Command and Control mod (was Tournament mode) . . .

[stockwellpete]

A bit like "Iron Man" mode that some games have. What would you have in it?

i) no "Re-do move"
ii) much more limited command radii
iii) purchasing of generals at the start beyond 2 compulsory generals

What else?

[stockwellpete]

iv) Sub-generals behaving like allied generals

[Cunningcairn]

iv) Sub-generals behaving like allied generals

I like the idea of numbers 2 and 3 but not number 1. With 3 the maximum number of generals should be limited to 4 for medium maps and 5 and 6 for large and extra large maps. All generals with limited control radius. For number 4 why can't it just be allied generals acting like allied generals. Why must these changes be a competition mode? It would be great if they were just standard.

[stockwellpete]

I like the idea of numbers 2 and 3 but not number 1. With 3 the maximum number of generals should be limited to 4 for medium maps and 5 and 6 for large and extra large maps. All generals with limited control radius. For number 4 why can't it just be allied generals acting like allied generals. Why must these changes be a competition mode? It would be great if they were just standard.

Have you got twitchy fingers?

I would like to do something a bit different for the Themed Event in the FOG2DL at some point, so I am just seeing if there are enough ideas for what we might call "tournament mode". There might not be, but command and control seems to be a profitable area to look at. Something that might provide a bit of a new challenge to keep things fresh.

[pompeytheflatulent]

i) no "Re-do move"

table_flip_flipping_rage_face_meme.jpg (21.34 KiB) Viewed 2666 times

[pompeytheflatulent]

You could always use the 'vanguard/rearguard/protect the baggage train' scenarios, if those haven't been done before in the tourney.

[desicat]

You could always use the 'vanguard/rearguard/protect the baggage train' scenarios, if those haven't been done before in the tourney.

Especially if one used StockwellPete's modified "baggage trains" that could fight back and not get eliminated upon first contact.

[stockwellpete]

Especially if one used StockwellPete's modified "baggage trains" that could fight back and not get eliminated upon first contact.

Yes, don't mess with my baggage trains!

[stockwellpete]

i) no "Re-do move"

table_flip_flipping_rage_face_meme.jpg

Ah, your table-flipping exploits have reminded me. Anarchy charges!! Which were a thing in FOG1 that frequently caused uproar, but I really would like to see in FOG2 (Steam reviewers would love them too ) Certain types of soldiers were prone to charging out of position, particularly cavalry. And you could use skirmishers to "bait" volatile troops from their defensive positions. And you would have to time your cavalry charges very carefully otherwise individual units would go charging off on their own. That would be excellent for Tournament mode.

[Athos1660]

(off-topic) I would really like to test those Anarchy charges I've never played with !

[stockwellpete]

(off-topic) I would really like to test those Anarchy charges I've never played with !

Yes, we need an "anarchy mod" now as well.

[desicat]

(off-topic) I would really like to test those Anarchy charges I've never played with !

Yes, we need an "anarchy mod" now as well.

I would actually like to see that too. Maybe reduce the probability the closer the unit is to a General or if it is behind an actual fortification it is defending.

[stockwellpete]

I would actually like to see that too. Maybe reduce the probability the closer the unit is to a General or if it is behind an actual fortification it is defending.

The FOG1 anarchy rules said this . . .

"Not everyone always obeys orders. Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge or may have refused to move at all.
Battle groups with the hand image on them are outside the range of a commander and are more likely than others to suffer anarchy."

And command radius becomes a more important factor with these rules.

[Athos1660]

The FOG1 anarchy rules said this . . .

"Not everyone always obeys orders. Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge or may have refused to move at all."

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

[Athos1660]

The FOG1 anarchy rules said this . . .

"Not everyone always obeys orders. Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge or may have refused to move at all."

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

... or a great DLC.

[stockwellpete]

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

Which units would you have doing this? Just "Raw" units?

[Athos1660]

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

Which units would you have doing this? Just "Raw" units?

Not just raw ones, any. The result of cohesion test depends partly on troop quality and modifiers could also be applied. I must admit I am not very good at the mechanism of cohesion test so I won't go into these details.

