Alternative Gameplay Mod v1.3

[kronenblatt]

1 anarchy rules, with only two basic types of troops for anarchy purposes now - disciplined and anarchy-prone, with various modifiers including for superior/elite and raw, for being "out of command" (the most important one) and for the loss of your C-in-C.

2. automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks has gone;
3. pike combat has been modified;
4. cavalry combat has undergone a major overhaul to reduce atomisation drastically;
5. routed units disperse more quickly;
6. the army rout threshold has been reduced to 50%.

Are all of these 1-6 in both versions A and B?

And what do you mean by atomisation?

Yes.

Atomisation is when cavalry units from both sides pursue routed enemies out of the same general area of melee and end up spread out all over the map - and then have to turn round and come back again to melee (which can take 5-6 turns). The mod reduces all this considerably.

Many thanks, Pete, for answers!

[Schweetness101]

one question for the forum:

Currently in the mod, you only receive command from your own general or the CinC, so only units under that general's command lose command if that general dies. However, all units within a given radius, regardless of whether they are under a given general's command, take a CT test if that general dies.

One way of thinking of this is that if a general on your side dies, everyone nearby is dismayed by the death (in game CT test), but only the units under his command actually lose command because the guy in their hierarchy who is supposed to give orders is now dead, and so the way it works in the mod now is fine.

Another way of looking at it is it is more consistent for only the troops under the general's command, who lose command from his death, to take a CT test from witnessing that death, like with allied generals (10.3 in manual).

thoughts?

[kronenblatt]

Another way of looking at it is it is more consistent for only the troops under the general's command, who lose command from his death, to take a CT test from witnessing that death, like with allied generals (10.3 in manual).

I'd buy that argument, for the sake of consistency. If the positive effects from the SG are more limited and more explicitly linked to only the units under his command, then the negative effects should be as well.

[Schweetness101]

Another question:

We are experimenting right now with the loss of 2 AP, in addition to the loss of free turn, for being outside of a general's command. This is much more noticeable than just the loss of free turn. It means most infantry units can only either move straight forward, or turn, but not both, and that non light units don't typically have enough AP to turn around in one turn. It definitely makes you more careful about keeping generals out of combat and their units within command radius while initially maneuvering around, because the loss of AP for being out of command will seriously slow down any complex maneuvers.

So far I like it because it is a loss from being out of command that you can't not notice. It really makes you reconsider whether that +50 POA and +1 to CT from having the general in combat is worth it, or whether it's worth it to send troops really far out from their general's command. Any thoughts on this change?

This question might not be answerable until I post a version of the mod with this change. I am finding though that I really like it so far because of just how much more careful it makes you about keeping units in command, but it may be too much.

[kronenblatt]

Another question:

We are experimenting right now with the loss of 2 AP, in addition to the loss of free turn, for being outside of a general's command. This is much more noticeable than just the loss of free turn. It means most infantry units can only either move straight forward, or turn, but not both, and that non light units don't typically have enough AP to turn around in one turn. It definitely makes you more careful about keeping generals out of combat and their units within command radius while initially maneuvering around, because the loss of AP for being out of command will seriously slow down any complex maneuvers.

So far I like it because it is a loss from being out of command that you can't not notice. It really makes you reconsider whether that +50 POA and +1 to CT from having the general in combat is worth it, or whether it's worth it to send troops really far out from their general's command. Any thoughts on this change?

This question might not be answerable until I post a version of the mod with this change. I am finding though that I really like it so far because of just how much more careful it makes you about keeping units in command, but it may be too much.

Have you considered:
1. dropping the free turn altogether, i.e., making it cost whether the unit is in command or not?
2. making the loss of AP depend on the original number of AP? Since for infantry it makes a big difference in relative terms, whereas for (light) cavalry not so much. Then again, cavalry may by definition considered to operate more on their own and thus not be as dependent on their commanding general.

Again, probably best to stick to the solution that is simple, transparent, and consistent, and therefore easier for players to grasp and understand.

[kronenblatt]

Also of interest is how the AI manages to deal with the two respective versions (A and B, respectively)?

I asked earlier about the AI, because how well the AI copes with these changes is also key to the mod, especially considering that the SG only command their 'own' units. I just fired up a game and then 14 of the 28 AI units were 'Out of Command' already upon battle deployment. So stricter rules will drastically penalise the AI in SP, unless it can be scripted to take this into consideration.

Or is the mod mainly intended to be MP?

