AGE OF REASON MOD Version 2.0

[rbodleyscott]

It would be at least theoretically scriptable, but the standard AI probably would not work properly.

So you would really need to do it as an editor created scenario with its own AI in the scenario scripts.

And what about simply allowing a player to place the army in a wider area than the actual one at the start of the battle?
This should give much more chances of having more diversified battles and approaches to the final clash ...

Woud it be feasible to realize it, Richard, or is something difficult to implement?

I would not want to realise it. The current rules already allow more manoeuvrability than there would usually be in a real battle.

Someone is welcome to mod it thus, however.

[Lysimachos]

I would not want to realise it. The current rules already allow more manoeuvrability than there would usually be in a real battle.

Someone is welcome to mod it thus, however.

In reality it would just be a matter of adding a couple of squares on each side.
What, if any, would be the file and string to modify?

[rbodleyscott]

I would not want to realise it. The current rules already allow more manoeuvrability than there would usually be in a real battle.

Someone is welcome to mod it thus, however.

In reality it would just be a matter of adding a couple of squares on each side.
What, if any, would be the file and string to modify?

Advanced Settings in Skirmish setup already allow the map to be greatly widened.

[Cronos09]

I would not want to realise it. The current rules already allow more manoeuvrability than there would usually be in a real battle.

Someone is welcome to mod it thus, however.

In reality it would just be a matter of adding a couple of squares on each side.
What, if any, would be the file and string to modify?

Yesterday, I found a script way to make the deployment zones wider. We should change two files: MoreScenarioTools.BSF and Move.BSF. Write me in PM how many tiles to expand the deployment zone by, and we'll try it in AoR2 SYW ed v2.
But the understanding of the initial coordinates of the DZ is still beyond my mind

[Lysimachos]

Advanced Settings in Skirmish setup already allow the map to be greatly widened.

That's right, Richard.

But still there are two problems.

On the one hand, also if you widen the map, the armies are always restricted into the deployment zone, which is always located in the center, so that, for example, if you use a small army on a large terrain, you will be contricted to play the battle in that very limited portion of terrain and the rest of the map will remain substantially useless because the enemy will be upon you before you can move your army around.

On the other hand, when you got to play with a large or very large army there's no choice to further widen the map, that's already at its maximum width.

[rbodleyscott]

The main reason the deployment area works the way it does is to stop players from deploying right up to the map edge to protect their flank.

You can always more to the map edge in the early turns of the game.

You can of course mod all this, it is all in scripts.

[Lysimachos]

The main reason the deployment area works the way it does is to stop players from deploying right up to the map edge to protect their flank.

You can always more to the map edge in the early turns of the game.

You can of course mod all this, it is all in scripts.

That's interesting!

I didn't think about this problem, but maybe edging in this way you let the other flank exposed to encirclement and superior enemy fire ...

[rbodleyscott]

The main reason the deployment area works the way it does is to stop players from deploying right up to the map edge to protect their flank.

You can always more to the map edge in the early turns of the game.

You can of course mod all this, it is all in scripts.

That's interesting!

I didn't think about this problem, but maybe edging in this way you let the other flank exposed to encirclement and superior enemy fire ...

The point is that it isn't realistic to protect your flank with "the edge of the world". That is why some maps have impassible (except by tracks) rivers to protect one flank, because that IS realistic. But such features were not always available.

[Athos1660]

According to a French Historian youtube channel, during the notorious battle of Rossbach (1757), what turned this pre-battle position :


... into that bad battle position :


… was mainly a « Fog of War », ie. a lack of military reconnaissance by the French about the Prussian mouvements; ie. a better knowledge by the Prussians on what was happening, which can be simulated In FoG2 by the following starting position, with two zones for the attacker :



... either as user-made scenarii or a Scenario Type.

If what The Twilight of the Soldier Kings rules call ‘Manoeuvre’ battles are actually only advantages taken by an Agressive Army thanks to fog of war or a less-manoeuvrable, slower defender, then starting position with multiple deployment zones for the attacker around or on one side of the defender could be a way to simulate them.

The magnitude of these advantages would depend on the location of the attacker zones (near the Defender or not, on his side, behind, in front ; zone sizes etc.)

[snooky51]

Advanced Settings in Skirmish setup already allow the map to be greatly widened.

That's right, Richard.

But still there are two problems.

On the one hand, also if you widen the map, the armies are always restricted into the deployment zone, which is always located in the center, so that, for example, if you use a small army on a large terrain, you will be contricted to play the battle in that very limited portion of terrain and the rest of the map will remain substantially useless because the enemy will be upon you before you can move your army around.

On the other hand, when you got to play with a large or very large army there's no choice to further widen the map, that's already at its maximum width.

As an aside I have noticed in the baltic campaign some units will auto deploy outside of the deployment zone and no other units can deploy there (normally it is dragoons or calvary)

Personally I think some kind of maneuver battle would be fun and help keep things fresh. My thoughts are
1) make the map as tall and wide as possible but only have the deployment zones be at the very backs of the map so much marching is needed before people are in range (also would influence what kind of cannon should be brought) but would not prevent either side from getting to full map width; alternatively
2) the deployment zones could only be on each player's respective left or right side of the map, so they are essentially deployed on one another's flanks (if left both armies are on each other's left and vice versa) so there is the option to maneuver into a line to face your opponent or attempt a sweeping flanking maneuver. Depending on the army list, this could entice someone to go all in on cav/dragoons/lights to outflank for example.

