Aggregate Mod

[Schweetness101]

updated op with new version of mod that changes cav flanks and introduces first changes to charge off of pursuit chances

Is that Aggregate Mod v1.1? If so, still getting automatic cohesion drops for cavalry flank attacks.

sorry, forgot to undo some other changes made for 1.0, so 1.1 is a bust, i will fix shortly

EDIT: fixed, just get the 1.2 download from the op, 1.1 will just be a number lost forever

[Schweetness101]

anybody wanna do a test game of this mod for the v1.2 version? just pm me if interested

[stockwellpete]

OK we can try that next. It sounds very promising.

I have just done a small stat in vanilla mode using my Training Ground where I set up 50 combats with a cavalry unit engaged to its front and then charged in its flank by an enemy cavalry unit of the same type. The results were as follows . . .

50 automatic cohesion drops (obviously)
17 out of 50 impact combats resulted in no further cohesion drop (many CT tests though)
23 out of 50 impact combats resulted in a cohesion drop to fragmented
10 out of 50 impact combats resulted in a double-drop to routed

So one-third saw no further drop in cohesion while two-thirds did (and 20% were double-drops). This is much higher than I realised. The next step is to compare this with data from a test where there is no automatic cohesion drop and only +100POA on impact instead of +200POA.

I now have done a further 50 tests this time with the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks removed (i.e. sideways attack) and instead just +100 POA for this attack on an already engaged unit . . .

31 out of 50 impact contacts resulted in no cohesion drop (many CT tests though)
10 out of 50 impact contacts resulted in a drop to disrupted
9 out of 50 impact contacts resulted in a drop to fragmented

So the difference is very stark. In the vanilla sample 33 out of 50 (two-thirds) cavalry units hit in the flank by another cavalry unit were either fragged or routed after the impact phase, whereas just 9 out of 50 (about one fifth) were in the modded batch. Of course, nearly all the outnumbered cavalry units will go on to be routed in the end unless friendly units come to help them.

My own view is that I would like to try the +100POA alongside the modded pursuit rules (where pursuers do not ignore enemy ZOC's) to see how this affects larger cavalry combats. Hopefully, it will stop cavalry units being dispersed all over the map and will keep the melee together a bit more. Because there is such a huge difference between the results of the 2 tests, it does suggest that there could be a viable intermediary position of no automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks by cavalry, but there would be a +200 POA in operation (as in the vanilla game).

[stockwellpete]

Did a play test with v1.2, Normans v Bretons, very small map and armies, Tribune level to get army sizes equal. Only one issue arising - I routed a Breton lancer with a Norman lancer and it pursued it instead of charging an archer skirmisher unit on the last square of its move. I think it should have charged that unit really.

Otherwise, everything seemed fine. Cavalry were still getting broken without the automatic cohesion drop for suffering a flank attack by enemy cavalry. The reduced turns for routed units before they disperse kept the battlefield tidy and stopped rallies in the far flung corners affecting the outcome. The command radii were ample on a small map. So I think this is very good overall.

[Schweetness101]

Did a play test with v1.2, Normans v Bretons, very small map and armies, Tribune level to get army sizes equal. Only one issue arising - I routed a Breton lancer with a Norman lancer and it pursued it instead of charging an archer skirmisher unit on the last square of its move. I think it should have charged that unit really.

Otherwise, everything seemed fine. Cavalry were still getting broken without the automatic cohesion drop for suffering a flank attack by enemy cavalry. The reduced turns for routed units before they disperse kept the battlefield tidy and stopped rallies in the far flung corners affecting the outcome. The command radii were ample on a small map. So I think this is very good overall.

sounds great! and to be clear, what I've changed with the Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging(), although it greatly increases the chances of a unit, especially cavalry, derailing their pursuit to charge a unit within 45 degrees of ahead of them, it does not guarantee it. Would you like me to test out something that always charges targets of opportunity w/in 45 degrees of ahead while pursuing?

[stockwellpete]

sounds great! and to be clear, what I've changed with the Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging(), although it greatly increases the chances of a unit, especially cavalry, derailing their pursuit to charge a unit within 45 degrees of ahead of them, it does not guarantee it. Would you like me to test out something that always charges targets of opportunity w/in 45 degrees of ahead while pursuing?

