Medium Foot Rebalance Discussion

[pompeytheflatulent]

In other words, maybe history is won by societies first and arms second.

Yes, I think this is the correct way to understand things with the caveat that a powerful society can only come into being if its military forces are generally successful. That wouldn't be the only factor (geographical location, economy, trade links etc) but it would certainly be one of the factors. If you look at the results achieved by the Roman armies in the FOG2DL so far (W-D-L) . . .

Roman (490-341BC) 17-6-15
Roman (340-281BC) 5-0-10
Roman (280-220BC) 2-0-1
Roman (219-200BC) 30-1-34
Roman (199-106BC) 86-16-60
Roman (105-25BC) 70-6-86
Roman (24 BC-196 AD) 27-5-22
Roman (197-284AD) 26-3-56
Roman (313-378AD) 30-9-36
Roman (379-424AD) 7-3-8
Roman (425-492AD) 29-1-18

. . . then you can detect a certain unevenness in the outcomes. For some of the armies the samples are too small to draw any conclusions at all, other than to say that players have not found these particular armies very appealing. But if you look at the middle block of the armies listed, where each army has been used at least 50 times (making it more likely that players of different skill levels have used them) then I would say that the 219-200BC,105-25BC and 197-284AD armies are underperforming a bit and are worth looking at in a bit more detail. That doesn't necessarily mean a change is warranted (it may be that they have had a preponderance of weaker players choosing them).

On the other hand the results for the 199-106BC and 24BC-196AD are about what I would expect for a Roman army of that time. Solid, but not unbeatable. The army that stands out like a sore thumb to me though (admittedly on a smaller sample) is the last one 425-492AD, which probably has the best % stats of the lot. Presumably this has something to do with a "Chalons effect", given that the Roman empire in the west was collapsing at the time? Again, I think they are worth a closer look to see what has happened.

As I have said, the point of the army statistics is to help players make their army choices, so someone relatively new to the game and the league who fancied trying out a Roman army can see that maybe the best place to start is probably with the 199-106BC or 425-492AD armies.

Personally I'd be much more comfortable if the Roman 105-25 BC list had the win ratio of Roman 425-492 AD, and the Roman 425-492 AD had the win ratio of the 3rd century crisis Roman list. (i.e. Balance it so playing the game feels more historically authentic, even at the cost of messing up the multiplayer meta and having some lists be slightly overpowered) But apparently all the top competitive players are against this so, oh well. *shrugs*

Although I am willing to consider the possibility that the stats are skewed by certain armies being picked more often by players newer to multiplayer, who having only fought the lackluster AI, falsely assumed that the historically more dominant army lists would naturally be more competitive in multiplayer. So there is some merit in nyczar's idea of separating out the stats by division.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Do people think that the command radius for the various generals are too big? Does this encourage spamming cheap units to a certain extent? Currently, command radii for troop, field and great commanders are 4, 8 and 12 squares respectively. This means a troop commander controls an area of 69 squares, while a field commander controls a whopping 249 squares. When I was playing this game regularly I didn't really think much about my commanders and their command radius until one of them got killed. Perhaps the current radii make things too easy? What if you reduced them by 25% to 3, 6 and 9? That should be ample still, shouldn't it? A field commander would still be controlling an area of 169 squares (13x13 minus the corners being chopped off, so probably minus 24 squares, I guess, which makes 145 squares). If you reduce the command radii it would also make it a tougher decision about using your general in melee - it is usually a no-brainer at the moment.

Schweetness, another mod please!

Not so much too big, as much as too much difference between tiny and gigantic, so that getting a second big command bubble makes a significant difference for certain armies. Generally the units most able to consistently benefit from the free 45 degree turn are the skirmishers (use the free turn to line up next round's shooting after they had fired to avoid the move&shoot penalty) and the cavalry units on the extreme wings (slingshot around other units to achieve a 135 degree turn within one move), and those are units most likely to be out of command radius.

[nyczar]

The primary problem I have with this debate is that the win loss data that is used as a premise is flawed. There is no segmentation by divisions (skill). My hypothesis, which I will not researched but hope one of you will, is that the "dominance" of lists made of of less trained and less well armored troops (cheaper) fades as the skill level of the enemy general increases. For me, I felt this issue was largely answered when Dklanda won with a heavy list in one of the A Divisions, I dont recall which. In the context of digital league anachronistic match ups, skill in choosing your list for division play, skill in list selection, skill in deployment, and skill in the tactical use of ZOC are the decisive factors.

