Alternative Gameplay Mod v1.3

[Schweetness101]

I remember reading in a few places somewhere on the forum of some people taking issue with the amount of loss in combat effectiveness of being disrupted ie that a disrupted unit is too often close to useless and basically on the verge of breaking already just from a single drop. Is this a common complaint or something worth addressing at all?

Currently, a unit inflicts about 55% of their full damage from being fragmented/severely disordered, and about 75% of their full damage from being disrupted/moderately disordered (all else being equal).

If I left disorder alone, but altered the values for disruption so that a disrupted (but not disordered unit) had a bit less of a malus to their damage inflicted, would that be an improvement? IE make it so that being disrupted is more about just being a step closer to breaking, than it is about having your combat ability greatly reduced (but fragmented and disorder of all types would remain the same).

For example, for casualties inflicted in various states, rather than:

Steady: 100%
Moderate Disorder/Disruption: 75%
Severe Disorder/Fragmentation: 55%

it was:

Steady: 100%
Disruption: 90%
Moderate Disorder: 75%
Severe Disorder/Fragmentation: 55%

would that be a desirable change at all? The implications might be vast and I don't have an idea of how popular the original complaint is.

[rbodleyscott]

If I left disorder alone, but altered the values for disruption so that a disrupted (but not disordered unit) had a bit less of a malus to their damage inflicted, would that be an improvement?

Definitely not. The current effect of Disruption is working exactly as intended.

The major effect of the proposed change, apart from generally slowing down game resolution, would be to further disadvantage horse archer (or lancer and light foot archer) armies in favour of massed infantry armies with few if any points "wasted" on skirmishers .

[Schweetness101]

If I left disorder alone, but altered the values for disruption so that a disrupted (but not disordered unit) had a bit less of a malus to their damage inflicted, would that be an improvement?

Definitely not. The current effect of Disruption is working exactly as intended.

The major effect of the proposed change, apart from generally slowing down game resolution, would be to further disadvantage horse archer (or lancer and light foot archer) armies in favour of massed infantry armies with few if any points "wasted" on skirmishers .

ok, and that would be because lancer and horse archer armies rely on weakening the combat effectiveness of enemies by dropping them once with shooting and then charging?

[rbodleyscott]

If I left disorder alone, but altered the values for disruption so that a disrupted (but not disordered unit) had a bit less of a malus to their damage inflicted, would that be an improvement?

Definitely not. The current effect of Disruption is working exactly as intended.

The major effect of the proposed change, apart from generally slowing down game resolution, would be to further disadvantage horse archer (or lancer and light foot archer) armies in favour of massed infantry armies with few if any points "wasted" on skirmishers .

ok, and that would be because lancer and horse archer armies rely on weakening the combat effectiveness of enemies by dropping them once with shooting and then charging?

Yes

[Schweetness101]

So some complex considerations for command and control and the ui display for it (in next version) have come up, and I thought I would query the forum about what the best solution is. We are thinking of a rule set that goes like this:

*for mod all of below is only for your SG or the CinC

1) If within command radius of a general who is outside of combat, and you are outside of combat you get full cc (as opposed to reduced cc which means you lose 45 degree turn). This is from vanilla. Also from vanilla CC is not displayed like that while in combat because you can't move while in combat.
2) if you are adjacent to a general who is in combat and you are in combat yourself then you get the extra ct morale modifier. This is also from vanilla
3) If you are within the command radius of a general who is outside of combat, whether you are in combat yourself or not, then you can rally
4) if you are adjacent to a general who is in combat, whether you are in combat yourself or not, then you can rally.

This makes for kind of a complex combination of potential scenarios, further complicated by the No CC condition for units which cannot be controlled, regardless of whether they are in combat. As far as I can tell No CC is routers, pursuers, units that have fallen back, units while conducting a charge, and units that have charged an enemy and caused them to evade I think, and maybe others, but I can't find the definition of the relevant GetCannotControl() function, I am not sure what other units count as 'No CC'.

Here's a breakdown of all the scenarios I think (let me know if I have missed something) and their corresponding proposed UI messages. Where has or does not have CC is the extra turn consideration, not the rally. The rally messages are can rally and no rally.