Yes, I think so. Even if they end up charging head first into defensive spears they will probably just bounce off them and fall back. If they hit a superior enemy cavalry unit then tough, really. I think we want the cavalry melees to be more concentrated than they are in vanilla right now.

[Schweetness101]

sounds great! and to be clear, what I've changed with the Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging(), although it greatly increases the chances of a unit, especially cavalry, derailing their pursuit to charge a unit within 45 degrees of ahead of them, it does not guarantee it. Would you like me to test out something that always charges targets of opportunity w/in 45 degrees of ahead while pursuing?

Yes, I think so. Even if they end up charging head first into defensive spears they will probably just bounce off them and fall back. If they hit a superior enemy cavalry unit then tough, really. I think we want the cavalry melees to be more concentrated than they are in vanilla right now.

two more questions:

1) should it only be guaranteed to pick a new target for cavalry? or should infantry do that as well?

2) should it be only for follow on pursuits, or for the initial pursuit as well (on the turn that the pursued unit broke)?

[Schweetness101]

sounds great! and to be clear, what I've changed with the Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging(), although it greatly increases the chances of a unit, especially cavalry, derailing their pursuit to charge a unit within 45 degrees of ahead of them, it does not guarantee it. Would you like me to test out something that always charges targets of opportunity w/in 45 degrees of ahead while pursuing?

Yes, I think so. Even if they end up charging head first into defensive spears they will probably just bounce off them and fall back. If they hit a superior enemy cavalry unit then tough, really. I think we want the cavalry melees to be more concentrated than they are in vanilla right now.

if you want you can edit this yourself pretty easily without needing a whole new mod uploaded. If you got to AITools.bsf -> FUNCTION CheckPursuersSwitchTarget(me, type) (should be around line 3505)
and then scroll down towards the end of the method you should find on line 3594:

if (Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging(me, id, ignoreFlankThreat) >= 50)

just change that 50 to 0 (it will always be greater than or equal to 0) which will guarantee choosing a charge if one exists and is valid.

**remember to do this in the mod folder and not the main game folder!

[stockwellpete]

two more questions:

1) should it only be guaranteed to pick a new target for cavalry? or should infantry do that as well?

I would say infantry as well. Beserkers can really travel at times.

2) should it be only for follow on pursuits, or for the initial pursuit as well (on the turn that the pursued unit broke)?

I think it should be for initial pursuit as well.

[stockwellpete]

The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

No, they are fixed.

Richard, is it possible to scale the size of the command radii to the size of the map? I expect it is, but is it prohibitive in terms of the time it would take to do it?

[rbodleyscott]

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

No, they are fixed.

Richard, is it possible to scale the size of the command radii to the size of the map? I expect it is, but is it prohibitive in terms of the time it would take to do it?

It would mean modding some code. Not really a big deal. Doesn't sound like a historically justifiable rule though.

[stockwellpete]

It would mean modding some code. Not really a big deal. Doesn't sound like a historically justifiable rule though.

OK, that's good to know. More of a gameplay thing really in terms of scale and to be tied in with the "anarchy" rules eventually. What term should we use instead of anarchy then? Discipline? Volatility? What do you suggest as I know you do not like the term "anarchy"?

[rbodleyscott]

It would mean modding some code. Not really a big deal. Doesn't sound like a historically justifiable rule though.

OK, that's good to know. More of a gameplay thing really in terms of scale and to be tied in with the "anarchy" rules eventually. What term should we use instead of anarchy then? Discipline? Volatility? What do you suggest as I know you do not like the term "anarchy"?

Unauthorized Charge
Charge against Orders (Only makes sense if it isn't an automatic test at the start of the turn)

[stockwellpete]

Unauthorized Charge
Charge against Orders (Only makes sense if it isn't an automatic test at the start of the turn)

Yes, but in FOG1 you had cases of refusal to charge e.g. a disrupted unit, so anarchy then was defined a bit more widely then. I can see pros and cons for having the test at the beginning of the turn, but if you prioritise gameplay then it makes more sense to have them at the end of the turn. Maybe "discipline" is a broader term we can use instead of anarchy?