The army statistics for the FOG2DL are just intended as a rough guide for players, particularly newer players, to help them choose their army if they are struggling a bit to come up with the required 4 selections. The list gives a general idea of which armies have done well and which might be difficult to use. The more battles an army has fought the more reliable are those statistics, because it is much more likely that the army has been used by players with different abilities. This is the most that I have ever claimed for the list and I don't think there is any real need for the data to be segmented by the skill levels of the players.

Edit: having said that, the list has been quite good at identifying armies that might need further consideration e.g. the Indians and Indo-Greeks after Season 1 and the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons after Season 7. There have been a few other nerfs as well.

In terms of anachronistic match-ups, these do occur very often, of course, but the league is divided into four distinct time periods at the moment so you don't get bizarre match-ups like Romans v Vikings, or whatever.

I understand the purpose of the data you provide and I am thankful for it. You have never claimed it is more than I guide, which I still use and find helpful when I foolishly want to try something new and get pie in the face. In saying the data was flawed, I was saying that in the context of this debate about the power of medium lists. As a premise for why medium based list are overpowered I dont think it can be used or at best it has serious limitations. I may have to break out my limited excel skills to pursue the segmentation analysis i have in mind. I have a bit of an itch now to know. A good quarantine actively when I need a distraction from work.

[stockwellpete]

extract the folder to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

to be able to launch the mod in custom battles

and if you copy the folder over to:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

you should be able to use it in multiplayer games

OK thanks, that works fine. Just had a quick go with it and my shield wall was holding off the Brythonic foot in the rough ground where the impact result was even, but the raw shieldwall were driven out and routed very quickly by the Brythonics. So as expected it was going to be a long drawn out fight between the shield wall and Brythonics there, probably taking some of the units down to auto rout level.

[stockwellpete]

I understand the purpose of the data you provide and I am thankful for it. You have never claimed it is more than I guide, which I still use and find helpful when I foolishly want to try something new and get pie in the face. In saying the data was flawed, I was saying that in the context of this debate about the power of medium lists. As a premise for why medium based list are overpowered I dont think it can be used or at best it has serious limitations. I may have to break out my limited excel skills to pursue the segmentation analysis i have in mind. I have a bit of an itch now to know. A good quarantine actively when I need a distraction from work.

Yes, OK then.

[Schweetness101]

extract the folder to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

to be able to launch the mod in custom battles

and if you copy the folder over to:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

you should be able to use it in multiplayer games

OK thanks, that works fine. Just had a quick go with it and my shield wall was holding off the Brythonic foot in the rough ground where the impact result was even, but the raw shieldwall were driven out and routed very quickly by the Brythonics. So as expected it was going to be a long drawn out fight between the shield wall and Brythonics there, probably taking some of the units down to auto rout level.

sweet, if i were to make a mod for testing to:

-increase unit costs across the board
AND/OR:
-increase medium foot costs to make them pay for maneuverability

what values should i use?

[Schweetness101]

I may have to break out my limited excel skills to pursue the segmentation analysis i have in mind. I have a bit of an itch now to know. A good quarantine actively when I need a distraction from work.

i for one would love to see this analysis

[nyczar]

I may have to break out my limited excel skills to pursue the segmentation analysis i have in mind. I have a bit of an itch now to know. A good quarantine actively when I need a distraction from work.

i for one would love to see this analysis

For my countrymen, how can I say no? Give me a bit, I am not a wiz as you seem to be.

[pompeytheflatulent]

sweet, if i were to make a mod for testing to:

-increase unit costs across the board
AND/OR:
-increase medium foot costs to make them pay for maneuverability

what values should i use?

Not sure about the medium foot one. But for the increase cost across the board, I'd say start with something big, like +8 points for every unit. Once we're sure that it has the desired effect (shifting the balance towards quality over quantity), and we have a better understanding of the unintended side effects. Then dial it back to something closer to Snugglebunnies' suggestion of 3 points ish for fine-tuning.

[Schweetness101]

sweet, if i were to make a mod for testing to:

-increase unit costs across the board
AND/OR:
-increase medium foot costs to make them pay for maneuverability

what values should i use?

Not sure about the medium foot one. But for the increase cost across the board, I'd say start with something big, like +8 points for every unit. Once we're sure that it has the desired effect (shifting the balance towards quality over quantity), and we have a better understanding of the unintended side effects. Then dial it back to something closer to Snugglebunnies' suggestion of 3 points ish for fine-tuning.

ok here is the mod for increasing base cost:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8ey5t5m7ed1h ... G2_Va?dl=0

NOTE: as is it will not make any changes. Instead. In the main mod folder you will see this:


where Squads.csv is the original. Whichever file is names 'Squads.csv' will be used by the game, and the others will be ignored. The other ones are named 'SquadsX - SquadsOLD.csv' where X is either 4,6,8 or 10 (the 10 one just stops at 10 with the name but that doesn't matter). That X is the base cost increase in each file. Whichever you want to use, rename that file to simple 'Squads.csv' AND rename the old 'Squads.csv' to ANYTHING OTHER than 'Squads.csv', perhaps SquadsOLD.csv will help you remember which is the original.