1) General In combat
__a) Unit in combat
____i) In Command Radius (Adjacent to general)
_______-Can Rally
_______+1 CT
____ii) Not In Command Radius (Not adjacent to general)
_______-No rally
__b) Unit not in combat
____i) In Command Radius (Adjacent to general)
_______-Reduced CC (always reduced CC if your general is in combat)
_______-Can Rally (because adjacent to in combat general)
____i) Not In Command Radius (Not adjacent to general)
_______-Reduced CC (always reduced CC if your general is in combat)
_______-No Rally (because not adjacent to in combat general)

2) General not in combat
__a) Unit in combat
____i) In Command Radius
_______-Can Rally
____i) Not in Command Radius
_______-No Rally
__b) Unit not in combat
____i) In Command Radius
_______-Has CC
_______-Can Rally
____ii) Not in Command Radius
_______-Reduced CC
_______-No Rally

3) Unit with General in it
_______-Can Rally (if in combat +1 CT)
_______-Has CC

does that seem like the correct combinations? This is of course much more complicated than vanilla, and probably overly so. Perhaps complexity could be reduced in a few places, but I'm not sure where it would be best to do so

[Schweetness101]

so the solution I'm going with so far for the above is to get rid of the explicit text references to No CC and Reduced CC in the UI. In vanilla those make sense because they only pertain really to the movement bonus from being within command radius, but now CC pertains to rallying, refusals and anarchy charges as well, and so rather than use the generic CC label, the UI will more specifically give any (or a combination of) the below messages as is appropriate:

Can Rally
No Rally
Bonus AP
No Bonus AP
+1 CT
No Control
Pursuing (this one is from vanilla)

Where bonus AP is from being in command radius of a general when you are both not in combat (from vanilla), and +1 CT from being adjacent to your general when you are both in combat (from vanilla) and rally and no rally being if the unit can rally, which can potentially be combined with the above in different scenarios. It's pretty complicated, but if you play it and pay attention to the state of any given unit, and it's distance to generals and the generals' state etc...it starts to make sense pretty fast. Definitely a complexity bump in that regard though, so something to pay attention to.

[stockwellpete]

I am approaching this issue from the player's point of view. What is the simplest solution?

Basically, a player just needs to know whether a unit is "In Command" (i.e. within its S-G or C-in-C's 4-square command radius) or is "Out of Command". That is all.

If you are "In Command" the following will apply . . .
1) you get the free 45 degree turn
2) your unit will attempt to rally (if required), even if routed

I can see only one problem - in vanilla, if S-G and C-in-C units are fighting themselves they give +1 for cohesion tests for all units within their command radius, but they then lose the other aspect of their command radius (the free 45 degree turn). They also lose their command radius when pursuing or routing.

The obvious solution - in the mod S-G and C-in-C units maintain their command radius when fighting, pursuing and routing so that units within the 4 square command radius always stay “In Command”. This makes sense with the new anarchy rules otherwise units in the square next to a leader unit that is fighting would incur the "out of command" anarchy penalty.

So all you would need to show on the UI unit display is “In Command”and “Out of Command”. Very straightforward, I think.

[Schweetness101]

I am approaching this issue from the player's point of view. What is the simplest solution?

Basically, a player just needs to know whether a unit is "In Command" (i.e. within its S-G or C-in-C's 4-square command radius) or is "Out of Command". That is all.

If you are "In Command" the following will apply . . .
1) you get the free 45 degree turn
2) your unit will attempt to rally (if required), even if routed

I can see only one problem - in vanilla, if S-G and C-in-C units are fighting themselves they give +1 for cohesion tests for all units within their command radius, but they then lose the other aspect of their command radius (the free 45 degree turn). They also lose their command radius when pursuing or routing.

The obvious solution - in the mod S-G and C-in-C units maintain their command radius when fighting, pursuing and routing so that units within the 4 square command radius always stay “In Command”. This makes sense with the new anarchy rules otherwise units in the square next to a leader unit that is fighting would incur the "out of command" anarchy penalty.

So all you would need to show on the UI unit display is “In Command”and “Out of Command”. Very straightforward, I think.