I suggested reducing the "unauthorised charge" range to half the charge range to remove the incentive for players to turn their units away from the enemy. What are the pros and cons of this idea from your point of view?

[rbodleyscott]

Unauthorized Charge
Charge against Orders (Only makes sense if it isn't an automatic test at the start of the turn)

Yes, but in FOG1 you had cases of refusal to charge e.g. a disrupted unit, so anarchy then was defined a bit more widely then. I can see pros and cons for having the test at the beginning of the turn, but if you prioritise gameplay then it makes more sense to have them at the end of the turn. Maybe "discipline" is a broader term we can use instead of anarchy?

I suggested reducing the "unauthorised charge" range to half the charge range to remove the incentive for players to turn their units away from the enemy. What are the pros and cons of this idea from your point of view?

I have no opinion on that currently.

[76mm]

Richard, is it possible to scale the size of the command radii to the size of the map? I expect it is, but is it prohibitive in terms of the time it would take to do it?

Why is this necessary? Why not just reduce the number of commanders for smaller armies?

I only play XL battles and for those, I think that the number of generals/command range works pretty well.

[stockwellpete]

Why is this necessary? Why not just reduce the number of commanders for smaller armies?

I only play XL battles and for those, I think that the number of generals/command range works pretty well.

Well, we are seeking to provide an "alternative gameplay mod" in the longer term. I don't know if you have used the latest v1.2 of this aggregate mod but the command radii are set at 4 squares for all leaders on all maps at the moment, and sub-generals are only able to give command to units in their starting contingent (so they behave like allied generals now). I did a play-test on an extra large map and it did work OK but obviously it is going to be more difficult when we have integrated the anarchy rules in. Then, keeping your contingent in command range is going to be vital if you have units that are more likely to be anarchy prone. Losing a leader will be very, very serious and losing your C-in-C (who still can give command to all units in your army except allies) as well will often be a disaster.

So 4 squares command radii was OK, but maybe it should be 5 squares for the very largest maps, 4 for large and medium, and 3 for small and very small?

You could reduce the number of commanders as another way of dealing with this but I have a preference for a sliding scale not least because the default command structure for medieval armies was usually 3 sub-generals with your main contingents and a C-in-C with the reserve. The other idea that is on the back-burner at the moment is that you get given a free C-in-C when you start to select your army, but you have to purchase your sub-generals from your points. Not sure if that is easily moddable, but it was a feature in FOG1.

[FrenchDude]

I have a question : Is this Aggregate Mod supposed to be a global mod, or is it supposedly gonna work divided in different modules (custom battles, campaign, multiplayer...) ?

It would be awesome if it could work as a Global mod, in order to be able to use other « content mods » such as the Table Top mod or the Silk Road mod.

If the «  Aggregate » global mod could be coupled with the Global version of the TT Mod, I’d be the happiest man in the world. I often play exported FOGEmpires battles in FOG2 using the Global TT mod. Being able to use the potential new features of the Aggregate Mod with the content of the TT Mod would provide a very cool experience !

[stockwellpete]

I have a question : Is this Aggregate Mod supposed to be a global mod, or is it supposedly gonna work divided in different modules (custom battles, campaign, multiplayer...) ?

It would be awesome if it could work as a Global mod, in order to be able to use other « content mods » such as the Table Top mod or the Silk Road mod.

If the «  Aggregate » global mod could be coupled with the Global version of the TT Mod, I’d be the happiest man in the world. I often play exported FOGEmpires battles in FOG2 using the Global TT mod. Being able to use the potential new features of the Aggregate Mod with the content of the TT Mod would provide a very cool experience !

I don't think we know yet. Most likely is the different modules route, I guess.

[Schweetness101]

I'm not sure technically how to make a global mod exactly, or if that is a separate type of mod, but given that the TT mod mostly involves content changes, and the aggregate mod is all script changes in the bsf files, it might be pretty straightforward to combine them, the one caveat being the squads file, where all of the new TT units would need to be given Anarchic values and pike changes eventually if we add the anarchy mod and pike mod to the aggregate mod.