Flank Angle Mod

[76mm]

I generally agree with snugglebunnies.

But that's not an objective historical situation, it is your subjective historical judgement.

Well, let's face it, your mod is no less a "subjective historical judgement" than his.

Most types of unengaged units would just turn to face a new threat...legionaries, warbands, irregular foot, cavalry etc would just turn and face.

I don't agree that it would be that simple...we're generally not talking about square blocks of men that could simply pivot in place and--presto--be facing in another direction. These are lines, or at least rectangles, that would need to wheel in place, etc--these are not simple maneuvers and would require considerable practice and discipline, and something that I expect would be well beyond the ability of irregular foot, warbands, etc. For what it is worth, in at least one book I read, the author hypothesized (based on actual practice formations, etc.) that phalanxes would be able to execute this kind of quick pivot, but obviously no one really knows. And as snugglebunnies suggests, then there is the morale factor on top of that.

I admit that I don't care much for the flank attacks in the middle of a melee, but frankly I don't suffer the "angled" ones very often; usually I get pummeled by the flank attacks when my troops push back the enemy and expose their flank.

But I wonder if there isn't a better way to deal with these types of "middle of the line" flank attacks? Perhaps don't give an automatic drop if a unit has friendly units at its 4 and 7 o'clock positions--ie, diagonally behind it to left and right. This could reflect that a unit has surged forward and bowed the line, but not left the line altogether, or if so, just by a little, and so has exposed less flank. Dunno if that makes sense, but maybe something else would work...

[stockwellpete]

Well, let's face it, your mod is no less a "subjective historical judgement" than his.

And I have said that very clearly. Did you not read my sentence that begins, " It is my subjective historical judgement that this might be more realistic overall . . . ".

I don't agree that it would be that simple...we're generally not talking about square blocks of men that could simply pivot in place and--presto--be facing in another direction. These are lines, or at least rectangles, that would need to wheel in place, etc--these are not simple maneuvers and would require considerable practice and discipline, and something that I expect would be well beyond the ability of irregular foot, warbands, etc. For what it is worth, in at least one book I read, the author hypothesized (based on actual practice formations, etc.) that phalanxes would be able to execute this kind of quick pivot, but obviously no one really knows. And as snugglebunnies suggests, then there is the morale factor on top of that.

These sort of situations tend to happen more in the second half of battles when the battle lines have started to break up. I think if you start to increase the penalties on unengaged units for these flank and rear attacks (as some players are calling for) then you are starting to treat them as if they were some sort of ambush, but mostly what we are talking about here happens in relatively open terrain, where units have already engaged with one another. I don't think large groups of soldiers could creep up on another group in the open. Soldiers like Roman legionaries would have the training to just pivot very quickly to a new threat and I don't really see why most soldiers wouldn't be able to do this, albeit less effectively. Being charged by cavalry in these situations would be more dangerous, I agree, and there might be a case for an increased differential +POA on impact here (but definitely not an automatic cohesion drop).

I admit that I don't care much for the flank attacks in the middle of a melee, but frankly I don't suffer the "angled" ones very often; usually I get pummeled by the flank attacks when my troops push back the enemy and expose their flank.

But I wonder if there isn't a better way to deal with these types of "middle of the line" flank attacks? Perhaps don't give an automatic drop if a unit has friendly units at its 4 and 7 o'clock positions--ie, diagonally behind it to left and right. This could reflect that a unit has surged forward and bowed the line, but not left the line altogether, or if so, just by a little, and so has exposed less flank. Dunno if that makes sense, but maybe something else would work...

The mod is working very well without the automatic cohesion drops for flank attacks. The +100POA is substantial and still causes cohesion drops, but units tend to move directly into contact with each other now to get 2v1's rather than going on bizarre excursions to try and get on the enemy unit's flank. Actually, one unintended consequence is that the AI seems to perform much better without automatic cohesion drops for flank attacks. I only just managed to beat it on Tribune level in a very attritional shield wall clash between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. It was a very interesting game that ended when the Viking left flank finally broke and ran.

