The problem of custom battles

[fogman]

Regarding LF skirmishers, I am now fairly convinced (or I have convinced myself) that the game doesn't really need them and that, in their current form, they detract enormously from what I understand to be historically accurate behaviours of ancient and medieval armies (please note this a subjective evaluation on my part and I may be wrong about it).

Skirmishers did not win battles, but they do in FOG2. Isolated small contingents of light horse did not very often charge into the rear of formed infantry and cause "disruptions", but they regularly do in FOG2. And foot skirmishers did not spend the whole battle running about shooting at the enemy, and then evading. Which they do a lot in FOG2. Particularly, they did not congregate to hunt down enemy cavalry who have the misfortune (in FOG2) to break through their enemy's main battle line.

If I was able to mod myself, I would experiment with javelinmen, slingers and archers all being MF and LH being cavalry. And I would have a "skirmish" function (like pikes forming a square) for them where they could fight in more open formations, when required. Otherwise they would behave as irregular foot or archers. A variation on this idea would be to allow around 25% of an irregular foot or archer unit to detach itself (and re-join) in a skirmish line during the battle.

I stopped playing MP way back with FOG 1, except in tournaments with my own scenarios which is still happening, because I don’t agree with the portrayal of lights (and fog of war, double moves, and non historical matchups). Light troops are of no consequence in battle and should be abstracted; they have their use before and after. As of now, they are commandos with supreme command and control. And there is nothing more ridiculous than a cavalry unit chasing around a light cavalry bouncing off it. Too gamey. The Athenians apparently had 10,000 light troops (as opposed to 7000 hoplites) at Delium and they were inconsequential. I can’t think of any battle outcome influenced by skirmishers. In Napoleonic times, French column assaults were preceded by swarms of skirmishers but those are not independent units. One way to depict lights would be like scythed chariots, dispersing after a certain time.

And for those from FoG I days, note I just agreed with stockwellpete.

[stockwellpete]

I stopped playing MP way back with FOG 1, except in tournaments with my own scenarios which is still happening, because I don’t agree with the portrayal of lights (and fog of war, double moves, and non historical matchups).

Yes, I cannot get enthusiastic about Scots v Russians, or 1001 other bizarre match-ups that FOG1 and 2 have made possible, but most players seem to like them. What has been interesting though, working with Schweeetness101 on the various mods (also the Alternative Gameplay Mod), is that the game engine does allow you to introduce more realistic variations, such as a much more developed "command and control" system (reduced command radii etc, armies divided into proper contingents etc), "anarchy charging" and re-worked combat mechanisms to avoid the continual atomisation of cavalry melees and the overpowered so-called "flank attacks" in the middle of a mainly infantry melee.

There are actually a number of features that we had in FOG1, that have not made it to FOG2, that would actually enhance the game (pre-battle map selection process, anarchy, camps, DAG restrictions on army selections e.g. Roman principes/hastati/velites linkage). I wouldn't necessarily implement them in exactly the same way again, but their hearts were in the right place.

I think FOW and double moves in FOG1 were OK as options, because if you didn't like them you didn't have to tick the box. I think the main argument I would make about them is they confused the issue a bit about what was actually being represented in the game. Is it meant to be just a battle, or is it meant to include pre-battle manoeuvring as well? If it was meant to be just a battle then the map area was usually a bit too big, and if it was meant to include the prelude then it was really far too small. So it got caught between two stools, in my opinion. FOG2 does do a bit as well, but not so much as FOG1, and reducing the height of the map to its minimum for the size of battle basically solves the problem.

Light troops are of no consequence in battle and should be abstracted; they have their use before and after. As of now, they are commandos with supreme command and control. And there is nothing more ridiculous than a cavalry unit chasing around a light cavalry bouncing off it. Too gamey. The Athenians apparently had 10,000 light troops (as opposed to 7000 hoplites) at Delium and they were inconsequential. I can’t think of any battle outcome influenced by skirmishers. In Napoleonic times, French column assaults were preceded by swarms of skirmishers but those are not independent units.

