Medium Foot Rebalance Discussion

[SnuggleBunnies]

Wouldn't disordering MF in rough just encourage more staring? Youd be less inclined to charge your Thureos from rough into Hoplites in open...

[Nijis]

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.

This suggestion by travling_canuck would be a pretty dramatic nerf for medium foot, and seems in accordance with the other flanking auto-drop rules.

[Schweetness101]

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.

This suggestion by travling_canuck would be a pretty dramatic nerf for medium foot, and seems in accordance with the other flanking auto-drop rules.

I also think it seems like an interesting suggestion

[Schweetness101]

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.

This suggestion by travling_canuck would be a pretty dramatic nerf for medium foot, and seems in accordance with the other flanking auto-drop rules.

I also think it seems like an interesting suggestion

this mod should do it:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/pkjbsfaluco4 ... 2llwa?dl=0

it's not tested much but I think it's working.

It does NOT affect calculations for threatened flank CT modifier, or the guaranteed minimum +50 net POA for flanking an non occupied enemy (maybe it should do one or both of those things?) but it does remove the auto drop from medium foot flanking heavy foot and just gives them the guaranteed min +50 from flanking an occupied heavy foot unit, like as I think is standard for flanking a unit that you aren't qualified to auto drop (cav flanking ele etc...)

I do it by adding an additional gate to pass if you want to get the auto drop type flank that looks like this:
if (((LikesTerrain(me) == 0) || LikesTerrain(enemy) == 1))
so maybe RBS can chime in if tha'ts working right (it seems to be anyway...). LikesTerrain() returns 1 for med foot, bowmen, warriors, light foot or mob


I'm pretty sure I can also do the other mod idea for the changing auto drop flanking based on flank angle to only include rear flanks as well but i need more info on what exactly the desired result is as per that post above

[Mairtin]

...
Heavy foot advantages:
+1 to ct for heavy foot in the open
-1 to CT imposed on medium foot vs heavy foot in the open (for a delta of +2 favoring heavies in the open)
...

The heavy foot get +1 CT in all terrain. The only time heavy get a -1 CT which the mediums don't is for severely disordered, ie when the heavy are in difficult terrain. But it's a -1 shared with being disrupted, so it only applies once if either is true.

Assuming heavy foot fighting mediums, both steady and average, armed the same, in the open and having lost the combat by enough to take a test:

• Mediums losing get -2 CT: drop at least one level 58.83% of the time, and two levels 16.67% of the time
• Heavy losing have +0 CT net: drop at least one level 27.78% of the time, and two levels 2.78% of the time

...
Medium foot advantages:
...
lower cost
...

Here is the only points table I could find viewtopic.php?f=492&t=89888&p=764401#p764401
From what I can see, medium and heavy foot cost the same, the only difference being for drilled heavies.

[stockwellpete]

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.

This suggestion by travling_canuck would be a pretty dramatic nerf for medium foot, and seems in accordance with the other flanking auto-drop rules.

I think something like this was discussed in a beta forum last year. I think the idea was that superior HF units would not suffer automatic cohesion loss when attacked in the flank by certain types of low-cost MF (e.g. irregular spearmen, Brythonics etc). I think it is an interesting idea.

[stockwellpete]

Wouldn't disordering MF in rough just encourage more staring? Youd be less inclined to charge your Thureos from rough into Hoplites in open...

Possibly, but the HF might then come into the rough to engage you. It would depend on what else was happening, of course.

[mceochaidh]

I think the automatic cohesion loss rule should be changed. Instead perhaps a cohesion test should be performed if charged in flank or rear with a -1 or even -2 modifier. This would benefit heavy foot, especially quality heavies. It would add some suspense to the game. In general, I think moving in the direction of less certainty in results is positive. Less chess like, more fun.

I have also lobbied in the past for a bit more restriction in command and control. I certainly would like to see this tested!

Mac

[desicat]

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.

