Pike and Shot announced

[TheGrayMouser]

Hi RBS, can you address the use of squares vs hexes? I have concerns this might be one of those “sticking points “ that comes up over and over ( like in PC FOGAM where the abstract nature of BG’s having no “size” came up over and over again…)
Ist I am assuming BG’s can moved and shoot “diagonally” ?
If so , based on pythagoras  one is moving and or shooting at a greater real range along diagonals that along “flats” in a square based system. And its not a small amount either, if a square is 2 units of measurement along a length, the center of one square to the center of the 4 squares on flats is also 2 units, however its 2.83 to the center of the 4 squares diagonal….
It might not matter for most weapons and slower moving units, but it might be weird for artillery and or units like cavalry that have high movement rates.

Yes, the engine allows diagonal movement and shooting, and takes the laws of geometry into account.

For movement purposes the engine uses the approximation of treating diagonal movement as 1.5 times as far as orthogonal movement.

For shooting ranges, the engine reduces the diagonal range but not quite as much as geometry would dictate. e.g. Troops with a shooting range of 4 can shoot 3 squares diagonally, but troops with a shooting range of 2 can shoot 2 squares diagonally (because reducing the the diagonal range to 1 square would be equally inaccurate and a bit harsh).

So the issue of diagonal movement is fully accounted for, and the issue of diagonal shooting is partially accounted for.

you guys are the best and have clearly thought of everything
Cheers!

[Scutarii]

Ok, i understand now how works defensive constructions.

Squares... ufff i dont like a lot squares in wargames... true is that hexes are not the perfect solution but for me are better than squares... why??? well, with squares you cant create a diagonal defensive line, create one following absolute north-south or west-east is not a problem but if you try do a north-west to south-east there is a problem.

See the image, where are red dots usually in wargames using squares the units that form the line dont cover this squares and enemy can "break" the line to this squares without fight, you need position units in the squares with dots to have a continuous line like the one in right side (and you need double number of units to do this)... is possible this in game or engine prevent this??? thanks.

[oldbear1962]

RBS, just one quick question (and sorry if it has already been asked and I missed it)... will this be hotseat compatible for two player games?

[rbodleyscott]

RBS, just one quick question (and sorry if it has already been asked and I missed it)... will this be hotseat compatible for two player games?

Yes, although that currently requires you to add

ALLOWMPHOTSEAT 1

to your User.txt file.

[rbodleyscott]

Squares... ufff i dont like a lot squares in wargames... true is that hexes are not the perfect solution but for me are better than squares... why??? well, with squares you cant create a diagonal defensive line, create one following absolute north-south or west-east is not a problem but if you try do a north-west to south-east there is a problem.

See the image, where are red dots usually in wargames using squares the units that form the line dont cover this squares and enemy can "break" the line to this squares without fight, you need position units in the squares with dots to have a continuous line like the one in right side (and you need double number of units to do this)... is possible this in game or engine prevent this??? thanks.

It would be possible to prevent this, but the prevention has side effects which are undesirable.

This is not the age of linear tactics, and there is already assumed to be some gap between units in an orthogonal battle line, though not enough to move a unit through.

If a unit is 0.7 tiles wide, then when they are in an orthogonal line the gaps between the unit are 0.3 tiles wide. When the lines is diagonal, the gaps between the units are 0.72 tiles wide - so really no reason why units should not go between unless the enemy has a unit in the tile behind the "gap".

This is even truer for cavalry units, which are often narrower.

[oldbear1962]

RBS, just one quick question (and sorry if it has already been asked and I missed it)... will this be hotseat compatible for two player games?

Yes, although that currently requires you to add

ALLOWMPHOTSEAT 1

to your User.txt file.

Thanks for the very quick reply. You are winning nothing but friends with how you are handling this. You make it, I'll buy it.

[Scutarii]

Thanks for the reply.

I know that period is more based in "chessboard" deployments but at least face enemy with a "line" with no gaps to see a full tercio exploiting one of these gaps other question are skirmisher units or the "commando" units searching a weak point.

Again thanks.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have a hard time believing in the Pike and shot era ANY units would attempt to "exploit" even a modest gap between 2 units as they would have to brave enfilading fire from the 2 units to do so... Even if they made it thru the gauntlett, what would they do then? (except die when the second line/cavalry reserve destroys them. Marshal de Saxe theories about columns pushing thru enemies delployed linearly and then "rolling them up" asside, I cant think of any battles where units did penetrate so...