I don't know if you have seen the thread on the Dark Ages Mod, where skirmishers were completely abstracted in my segment of the mod, instead of being presented as separate units. As were berserkers in the Viking army. Page 4 of the thread has some screenshots of a couple of the battles I did in Hot Seat. I did like the effect of it overall and it felt more like a shield wall encounter to me. It is not really finished either and there may be a few improvements still to be made when Schweetness101 returns.

viewtopic.php?f=492&t=99967&start=60

For example, in the Viking army menu at the start you had a choice of purchasing default Bondi units, or paying a bit extra to add archers to them, represented as a modest +POA bonus at impact and melee. The latest link for the mod is -

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cv28bw5qf6yw ... waiAa?dl=0

One way to depict lights would be like scythed chariots, dispersing after a certain time.

Yes, I have suggested something like this in the latest Medieval beta and there has been a big debate, mostly against what I am saying . . .

Are skirmishers generally too powerful in FOG2 games?
Post by stockwellpete » 07 Jul 2021 08:18

" . . . One idea that came to me was that skirmishers should "disperse" automatically at the end of the turn when they have fired their last ammo."

I would actually think about having them disperse immediately when routed as well (given that we have to have the wretched things in the game). Schweetness101 has added skirmisher dispersal after the ammo runs out to the latest version of the Dark Age Mod, but it is not in the Alt Gameplay Mod at the moment.

And for those from FoG I days, note I just agreed with stockwellpete.

It is truly a momentous day!

[Athos1660]

In-game scythed chariots are removed from the map when they are considered destroyed after crashing into the enemy line, which is historical. Besides, Lights were IRL (and are in game) particularly useful till the end of the battle, among other things, to harass fragmented or broken non-light enemy which is worth noting in game terms, given that in the FoG series, the ability for non-light infantry (and, to a lesser extent, for non-light cavalry) to pursue was drastically reduced.

[oriel]

Just played (and lost) "Watling street" The enemy skirmishers are decisive... The Romans get shot to pieces and if they advance into the Britons (who just have to occupy the broken ground) they get massacred! So much for "historical" battles. Skirmishers are far, far too powerful in FOG - spoils everything - a pity.

[SimonLancaster]

I don't know what percentage of players just play SP in FOG2, but I expect it is very high, probably well over 75%. And I would imagine it is a similar figure to what was true for FOG1. But in FOG1 you did have tick box options for "double moves" and "fog of war", so that players who liked these extra features could choose to use them. I did raise this possibility for FOG2 at the beginning of its development, but was told that this would divide players into separate groups. I never really accepted this argument, and, of course, the main division is already between those who just play SP and those who just play MP. Again, in terms of extending the life of a game that is 4 years old now, I think the decision about tick boxes could be reviewed. There are a number of themes that could be included in a 2 or 3 tick box menu, including "anarchy", command and control, and modified skirmishers. All these would add extra skill challenges to the game, but they could be ignored if preferred.

I have just read the latest Developer's Diary for Europa Universalis 4 on Steam and they have this paragraph . . .

By the amount of games played in a single day, 51% are regular single player games, 44% are ironman games, and 5% are multiplayer games. However, this does not tell the entire story, as one of the game-types include a fair bit more players. On any given day, about 13.7% of all players play multiplayer games, about 39,7% play an ironman game, and 62.3% play a normal single player game. This of course adds up to far more than 100%, but many people play more than 1 game mode in a single day.

So, roughly about 1 in 8 players play MP with Europa Universalis. I suppose the figure is fairly similar for FOG2.

I'd personally expect the proportion of MP to be higher in FoG2 than EU4, due to the scope of the games. For example, it seems easier to have a quick leisure MP game in FoG2, just creating an open challenge in-game.

But then again I've never played MP in EU4 and am now playing only MP in FoG2 so wouldn't really know, apart from my own subjective experience. And we by definition tend to notice MP much more since in itself generates more activity in the forums and PBEM than the silent SP...

I agree with this. EU seems to me to be far more playable as a single player game. Lots of players would play it without trying out MP, I think. You have the long and detailed campaigns in EU and a good AI. With a game like FoG 2, I think there would be far more multiplayer games. The game to me seems much more geared up for multiplayer battles.