[76mm]

I think if you start to increase the penalties on unengaged units for these flank and rear attacks (as some players are calling for) then you are starting to treat them as if they were some sort of ambush, but mostly what we are talking about here happens in relatively open terrain, where units have already engaged with one another. I don't think large groups of soldiers could creep up on another group in the open. Soldiers like Roman legionaries would have the training to just pivot very quickly to a new threat and I don't really see why most soldiers wouldn't be able to do this, albeit less effectively.

I don't see it as an ambush, just that I don't think most units could either (1) face two directions at once, at 90* angles; or (2) pivot quickly to face new directions. We're not talking about leisurely changes of facing here, but changing facing as an enemy (even infantry) is charging (or at least marching) towards you--it it were anything else you'd be able to turn to face, at least obliquely, in your own turn. While I agree that at least veteran legions could probably pull off this kind of maneuver, other units doing so "less effectively" would essentially disrupt themselves in the process--hence the automatic disruption under current rules. Also, in my experience, even now high-quality legions which are automatically disrupted by a flank attack hardly collapse, they generally hold their own for several more turns before being gradually ground down by multiple attackers, often rallying back to normal within a turn or two--so I'm not really sure that this kind of change is necessary even for them.

But again, I'm not against some kind of change to reduce the impact of the kind of "intra-line" flank attacks that seems the focus of this mod...I just think that this mod goes too far in that direction. Maybe reintroduction of some kind of anarchy charge that would reduce the ability of omniscient players to direct the tactically perfect (but implausible) flank attacks we're seeing now would help in this regard, dunno...

[stockwellpete]

But again, I'm not against some kind of change to reduce the impact of the kind of "intra-line" flank attacks that seems the focus of this mod...I just think that this mod goes too far in that direction. Maybe reintroduction of some kind of anarchy charge that would reduce the ability of omniscient players to direct the tactically perfect (but implausible) flank attacks we're seeing now would help in this regard, dunno...

Have you tried the mod yet? It is worth a try. I don't think the 50% threshold for army rout is working though.

[76mm]

Have you tried the mod yet? It is worth a try. I don't think the 50% threshold for army rout is working though.

Nope, not yet. Honestly kind of busy with other stuff ATM and haven't really bought into the theory behind this mod yet, so not eager to drop everything to give it a try. Hopefully someday...

Didn't realize that the mod also changed the rout threshold--are you talking about from 60% to 50% I must have missed parts of this thread, because I didn't even realize that was under discussion. I don't have any opinion on that!

[stockwellpete]

Didn't realize that the mod also changed the rout threshold--are you talking about from 60% to 50% I must have missed parts of this thread, because I didn't even realize that was under discussion. I don't have any opinion on that!

Yes from 60% to 50%. To reduce all the ludicrous chasing about you sometimes have to do at the end of a battle. If you check the very first post all the changes are there.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think the 50% change is a good move, though it would shorten some of those nailbiter games!

[Schweetness101]

In many situations players will be able to feed cavalry units into a larger melee and, with the changes to the pursuit criteria as well, it should lead to more decisive outcomes that will allow historical flank attacks to materialise more often. So actually by slowing individual melee combat down we will be speeding contingent melee combat up.

this is also what I would really like to see. Flanks being gained more by getting a whole wing of cavalry around behind the enemy from winning on that whole side, rather than from gamey maneuvers on the micro grid level.

One general issue is that the nature of a square rather than hexagonal grid system, or perhaps of a grid system at all, is making it hard to distinguish between different angles of flanks and to choose exactly the point at which a flank should have a greater or lesser morale effect. On the edge cases between front and side facing, and between side and rear facing, you can kind of argue it either way. What really matters is which decision ends up incentivizing historically accurate and engaging gameplay behavior. I think permitting full autodrop and +200 on 90 degree flanks incentivizes too much gamey and unrealistic behavior, but no punishment for 90 degree flank attacks doesn't feel quite right either. I like the guaranteed +100 quite a lot now.