[rbodleyscott]

I have a hard time believing in the Pike and shot era ANY units would attempt to "exploit" even a modest gap between 2 units as they would have to brave enfilading fire from the 2 units to do so... Even if they made it thru the gauntlett, what would they do then? (except die when the second line/cavalry reserve destroys them. Marshal de Saxe theories about columns pushing thru enemies delployed linearly and then "rolling them up" asside, I cant think of any battles where units did penetrate so...

Probably because they did not leave such large gaps. The units on either side of the gap would not be able to do much to the penetrating unit if also themselves faced off frontally by other enemy units. Putting units behind the gaps is effectively a diagonal chessboard formation and prevents penetration - and represents the second line that you mention above as destroying the penetrators. Encouraging the need to have a second line (as per historical deployments) is part of the design philosophy.

Look at it from the other perspective. If a diagonal line of units did prevent penetration, then effectively the diagonally deployed army is getting a freebie, blocking almost 50% more ground with the same number of units.

In any case penetration can be prevented by deploying the units in echelon rather than diagonally (in exactly the same squares but facing orthogonally), then the enemy will not be able to penetrate because they would have to pass through a unit's ZOC to do so.

The idea of preventing the enemy moving through the "gaps" in a diagonal line (which, as we have seen above, may be as wide as the normal unit width) raises a number of other issues:

1) should this apply only to voluntary moves or also to routs and pursuits (where the units are no longer trying to stay in formation)?

2) should friends be allowed to attack through the "gaps". Difficult to see any logical reason why they shouldn't, but this would mean that they can charge the enemy but not themselves be charged.

3) should units be able to shoot through the gaps? Logically they should be able to do so given the size of the gap as discussed above. However, this would mean that the rear line units could shoot but not be charged, which means that pure musket units could be used without risk of them being ridden down by cavalry. Nice way of increasing firepower without the attendant risks, but not very historical.

[TheGrayMouser]

oops, my comment was more of a general one and not specific to the game, as try as I could, I coudnt understand what Scuttarri was asking, and thus didnt quite get your answer.

Now its clear, and I get what you mean about echelon formation.
Based on this it appears ZOC's extend directly, and only directly to the front of a unit into ONLY one square?
Cheers!

[rbodleyscott]

Based on this it appears ZOC's extend directly, and only directly to the front of a unit into ONLY one square?

Not quite as simple as that. They also prevent a unit from moving diagonally across an enemy unit's front without passing through the square directly to their front, and they also affect the permitted behaviour of units 2 squares to the front (orthogonally but not diagonally).

They don't extend sideways or backwards. Unit facing is very important in the game.

[Scutarii]

More images and info in this article.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05 ... ore-209993

Looks very natural the use of walls

[TheGrayMouser]

More images and info in this article.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05 ... ore-209993

Looks very natural the use of walls

Great find, too bad some of this info/screenshots isnt on Slitherines site haha!

Interesting changes to the POA's from the TT game (namely quality DH pistoleers are now equal to impact mounted)
If the game is easly moddable to a dope like me, i'll likly change it so heavy QUALITY lancers are at least equal to impact pistol.
Cant wait!

[pipfromslitherine]

RBS, just one quick question (and sorry if it has already been asked and I missed it)... will this be hotseat compatible for two player games?

Yes, although that currently requires you to add

ALLOWMPHOTSEAT 1

to your User.txt file.

That's actually not necessary any more IIRC. Hotseat is on by default, it will warn you the first time you attempt to accept one of your own challenges.

Cheers

Pip

[rbodleyscott]

If the game is easly moddable to a dope like me, i'll likly change it so heavy QUALITY lancers are at least equal to impact pistol.

You can of course do what you wish, but that would have the effect that French Huguenot "millers" would no longer have their historical advantage against French Catholic gendarmes.... (unless you downgraded the quality of the latter, which would be a bit harsh).

The main purpose of the change in POAs was to allow Royalist Cavaliers to be graded as Impact Horse (as they fit the definition of charging fiercely sword in hand, and were certainly scary to less-well-trained Parliamentarian horse) without giving them a major impact advantage vs Cromwell's Ironsides (Determined Horse, Superior, Impact Pistol). We would have liked to have done something similar in the tabletop rules, but wanted to avoid over-complicating the POA system - not a problem with the computer version as all the complexity is dealt with by the computer.

The interaction of the capabilities and POAs has been very carefully thought out to allow all troops of the 16th/17th century to interact appropriately with their historical opponents. We would recommend trying the game in its vanilla form before getting carried away altering the POAs.

Of course if you make changes that only apply in a particular campaign, there is scope for tweaking the interactions without adversely affecting the representation of other campaigns.