I think the figures underestimate the amount of people who play FoG 2 in multiplayer mode.

The other point I would make is that there are a fair number of people who just buy a game but then don't really 'get into it'. They play for a few hours and that is it. You can't really include them as SP gamers only.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Just played (and lost) "Watling street" The enemy skirmishers are decisive... The Romans get shot to pieces and if they advance into the Britons (who just have to occupy the broken ground) they get massacred! So much for "historical" battles. Skirmishers are far, far too powerful in FOG - spoils everything - a pity.

Our Watling Street match wasn't exactly decided by skirmishers so much as the infinite time the Britons have to dress their lines and get ready, and even send flankers behind. I believe I may have Disrupted one non-light unit before running out of ammunition.

The real problem is that the scenario isn't timed. If there were a time limit that the Britons had to win by, and no ability to get into the Roman rear, that would give a more historical battle. There'd probably be just enough time to expend all skirmisher ammo on shooting at the Roman skirmishers before you had to charge into contact. Of course, Loose Warbands vs Legionaries in the Open is really only going to go one way, so some other way of balancing the battle for MP would need to be found.

[fogman]

One way to depict lights would be like scythed chariots, dispersing after a certain time.

Yes, I have suggested something like this in the latest Medieval beta and there has been a big debate, mostly against what I am saying . . .

they say great minds think alike

[fogman]

The real problem is that the scenario isn't timed. If there were a time limit that the Britons had to win by, and no ability to get into the Roman rear, that would give a more historical battle. There'd probably be just enough time to expend all skirmisher ammo on shooting at the Roman skirmishers before you had to charge into contact. Of course, Loose Warbands vs Legionaries in the Open is really only going to go one way, so some other way of balancing the battle for MP would need to be found.

Famous battles often had special circumstances that are lost if given an open-ended custom battle treatment. But there are ways. In this particular case, Roman units could be made to be worth more as losses, and/or Briton units worth less. In FoG 1, and in P&S, I would just add 'counter units' to increase the rout threshold without scripting. Then, time limiting the battle would force both sides to engage (as dictated by their respective combat doctrines/customs) and not maneuver around (unhistorical but maybe that's the appeal for lots of people). Then your role as player is not to imagine some fancy moves but more or less to fight with the restrictions of the historical commander. Balancing the scenario is a matter of calibrating the respective rout thresholds, meaning you can lose the battle on the ground but win the scenario.

At Emesa, for example, it is clear that the battle wouldn't be what it was if the Palmyrene heavy cavalry did not charge the Romans ahead of its infantry and that was inevitable given the limitations of command and control and the dictates of combat doctrine. Therefore the design has to place the Palmyrene cataphracts already in action and the Palmyrene player has to do better than history. That would prevent the absurd outcome reported in the other thread. See an implementation in FoG1 here https://www.militaryhistorywithfog.com/emesa-272-ad

Examples abound, would it be Agincourt if the French can just maneuver around the flanks? Taginae if the Goths did the same?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Yes, I remember Pike and Shot had custom win% conditions for each side to help with this problem. I'm guessing that FoGII didn't take this approach because there was some negative feedback - maybe people found it confusing, or they found it too frustrating to play a doomed battle where they only had a chance at a technical victory. I'm playing Emesa as the Romans right now, and my Palmyrene opponent has held his Cataphracts back and is swarming me from all sides with lights, also keeping the massed archers well out of danger. It's not looking good.

Testing is one difficulty - it takes a lot of time to test these scenarios in MP, and you really need to have testers try to abuse the system to find things to correct, and a lot of people are going to play in a straightforward manner.

Another is that the game doesn't simulate the psychological difficulty of moving away from the enemy - doing so often caused whole armies to break and flee, but in FoG there is only a cohesion check for Fall Back in enemy charge range. While I think the Fall Back cohesion test range should be much longer, it still wouldn't really solve the issue of people just being able to turn and march away with a whole wing without penalty. Of course, how to implement something like that is another issue - after all, some armies, particularly nomads, did so routinely. The thing is, RBS is well aware of the issues with the game's historicity, but he has to take a path that will result in the game being financially successful, which means it has to be fun, thus taking a middle path between maximum grognard and approachability at the cost of accuracy.

