the Ancients). In medieval I could easily see the cavalry maneuverability becoming a perk with a little extra cost. In Ancients it would be more tricky as I think the cavalry cost is already at the upper limit of what it can be without becoming universally underpowered (though I would'd mind seeingthe cost of the suggested undrilled cavalry being slightly lowered compared to the current Ancients prices).

For medium infantry, making almost every massed light infantry -type unit undrilled/unmaneuverable could be interesting (I'd leave bowmen and crossbows outside the change though). I haven't seen much support for my opinion but I have always thought that medium infantry in general is pretty great deal compared to heavy (i.e. heavy infantry only benefits against medium in the open when they are losing and making CTs, while medium will wipe out anything in any terrain that's not open/clear). And any cheap medium infantry being able to run around the enemy flanks to produce automatic cohesion drops has always been easier than it should be.

I think making most of the the 100 lights spear plus 50/100 swordsmen type medium infantry units unmaneuverable would make them feel more historically unreliable line filler, rather than the current flankers. At the same time, it would really emphasize the rare medium foot units that would keep their drilled nature (e.g. Thureoporoi and Late Roman Auxilia to add a few to the ones Dux already mentioned). This would be especially noticeable in the pre-Dark-Age Ancients where maneuvrability is pretty much the default. In Dark-Ages and Medieval the change would be less drastic but it would still impact almost all medium foot in most lists.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a price increase of few points for medium infantry that would maintain their drilled status. I wouldn't try lowering the cost at least since medium armies can already be really spammy flank chargers compared to more quality focused armies. In any case, I think the medium foot change would require more extensive testing than the cavalry since it would have a major impact on most army lists and the overall role of medium foot in the game.

[Dux Limitis]

I guess it's pretty unlikely that something this major would be patched in this late in the development but I do like the idea.

I wouldn't recommend unmaneuverable as a "default" for the cavalry but there are some that the trait would fit. For example, the Early Cavalry always seemed like a bit too efficient to me. The same thing with classical Greek, and possibly early Roman cavalry. The Indian cavalry that was originally below average would be another candidate. In later eras it has always seemed a bit weird that Mounted Huscarls (being practically mounted infantry) are just as good as their contemporary dedicated cavalry counterparts. I would still keep most of the cavalry from cultures that put any real emphasis on the cavalry arm as drilled.

Balancing the unmaneuverable cavalry would probably be the hardest part. Ever since the Indian cavalry nerf, RBS has been pretty adamant about maintaining the average quality with 100 swordsman and 100 light-spear as the performance and price floor for cavalry (at least in the Ancients). In medieval I could easily see the cavalry maneuverability becoming a perk with a little extra cost. In Ancients it would be more tricky as I think the cavalry cost is already at the upper limit of what it can be without becoming universally underpowered (though I would'd mind seeingthe cost of the suggested undrilled cavalry being slightly lowered compared to the current Ancients prices).

For medium infantry, making almost every massed light infantry -type unit undrilled/unmaneuverable could be interesting (I'd leave bowmen and crossbows outside the change though). I haven't seen much support for my opinion but I have always thought that medium infantry in general is pretty great deal compared to heavy (i.e. heavy infantry only benefits against medium in the open when they are losing and making CTs, while medium will wipe out anything in any terrain that's not open/clear). And any cheap medium infantry being able to run around the enemy flanks to produce automatic cohesion drops has always been easier than it should be.

I think making most of the the 100 lights spear plus 50/100 swordsmen type medium infantry units unmaneuverable would make them feel more historically unreliable line filler, rather than the current flankers. At the same time, it would really emphasize the rare medium foot units that would keep their drilled nature (e.g. Thureoporoi and Late Roman Auxilia to add a few to the ones Dux already mentioned). This would be especially noticeable in the pre-Dark-Age Ancients where maneuvrability is pretty much the default. In Dark-Ages and Medieval the change would be less drastic but it would still impact almost all medium foot in most lists.

Personally, I wouldn't mind a price increase of few points for medium infantry that would maintain their drilled status. I wouldn't try lowering the cost at least since medium armies can already be really spammy flank chargers compared to more quality focused armies. In any case, I think the medium foot change would require more extensive testing than the cavalry since it would have a major impact on most army lists and the overall role of medium foot in the game.

Thanks.