It also makes sense if you think about it like this. In vanilla currently, if a veteran legion unit is occupied to it's front, and receives a 90 degree flank charge from the cheapest irregular foot, that has the same POA and autodrop effect as if it had been charged directly in the rear by superior noble lancers, and that seems wrong. Having some distinction between flank and rear attacks seems more appropriate. I am also still open to the idea of having cav vs inf flanks be particularly deadly. Maybe cav vs inf 90 degree flanks could retain +200, but no autodrop.

IE, there is a sort of hierarchy, where rear seems deadlier than flank, and cav seem to be deadlier at flank/rear charges vs infantry than other infantry, but in vanilla it's all just treated the same against an occupied infantry unit.

Most types of unengaged units would just turn to face a new threat. Maybe pike phalanxes would be at a bigger disadvantage, but legionaries, warbands, irregular foot, cavalry etc would just turn and face.

I have also considered something like a special exception for pikes that still permits auto drop and +200 when 90 degree flanked. That would complement the pike mod well I think, and be in keeping with the spirit of that mod and how pikes have some exceptional rules making them better at their strengths of holding, but having much worse weaknesses relative to other units from terrain and flanking etc...

[Schweetness101]

But I wonder if there isn't a better way to deal with these types of "middle of the line" flank attacks? Perhaps don't give an automatic drop if a unit has friendly units at its 4 and 7 o'clock positions--ie, diagonally behind it to left and right. This could reflect that a unit has surged forward and bowed the line, but not left the line altogether, or if so, just by a little, and so has exposed less flank. Dunno if that makes sense, but maybe something else would work...

I like this idea. An issue with the grid system is that the abstraction doesn't make a good distinction between regular bending and bowing in the line, which should not open up a flank attack, and a total break in the line where the flank is totally exposed. Something like the rule you have suggested might be an excellent way to distinguish between bows in the line and actual exposed vulnerable, flanks

[Schweetness101]

Actually, one unintended consequence is that the AI seems to perform much better without automatic cohesion drops for flank attacks. I only just managed to beat it on Tribune level in a very attritional shield wall clash between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. It was a very interesting game that ended when the Viking left flank finally broke and ran.

I have also noticed this! It is hard to make an ai that can micro like a human, so taking some micro out actually aids it. I have found a similar effect with the anarchy mod I have been testing.

[Schweetness101]

I think the 50% change is a good move, though it would shorten some of those nailbiter games!

and to clarify it's in the the aggregate mod, not the flank angle mod. Although, even in that one it's only working in editor scenarios, not custom battles. I missed the first time that victory conditions are set in like 5 different places for different game types. It's working in the version on my computer but not in the downloadable one. I will fix that soon, I just wanted to have a few things to change to justify uploading a new version

[76mm]

Yes from 60% to 50%. To reduce all the ludicrous chasing about you sometimes have to do at the end of a battle.

That's interesting, I have to say that I don't think I've ever had that problem, usually there are plenty of other units around to beat up on.

Then again, I basically never play against horsey armies, where I would guess the problem would arise most. With foot armies usually the only issues are the rallying stragglers on the back edge of the map, but it is usually only worth going after them in a close game.

[Schweetness101]

Yes from 60% to 50%. To reduce all the ludicrous chasing about you sometimes have to do at the end of a battle.

That's interesting, I have to say that I don't think I've ever had that problem, usually there are plenty of other units around to beat up on.

Then again, I basically never play against horsey armies, where I would guess the problem would arise most. With foot armies usually the only issues are the rallying stragglers on the back edge of the map, but it is usually only worth going after them in a close game.

it could be, given that this is mostly a problem with stragglers and ralliers on the edge of the map like you said, and that the aggregate mod now no longer permits rallying when outside of a general's radius, that this problem might take care of itself without altering the win percent. I'm willing to test it with both of course.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have no real strong feelings on flank charges per say, whether if they remain as they currently are, or modifying with them greater or lessor "damages". I'll try it when it ready so to speak. However if part of the objective is to alter the "oddities" that occur to a battle line and the "internal flanking" that occurs perhaps a return to simpler rules could help?