I will also say, no offense intended, that I really did not enjoy the scenarios you made for Pike and Shot. It was frustrating to have almost no choice over what was to happen, at least within a system designed to create choices. After all, it's interesting to think about things like - what if the French had sent more cavalry to their spoiling attack at Agincourt? What if Hannibal had deployed differently at Zama? Ideally, you could have two versions of each scenario - one with the historical deployment with the armies already in contact, one as we have them now with a bit more room to move. Since the latter is more popular, given that people like being able to change history more than recreate it, the latter approach is what's generally taken in games.

I think a game could be made that leans hard into the full on simulation of Ancient/Medieval battle, but it would need to abstract a lot more things, probably not be on a grid system, with order delay, fog of war, and limited maneuver and command - for example, most Classical Greek armies would only be able to basically move forward into contact with your commander in the front ranks, and then you'd hope for best. I would enjoy such a game. You would enjoy such a game. Most people would not, so it would have to be an indie project with limited graphics/sound, further limiting its appeal to a niche audience.

So I think FoG walks a middle ground to give us the best we currently have on PC. It's a game people who haven't been exposed to wargames before can get into thanks to an elegant UI, but still is much more tactically challenging than wargame-adjacent games. There are a couple areas where I wish it was a bit harsher and on the realism side, but I'm very happy with it overall. Perhaps someday another game even further along the realism spectrum will exist, giving us a range of choices.

[stockwellpete]

I have just looked at Watling Street. The first thing I would do is see whether the Ancient British warbands can be modified to throw javelins (having the same effect as LF javelinmen would have) so that you do not need the skirmishers at all. Would that spoil the enjoyment of the scenario?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I have just looked at Watling Street. The first thing I would do is see whether the Ancient British warbands can be modified to throw javelins (having the same effect as LF javelinmen would have) so that you do not need the skirmishers at all. Would that spoil the enjoyment of the scenario?

It wouldn't be much different from removing the skirmishers entirely. Instead, the Britons when they did advance would sit their and throw javelins until the Romans charged, but since there is no evasion it wouldn't really matter.

The way to get a historical Watling Street would be to make the mobs immobile, eliminate any access to the Roman rear, and set a time limit that the Britons lose by. That would get you the historical behavior of the Britons, but I think it would consistently produce an extremely one sided battle. As a result, you would need custom victory % conditions, but even so it would really require very little player input.

[stockwellpete]

It wouldn't be much different from removing the skirmishers entirely. Instead, the Britons when they did advance would sit their and throw javelins until the Romans charged, but since there is no evasion it wouldn't really matter.

The way to get a historical Watling Street would be to make the mobs immobile, eliminate any access to the Roman rear, and set a time limit that the Britons lose by. That would get you the historical behavior of the Britons, but I think it would consistently produce an extremely one sided battle. As a result, you would need custom victory % conditions, but even so it would really require very little player input.

Reading this account . . .

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Battle_ ... 0on%20them.

I would just get rid of the skirmishers and not modify the warbands at all. Agree that the Roman rear and flanks should be off-limits and the Britons would have to attack the Romans frontally.

When you have very one-sided battles, the best way I feel to deal with this is to recommend that it is played as a mirror match and aggregate the final scores.

[fogman]

I will also say, no offense intended, that I really did not enjoy the scenarios you made for Pike and Shot. It was frustrating to have almost no choice over what was to happen, at least within a system designed to create choices. After all, it's interesting to think about things like - what if the French had sent more cavalry to their spoiling attack at Agincourt? What if Hannibal had deployed differently at Zama? Ideally, you could have two versions of each scenario - one with the historical deployment with the armies already in contact, one as we have them now with a bit more room to move. Since the latter is more popular, given that people like being able to change history more than recreate it, the latter approach is what's generally taken in games.