I think it is unfortunately not as simple as that. In the newest version of the mod and in the new ui stuff, when the general is fighting, its 1 tile command radius provides rallying to all units in its chain of command, and +1 ct to fighting units in its chain, but no bonus ap to anyone. When general is not fighting, the 4 tile command radius provides rallying to all units in its chain of command, and bonus ap to all non-fighting units in its chain, but no +CT to fighting units. That is a little confusing at first, but it's not that many possibilities and I think it is the way to go after thinking about it and testing it for awhile.

My issues with what you are suggesting are that it would
a) provide too large of a command radius for a fighting general, and so remove that consideration when committing him to combat
b) provide free turns to units when their general is fighting or not, so removing that consideration as well when committing him to combat
c) provide the command radius to a general when pursuing or routing, which I would prefer not to do.

So basically there would be little if any incentive to keeping the general out of combat (ie not reduced command range and no loss of ap bonus), and lots to put him in (the +50 poa and the +1 CT), if we made it that way.

Also, in the newest version of the mod (not yet released but will soon) it does not have the issue of units in the square next to a leader unit that is fighting incurring the "out of command" anarchy penalty, because I have made sure that the anarchy charges (and also refuse charge) chance considerations only incurs that penalty if you are both a) out of the 4 tile command radius of the general NOT in combat and b) out of the 1 tile radius of a general in combat ('b' is not in older version of mod but is in new version). That way, rallying and refuse/anarchy chance modifiers all line up properly.

Sorry I know this is a very confusing thing to write about but I think it becomes pretty intuitive when you are actually looking at the UI and playing for a game or two.

[stockwellpete]

I think it is unfortunately not as simple as that. In the newest version of the mod and in the new ui stuff, when the general is fighting, its 1 tile command radius provides rallying to all units in its chain of command, and +1 ct to fighting units in its chain, but no bonus ap to anyone. When general is not fighting, the 4 tile command radius provides rallying to all units in its chain of command, and bonus ap to all non-fighting units in its chain, but no +CT to fighting units. That is a little confusing at first, but it's not that many possibilities and I think it is the way to go after thinking about it and testing it for awhile.

The alarm bells are ringing very loudly for me now as I think things are getting far too complicated. We need to simplify as much as possible. Where has the 1 tile radius idea come from? To me it seems an unnecessary complication.

My issues with what you are suggesting are that it would
a) provide too large of a command radius for a fighting general, and so remove that consideration when committing him to combat
b) provide free turns to units when their general is fighting or not, so removing that consideration as well when committing him to combat
c) provide the command radius to a general when pursuing or routing, which I would prefer not to do.

So basically there would be little if any incentive to keeping the general out of combat (ie not reduced command range and no loss of ap bonus), and lots to put him in (the +50 poa and the +1 CT), if we made it that way.

The command of a contingent would not just be down to a single person though because the general would have subordinates. Obviously this abstracted to a considerable degree in the game. But while a leader is alive and fighting with his unit we should assume that the command structure for that contingent is more or less intact. So the 4 square radius is fine, I think. The free turn is not always worth a great deal really, even less now when we have shifted the emphasis towards getting 2v1 combats rather than seeking out "flank" attacks. In most circumstances of routing and pursuing we are probably talking about one turn before the commander moves out of range of his troops. The alternative is to say that a pursuing or routing general has no command capability, which I don't like too much, but I could live with it.

The decision to commit your general or not to combat is still crucial with my idea because if he is killed the units in his contingent immediately become more anarchy prone and cannot rally once he has routed or pursued for more than a turn.

Also, in the newest version of the mod (not yet released but will soon) it does not have the issue of units in the square next to a leader unit that is fighting incurring the "out of command" anarchy penalty, because I have made sure that the anarchy charges (and also refuse charge) chance considerations only incurs that penalty if you are both a) out of the 4 tile command radius of the general NOT in combat and b) out of the 1 tile radius of a general in combat ('b' is not in older version of mod but is in new version). That way, rallying and refuse/anarchy chance modifiers all line up properly.

Sorry I know this is a very confusing thing to write about but I think it becomes pretty intuitive when you are actually looking at the UI and playing for a game or two.

As, I say, I don't understand this 1 square business and where it has come from.

[Schweetness101]

The alarm bells are ringing very loudly for me now as I think things are getting far too complicated. We need to simplify as much as possible. Where has the 1 tile radius idea come from? To me it seems an unnecessary complication...

