Alternative Gameplay Mod v1.3

[stockwellpete]

and what about adding:

if at significant combat advantage, then decrease chance to refuse orders

in addition to the opposite, which is already in there?

OK then.

[Schweetness101]

Without having played it yet, reading the current discussions I guess I would just generally caution against over complicating the rules...Having anarchy charges into a disadvantage was part of the fun, at least for me.

yes this is a good point and over complicating things is definitely something I want to avoid. Currently combat advantage is not really taken into account for anarchy charging, but it is for order refusals. Anarchy charging is supposed to be more about command and control, ie increased anarchy outside of command radius, decrease if general in unit etc...

but I have also retained the fog1 anarchy charge rules like no anarchy charging by mediums out of rough terrain and into the open, and no anarchy charging into terrain that would disorder the anarchy charger. Those are basically taking into account combat advantage but in a way that I think makes anarchy charging less frustrating? Seems there was a reason for those rules in FOG1 anyway.

I wonder if perhaps charge refusals should also be related to command and control, or if it's a more separate kind of thing that should be more determined by unit matchups

[desicat]

Without having played it yet, reading the current discussions I guess I would just generally caution against over complicating the rules...Having anarchy charges into a disadvantage was part of the fun, at least for me.

yes this is a good point and over complicating things is definitely something I want to avoid. Currently combat advantage is not really taken into account for anarchy charging, but it is for order refusals. Anarchy charging is supposed to be more about command and control, ie increased anarchy outside of command radius, decrease if general in unit etc...

but I have also retained the fog1 anarchy charge rules like no anarchy charging by mediums out of rough terrain and into the open, and no anarchy charging into terrain that would disorder the anarchy charger. Those are basically taking into account combat advantage but in a way that I think makes anarchy charging less frustrating? Seems there was a reason for those rules in FOG1 anyway.

I wonder if perhaps charge refusals should also be related to command and control, or if it's a more separate kind of thing that should be more determined by unit matchups

This is interesting. There are many historical battles where a General (or local leader) threw a unit into the meat-grinder to buy time for one reason or another. This is definitely Command and Control, and units not directly ordered would seem less willing to "volunteer" to be cut to pieces to buy time whereas many units have demonstrated that they would follow direct orders, even when they knew it may cost them.

[Schweetness101]

Without having played it yet, reading the current discussions I guess I would just generally caution against over complicating the rules...Having anarchy charges into a disadvantage was part of the fun, at least for me.

yes this is a good point and over complicating things is definitely something I want to avoid. Currently combat advantage is not really taken into account for anarchy charging, but it is for order refusals. Anarchy charging is supposed to be more about command and control, ie increased anarchy outside of command radius, decrease if general in unit etc...

but I have also retained the fog1 anarchy charge rules like no anarchy charging by mediums out of rough terrain and into the open, and no anarchy charging into terrain that would disorder the anarchy charger. Those are basically taking into account combat advantage but in a way that I think makes anarchy charging less frustrating? Seems there was a reason for those rules in FOG1 anyway.

I wonder if perhaps charge refusals should also be related to command and control, or if it's a more separate kind of thing that should be more determined by unit matchups

This is interesting. There are many historical battles where a General (or local leader) threw a unit into the meat-grinder to buy time for one reason or another. This is definitely Command and Control, and units not directly ordered would seem less willing to "volunteer" to be cut to pieces to buy time whereas many units have demonstrated that they would follow direct orders, even when they knew it may cost them.

it would be relatively easy to add modifiers to chance to refuse if
-cinc dead or routed
-general in unit
-unit within command radius

so perhaps we can talk more about whether all of that should alter charge refusals

[desicat]

It seems the overall mod is generally named "Alternative Gameplay", but it really focuses upon Command and Control. Even the Anarchy units are impacted by Command and Control, so it seems appropriate Charge Refusals should be ruled by the same "Theme".

Welcome to the Command and Control Mod.

RBS said it earlier in the thread somewhere; Anarchy is one thing, suicide is another. The Rally chance is already impacted by Command Radii, could Refusal use the same numbers for simplicity and player understanding?