[travling_canuck]

I've only been playing FOG2 solitaire for about a year, although I do have a fair bit of table top miniatures experience (most of it from many decades ago), and I wouldn't describe myself as a good player (I win consistently on Difficulty 3, but lose somewhat more than I win on Difficulty 4). On medium infantry and their effectiveness, though, three things stand out to me:

1. The effectiveness of medium infantry flank attacks has always struck me as too high. I personally question whether the automatic cohesion drop on a flank attack should be restricted to your weight class or lower. In other words, I'm not sure heavy infantry should lose cohesion from a flank attack by a medium infantry. I think being flanked should put the heavies in a bad situation, but I don't think being flanked by lighter troops should be as decisive as it currently is.

2. Medium infantry not being impacted by rough terrain seems odd to me. That they should be less affected than heavy infantry, I agree. That they should be as unaffected as light infantry seems odd to me. That seems to be what leads to the deadliness of medium vs heavy in rough terrain, a deadliness that seems greater than the equivalent advantage of the heavies in open ground. I'd personally be okay if the cheaper mediums fought at roughly even terms in rough terrain versus heavies, but that's just me. I'm also okay with them having an advantage, though perhaps not to the current degree. And I feel like lights should have a bit more of an advantage than they currently do against mediums in bad going, to better position the mediums as an "in between" unit, rather than a "best of both".

3. Command-and-control is very high in FOG2, which advantages larger armies. That's a core game design decision, though, and not one I would advocate changing. Although I find the degree of control over my army to be too high in solitaire play, I expect it's that same degree of control that makes this a compelling game for multi-player, as player skill has a greater opportunity to shine through.

[pompeytheflatulent]

sweet, if i were to make a mod for testing to:

-increase unit costs across the board
AND/OR:
-increase medium foot costs to make them pay for maneuverability

what values should i use?

Not sure about the medium foot one. But for the increase cost across the board, I'd say start with something big, like +8 points for every unit. Once we're sure that it has the desired effect (shifting the balance towards quality over quantity), and we have a better understanding of the unintended side effects. Then dial it back to something closer to Snugglebunnies' suggestion of 3 points ish for fine-tuning.

ok here is the mod for increasing base cost:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8ey5t5m7ed1h ... G2_Va?dl=0

NOTE: as is it will not make any changes. Instead. In the main mod folder you will see this:


where Squads.csv is the original. Whichever file is names 'Squads.csv' will be used by the game, and the others will be ignored. The other ones are named 'SquadsX - SquadsOLD.csv' where X is either 4,6,8 or 10 (the 10 one just stops at 10 with the name but that doesn't matter). That X is the base cost increase in each file. Whichever you want to use, rename that file to simple 'Squads.csv' AND rename the old 'Squads.csv' to ANYTHING OTHER than 'Squads.csv', perhaps SquadsOLD.csv will help you remember which is the original.

Thanks. Will attempt to install as soon as I wrap up this round's automated tourney. Don't trust myself not to f*ck up the install so bad I get locked out of the multiplayer.

[Schweetness101]

Thanks. Will attempt to install as soon as I wrap up this round's automated tourney. Don't trust myself not to f*ck up the install so bad I get locked out of the multiplayer.

if you follow these instructions:

extract the file to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

to be able to launch the mod in custom battles

and if you copy the Pike_Mod folder over to:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

you should be able to use it in multiplayer games

there should be no problem, those folder don't affect the main game build

[pompeytheflatulent]

Thanks. Will attempt to install as soon as I wrap up this round's automated tourney. Don't trust myself not to f*ck up the install so bad I get locked out of the multiplayer.

if you follow these instructions:

extract the file to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

to be able to launch the mod in custom battles

and if you copy the Pike_Mod folder over to:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

you should be able to use it in multiplayer games

there should be no problem, those folder don't affect the main game build

Instructions not clear, dick stuck in ceiling fan. Just kidding Thanks a lot!

@stockwellpete: what would you recommend as a good starting place for hotseat testing? Anglo-Danish vs Welsh?

[stockwellpete]

@stockwellpete: what would you recommend as a good starting place for hotseat testing? Anglo-Danish vs Welsh?

