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

[Jackblock]

Polls always worked well in the past. If the mods were tested in one or two sections of the digital league any fragmentation of the player base could be managed. Also the poll would be targeting those that will be affected and new players that are not on the forum wouldn't be using the mod. C'mon let's do it

Yeah! Lets DO it

[stockwellpete]

Polls always worked well in the past. If the mods were tested in one or two sections of the digital league any fragmentation of the player base could be managed. Also the poll would be targeting those that will be affected and new players that are not on the forum wouldn't be using the mod. C'mon let's do it

The agreement that I have with Richard and Slitherine at the moment is that I will not use any rule-changing mods in the FOG2DL. I can use the TT mod and the Silk Road mod because they are just adding new armies, not changing the rules. We need to remember that Slitherine sponsors the tournament (with prize vouchers) and provides us with forum space so that we can organise the tournament properly. So I am not going to be doing anything at all to jeopardise this arrangement.

But looking ahead - in terms of the ideas that are being raised in recent weeks, I think there is still a lot of work to be done with them individually first, and then we will need to think about how we put them together in what we might call "an alternative gameplay mod". Whether Richard and Slitherine will agree to this eventually being an official mod is open to question at the moment, but I think our chances will increase the nearer we move to the end of the game's development cycle (probably completed by the end of 2022). If it does become an official mod then it can be used by a wider pool of players for friendly games and we will get much more feedback as a result and the mod can be improved further. Only at that stage, when it has fully tried and tested, would I think about asking permission to use it in just one section of the FOG2DL, and that would be the Themed Event, which has always been a bit different from the main league format. When the first medieval DLC is released I will be opening up a fifth league section "Late Medieval" and I don't think having one of the six sections (as it will be then) using something a bit different will damage the player base at all. If anything some players might feel compelled to try it out for the first time in a tournament setting. But I will need permission before I contemplate doing that.

[travling_canuck]

I'd be very interested in charges without orders for impetuous troops and refusals to charge. I like chaos on the battle field for single-player games, and I prefer setting battle field plans and seeing how they play out more than I enjoy the micro-management of being able to control every single unit from the start of the battle through to the end.

Defining which units may be prone to an impetuous charge shouldn't be too difficult. One key decision is whether to make this a binary flag, or a sliding scale so some units are more likely than others to charge without orders.

Might be a bit more difficult to decide who might tend to refuse a charge order. Defensive spearmen would be one candidate, but who else? And would it be contextual? Medium foot possibly refusing to charge Pike, for example, on open ground, but not usually being subject to a refusal test?

Possible cohesion tests prior to impact would likely be the most difficult to model, as this overlaps so much with existing combat factors. I'm not sure it would be worth the fiddling to try and add this aspect.

Refusal to move at all I see as more of a bigger picture losing control of the battlefield mechanism, rather than part of the more limited proposed charge changes.

[76mm]

I've played quite a bit of FOG1 and FOG2, and while I certainly remember FOG1's anarchy charges, I can't for the life of me remember if I liked them or not... I guess I'm going senile here!

[TheGrayMouser]

I've played quite a bit of FOG1 and FOG2, and while I certainly remember FOG1's anarchy charges, I can't for the life of me remember if I liked them or not... I guess I'm going senile here!

You did not like them. I think your specific argument was hoplites holding a hill or defending would not charge piece meal into the fray . Also, you owe me 5 bucks.

[Barrold713]

I've played quite a bit of FOG1 and FOG2, and while I certainly remember FOG1's anarchy charges, I can't for the life of me remember if I liked them or not... I guess I'm going senile here!

You did not like them. I think your specific argument was hoplites holding a hill or defending would not charge piece meal into the fray . Also, you owe me 5 bucks.

A Mouser with the memory of an Elephanter...