[Schweetness101]

It seems the overall mod is generally named "Alternative Gameplay", but it really focuses upon Command and Control. Even the Anarchy units are impacted by Command and Control, so it seems appropriate Charge Refusals should be ruled by the same "Theme".

Welcome to the Command and Control Mod.

RBS said it earlier in the thread somewhere; Anarchy is one thing, suicide is another. The Rally chance is already impacted by Command Radii, could Refusal use the same numbers for simplicity and player understanding?

could be a good name! I guess that question isn't settled yet.

Yes I could use the same command radii stuff for refusal chances

[Schweetness101]

thoughts on integrating the pike mod into the alt gameplay mod?

the mod was discussed and developed here:
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98056
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=97931

I'd always assumed I eventually would. It does fit in with the idea of slowing down and adding more cohesion to the infantry battles, and getting more time for cav to get around.

a summary I wrote at the end of one of those threads was:

this mod decreases the cost of pikes and makes them less of fragile steamrollers, and rather a fixing force that decreases opponents POAs (especially impact foot are decreased vs steady pikes on impact, but others as well) and decreases vs steady pike combat casualties in order to drag out combat, while increasing vulnerability of pikes to rough terrain and flanking. On the whole then, it plays like pikes being less able to rout enemies all on their own, but more able to last a very long time so long as they are kept steady, BUT if they are disordered/disrupted/flanked they will very rapidly collapse. It really changes the nature of vs pikes matchups I think. I know you said you haven't followed the thread closely, but if you read the op it is updated with all of the changes.

they are also a bit smaller in size, have no square ability, and are cheaper. It was a long and hotly contested thread at the time and went into much more detail than the above paragraph, but that helps you to get an idea of what it would change.

[Quivis]

The mod is looking better and better. Could you make a global mod out of it? So it could be used in quick battles and Empire export battles as well?

[Schweetness101]

The mod is looking better and better. Could you make a global mod out of it? So it could be used in quick battles and Empire export battles as well?

I think this would definitely be worth looking into once it's matured quite a bit and stopped updating so frequently, and if RBS is keen to permit it

[Schweetness101]

At some point there will be camel lancers, so you might want to code those in at at the same level as other non-light lancers.

I note that Light Horse Lancers are likely to refuse to charge non-light cavalry. Apologies for not being up to speed with the current mod but is there anything stopping them from suicidally frontally Anarchy charging them?

I forget where but someone asked me about light lancers and my reply was that I wasn't really sure what to do with them for anarchy/refusals because I wasn't sure what their historical/gameplay role was supposed to be. If they are meant to be effective against non light cav, or at least against disrupted or low quality non light cav, or when flanking them, then I can take that into consideration with refusals and make them less likely to do so. If, instead they are meant more to chase away skirmishers and other lights, and to pursue routers and attack fragmented units, and not to attack non light cav, then I could keep them as having a high chance to refuse against non light cav. You tell me?

is anyone able to help me out here? what is the role of light lancers supposed to be?

[pompeytheflatulent]

Macedonian or Arab? I think the Macedonian ones mostly did scouting and fighting other scouts, while the Arab ones did harass the hell out of the rear of heavier Byzantine formations, to the point of the Byzantines making their formations 2 rows of lancers front, 1 row of lancers in the back, mounted archers sandwiched in the middle.

[Schweetness101]

Macedonian or Arab? I think the Macedonian ones mostly did scouting and fighting other scouts, while the Arab ones did harass the hell out of the rear of heavier Byzantine formations, to the point of the Byzantines making their formations 2 rows of lancers front, 1 row of lancers in the back, mounted archers sandwiched in the middle.

so for refusals you would say light lancers should be like non-light cavalry? ie they should not hesitate to charge non light cav simply because they are light cav? At least not in the way that say light javelin horse would.

Or just the arab ones? the prodromoi though are actually better at it in game because they are superior and the bedouins are above average, but otherwise they are similar I think.

edit: so from wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prodromoi
perhaps they were more like light javelin cav OR light lancers, depending on their equipment they took for the task, until alexander replaced the skirmishing role with persian light cav and the prodromoi became primarily shock? Should we think of the in-game light lancer Prodromoi as the Sarissophoroi version? and the light javelin cavalry as the earlier prodromoi with just the javelins? In which case the in game prodromoi should be considered shock cav?