That simply being having rear charges only ie a unit that can charge from behind the unit and contact its rear or one of its rear diagonals gets the full effect, otherwise there is no effect. (whether the unit needs to be pinned or not would be something up to the modders) Certainly a battle line that gets a push back isnt going to immediatley have a flank charge on it by his opponents battle line or well place "reserve unit already stationed at an angle... It will take multiple turns for a second push back to expose its "rear". Some might not like this as it takes away complexity which is often perceived as more "grognardy"

If you think about the game, it forces us to think in squares and the units actually act like squares, when they likely in many cases would be more like a rectangle. Not a lot of surface area would be in immediate contact if one thin line bisects another at a right angle, which is the only way to get a flank attack this game. There was an amazing website that illustrated this with to scale models with thousands of soldiers with a top down view, sadly its gone. I get it that a flank unit COULD "lap around" but then two parts would need be wheeling , becoming thinned out and likley losing momentum. Those "lapping the front " arent really flanking and those lapping the rear are being met by men that literally just turned around...

I'm sure there could a moral component but there is no way to really support how much or when it could happen so best not to even try IMHO.

[Schweetness101]

That simply being having rear charges only ie a unit that can charge from behind the unit and contact its rear or one of its rear diagonals gets the full effect, otherwise there is no effect. (whether the unit needs to be pinned or not would be something up to the modders) Certainly a battle line that gets a push back isnt going to immediatley have a flank charge on it by his opponents battle line or well place "reserve unit already stationed at an angle... It will take multiple turns for a second push back to expose its "rear". Some might not like this as it takes away complexity which is often perceived as more "grognardy"

If you think about the game, it forces us to think in squares and the units actually act like squares, when they likely in many cases would be more like a rectangle. Not a lot of surface area would be in immediate contact if one thin line bisects another at a right angle, which is the only way to get a flank attack this game. There was an amazing website that illustrated this with to scale models with thousands of soldiers with a top down view, sadly its gone. I get it that a flank unit COULD "lap around" but then two parts would need be wheeling , becoming thinned out and likley losing momentum. Those "lapping the front " arent really flanking and those lapping the rear are being met by men that literally just turned around...

I'm sure there could a moral component but there is no way to really support how much or when it could happen so best not to even try IMHO.

I think this is a really good explanation of part of what we are getting at with the flank mod. The surface area/rectangle explanation makes sense. One of the versions of the flank mod actually does try out having no extra effect from flanks, only rear charges. It was good, but also seemed not quite right in testing either. I'm currently a fan of flanks just getting a +100 and no auto drop, but I am open to persuasion on that still. Perhaps the simplicity of simply not having flank charges would be better.

I also like an earlier suggestion that flanks not count as flanks if the flanked unit in question had allied units at that side's rear diagonal to itself, because that should be thought of as a bend or bow in the line rather than a clean break with a large exposed side. IE if you have three units on side A arranged like:

_____A____
___A___A__

With them all facing up the page, the idea is that represent a bow in the line, rather than having the top unit having exposed flanks

[travling_canuck]

I also like an earlier suggestion that flanks not count as flanks if the flanked unit in question had allied units at that side's rear diagonal to itself, because that should be thought of as a bend or bow in the line rather than a clean break with a large exposed side. IE if you have three units on side A arranged like:

_____A____
___A___A__

With them all facing up the page, the idea is that represent a bow in the line, rather than having the top unit having exposed flanks

For what it's worth, I think this - or some variant - may be consistent with the wedge formations I understand were occasionally used. I have no useful expertise in ancient warfare in the context of the people on this group, but from analogy with modern sports, it seems like wedge formations could be deadly when trying to break through an enemy line.

Maybe such formations weren't actually effective during ancient battlefields and therefore should be weak during gameplay, as they are under current rules, where every unit in the formation essentially has an exposed flank that can be exploited as long as the unit behind it is tied up and no longer exerting a ZOC. I don't know.