Yes, or Anglo-Saxon v Welsh. Anything which has a HF v MF element to it really.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Anything else you can think of that could accentuate the quality vs quantity aspects of it? Like some list where I can dump most of my points into 70pt+ units?

[Schweetness101]

Do people think that the command radius for the various generals are too big? Does this encourage spamming cheap units to a certain extent? Currently, command radii for troop, field and great commanders are 4, 8 and 12 squares respectively. This means a troop commander controls an area of 69 squares, while a field commander controls a whopping 249 squares. When I was playing this game regularly I didn't really think much about my commanders and their command radius until one of them got killed. Perhaps the current radii make things too easy? What if you reduced them by 25% to 3, 6 and 9? That should be ample still, shouldn't it? A field commander would still be controlling an area of 169 squares (13x13 minus the corners being chopped off, so probably minus 24 squares, I guess, which makes 145 squares). If you reduce the command radii it would also make it a tougher decision about using your general in melee - it is usually a no-brainer at the moment.

Schweetness, another mod please!

alright here it is:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nhmsq3ndklik ... JOXqa?dl=0

reduced to 3,6,9 i think

i tested it just once and it seems to work but let me know

there might be some weirdness with the corners of the command radius, not sure

[SimonLancaster]

Overall, I think the game is fairly well balanced. Most armies can beat any other army especially with a competent commander. I understand that there will always be some tension between traditionalists favouring the historical precedents and the pure wargamers.

You have to be very careful because if you make medium infantry too weak then it can really unbalance a lot of armies and battles. I have played with the Spartans recently and for one army list you have half your main battle line full of Thureophoroi. In a few battles they have been double dropping in morale quite easily and basically falling apart.

Someone mentioned medium infantry getting a small POA penalty against cavalry. This could be a good idea especially for non-spear.

[Schweetness101]

as per a discussion with stockwellpete I'm considering making another mini mod to change the way flanks work. This would do something like remove the auto cohesion drop and/or the +200 poa from flanks for strictly side flank attacks and only do it for rear attacks. So like if you have the below scenario:

aaa
bvb
ccc

where v is the unit in question and the a's, b's and c's are the squares around it, and v is facing downwards. c's are normal frontal attacks that wouldn't change, a's still count as rear flank attacks and wouldn't change, but b's would be reduced from their full flank attack effect to something else (actually i'm not sure if that's how flank and rear attacks are defined currently, it might be that the diagonal rear a directions are still consdered flank and not rear attacks, also it is more complicated than that because you can attack from more than one square away and the angle of attack might be intermediate to the above angles, but just to give the general idea here)

what should that something else be if such a change is desirable? Just a normal attack? a +50 minimum but with no auto drop? something else? Maybe only introduce this for medium foot flanking heavy foot?

and for diagonal facing units say it looks like this

aab
axc
bcc

where unit x is facing the bottom right, again c's are frontal attacks, a's are rear attacks and b's are the proposed to be altered flank attacks (i think...).

At least, I think that was the idea. Not sure about what the details ought to be. Thoughts? Specifically, I need to address:

-which attacks exactly count as rear vs flank
-what reduction should be done for only flank (not rear) attacks
-when it should be done, ie for all flanks that count as only flank attacks now, or only for medium foot vs heavy foot, or only for foot in general, etc...

[Huskie]

Main point: Agree that cost for the medium foot should increase and they should be "slightly disorder" in rough terrain.
My two cents.

Not so important points:
I also like the points brought up that the Romans and similar historical winners in history usually didn't fight balanced battles. The battlefield was purposely chosen and oftentimes great generals would seize the moment if the enemy's numbers were on the lower end. When Napoleon was in Italy he managed to defeat the Austrians by attacking inconsistently (catching some of his enemies by surprise) and only in battles in which he had superior numbers.

Likewise, Hannibal was able to defeat the Romans in early engagements due to knowing his foes. He knew that the Romans would attack in a rigid formation at used this to his advantage at Cannae. Or how Scipio Africanus viewing this battle copied this same tactic from Hannibal and used it to defeat Hannibal's brother in Spain.

Likewise, at Zama supported by the Numidians Scipio approached the enemy in usual formation at the front but the army was ordered to quickly form columns upon the advance of Carthargian elephants which allowed elephants to pass through the army without any casualties.

A lot of information taken from the internet so take my claims with a grain of salt.

As Napoleon once: "said You must not fight too often with one enemy, or you will teach him all your art of war."

The point is a lot of the nuances on the battlefield aren't represented in the game or any other game for that matter. FOG II does its job well to an extent.

As another user comments perhaps house rules or map rerolls. Though as first stated, I would prefer a cost increase for MF and they be "slightly disordered" in rough terrain