The 1 tile radius is the existing radius for getting the +1 to CT while in combat from being adjacent to a general who is in combat (1 tile radius was just another way of saying adjacent). That is already in vanilla. The idea is to stay consistent with the addition of rallying and say, if the command radius was 1 tile for ct while in combat and 4 for ap while out of it, then it makes sense to stay 1 and 4 respectively for rallying from a general that is in or out of combat.

It does also make sense intuitively I think. A general out of combat can give orders faster to men further away, either for AP bonus or to rally, whereas one in combat would be restricted to rallying close by units, but would also provide them with the extra elan (extra CT modifier) from fighting alongside them.

I know it is confusing just to write about, but is actually quite straight forward once you have tested it out for a game or two. Still needs more testing but I've been testing it and making edits when needed all day today and it's looking good now.

[stockwellpete]

The 1 tile radius is the existing radius for getting the +1 to CT while in combat from being adjacent to a general who is in combat (1 tile radius was just another way of saying adjacent). That is already in vanilla. The idea is to stay consistent with the addition of rallying and say, if the command radius was 1 tile for ct while in combat and 4 for ap while out of it, then it makes sense to stay 1 and 4 respectively for rallying from a general that is in or out of combat.It does also make sense intuitively I think. A general out of combat can give orders faster to men further away, either for AP bonus or to rally, whereas one in combat would be restricted to rallying close by units, but would also provide them with the extra elan (extra CT modifier) from fighting alongside them.It does also make sense intuitively I think. A general out of combat can give orders faster to men further away, either for AP bonus or to rally, whereas one in combat would be restricted to rallying close by units, but would also provide them with the extra elan (extra CT modifier) from fighting alongside them.

I have not heard of this before. Is it a new change? My understanding is that a unit with a leader in combat gets +50POA for itself and gives +1 CT for all units within its command radius if they are also fighting and need to test. If the leader is killed (and it is a S-G) then friendly units within 1 square (2 if it is C-in-C) have to test immediately. Is that not correct now?

[Schweetness101]

The 1 tile radius is the existing radius for getting the +1 to CT while in combat from being adjacent to a general who is in combat (1 tile radius was just another way of saying adjacent). That is already in vanilla. The idea is to stay consistent with the addition of rallying and say, if the command radius was 1 tile for ct while in combat and 4 for ap while out of it, then it makes sense to stay 1 and 4 respectively for rallying from a general that is in or out of combat.It does also make sense intuitively I think. A general out of combat can give orders faster to men further away, either for AP bonus or to rally, whereas one in combat would be restricted to rallying close by units, but would also provide them with the extra elan (extra CT modifier) from fighting alongside them.It does also make sense intuitively I think. A general out of combat can give orders faster to men further away, either for AP bonus or to rally, whereas one in combat would be restricted to rallying close by units, but would also provide them with the extra elan (extra CT modifier) from fighting alongside them.

I have not heard of this before. Is it a new change? My understanding is that a unit with a leader in combat gets +50POA for itself and gives +1 CT for all units within its command radius if they are also fighting and need to test. If the leader is killed (and it is a S-G) then friendly units within 1 square (2 if it is C-in-C) have to test immediately. Is that not correct now?

I'm talking about the positive +1 to CT modifiers if the general is in combat and you are adjacent to it (ie within 1 tile) and you take a cohesion test from losing impact or melee ("General in line of command fighting close combat nearby: +1"). I do not know if it is a new change, but just to make sure I tested it under vanilla rules and you only get that +1 if adjacent. I'm not talking about if the general dies. I haven't touched any direct effects of generals dying, it's just that when they die now you are of course outside of their command radius like normal, but now in turn that has more implications.

Although that does bring up the topic of generals dying. Perhaps there should be some anarchy charges, charge refusals or larger radius of forced CT checks or whatever when generals die, would be in keeping with the theme I think

[stockwellpete]

I'm talking about the positive +1 to CT modifiers if the general is in combat and you are adjacent to it (ie within 1 tile) and you take a cohesion test from losing impact or melee ("General in line of command fighting close combat nearby: +1"). I do not know if it is a new change, but just to make sure I tested it under vanilla rules and you only get that +1 if adjacent. I'm not talking about if the general dies. I haven't touched any direct effects of generals dying, it's just that when they die now you are of course outside of their command radius like normal, but now in turn that has more implications.