This suggestion by travling_canuck would be a pretty dramatic nerf for medium foot, and seems in accordance with the other flanking auto-drop rules.

I also think it seems like an interesting suggestion

Historically, Flank and rear attacks of any kind were pretty disrupting for the troops on the receiving end - and it did not take too much to cause havoc. Even Veteran troops were impacted, and just the threat of rear/flank attacks could break average or raw troops.

[SimonLancaster]

If there is any change to medium infantry and them not getting the flank attack bonus on heavies then I do think it should just be for irregular spearmen and Brythonics as Pete says... Thureophoroi and Thracians need all the help they can get!

[pompeytheflatulent]

With the 'increased cost across the board' mod, I'm running into the problem that increasing the base cost screws up the balance between infantry, cavalry and skirmishers FASTER than it changes the balance between cheap vs expensive infantry. I'll probably continue hot-seat tests by setting an equal number of skirmishers and cavalry aside for each army, and have them do a staring contest assuming with players of similar skill level they would cancel each other out. But eventually somebody will have to untie this Gordian knot if this method of balance adjustment is to avoid running into a dead-end.

[desicat]

With the 'increased cost across the board' mod, I'm running into the problem that increasing the base cost screws up the balance between infantry, cavalry and skirmishers FASTER than it changes the balance between cheap vs expensive infantry. I'll probably continue hot-seat tests by setting an equal number of skirmishers and cavalry aside for each army, and have them do a staring contest assuming with players of similar skill level they would cancel each other out. But eventually somebody will have to untie this Gordian knot if this method of balance adjustment is to avoid running into a dead-end.

So you are voting "Yes" for Anarchy Charges then.......

[Schweetness101]

With the 'increased cost across the board' mod, I'm running into the problem that increasing the base cost screws up the balance between infantry, cavalry and skirmishers FASTER than it changes the balance between cheap vs expensive infantry. I'll probably continue hot-seat tests by setting an equal number of skirmishers and cavalry aside for each army, and have them do a staring contest assuming with players of similar skill level they would cancel each other out. But eventually somebody will have to untie this Gordian knot if this method of balance adjustment is to avoid running into a dead-end.

as in it is making cavalry more better than skirmishers or cavalry more better than infantry than it is making expensive infantry better than heavy infantry? What base cost increase values have you tested?

[pompeytheflatulent]

8 points. Right around 7 or 8 pt increase, you can no longer buy two brythonic foot for the price of one huscarl. But at 8 point increase, you have 32 pt javelinmen and slingers, 38 pt light archers, 52 pt superior/protected light spear cav, and 68 point superior/armored light spear cav. So where as before, a cavalry deficient army could reasonably expect to be able to throw two to three skirmishers at every enemy cavalry unit, this becomes harder and harder as the price increase goes up. I think because skirmishers are generally cheaper than crap infantry, and cavalry are generally cheaper than superior infantry, they start to feel a noticeable effect from price increases faster then the infantry.

[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

There is a related debate on the subject on medium infantry. I posted my research and findings there:

viewtopic.php?f=599&t=98310&start=20

[Schweetness101]

8 points. Right around 7 or 8 pt increase, you can no longer buy two brythonic foot for the price of one huscarl. But at 8 point increase, you have 32 pt javelinmen and slingers, 38 pt light archers, 52 pt superior/protected light spear cav, and 68 point superior/armored light spear cav. So where as before, a cavalry deficient army could reasonably expect to be able to throw two to three skirmishers at every enemy cavalry unit, this becomes harder and harder as the price increase goes up. I think because skirmishers are generally cheaper than crap infantry, and cavalry are generally cheaper than superior infantry, they start to feel a noticeable effect from price increases faster then the infantry.

have you tested out the lower point increase? i think there was a 4 point one. Maybe even 2-3 points would be appropriate? Any recommendations as far as that goes from testing so far? Or, are you saying it turned out to be a bad idea in general? Or, perhaps that unit specific or unit type rather than general base cost increases should be tried?