I think this change is possible and viable, as we already had them on the Heavy Foot, this proposal is to extend them to the other classes, just need to be further tested, perhaps it will take a few months, or perhaps it will need a year, but it's totally possible.

I generally accept your other points of view, pretty much something I'd like to say.

[whlwhl10]

The mobility of the irregularly-organized medium foot should have been overestimated by the game system, resulting in the undrilled heavy foot combat group and the medium foot combat group being vulnerable to flank attacks on open terrain. The former would be severely disrupted by flank attacks, while the medium foot combat group is not discussed in terms of drilled or undrilled. For the undrilled heavy foot, it would be extremely unfair in the case of flank attacks.
The "drilled" and "undrilled" training systems are different.
The militia and irregular training systems, as well as the relatively native narrow training systems, should all be "undrilled" in terms of troop type on the tabletop. However, this is not reflected in the video game.
In many of the medium foot units in the Far East, they would train for several months each year, practicing formations and weapon tactics. Even the military music system of the Japanese "heishi" was retained. This kind of infantry was considered "drilled".
In some cases where the weaponry is advanced and the formations are complex, some drilled medium foot may be absorbed and applied in new situations.
For example, the Aragonese swordsmen (Rodeleros) were completely defeated and annihilated at Seminara in 1495. After that, they were incorporated into the Colunella .
However, for the type of medium foot with relatively simple weapon tactics and formation, such as the Irish Kern, they might only need to improve their weapon tactics.
Of course, I'm not discussing the adaptability and grouping feasibility of drilled medium foot in a single ARMY LIST. What I'm saying is that the drilled medium foot surely has certain advantages in formation mobility. Otherwise, formation mobility and changing formations would be meaningless at other strategic and tactical positions. At the same time, we can also see that China has a wide variety of medium foot formations, which is also a success of the drilled medium foot .

[SimonLancaster]

Some of the medium impact foot are drilled or undrilled, I think.

Medium foot already are suffering -1 modifier v heavy foot in the open so I prefer to keep them useful and dangerous with manoeuvrability.

[Dux Limitis]

Some of the medium impact foot are drilled or undrilled, I think.

Medium foot already are suffering -1 modifier v heavy foot in the open so I prefer to keep them useful and dangerous with manoeuvrability.

As I remember, all of the Medium Impact Foot are drilled currently in the game(e.g. Zealots, Scutarii, etc,), you must be mentioning Warriors.

They do suffer -1 ct vs Heavy Foot in the open, but just as Mr. MVP 7 said, only if the Medium Foot lost in the melee. And most of the Medium Foot could hold the Heavy Foot in the open long enough to let the others make flank attacks.

[SimonLancaster]

Sorry, I was thinking of my Medieval video on impact foot. A lot of the impact foot are warriors and unmanoeuvrable. Al Mughavars the exception.

But, actually in Ancients these medium foot units are all unmanoeuvrable:

Syrian Spearmen
Raw Spearmen & Archers
Phoenician Foot
Nubian Spearmen
Militia Thureophoroi
Kushite Spearmen

Regarding the -1, medium foot are very brittle v heavies in my experience. Doesn't matter about flanking as such because a. you need the extra numbers to flank and b. it still takes time. Very likely you are going to be fighting something like Merc Hoplites that are only 48 and just as manoeuvrable.

[zerrtul]

I personally approve this, Indeed, the drill also a ability should be embodied.

We surely know it is a major work, but if the tabletop have it, why not to try and test?

Obviously, the maneuverability between Irrgular Foot and Roman Auxilia, definetly different. Then we have the cavalry issue: Is the Turcoman Cavalry keep form as good as Kapikulu? The capability & type not totally assessed the rule and moving trainning.

I understanded FoGR unit based default be drilled, due to the lack of command system(of game play). I have played Pike & Shot over 400h, then I try FoG2. When I played Fog2 first time, I would be surprised the influence of heavy foots tag.

Over all, I think add undrilled trait is a functional idea to assess some irregular troop.

Lets see and test what may happen.

Sorry for my bad English：）

[rbodleyscott]

Reducing the number of troop classes with distinct Drilled and Undrilled varieties in the computer version of FOG was a deliberate design decision, and not an omission.

We do not plan to add it back.

It could, of course, be modded in.