OK, I have tested it in vanilla and found it. I was completely unaware of it. It seems it is 2 squares if the general is a C-in-C, not 1 square. So section 10.3 of the rules must have been amended at some point. Nothing in the patch notes that I can see.

[Schweetness101]

I'm talking about the positive +1 to CT modifiers if the general is in combat and you are adjacent to it (ie within 1 tile) and you take a cohesion test from losing impact or melee ("General in line of command fighting close combat nearby: +1"). I do not know if it is a new change, but just to make sure I tested it under vanilla rules and you only get that +1 if adjacent. I'm not talking about if the general dies. I haven't touched any direct effects of generals dying, it's just that when they die now you are of course outside of their command radius like normal, but now in turn that has more implications.

OK, I have tested it in vanilla and found it. I was completely unaware of it. It seems it is 2 squares if the general is a C-in-C, not 1 square. So section 10.3 of the rules must have been amended at some point. Nothing in the patch notes that I can see.

ok, so if we retain the 1 tile for SG and 2 for CinC for +1 to CT if adjacent while general is in combat, then the in-combat range of the general should be 1 or 2 as is appropriate for the general type for rallying, refusals and anarchy as well?

edit: so I've tested it again and I am only getting the +1 to CT if adjacent to the general in combat, regardless of the general's type, ie I am not getting the 2 tile radius for the +1 to CT for the CinC in combat. Are you sure it is 2 for the CinC?

[stockwellpete]

ok, so if we retain the 1 tile for SG and 2 for CinC for +1 to CT if adjacent while general is in combat, then the in-combat range of the general should be 1 or 2 as is appropriate for the general type for rallying, refusals and anarchy as well?

Not sure really. The command radius for all generals now is 4 squares. But if we do what you say will units 2 squares away from a S-G in combat then get the anarchy penalty for being out of command? Will it happen on the same turn or the next turn?

I actually think the rules as originally published in 10.3 are better (and much simpler) for our purposes. Command benefits should exist in all parts of the command area whether the general is in combat or not. The command structure of a contingent is not just the general, although for game purposes it is abstracted to that figure. A section of a line would not be more likely to anarchy just because another part of the same line (where the general was situated) had started to fight.

[Schweetness101]

ok, so if we retain the 1 tile for SG and 2 for CinC for +1 to CT if adjacent while general is in combat, then the in-combat range of the general should be 1 or 2 as is appropriate for the general type for rallying, refusals and anarchy as well?

Not sure really. The command radius for all generals now is 4 squares. But if we do what you say will units 2 squares away from a S-G in combat then get the anarchy penalty for being out of command? Will it happen on the same turn or the next turn?

I actually think the rules as originally published in 10.3 are better (and much simpler) for our purposes. Command benefits should exist in all parts of the command area whether the general is in combat or not. The command structure of a contingent is not just the general, although for game purposes it is abstracted to that figure. A section of a line would not be more likely to anarchy just because another part of the same line (where the general was situated) had started to fight.

testing in vanilla I am not getting the 2 tiles for +1 to CT if near general in combat for any general type, it appears to only be for 1 tile radius. So, I don't think there would be any 2 square away considerations, only either 1 or 4.

Oh wait I realize what's going on, the editor scenario CinC I'm using also has a 4 tile radius default, and the math is not setting the adjacent +1 to CT as within 2 tiles directly for CinC, but instead as the general's radius/4, so it's a bit more complex in vanilla, but if all general's have a radius of 4 then of course dividing by 4 is always 1.

[Schweetness101]

ok, so if we retain the 1 tile for SG and 2 for CinC for +1 to CT if adjacent while general is in combat, then the in-combat range of the general should be 1 or 2 as is appropriate for the general type for rallying, refusals and anarchy as well?

Not sure really. The command radius for all generals now is 4 squares. But if we do what you say will units 2 squares away from a S-G in combat then get the anarchy penalty for being out of command? Will it happen on the same turn or the next turn?