BDH

[Schweetness101]

But eventually I think the logic will be for some of these mods to coalesce into bigger ones, so I don't think we will necessarily end up with a great long paralysing list of options. That is something to guard against at any rate.

yes, currently it's just a few grognards even bothering to download and test out these single purpose mods, but once we've combined them into one alternative gameplay mod and tested and tweaked it, perhaps a much smaller scale tournament could be arranged for fun to see what people think. If it's well received it could just provide one alternate set of rules, which I don't think is too much to keep track of for the sort of player who bothers to come to the forum, sign up for tournaments and download mods in the first place.

[76mm]

You did not like them. I think your specific argument was hoplites holding a hill or defending would not charge piece meal into the fray . Also, you owe me 5 bucks.

Your memory beats mine, that's for sure--that argument sounds like one I would make, although I don't remember making it!

What's the $5 for? It would be shameful if I forgot a bet as well!

[76mm]

But seriously, now that I think about it, it seems to me that anarchy charges should mostly apply to cavalry & barbarians, not so sure about hoplites and phalanxes.

[rbodleyscott]

But seriously, now that I think about it, it seems to me that anarchy charges should mostly apply to cavalry & barbarians, not so sure about hoplites and phalanxes.

The reason it was more inclusive was that there are plenty of accounts of regular troops - such as Romans - charging without orders. But it would certainly be reasonable for them to have a lower chance to do so than warbands, for example.

[Cunningcairn]

Polls always worked well in the past. If the mods were tested in one or two sections of the digital league any fragmentation of the player base could be managed. Also the poll would be targeting those that will be affected and new players that are not on the forum wouldn't be using the mod. C'mon let's do it

The agreement that I have with Richard and Slitherine at the moment is that I will not use any rule-changing mods in the FOG2DL. I can use the TT mod and the Silk Road mod because they are just adding new armies, not changing the rules. We need to remember that Slitherine sponsors the tournament (with prize vouchers) and provides us with forum space so that we can organise the tournament properly. So I am not going to be doing anything at all to jeopardise this arrangement.

But looking ahead - in terms of the ideas that are being raised in recent weeks, I think there is still a lot of work to be done with them individually first, and then we will need to think about how we put them together in what we might call "an alternative gameplay mod". Whether Richard and Slitherine will agree to this eventually being an official mod is open to question at the moment, but I think our chances will increase the nearer we move to the end of the game's development cycle (probably completed by the end of 2022). If it does become an official mod then it can be used by a wider pool of players for friendly games and we will get much more feedback as a result and the mod can be improved further. Only at that stage, when it has fully tried and tested, would I think about asking permission to use it in just one section of the FOG2DL, and that would be the Themed Event, which has always been a bit different from the main league format. When the first medieval DLC is released I will be opening up a fifth league section "Late Medieval" and I don't think having one of the six sections (as it will be then) using something a bit different will damage the player base at all. If anything some players might feel compelled to try it out for the first time in a tournament setting. But I will need permission before I contemplate doing that.

Absolutely! I think it is important that we all support Richard and Slitherine. Richard has developed another cracking game and if there were no changes I would still play it. In saying that I believe it can be improved with a little tweak here and there. What about running a smaller scale tournament with about 8 players to test the mods once they are agreed? Maybe Richard and others at Slitherine would agree to play as well. I was dismayed to hear about the bad reviews on Steam but I suppose you are never going to please everyone.

[desicat]

But seriously, now that I think about it, it seems to me that anarchy charges should mostly apply to cavalry & barbarians, not so sure about hoplites and phalanxes.

The reason it was more inclusive was that there are plenty of accounts of regular troops - such as Romans - charging without orders. But it would certainly be reasonable for them to have a lower chance to do so than warbands, for example.

This would be great. One would think that units that may suffer from Anarchy Charges could be a little less expensive as well - since they are less reliable.

[stockwellpete]

Just to bring together some of the ideas that have been suggested for a possible command and control mod . . .

1) adjustment of command radii
- there are a couple of ways of doing this. Either reduce the current radii from 4-8-12 (troop, field, inspired) to 3-6-9 or 2-4-6 according to the size of the armies or say that the command radii for all generals is, say, 4 squares and that sub-generals will be like ally generals in that they can only command units allocated to them at the start. C-in-C's can command all units except allied units.