[Dux Limitis]

Reducing the number of troop classes with distinct Drilled and Undrilled varieties in the computer version of FOG was a deliberate design decision, and not an omission.

We do not plan to add it back.

It could, of course, be modded in.

I think it might be solved in another way, like adding the Unmanuerverable trait to more Medium Foot(e.g. Irregular Foot, which is hilarious), and removing the Unmanuerverable trait of some cavalry units from certain lists(e.g. Ordonnance France/Burgundy).

I generally think it's an extraordinarily bad decision because it severely decimated the aspect of the historical accuracy of the game.

[rbodleyscott]

Reducing the number of troop classes with distinct Drilled and Undrilled varieties in the computer version of FOG was a deliberate design decision, and not an omission.

We do not plan to add it back.

It could, of course, be modded in.

I think it might be solved in another way, like adding the Unmanuerverable trait to more Medium Foot(e.g. Irregular Foot, which is hilarious), and removing the Unmanuerverable trait of some cavalry units from certain lists(e.g. Ordonnance France/Burgundy).

I generally think it's an extraordinarily bad decision because it severely decimated the aspect of the historical accuracy of the game.

And yet the number of historical nations for which we have evidence of actual drill in the ancient or medieval periods is vanishingly small. (In our geographical area really only Hellenistic Greeks, Romans and Byzantines). Apart from those, which troops got "Drilled" or "Undrilled" status in tabletop FOG was based on "gut feeling".

Not really a sound basis on which to say it was more historical than the current situation in the computer version.

The computer version works on the principle of not inventing differences for which there isn't good historical evidence. That isn't "accuracy", it is speculation.

Furthermore, competitive players in tabletop FOG largely avoided armies using Undrilled Medium Foot because it was so useless.

Irregular Foot mostly represent loosely formed javelin throwing infantry. (In fact they used to be called Javelinmen in the game until some people found that description confusing and persuaded us to change the name to Irregular Foot). Not much need of formation there. And they are surely bad enough already!

[MVP7]

Irregular Foot mostly represent loosely formed javelin throwing infantry. (In fact they used to be called Javelinmen in the game until some people found that description confusing and persuaded us to change the name to Irregular Foot). Not much need of formation there. And they are surely bad enough already!

The nature of the Irregular foots' formation is a rather bottom-up way of looking at the issue though. From top down perspective, I can't recall any historical battles where unexceptional massed "light" or similar ad-hoc line troops would have been particularly maneuverable.

In terms of gameplay, I wouldn't consider the light-spear & (half)swordsmen Irregulars particularly weak for their cost. I usually pick some when available and use them to plug areas of bad terrain from heavy/cavalry movements, or to anchor a flank to a forest or a difficult hill. They are also affordable at dealing with light foot and massed bows/crossbows in the rough. None of these roles really require or particularly benefit from them being maneuverable. When fighting in their element, the only thing that will beat them is some more expensive medium foot.

A role that I find the more questionable for these massed irregular troops is using them at the flanks of the formation, in the positions historically often left to the cavalry or the finest infantry. Using the irregulars on the flanks in FoG2 makes sense since that allows them to avoid the consequences of their lacking melee performance and to cash in on the guaranteed flanking cohesion drops (that their maneuverability allows them to set up more efficiently). In this questinable role in which the irregulars being maneuverable is at its most significant.

[Dux Limitis]

Reducing the number of troop classes with distinct Drilled and Undrilled varieties in the computer version of FOG was a deliberate design decision, and not an omission.

We do not plan to add it back.

It could, of course, be modded in.

I think it might be solved in another way, like adding the Unmanuerverable trait to more Medium Foot(e.g. Irregular Foot, which is hilarious), and removing the Unmanuerverable trait of some cavalry units from certain lists(e.g. Ordonnance France/Burgundy).

I generally think it's an extraordinarily bad decision because it severely decimated the aspect of the historical accuracy of the game.

And yet the number of historical nations for which we have evidence of actual drill in the ancient or medieval periods is vanishingly small. (In our geographical area really only Hellenistic Greeks, Romans and Byzantines). Apart from those, which troops got "Drilled" or "Undrilled" status in tabletop FOG was based on "gut feeling".

Not really a sound basis on which to say it was more historical than the current situation in the computer version.