I actually think the rules as originally published in 10.3 are better (and much simpler) for our purposes. Command benefits should exist in all parts of the command area whether the general is in combat or not. The command structure of a contingent is not just the general, although for game purposes it is abstracted to that figure. A section of a line would not be more likely to anarchy just because another part of the same line (where the general was situated) had started to fight.

so you would have something like:

Bonus AP: if within 4 tiles of general if that general is NOT in combat
Anarchy/Refuse considerations: if within 4 tiles of general, whether in combat or not
+1 to CT: if within 1 tile of general if that general IS in combat
cohesion check for general death radius: ?

or simply get bonus ap, +1 to ct, and avoid anarchy/refuse penalty if within 4 squares of your general regardless of whether they are in combat?

edit: one other detail from vanilla is that a pursuing general can still provide morale bonus (within command radius/4, which for us is always 1) and not issue orders for bonus ap within 4 ap, so like they are in combat (and in the mod that would mean that the reduction in anarchy and charge refusals would only happen within 1 radius of a pursuing general, also like with a general in combat)

One distinction which vanilla makes, which I think is important, is that between staying in command of the situation by holding the general back so he can concentrate on giving commands (and thus adding ap if within the larger radius) and inspiring by your presence by diving into the fray (and thus adding +1 ct while in combat within the smaller radius). I'm thinking this is because explicit orders can be given to a rider (who is kind of abstracted away) if the general is available to do so, and that rider can go a longer distance than the sight and sound of the general's personal inspiring presence. I think because we are dealing with ancient and medieval generals who seemed like they personally took part in the fighting, it is right to assume that command and control would drop once the general's unit was in combat, because that would mean the general himself was in combat.

My issue with the vanilla implementation is not the basic idea, but the fact that +50 POA and +1 to CT to adjacent is almost always better than the bonus ap, which is just kind of a little bit nice to keep for an extra turn or two, but not nearly as beneficial as the huge bonus to fighting power in a significant part of the line by stacking up the generals there and attacking with them.

The abstract motivation here is, from a gameplay perspective, what we are trying to do is add meaningful decision-making, NOT just pointless complexity. Maximizing meaningful decisions while minimizing complexity is ideal, but sometimes to add more decision-making you have to add more complexity to have more things to decide. That was a little too abstract, but what I mean concretely in this particular case is that the player should grapple with choosing whether to put their general into combat, rather than just always doing so because the +1 to ct and +50 poa bonus is almost always better than keeping the ap bonus as in vanilla. It would be make the decision of whether to commit a bit more compelling if the player faces the choice of:

1) committing and getting the +1 to CT within 1 tile, and the +50 poa to its unit, at the risk of higher anarchy, and more charge refusals, and loss of rallying, at 2,3, and 4 tiles away, and the existing in vanilla loss of bonus ap, loss of ability to move the general, and risk of getting the general killed and imposing a CT check.
2) not committing and keeping things under control (less likely to refuse charges or anarchy charge, and keeping rallying at 2,3, and 4 tiles away), plus the bonus to ap within 4 tiles, plus protecting the general, plus being able to move him where needed, at the loss of the CT and poa bonus.

With the addition of charge refusals and anarchy and rally changes, those seem like more equal choices that the player would really have to grapple with. But, if you just get all the bonuses and anarchy reductions if within 4 tiles of the general, regardless of whether the general is in combat, then why bother doing anything other than committing the general to combat as soon as possible (which is what tends to happen in vanilla as well). That is, you would just end up with some more complex underlying mechanics than vanilla, but without adding much to decisionmaking, if it was still just always best to commit the general.

I'm also thinking that some more serious consequences to losing a general are in order, to make committing him to combat an even more serious decision. Maybe increasing the radius in which units take a CT, or perhaps adding an extra -1 modifier to such a check?

[mceochaidh]

Gentlemen:

I applaud your massive effort to provide this alternative to vanilla game. I would very much like to test it and provide feedback but am having difficulty. I use 7 Zip to download, then extract to Documents/My Games/Field of Glory 2/CAMPAIGNS as Pete suggested. Then I can see 5 or six individual files dated June 7 listed in CAMPAIGNS, including two big files named Scenarios and Data and text files. All of the other files that I have previously downloaded from the game screen have only one file listed with the name of the particular battle or campaign. When I open the game and go to CAMPAIGNS within the game, I do not see any of the files associated with the Alternative Gameplay Mod v 1.1. I have Win 10. I am sure I must be doing something wrong. Any ideas would be appreciated! I also have tried to copy and paste the download from 7 Zip, but this only results in the Scenarios file and the Data file showing up in CAMPAIGNS folder and still does not result in any choice within the game itself.