I will say, though, that I personally find it odd to see the "tactical flanking" that occurs from positioning your troops to exploit a push back on your own unit by a superior enemy. Maybe that's a valid ancient battlefield tactic, and if so I'm willing to reconsider. But my initial impression is that I'd be in favour of a mod that makes "flanking" something that's more strategic and less tactical.

Something else to consider is whether as part of these changes you could also increase the impact of making a "clean break" through the centre of an enemy line? Right now that feels somewhat anti-climatic, as the flanks on both sides continue to fight just fine afterwards, and it's your winning troops who've made the breakthrough that feel most at risk, as they've advanced forward to the point where their flanks are now exposed. Again, perhaps this is correct and accurately mirrors ancient battles, in which case I'm willing to reconsider. But my personal impression is that cracking through the centre of the enemy line should be more useful than it currently is. So if that renders the enemy units as now having an "exposed" flank since their friends have routed while your own troops do not have an exposed flank (since your victorious troops are still around - albeit now in an advanced position), that might be a positive side effect of the ideas being considered above.

[Schweetness101]

I will say, though, that I personally find it odd to see the "tactical flanking" that occurs from positioning your troops to exploit a push back on your own unit by a superior enemy. Maybe that's a valid ancient battlefield tactic, and if so I'm willing to reconsider. But my initial impression is that I'd be in favour of a mod that makes "flanking" something that's more strategic and less tactical.

I agree, and I think that you would find that the changes in the aggregate mod move things in that direction considerably. Have you given it a try? even at this early stage, and against the AI, it should give you an idea of what we are going for here. If you are keen we can do an MP game.

Something else to consider is whether as part of these changes you could also increase the impact of making a "clean break" through the centre of an enemy line? Right now that feels somewhat anti-climatic, as the flanks on both sides continue to fight just fine afterwards, and it's your winning troops who've made the breakthrough that feel most at risk, as they've advanced forward to the point where their flanks are now exposed. Again, perhaps this is correct and accurately mirrors ancient battles, in which case I'm willing to reconsider. But my personal impression is that cracking through the centre of the enemy line should be more useful than it currently is. So if that renders the enemy units as now having an "exposed" flank since their friends have routed while your own troops do not have an exposed flank (since your victorious troops are still around - albeit now in an advanced position), that might be a positive side effect of the ideas being considered above.

I also agree with this, but I am not entirely sure what the solution would be. However, with the changes to flanks, and to inf vs cav ZoCs/APs, etc...you may find the aggregate helps with this

[rbodleyscott]

I also like an earlier suggestion that flanks not count as flanks if the flanked unit in question had allied units at that side's rear diagonal to itself, because that should be thought of as a bend or bow in the line rather than a clean break with a large exposed side. IE if you have three units on side A arranged like:

_____A____
___A___A__

With them all facing up the page, the idea is that represent a bow in the line, rather than having the top unit having exposed flanks

It doesn't have exposed flanks, because of the ZOCs of the set-back units. That is one of main reasons for the ZOC rules!

[travling_canuck]

It doesn't have exposed flanks, because of the ZOCs of the set-back units. That is one of main reasons for the ZOC rules!

As a practical matter, though, it does. I only play SP, so maybe this isn't an issue in MP, but as soon as you engage the unit behind (which can be done from the diagonal, leaving the space in front of that unit vacant), their ZOC disappears and the lead unit can be flanked. As I say, maybe in MP this doesn't happen, but against the AI, I've used flank attacks to lop off winning units that advance into this formation after push backs.

[stockwellpete]

As a practical matter, though, it does. I only play SP, so maybe this isn't an issue in MP, but as soon as you engage the unit behind (which can be done from the diagonal, leaving the space in front of that unit vacant), their ZOC disappears and the lead unit can be flanked. As I say, maybe in MP this doesn't happen, but against the AI, I've used flank attacks to lop off winning units that advance into this formation after push backs.

It is most certainly an issue in MP and that is why we have discarded automatic cohesion drops for flank attacks in this mod. The +100POA (+200POA for pike phalanxes) is plenty for these sort of attacks to simulate increased pressure on a salient in the line.