2) adjusting the rallying criteria
- so that units can only attempt to rally when they are within the command radius of their general. They cannot rally at all if they are outside this radius. I am not sure what the % chance to rally without a general present currently is - does anyone know? Whatever that % is right now it would need to be higher under the new criteria to compensate for not being able to rally at all outside the range of a commander.

3) anarchy
- a poll is currently running to see if there is enough support to warrant the time and effort to provide a FOG2 version of this FOG1 feature.

4) purchasing of generals in the army selection process
- maybe 1 general has to be provided free (C-in-C) but then players may choose how many others they purchase. Limits would be related to the size of the armies. Again, this was a FOG1 feature

Are there any other ideas that players would like to add to the pot at this stage?

[stockwellpete]

Another issue which was contested when the game was made was players not being able to see the map before selecting their armies. Obviously this makes things harder. I would prefer this myself to what we have in the vanilla game right now. It would make players select more balanced armies.

[Athos1660]

^ Choosing one's army depending on the map, what a strange idea from my pov !
(I understand why, though )

[76mm]

Another issue which was contested when the game was made was players not being able to see the map before selecting their armies. Obviously this makes things harder. I would prefer this myself to what we have in the vanilla game right now. It would make players select more balanced armies.

Not so sure about this one. While it is true enough that generals can't choose their armies based on a particular battlefield, they could certainly choose their battlefield based on their particular army, at least to a large extent. A general with a horse army is generally going to try his best to avoid fighting in rough-and-wooded terrain, etc.

While I don't have any particular problem with selecting armies before seeing the map, I think that would need to be coupled with an ability to reject one or two maps as unsuitable before the map is set up.

[stockwellpete]

Not so sure about this one. While it is true enough that generals can't choose their armies based on a particular battlefield, they could certainly choose their battlefield based on their particular army, at least to a large extent. A general with a horse army is generally going to try his best to avoid fighting in rough-and-wooded terrain, etc.

While I don't have any particular problem with selecting armies before seeing the map, I think that would need to be coupled with an ability to reject one or two maps as unsuitable before the map is set up.

But at the moment a player setting up a friendly game can stipulate the basic type of terrain they want on the map - agricultural, hilly, wooded etc. So I think players can already "choose their battlefield based on their particular army" and probably very often do - a general with a horse army can select "Steppe" or "Agricultural". In my tournament we stipulate "pot luck" terrain must be chosen, but players still get to see the map first, even if it is not the type of map they were hoping for.

[rbodleyscott]

It would not be an easy mod to do.

[stockwellpete]

2) adjusting the rallying criteria
- so that units can only attempt to rally when they are within the command radius of their general. They cannot rally at all if they are outside this radius. I am not sure what the % chance to rally without a general present currently is - does anyone know? Whatever that % is right now it would need to be higher under the new criteria to compensate for not being able to rally at all outside the range of a commander.

I have been looking at this idea today. It is interesting. I think it will work OK with command radii set at 4-8-12, 3-6-9 and 2-4-6. What it means is that cavalry would be less likely to rally because they would move out of command radius more quickly than other unit types. This might be an issue for some players.

More interesting still is what might happen if all commanders only had a command radius of 4 squares (to be adjusted according to map size). Because this is quite a drastic cut in the area covered by field commanders. And you might think that cavalry would never rally at all, if their sub-general has been killed or once they have routed. But if you keep your C-in-C well behind the front lines he can then act as a sweeper to increase the chances of your unit(s) getting a rally. So the catenaccio still lives!

And this does reward keeping a certain depth to your army and not flinging everything into the frontline. It also makes it a bit more likely that you would want to resolve one area of the battlefield first (maybe a cavalry attack on a flank), because if you attack all across the front then your catenaccio is not really sure where to position himself. Subtle changes perhaps, but very challenging nonetheless.

[stockwellpete]

It would not be an easy mod to do.

I see that it was discussed in the early stages of the games development. Did you do any work on it at all, or was it just discussed verbally? I think one post I saw suggested that you would have preferred it to what we have now.