[Schweetness101]

Another question:

We are experimenting right now with the loss of 2 AP, in addition to the loss of free turn, for being outside of a general's command. This is much more noticeable than just the loss of free turn. It means most infantry units can only either move straight forward, or turn, but not both, and that non light units don't typically have enough AP to turn around in one turn. It definitely makes you more careful about keeping generals out of combat and their units within command radius while initially maneuvering around, because the loss of AP for being out of command will seriously slow down any complex maneuvers.

So far I like it because it is a loss from being out of command that you can't not notice. It really makes you reconsider whether that +50 POA and +1 to CT from having the general in combat is worth it, or whether it's worth it to send troops really far out from their general's command. Any thoughts on this change?

This question might not be answerable until I post a version of the mod with this change. I am finding though that I really like it so far because of just how much more careful it makes you about keeping units in command, but it may be too much.

Have you considered:
1. dropping the free turn altogether, i.e., making it cost whether the unit is in command or not?
2. making the loss of AP depend on the original number of AP? Since for infantry it makes a big difference in relative terms, whereas for (light) cavalry not so much. Then again, cavalry may by definition considered to operate more on their own and thus not be as dependent on their commanding general.

Again, probably best to stick to the solution that is simple, transparent, and consistent, and therefore easier for players to grasp and understand.

1) no, what would this achieve? just making all units less maneuverable than vanilla whether in or out of command? Lights do always get their free turn in vanilla and in the mod, so this might just make lights less maneuverable relative to non lights
2) I kind of like this idea, but as per your last point it would be more complex and less consistent, and the player would likely be confused about why some units were losing 1 ap, and some 2 ap, and some 3 ap, or whatever.

I could make it so that lights, just like how they keep their free turn always, would never lose the 2 ap from being out of command, so it's ok to send lights way out for skirmishing purposes, but it's more important to keep non lights in command range and so the core of any given contingent stays together while letting lights run about.

[Schweetness101]

Also of interest is how the AI manages to deal with the two respective versions (A and B, respectively)?

I asked earlier about the AI, because how well the AI copes with these changes is also key to the mod, especially considering that the SG only command their 'own' units. I just fired up a game and then 14 of the 28 AI units were 'Out of Command' already upon battle deployment. So stricter rules will drastically penalise the AI in SP, unless it can be scripted to take this into consideration.

Or is the mod mainly intended to be MP?

I have not explicitly made any AI changes to account for mod changes. It is something I would like to look at after the mod rules changes are 'feature complete' so I don't end up having to make complex AI changes over and over as the mod changes. I have noticed that the AI on the whole is doing better with the mod changes due probably in large part to the fact that the AI is not great at taking all the little micro 90 degree flanks, but those are less potent now, relatively favoring the AI.

I'm guessing that, because in vanilla you get command from all SGs, the AI doesn't really care which SG a unit is near, so long as it is near one of them, so one thing I could look at would be to see if there are special AI rules for Allied generals that could then be applied to all SGs as well to help AI contingents stick together

[kronenblatt]

1) no, what would this achieve? just making all units less maneuverable than vanilla whether in or out of command? Lights do always get their free turn in vanilla and in the mod, so this might just make lights less maneuverable relative to non lights

I was thinking about removing the 45 degree turn being free if in command, and thought that was what you meant by "in addition to the loss of free turn, for being outside of a general's command". Because as you say, light units have a free turn whether in command or not.

[kronenblatt]

I could make it so that lights, just like how they keep their free turn always, would never lose the 2 ap from being out of command, so it's ok to send lights way out for skirmishing purposes, but it's more important to keep non lights in command range and so the core of any given contingent stays together while letting lights run about.

Yes, that would probably be a good solution, and again consistent (THE buzz word of June 20, 2020 ) with them keeping their free turn always.

[Schweetness101]

ok I've made it so lights don't lose the 2 ap from being out of command, in addition to the vanilla not losing the free turn.

also in the newer version, not yet posted, I've fixed a bug where units were starting out the first turn out of command for ap loss purposes, even if within command, so you may have been noticing that with the ai.

[kronenblatt]

Also, the unit description of Anarchy could be more condensed; basically just say Moderate or whatever term is used to describe it. But I really like the explicit In Command or Out of Command statements; they could be useful in vanilla too.

CommandAnarchy.jpg (445.57 KiB) Viewed 2635 times

[Schweetness101]

Also, the unit description of Anarchy could be more condensed; basically just say Moderate or whatever term is used to describe it. But I really like the explicit In Command or Out of Command statements; they could be useful in vanilla too.