[pompeytheflatulent]

have you tested out the lower point increase? i think there was a 4 point one. Maybe even 2-3 points would be appropriate? Any recommendations as far as that goes from testing so far? Or, are you saying it turned out to be a bad idea in general? Or, perhaps that unit specific or unit type rather than general base cost increases should be tried?

The problem with smaller point increases is that they have a negligible effect on the ratio of trash infantry to high-end infantry. I wouldn't say 'bad idea in general', but more like slapping a giant sticker on it that says: 'Beware of side effects!'

[Schweetness101]

have you tested out the lower point increase? i think there was a 4 point one. Maybe even 2-3 points would be appropriate? Any recommendations as far as that goes from testing so far? Or, are you saying it turned out to be a bad idea in general? Or, perhaps that unit specific or unit type rather than general base cost increases should be tried?

The problem with smaller point increases is that they have a negligible effect on the ratio of trash infantry to high-end infantry. I wouldn't say 'bad idea in general', but more like slapping a giant sticker on it that says: 'Beware of side effects!'

Haha ok. This question of medium foot rebalancing might also become moot in the context of a larger alternative gameplay mod that ends up changing enough things that balance for mediums is taken care of already (just the flank angle changes might be more than enough)

[Swuul]

I think Medium Infantry should be "Slightly Disordered" in rough terrain, and in addition the command range of leaders should be cut by a bit. As it is now it is hard to get outside of command control of C-in-C, and then you have subcommanders lending a hand too. Medium Infantry feels like they are SEAL units equipped with modern equipment, they appear from the dark, do their thing, and move on to the next target, and all that in perfect harmony and sync.

If Light Infantry was able to charge Medium Infantry in rough terrain (by making "Slightly Disordered" or worse state Medium Infantry legal targets for LI charges), it would swing the balance away from Medium Infantry a bit. No longer would rough be safe havens for Medium Infantry, as they could themselves be targets for LI charges while also making HI not absolutely horrible in rough when fighting vs MI. As a side effect it would give a slight boost to Javelin equipped LI and especially Peltasts a small but very much needed buff.

[stockwellpete]

I think Medium Infantry should be "Slightly Disordered" in rough terrain, and in addition the command range of leaders should be cut by a bit. As it is now it is hard to get outside of command control of C-in-C, and then you have subcommanders lending a hand too. Medium Infantry feels like they are SEAL units equipped with modern equipment, they appear from the dark, do their thing, and move on to the next target, and all that in perfect harmony and sync.

Yes, the terrain business for MF has gone on the back-burner for a while as we are concentrating on "anarchy" at the moment, but I do think a separate mod with medium foot being slightly disordered in rough terrain, with HF and LF staying as they are in vanilla, would be worthwhile. A change like that in a mod would be quite a significant change though and would possibly entail the re-pricing of medium foot units across the board.

In the latest version of the Aggregate Mod we have command radii set at 4 squares for all commanders, with sub-generals only able to give command to units in their own starting contingent. It seems to be working very well, even on the largest maps. Eventually we will tie this in with the "anarchy" rules, where keeping units in command radius will be very important.

If Light Infantry was able to charge Medium Infantry in rough terrain (by making "Slightly Disordered" or worse state Medium Infantry legal targets for LI charges), it would swing the balance away from Medium Infantry a bit. No longer would rough be safe havens for Medium Infantry, as they could themselves be targets for LI charges while also making HI not absolutely horrible in rough when fighting vs MI. As a side effect it would give a slight boost to Javelin equipped LI and especially Peltasts a small but very much needed buff.

This is true, but I think that if we are going to say that MF are a bit more like HF in certain types of terrain (i.e. they will experience some disorder), then I think we also need to say in that mod that MF are a bit more like HF in open terrain and look to give them something back in compensation (maybe in the area of CT tests).