The computer version works on the principle of not inventing differences for which there isn't good historical evidence. That isn't "accuracy", it is speculation.

Furthermore, competitive players in tabletop FOG largely avoided armies using Undrilled Medium Foot because it was so useless.

Irregular Foot mostly represent loosely formed javelin throwing infantry. (In fact they used to be called Javelinmen in the game until some people found that description confusing and persuaded us to change the name to Irregular Foot). Not much need of formation there. And they are surely bad enough already!

Based on evidence of the actual drills are as they should be, which will make them noticeable in contemporary armies. Like the Roman/Byzantine armies, they have the most numerous Drilled Heavy Foot units in the game. And if an Oriental FOG II project is undergoing, you will find a lot of historical evidence of actual drills from that geographical area.

I don't know why this feature can't be extended to the Medium Foot and the Cavalry. As I and the other people previously said, the mobility of the Undrilled Medium Foot and the Cavalry has been severely overestimated. It's not about whether the competitive players will take them or not, this does sound like a sacrifice of historical accuracy for balancing reasons. Like the Scythed Chariots, I believe no one except for rookies will take them, but they still need to be there, for the reason of historical accuracy.

It's not inventing differences, theoretically, the drilled soldiers could perform maneuvers better, and most(if not all) of them have also received training of how to change formations orderly, especially obvious in some Byzantine and Ancient Chinese military manuals, not every amateur fighter could do that, otherwise, these training will be meaningless. By assuming the Mounted Hirdsmen/Housecarl(which are not even dedicated cavalry), Irregular Foot could do as well as their trained counterparts, and the Ordonnance Burgundian army is composed by a bunch of Unmaneuverable mobs in the game, which was in fact organized into companies and regulated to be trained(at least in the Ordonnance of 1473) in history, is ridiculous and inventing homogeneities by assuming.

P.S. Army drills part of the Burgundian Ordonnance of 1473:

Furthermore, my lord (the duke) ordains that, in order that the said troops may be better trained and exercised in the use of arms and better practised and instructed when something happens, when they are in garrison, or have the time and leisure to do this, the captains of the squadrons and the chambres are from time to time to take some of their men-at-arms out into the fields, sometimes partly, sometimes fully armed, to practice charging with the lance, keeping in close formation while charging, (how) to charge briskly, to defend their ensigns, to withdraw on command, and to rally, each helping the other, when so ordered, and how to withstand a charge. In like manner (they are to exercise) the archer with their horses, to get them used to dismounting and drawing their bows. They must learn how to attach their horses together by their bridles and make them walk forward directly behind them, attaching the horses of the three archers by their bridles to the saddle-bow of the page to whose man-at-arms they belong:, also to march briskly forwards and to fire without breaking rank. The pikemen must be made to advance in close formation in front of the said archers, kneel at a sign from them, holding their pikes lowered to the level of a horse’s back so that the archers can fire over the pikemen as if over a wall. Thus, if the pikemen see that the enemy are breaking rank, they will be near enough to charge them in good order according to their instructions. (The archers must also learn to) place themselves back to back in double defense, or in a square or circle, always with the pikemen outside them to withstand the charge of the enemy horse and their horses with the pages enclosed in their midst. The conducteurs can begin by introducing this way of doing things to small groups and, when one of these groups is practiced and instructed, they can take out others. While doing this, the conducteurs are to keep an eye on (all) their people every day so that none will dare absence themselves or be without horses and armour, because they will not be sure on which day the conducteurs will want to take them out on exercises. Thus each will be constrained to learn to do his duty.

[SimonLancaster]

From a gameplay perspective, medium foot and cavalry in Ancients are both pretty underpowered for various reasons. Having some unmanoeuvrable versions would make them more useless.

[Karvon]

While agreeing that undrilled should be extended to more troop types, I think this would better be implemented via a mod, than imposed on those who disagree, whether from historical or game play perspectives. Similar things have been mod'ed with the anarchy mods already.

Regards,

Karvon

[Dux Limitis]

From a gameplay perspective, medium foot and cavalry in Ancients are both pretty underpowered for various reasons. Having some unmanoeuvrable versions would make them more useless.

We don't really think they are underpowered, only you in this thread came up with this conclusion, so it's unconvincing.

Plus, some of them should be unbelievable rank-fillers rather than current flankers.