I think a game could be made that leans hard into the full on simulation of Ancient/Medieval battle, but it would need to abstract a lot more things, probably not be on a grid system, with order delay, fog of war, and limited maneuver and command - for example, most Classical Greek armies would only be able to basically move forward into contact with your commander in the front ranks, and then you'd hope for best. I would enjoy such a game. You would enjoy such a game. Most people would not, so it would have to be an indie project with limited graphics/sound, further limiting its appeal to a niche audience.

So I think FoG walks a middle ground to give us the best we currently have on PC. It's a game people who haven't been exposed to wargames before can get into thanks to an elegant UI, but still is much more tactically challenging than wargame-adjacent games. There are a couple areas where I wish it was a bit harsher and on the realism side, but I'm very happy with it overall. Perhaps someday another game even further along the realism spectrum will exist, giving us a range of choices.

You shouldn’t have been surprised, that was the point of it. The scenarios I did in P&S were a different version of the same battles that came with the game, but more precise: the units were all named, along with their historical colonels. So they were bound to be hardcore, veering towards restrictive lateral movements and what would be considered improbable maneuvers given the state of command of control. If a player wanted full freedom, they could stick with what came with the game; no point for me to bother. I provided choices! This has nothing to do with what the developer should or should not do.

I like my scenarios to approximate the actual events and it is a credit to the game designer that it is possible. There is nothing more annoying than playing a historical scenario and be left wondering how what actually happened was even possible. Ask deeter regarding Trebbia. Now of course, I don’t buy those games for access to the multitude of armies that can be played against each other. My background is not miniatures, but board wargames and the closest to miniatures may have been Squad Leader but even there, there was no ‘buying’ a battle group to play against someone else’s battle group. The whole concept is puzzling to me when I think about it. It was all historical scenarios where the player is thrust into a situation they have to find a solution for. I use Fog that way to create scenarios to play with like minded people.

What I don’t agree with is the idea that because you are restricted in your possibilities, there is ‘nothing to do’ because that implies then that the outcome of the game is purely left to chance. I use all my scenarios for tournament play and the better player on the day will win. Battles are not necessarily won on grand maneuvers like some operational armoured warfare on the Eastern Front, but the small details of small tactics. There are plenty of little decisions: when to engage, in what order, etc.

I just saw the screenshot for Stockwellpete’s Muret. Well look, cut-to-the chase setup! I guess he figured that Muret wouldn’t be Muret if there wasn’t for that flanking attack by de Montford, exactly what I would do.

[stockwellpete]

I just saw the screenshot for Stockwellpete’s Muret. Well look, cut-to-the chase setup! I guess he figured that Muret wouldn’t be Muret if there wasn’t for that flanking attack by de Montford, exactly what I would do.

Yes, I didn't want Simon de Montfort's mounted contingent to begin the battle by trying to relieve the siege of Muret, so forcing the two armies cavalry to fight each other first seemed the obvious solution. Now it is possible for the French Crusaders to win the battle outright from that cavalry melee, although it is also possible that they will have to engage the Toulousain militia later on if the Aragonese cavalry put up a good fight.

If you have a lot of detail about a battle then it is easier to build historical parameters into a scenario. With my next effort, Saule 1236, a Northern Crusade battle, I had much less hard historical information to go on, so I have set it up much like a custom battle so players can decide for themselves how it should start. The alternative approach that I could have used was to start the scenario with the Livonian Sword Brothers/Holstein Crusaders charge under way and with the armies a bit closer together. One detail from the battle that we do have is that Volkwin (the leader of the Livonian Sword Brothers) wanted to cross the river on foot the day before the actual battle to escape the trap that he feared was being set for him, but the Holstein Crusaders refused because they wanted to fight on horseback. So, it could be inferred from this incident that they might favour a head-on charge at the beginning of the battle the next day.

Of course, there is no evidence that this actually happened, or that either army deployed in the way that I have set up the scenario. So really, it is what I term an "indicative scenario". Some of the elements are roughly correct (e.g. the terrain would be roughly like that and Vykintas did block the river crossing), but the main point of the scenario is to say to the players "have some fun" and if you are interested in the subject then you might like to read a book about it at some stage.