Example:

Screenshot 2026-01-08 130019.jpg (32.7 KiB) Viewed 394 times

I wish there was a way to choose a battle with "sending units on flank march" and you also choose who does the flank march. In this mod putting some grenadiers and a light cannon on a flank march could be decisive.

[Dilly]

Hi Guys
After playing Age of Reason mod for a few games, winning and losing, I have a pro but quite a few cons
Firstly the pro
Artillery are guaranteed to score a few hits, love this, however I feel that with their new power, comes a con, I feel that some armies are allowed too much
Now for the cons.
Some troops particularly French and 13 colonies will break due to casualties before they will disrupt or fragment, not sure why this should be.
Cavalry stand no chance on charging against steady infantry even militia, against poor infantry they should stand a 50-50 chance.
Pike and shot infantry unless veterans can't move diagonally on rough terrain and even have limited manoeuvre in open terrain, I can understand limited movement in woods due to the pikes, but not otherwise.
Finally the biggy
The 48% break rule, I firmly believe this should be 60, if it was 48% of all casualties, killed, wounded and routing, I could maybe understand, but when it is just routed troops this promotes defensive tactics and promotes gamesmanship by encouraging players to concentrate fire on units other than a unit firing at the unit straight ahead, it allows games to finish early, I have heard the argument that it is historical, but Ladies and Gentleman we are playing a game with historical feel, which we need to enjoy to keep playing
My two pennies worth, I shall now shelter and await my firing squad

[Lysimachos]

Hi Dilly,
no firing squad at all but, on the contrary, thank you for always welcomed remarks.
Regarding the problems you reported I would say what follows.

ARTILLERY
You’re right but it’s a fact that the strongest armies of the period had much more powerful artillery corps than others. In fact, it meant investing heavy sums of money and the littlest countries couldn’t afford to sustain them. Moreover, northern armies generally preferred to use light guns for tactical reasons. Anyway, remember that also them can be powerful if correctly used. It’s just a question of learning how to do it. That said, an Austrian, French, British, Russian or Prussian army will always pound you from a distance …

DISRUPTION AND FRAGMENTATION
Here I can’t really follow you. French and 13 Colonies units are made in the same ways as their opponents. If something has gone wrong, it's probably just the result of bad luck in some battles. if 100 battles were played the results would become even again. The real problem here, in my opinion, is that every unit becomes excessively disrupted or fragmented, above all during the cohesion test that follows the breakup of a nearby unit, substantially in the same way whehter they are raw units or superior units. I’m working on it with the help of Cronos09 and hope something can be done to solve the problem.

CAVALRY
In my opinion the actual balancing of cavalry and infantry units is correct, taking note of the fact that steady musketeers couldn’t be frontally assaulted even by cuirassier with great chances of breaking them. But just try to play a battle against gribol and you’ll see how powerful cavalry can be in exploiting every weakness in the infantry line! It’s just a question of learning how to do it (he is very able at it, me not really).

INFANTRY MOVEMENT
Never thought about this problem. The current situation guarantees that the units remain essentially in line, without dispersing too much on the ground, in an unhistorical manner. I fear that changing the parameters would end up with units wandering around the battlefield in a disorderly manner. Anyway, I’ll have a look at it and do some testing.

ROUT THRESHOLD
The rule, as you said, is designed for historical reasons but also to avoid continuing fruitless battles when an army is already broken. And, on the other hand, I really don't believe that raising the rout threshold would change the players' tactics, since the usefulness of concentrating fire on specific units to disintegrate them would still remain.
The problem, if it is a problem, could be resolved by narrowing the musketeers' arc of fire which, currently, at a distance of 3 or 4 squares, allows them to hit with equal effectiveness both the units in front of them and those located laterally. But it can also be overcome without changing anything but simply advancing quickly to a distance of 1 or 2 squares, where the volleys against lateral units are penalized and enemy units are prevented from turning sideways, because already engaged frontally.

[Dilly]

Many thanks for your prompt reply
I can see your poin5pt on the 48%, but I really can't agree with it, in other mods games I have both won and lost games when I've been 50% loses and upto 10% in front or behind my opponent, there has got to be a reason why it was put at 60% in the original game.
The problem with the infantry movement, was just with the pike and shot units, most of them can't move 1 forward and one to the side, which in my humble opinion puts them at a severe disadvantage when they are already at a disadvantage with firepower, I agree they should move slower through woods than musketeers
Thank-you for your work on this

[Lysimachos]

Excuse me Dilly,
but I initially didn’t catch your point about the movement.

Because you’re speaking only of pike and shot units I would like to point out that the choice to limit their movement was dictated by the need:
- to prevent that their very strong melee capabilities, combined with normal mobility, could make them substantially unstoppable by ordinary musketeer units,
- to make their now antiquated nature in that historical moment evident in some way.

And, on the other hand, in the original game those units were designed that way because they were usually destined to clash with other units of their own type, not with those that evolved differently at the beginning of the 18th century.
That said, the problem could be solved by assigning them the same movement capabilities of musketeers but limiting their impact strengths. I'll try to do some tests and see what comes out.

Regarding the rout threshold I’m personally satisfied as it is set now but, anyway, I could consider enhancing it a bit up to 50% or 52%, but no more.

It will take me some time to evaluate all the hints and tips that have been evidenced by the players but perhaps in a couple of months the work could be done …