I wrongly call that "out of fear". These days, I was thinking mainly about cavalry charges (but maybe it can also be applied to infantry charges). There are several factors that can make a cavalry charge less effective and thus the following impact less effective : horses moving at different speeds because of several reasons (some cavalrymen unwilling to charge, some horses tired because of repeated charges or a too long run-up before the impact...) making the unit less compact and thus the impact less effective ; unexperienced unit, facing a well-organized enemy, that lose heart and drops psychological cohesion ; horses that refuse the impact at the very last moment ; some horsemen fleeing at the moment of the impact ; disheartened unit dispersing at the impact or before...

I would say that impact (and the following melee) is just one of the outcomes of a charge, one among others.

The anarchy rules mentioned :
- charges without orders,
- refusal to charge
- and refusal to move at all.
I suggest to add charges that go wrong for various reasons and jeopardise the impact. I guess the cohesion test during those charges that go all the way but wrongly could be fine-tuned.

[desicat]

The FOG1 anarchy rules said this . . .

"Not everyone always obeys orders. Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge or may have refused to move at all."

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

Charging units rarely broke before impact (unless decimated by ranged weapons or obstacles), but the later description of some charges being less effective for various reasons is spot on. I do not think a cohesion test reflects the difference accurately as the cohesion loss is a pretty significant step loss, especially for a unit that has its blood up and is attacking. I think terrain already covers the majority of reason for a charge losing its effectiveness, and the player can take it into account.

The ability to locate and assign Generals to units that are known to be undisciplined is a way to mitigate the "anarchy charge", random cohesion checks for attacking units may be a step too far. If anything a wavering unit could just refuse to charge, there is a lot of historical data to back that up.

[Cunningcairn]

I like the idea of numbers 2 and 3 but not number 1. With 3 the maximum number of generals should be limited to 4 for medium maps and 5 and 6 for large and extra large maps. All generals with limited control radius. For number 4 why can't it just be allied generals acting like allied generals. Why must these changes be a competition mode? It would be great if they were just standard.

Have you got twitchy fingers?

I would like to do something a bit different for the Themed Event in the FOG2DL at some point, so I am just seeing if there are enough ideas for what we might call "tournament mode". There might not be, but command and control seems to be a profitable area to look at. Something that might provide a bit of a new challenge to keep things fresh.

No it's my dogs They are on my lap when I play and they often knock my mouse hand mid-move I need that re-do move I love the idea of the anarchy charge being re-introduced. Make it standard I say

[Athos1660]

The FOG1 anarchy rules said this . . .

"Not everyone always obeys orders. Battle groups with the anarchy image on them may have charged without orders, may have refused to charge or may have refused to move at all."

Add "...and some battle groups or units may drop cohesion during their charge (before the impact) out of fear" and this is my dream mod

Charging units rarely broke before impact (unless decimated by ranged weapons or obstacles), but the later description of some charges being less effective for various reasons is spot on. I do not think a cohesion test reflects the difference accurately as the cohesion loss is a pretty significant step loss, especially for a unit that has its blood up and is attacking. I think terrain already covers the majority of reason for a charge losing its effectiveness, and the player can take it into account.

The ability to locate and assign Generals to units that are known to be undisciplined is a way to mitigate the "anarchy charge", random cohesion checks for attacking units may be a step too far. If anything a wavering unit could just refuse to charge, there is a lot of historical data to back that up.

So let's agree to disagree.

I think that, especially in an Anarchy mod, the charge of the non-light cavalry could be a (bit) more risky phase and have some more influence on the outcome of the cavalry fight, without being unhistorical.
How to make it so ? I don’t know yet. Needs some testing. Maybe :

• an additional -1 modifier during the cohesion tests for the unit losing at the impact ?

• or a low risk of an additional cohesion drop for both units during the charge before the impact ?

• or an automatic cohesion test for both units at the impact ?

• or… ?

(edit)
On the other hand, maybe, we actually agree on one thing : the impact of a (bad) charge shouldn't be too powerful in game.