I am particularly interested in command and control alternatives, as I think it would make the game a richer experience.

Thanks

Mac

[stockwellpete]

I actually think the rules as originally published in 10.3 are better (and much simpler) for our purposes. Command benefits should exist in all parts of the command area whether the general is in combat or not. The command structure of a contingent is not just the general, although for game purposes it is abstracted to that figure. A section of a line would not be more likely to anarchy just because another part of the same line (where the general was situated) had started to fight.

so you would have something like:

Bonus AP: if within 4 tiles of general if that general is NOT in combat
Anarchy/Refuse considerations: if within 4 tiles of general, whether in combat or not
+1 to CT: if within 1 tile of general if that general IS in combat
cohesion check for general death radius: ?

If I just done a play test and I can see this "Bonus AP" everywhere. What does it actually mean? The free 45 degree turn?

or simply get bonus ap, +1 to ct, and avoid anarchy/refuse penalty if within 4 squares of your general regardless of whether they are in combat?

Yes, it is just dead simple. And all you need on the UI is "In Command" and "Out of Command". You won't need "Can Rally" and "No Rally" as well because they are a key part of being either in or out of command, so players will learn that aspect very quickly. You won't need "No Control" for fall backs, a unit will either be in or out of command at the start of a turn. You will need "Pursuing" and "Routed" as per vanilla. Personally, I think the 4 square command radius should still operate in these last two states and should only stop if the commander of that contingent is killed or routs over the baseline.

I would say that Command and Control is a very big part of this mod, maybe 40% of it, so I think our labelling on the UI has to be crystal clear. Things like having +1 CT , Bonus AP etc showing look odd to me and clutter things up unnecessarily. I also think the Refuse Orders Test takes up too much space on the UI. It spreads across 3 lines when really it could do with being on 1 line, just the % chance to refuse orders. Everything else should really show in the Combat Log, if possible, like the Anarchy Tests. They are discreet and they look very good in the mod and we should use them as our template.

I also noticed that the command radius tool facility normally shows the 4 square radius when you click on a leader unit, but if they are in combat it switches to the area for the +1 CT modifier. I don't think it should do that. It should stay on the 4 square radius throughout.

Other points from the play test (Seleucids v Antigonids on Governor gives a good game)
- elephants pursuing are running past charge targets (sometimes they only need to turn 45 degrees and initiate a new melee)
- pikes are catching evading skirmishers too often (twice in this game). Skirmishers should always escape from pikes unless trapped, I would think.
- had another weird situation where a pursuing cavalry unit charged a new target and got a "rear" attack (automatic cohesion drop) even though it hit the side of the new target and was not behind it when it was fighting in its original melee. There are still some anomalies with this so keep an eye out.

[Schweetness101]

Gentlemen:

I applaud your massive effort to provide this alternative to vanilla game. I would very much like to test it and provide feedback but am having difficulty. I use 7 Zip to download, then extract to Documents/My Games/Field of Glory 2/CAMPAIGNS as Pete suggested. Then I can see 5 or six individual files dated June 7 listed in CAMPAIGNS, including two big files named Scenarios and Data and text files. All of the other files that I have previously downloaded from the game screen have only one file listed with the name of the particular battle or campaign. When I open the game and go to CAMPAIGNS within the game, I do not see any of the files associated with the Alternative Gameplay Mod v 1.1. I have Win 10. I am sure I must be doing something wrong. Any ideas would be appreciated! I also have tried to copy and paste the download from 7 Zip, but this only results in the Scenarios file and the Data file showing up in CAMPAIGNS folder and still does not result in any choice within the game itself.

I am particularly interested in command and control alternatives, as I think it would make the game a richer experience.

Thanks

Mac

thanks for trying it out! it sounds like you are extracing/pasting all of the contents of the mod folder into the campaigns folder, and not the whole mod folder itself. IE when you look in campaigns you should see a folder called something like "alternative_gameplay_mod_v1.1," and all of those other data and scenarios files should in turn be within the alt gameplay mod folder.