On general principles we recommend not modding your main installation folder, or any of the "official" campaigns. You can set up modded campaigns (new ones or cloned from the main installation) in their own folders, and any altered scripts in that folder will automatically be run instead of the default scripts.

[Navaronegun]

If the game is easly moddable to a dope like me, i'll likly change it so heavy QUALITY lancers are at least equal to impact pistol.

You can of course do what you wish, but that would have the effect that French Huguenot "millers" would no longer have their historical advantage against French Catholic gendarmes.... (unless you downgraded the quality of the latter, which would be a bit harsh).

The main purpose of the change in POAs was to allow Royalist Cavaliers to be graded as Impact Horse (as they fit the definition of charging fiercely sword in hand, and were certainly scary to less-well-trained Parliamentarian horse) without giving them a major impact advantage vs Cromwell's Ironsides (Determined Horse, Superior, Impact Pistol). We would have liked to have done something similar in the tabletop rules, but wanted to avoid over-complicating the POA system - not a problem with the computer version as all the complexity is dealt with by the computer.

The interaction of the capabilities and POAs has been very carefully thought out to allow all troops of the 16th/17th century to interact appropriately with their historical opponents. We would recommend trying the game in its vanilla form before getting carried away altering the POAs.

Of course if you make changes that only apply in a particular campaign, there is scope for tweaking the interactions without adversely affecting the representation of other campaigns.

On general principles we recommend not modding your main installation folder, or any of the "official" campaigns. You can set up modded campaigns (new ones or cloned from the main installation) in their own folders, and any altered scripts in that folder will automatically be run instead of the default scripts.

RBS, *must* you continually whet my appetite with discussions of the English Civil War and thoughts of the Prince of Condé as well?

[Micha63]

Hi,
does the figth work in this game like in hps games, first fiering afterwards mele ?

[rbodleyscott]

Hi,
does the figth work in this game like in hps games, first fiering afterwards mele ?

How it works in Pike and Shot is as follows:

In your turn you can move, shoot or charge with each unit (that is currently not out of control - i.e. in close combat, routing, pursuing or set by the scenario as out of control) in any order you like. The shooting or impact combat is resolved immediately. Enemy units can react to your unit moving or shooting by shooting at it immediately.

At the end of your turn, any units of both sides that have not yet shot will shoot automatically if they are in range, can shoot, and the enemy are visible. (This is to stop the player reducing incoming reactive fire by not moving or shooting with his units).

Then all units that are in close combat fight continuing combat (melee), and any break-offs, routs or pursuits are resolved, including impact combats resulting form pursuers charging new enemy they meet.

Then it is the other player's (or AI's) turn and the sequence is repeated.

[Micha63]

Hello, this sounds verry similar to the Field of Glory rules, or am i wrong ?

[TheGrayMouser]

If the game is easly moddable to a dope like me, i'll likly change it so heavy QUALITY lancers are at least equal to impact pistol.

You can of course do what you wish, but that would have the effect that French Huguenot "millers" would no longer have their historical advantage against French Catholic gendarmes.... (unless you downgraded the quality of the latter, which would be a bit harsh).

The main purpose of the change in POAs was to allow Royalist Cavaliers to be graded as Impact Horse (as they fit the definition of charging fiercely sword in hand, and were certainly scary to less-well-trained Parliamentarian horse) without giving them a major impact advantage vs Cromwell's Ironsides (Determined Horse, Superior, Impact Pistol). We would have liked to have done something similar in the tabletop rules, but wanted to avoid over-complicating the POA system - not a problem with the computer version as all the complexity is dealt with by the computer.

The interaction of the capabilities and POAs has been very carefully thought out to allow all troops of the 16th/17th century to interact appropriately with their historical opponents. We would recommend trying the game in its vanilla form before getting carried away altering the POAs.

Of course if you make changes that only apply in a particular campaign, there is scope for tweaking the interactions without adversely affecting the representation of other campaigns.

On general principles we recommend not modding your main installation folder, or any of the "official" campaigns. You can set up modded campaigns (new ones or cloned from the main installation) in their own folders, and any altered scripts in that folder will automatically be run instead of the default scripts.

Again thanks for the informative response. I do agree with the POA's and interactions between historical foes as is, so I wont likly mod stuff for historical scenarious etc. However, I tend to be greatly interested in causality which I suppose would be a "bottom up " aproach vs the top down which is more one of "effect".
So, for historically a-histocial line ups its great this game is moddable. I have always questioned if the pistol in of itself was suprior to the lance or if other factors came in to play So, what if Chev. Bayard was leading REAL gendarmes of say Francis ist at Coutras, rather than the troopers and or courtiers under Joyeouse, would the outcome have been differnt? Cheers!