[Schweetness101]

another thing to consider is that if I add CC stuff to refusals like so:

CinC dead or routed: +20% chance to refuse
Outside of Command Radius: : +20% chance to refuse
General in unit: -20% chance to refuse

then the same modifiers that increase chance to anarchy charge would also increase chance to refuse to charge. Would that make sense? It might, in the sense that units with command problems could plausibly do either, but would it feel like a weird contradiction almost?

[Quivis]

The mod is looking better and better. Could you make a global mod out of it? So it could be used in quick battles and Empire export battles as well?

I think this would definitely be worth looking into once it's matured quite a bit and stopped updating so frequently, and if RBS is keen to permit it

Sorry, I wasn’t probably clear enough. I didn’t mean to make your mod straight away downloadable through in-game option. What I suggested is to make the mod working when you place it in the MOD folder (instead of CAMPAIGNS or MULTIPLAYER folders). That way we could activate the mod through the initial game menu and it would work in all the game mods. For example Rise of AI Global Mod works that way. Of course, I don’t know how difficult is to make it work that way. Right now, if I try to put you mod into the MOD folder there are some script error popups while trying to start a game. What is however interesting is that your previous version (1.0) didn’t have that problem. Although I’m not certain if everything worked as it should (e.g. anarchy charges), at least the game didn’t crash with the previous version and some of the main mechanics worked (like limited command radius, flanking changes). Just something to think about when you have time. Thanks!

[desicat]

another thing to consider is that if I add CC stuff to refusals like so:

CinC dead or routed: +20% chance to refuse
Outside of Command Radius: : +20% chance to refuse
General in unit: -20% chance to refuse

then the same modifiers that increase chance to anarchy charge would also increase chance to refuse to charge. Would that make sense? It might, in the sense that units with command problems could plausibly do either, but would it feel like a weird contradiction almost?

I don't see the contradiction. The player may want the unit of the far flank to conduct a delaying action, and it may make tactical sense but the player needs to pass their orders through the in game Generals. Without a General in Command range the unit is left to do what the guys locally feel is best, so refusal or an Anarchy Charge are equally possible. If you want them to do something important or dangerous get a Leader over there to provide them with orders.

Using the same percentages and command ranges makes it easier for the player to understand the limits of the games Command system, consistency and simplicity make for ease of use.

[Schweetness101]

The mod is looking better and better. Could you make a global mod out of it? So it could be used in quick battles and Empire export battles as well?

I think this would definitely be worth looking into once it's matured quite a bit and stopped updating so frequently, and if RBS is keen to permit it

Sorry, I wasn’t probably clear enough. I didn’t mean to make your mod straight away downloadable through in-game option. What I suggested is to make the mod working when you place it in the MOD folder (instead of CAMPAIGNS or MULTIPLAYER folders). That way we could activate the mod through the initial game menu and it would work in all the game mods. For example Rise of AI Global Mod works that way. Of course, I don’t know how difficult is to make it work that way. Right now, if I try to put you mod into the MOD folder there are some script error popups while trying to start a game. What is however interesting is that your previous version (1.0) didn’t have that problem. Although I’m not certain if everything worked as it should (e.g. anarchy charges), at least the game didn’t crash with the previous version and some of the main mechanics worked (like limited command radius, flanking changes). Just something to think about when you have time. Thanks!

ok I see. I am not sure how to make sure that it works in the MOD folder as well. Trying it out in the MODS folder it looks like it doesn't like that I've added an extra parameter to the GetImpactPOA() method when called in UnitInfoPopup.bsf, indicating that the mod's version of that file is not overwriting the vanilla version of the file. It could be that UI folder files need to be somewhere else for global mods, or maybe aren't permitted.

[Schweetness101]

another thing to consider is that if I add CC stuff to refusals like so:

CinC dead or routed: +20% chance to refuse
Outside of Command Radius: : +20% chance to refuse
General in unit: -20% chance to refuse

then the same modifiers that increase chance to anarchy charge would also increase chance to refuse to charge. Would that make sense? It might, in the sense that units with command problems could plausibly do either, but would it feel like a weird contradiction almost?