CommandAnarchy.jpg

yes, that is another change in an upcoming version. Units will simple be 'disciplined', 'undisciplined', or 'exempt from anarcy'. I'm not decided on what the exact phrasing should be, but there will only be three messages there, and then any extra complexity is shown in the combat log

[kronenblatt]

yes, that is another change in an upcoming version. Units will simple be 'disciplined', 'undisciplined', or 'exempt from anarcy'. I'm not decided on what the exact phrasing should be, but there will only be three messages there, and then any extra complexity is shown in the combat log

Basically something like this then?
Anarchy: Disciplined.
Anarchy: Undisciplined.
Anarchy: Exempt.

ok I've made it so lights don't lose the 2 ap from being out of command, in addition to the vanilla not losing the free turn.

Maybe the In Command and Out of Command should then not be shown at all for lights, since it's not applicable to them?

[Schweetness101]

Basically something like this then?
Anarchy: Disciplined.
Anarchy: Undisciplined.
Anarchy: Exempt.

yes

Maybe the In Command and Out of Command should then not be shown at all for lights, since it's not applicable to them?

the issue with this is that being in and out of command still matters for lights for refusals to charge, anarchy, rallies, +1 to ct, etc...and I don't think lights should be exempt from all of that

This brings up a more general issue of this pull on the one hand of wanting to be consistent and easy to understand, and on the other hand wanting to have more interesting and plausible/historical exceptions by unit type, in or out of combat, etc...we'll find the right mix eventually but it just takes some testing.

[kronenblatt]

One thing I would think could be suitable is for routed units to still stand a chance of being rallied if within 4 squares of its commanding SG or the C-in-C (or maybe any friendly general), but with a reduced likelihood of the cohesion test taking place (maybe same level as the general test in vanilla for all routed units). Then generals can then still potentially rally nearby routed units, but really affect the one being attached to.

[Schweetness101]

One thing I would think could be suitable is for routed units to still stand a chance of being rallied if within 4 squares of its commanding SG or the C-in-C (or maybe any friendly general), but with a reduced likelihood of the cohesion test taking place (maybe same level as the general test in vanilla for all routed units). Then generals can then still potentially rally nearby routed units, but really affect the one being attached to.

that is currently in the mod

[kronenblatt]

One thing I would think...

that is currently in the mod

Oh, didn't see at first. But now I do, as item 14. Great: that change makes sense. Thanks.

[kronenblatt]

the issue with this is that being in and out of command still matters for lights for refusals to charge, anarchy, rallies, +1 to ct, etc...and I don't think lights should be exempt from all of that

I agree.

This brings up a more general issue of this pull on the one hand of wanting to be consistent and easy to understand, and on the other hand wanting to have more interesting and plausible/historical exceptions by unit type, in or out of combat, etc...we'll find the right mix eventually but it just takes some testing.

Yes, it will be tricky. But with some finetuning and keeping the focus on the major changes, you'll get there in the end.

[Schweetness101]

Version 1.3

download:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/903dosc5fdt8 ... yuXta?dl=0

compared to version 1.2 (not to A and B above) this version's change list is below:

1) Don't need to be at as great an advantage to get the reduction in charge refuse chance for combat advantage
2) UI now only in or out of command, +1 to CT like vanilla (next to your SG or CinC in combat), everything set based on being in command at beginning of turn, and radius set based on in combat/pursuing (1 tile) or out of combat (4 tiles)at turn beginning
3) fixed combat advantage bug in refusals to charge and edited ui message a bit
4) loss of 2 ap for non light units from being out of command (not suffered on first turn to avoid a bug with that, plus it kind of makes sense that you would not get it on the first turn I guess)
5) mp army list fixed with REPLACE string in armylist.txt so shows properly in hosted multiplayer games if you use mod added army lists
6) increase min pikes for macedonian 4th century mod army
7) anarchy now displayed as "disciplined" (0), "undisciplined" (25) or "does not anarchy"(-1). unit quality adds or subtracts 20 from base anarchy chance if superior or above or raw or below
8 ) compatible with new version of base FOG2, so updated to have all the new pike, warband, lancer etc...new unit models, and updated the scripts that changed and so on
9) removed chance for random reduction in ap when evading only for light foot so not so easily caught by non light foot, not sure about all the balance implications of this.
10) fixed pursuit_chanceofcharging permitting impermissible pursuits, at least for light infantry and fragmented units, and on the whole changed quite a bit of it's logic

considering:
1) making extra generals purchasable at unit selection (would be difficult to implement though)
2) changing general falling to only impose CT on his own troops
3) changing to always have 4 tile radius for command regardless of whether in combat

*this is kind of a tentative v1.3, so I might hold off on updating the OP for now, but I wanted to release it to keep the mod up to date with changes to the vanilla game

=======================================================================================

EDIT:
here is a tentative global version of the mod. It seems to be working, but I haven't really tested it much:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g56k6p8z53by ... bX-Fa?dl=0