I don't see the contradiction. The player may want the unit of the far flank to conduct a delaying action, and it may make tactical sense but the player needs to pass their orders through the in game Generals. Without a General in Command range the unit is left to do what the guys locally feel is best, so refusal or an Anarchy Charge are equally possible. If you want them to do something important or dangerous get a Leader over there to provide them with orders.

Using the same percentages and command ranges makes it easier for the player to understand the limits of the games Command system, consistency and simplicity make for ease of use.

I'll go ahead and put it in and see how it is received. I have also updated the charge tooltip to include charge refusal information so that should help people a lot to maneuver around and understand the mechanic

[pompeytheflatulent]

so for refusals you would say light lancers should be like non-light cavalry? ie they should not hesitate to charge non light cav simply because they are light cav? At least not in the way that say light javelin horse would.

Or just the arab ones? the prodromoi though are actually better at it in game because they are superior and the bedouins are above average, but otherwise they are similar I think.

I'd say try to keep the rules as simple and streamlined as possible, and try to avoid a bunch of exceptions to rules unless absolutely necessary, to avoid grognardization (was that how RBS put it?)

[Schweetness101]

ok great, and a few things to mull over for increasing/decreasing combat resolution speed stuff. I am considering:

1) melee and impact combat between light cav casualties increased 33% (to be consistent with between non-light cav combat changes)
2) melee only combat between light infantry casualties increased 33% (they wouldn't have the same impact impetus as light cav perhaps? so only melee casualty increase?)
3) melee between ranged lights and steady non-lights: double damage inflicted by non lights, and halve damage inflicted by lights***
4) damage reduced 25% vs steady pikes (this is from the pike mod and was well received I think by many of the players of that mod, and is part and parcel of many changes that mod makes)
5) damage reduced 10% between all other non light foot vs non light foot combat (so slow down all non light vs non light foot combat a bit, but vs steady pikes especially). This is currently 20% in v1.1 but that might be too much I think.

***the ranged bit is basically just to exclude light lancers as they should still be able to inflict normal casualties on non lights. However, #3 could seriously unbalance any ranged lights that are meant to have some melee role against steady non-lights. I'm not sure what those are though? perhaps like byzantine flankers? Or are they just meant to be a bit better armed and armored for beating other lights?

and those are all in addition to the current melee and impact combat between non light cav casualties increase of 33%

The idea behind 1 is to be consistent with the existing increase in cav combat speed resolution.

The idea behind 2 is to somewhat mitigate the awkward scenario of a mass or line of light inf fighting each other across a frontage in such a way that they delay the heavy foot on either side of them from getting to one another turn after turn. I am not sure if such a change is warranted, or if the way it currently works is supposed to be an historical and viable strategy though? It's not a problem that commonly, but it is a kind of exploit I've used a decent amount if I have a weaker main line than the opponent and want an extra 2-3 turns to get around: just bring javelinmen and melee their lights with your lights right off the bat to hold up the whole middle for quite awhile. Perhaps #3 is the solution though: to increase melee and impact damage inflicted by steady non lights on lights in order to resolve such a delay. Also the idea behind 3 is because of how long those light vs non-light melees can be held up for in a way that kind of seems wrong? I think that in so increasing the casualty delta with #3 the odds of the lights losing badly enough to fall back would increase, which would also seem more realistic? As in, lights that can fallback from non lights they are in combat with should probably do so (but at the cost of losing badly, taking lots of casualties and probably suffering cohesion drop). I dunno, you guys let me know if any of these changes would feel correct or at least worth testing.

note: obviously these and other changes would need balancing, probably in costs, but that sort of comes later after the main changes are in and being tested for awhile.

[Athos1660]

I'd say try to keep the rules as simple and streamlined as possible, and try to avoid a bunch of exceptions to rules unless absolutely necessary, to avoid grognardization (was that how RBS put it?)

Interestingly, grognard has two meanings in French :
1) a soldier of Napoleon's Imperial Guard (and thus figuratively, being experienced and faithful).
2) being always grumpy.