Mob v Mounted

[KiwiWarlord]

Mounted Superior Samurai charge Raw Mob in the open and get NO +100 v foot in the open, as they do against seasoned Warriors or Medium Foot.
The quivering mass of peasants standing in the open to receive a ferocious mounted charge get no extra minus factor when facing mounted ???? seems unreal.
Should Mob, especially RAW Mob, be downgraded somewhat ?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Wow, all these years and you found something that may well be an oversight. I double checked and it's the same in Pike and Shot. I'll mention it to RBS, though I'm rather doubtful than anything will happen with it this long after development.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Okay, response from Richard -

"I will make a note to fix it when time permits, but it isn't just my time, it is the time required for the Slitherine Production department to make the new installers etc. That isn't at all trivial, and it would really need more than just this one fix to make it worthwhile."

So it's been added to the ongoing list of bugs/oversights. Note that that list isn't about adding new features or anything it is strictly fixes.

[KiwiWarlord]

Thanks for that SB and RBS.
I have started a practice game to see what Round 2 armies are like and noticed the 'super troops' hence my post.

[GiveWarAchance]

An idea to pump up the update could be to add in Vietnam campaign vs Mongols, or add in some basic naval combat which is good for the Japan vs Joseon campaign and maybe even Mongols vs Japan and the Gempeii and Sengoku wars used ships too.

[rmo]

AFAICS It wasn't corrected until now but at least for single player there is a very easy fix.

Using your favorite text editor open the CombatTools.BSF script located in Data\scripts folder where your game is located. Go to the line number 5252 or just find the following text:

Code: Select all

if ((IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Light_Foot") == 1) || (IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Dragoons") == 1) || 
(IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Warriors") == 1) || (IsUnitSquadType(me, "Mob") == 1))

As you can see there is an obvious typo in this code - the game checks if your cavalry, not the enemy is of the "Mob" type.

You need to change the following fragment:
IsUnitSquadType(me, "Mob") == 1

and write "enemy" instead of "me":
IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Mob") == 1

It was so easy I'm now wondering what are those other bugs/oversights mentioned in this thread. Maybe they are similarly simple to fix? Is there any list somewhere?

So it's been added to the ongoing list of bugs/oversights. Note that that list isn't about adding new features or anything it is strictly fixes.

[SnuggleBunnies]

AFAICS It wasn't corrected until now but at least for single player there is a very easy fix.

Using your favorite text editor open the CombatTools.BSF script located in Data\scripts folder where your game is located. Go to the line number 5252 or just find the following text:

Code: Select all

if ((IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Light_Foot") == 1) || (IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Dragoons") == 1) || 
(IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Warriors") == 1) || (IsUnitSquadType(me, "Mob") == 1))

As you can see there is an obvious typo in this code - the game checks if your cavalry, not the enemy is of the "Mob" type.

You need to change the following fragment:
IsUnitSquadType(me, "Mob") == 1

and write "enemy" instead of "me":
IsUnitSquadType(enemy, "Mob") == 1

It was so easy I'm now wondering what are those other bugs/oversights mentioned in this thread. Maybe they are similarly simple to fix? Is there any list somewhere?

So it's been added to the ongoing list of bugs/oversights. Note that that list isn't about adding new features or anything it is strictly fixes.

I only play multiplayer so no good for me, unless a a separate module. There's a few other minor bugs, like one that allows charging at 90 degrees, another that checks fall back cohesion in move and not charge distance of enemies, etc

[rmo]

I only play multiplayer so no good for me, unless a a separate module.

You mean I should package this change as a mod to the game?

There's a few other minor bugs, like one that allows charging at 90 degrees, another that checks fall back cohesion in move and not charge distance of enemies, etc

Could you be little more specific ? In what conditions those two things happen?

I've looked at the fall back code and its logic seems perfectly sound. Not calculating distance to enemies properly must happen under some specific circumstances.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I only play multiplayer so no good for me, unless a a separate module.

You mean I should package this change as a mod to the game?

There's a few other minor bugs, like one that allows charging at 90 degrees, another that checks fall back cohesion in move and not charge distance of enemies, etc

Could you be little more specific ? In what conditions those two things happen?

I've looked at the fall back code and its logic seems perfectly sound. Not calculating distance to enemies properly must happen under some specific circumstances.

So you could ask Cronos how he corrected the 90 degree bug, he did it for his mod he's working on for Pike and Shot. Basically, if you do your free 45 degree turn before anything else, you can then charge at 45 degrees to your new, ie 90 degrees to your original facing, which is a bug/exploit.

The Fall Back bug is still in FoG, but Richard is aware and will be patching it out. Fall Backs cause a cohesion check if a unit is in movement range. What's not taken into account is that a unit that is out of command range will have reduced movement. So a unit that could normally move 3 tiles at 45 degrees could only move 2, etc. However, it can still charge a unit that is 3 tiles away, because the charge code just checks to see if the units would be in contact at that point.

Because the Fall Back check is only for within movement, not charge range, there are situations where a unit falling back from an enemy with low cc takes no cohesion check, even though it is in reality within charge range and should take a check.

A video is worth 1000 words, so here is an example from FoG: The first unit takes the check, the second doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxmaJuc ... uggleBunny

[rmo]

So you could ask Cronos how he corrected the 90 degree bug, he did it for his mod he's working on for Pike and Shot. Basically, if you do your free 45 degree turn before anything else, you can then charge at 45 degrees to your new, ie 90 degrees to your original facing, which is a bug/exploit.

I'm not sure I understand how this bug/exploit works. I failed to replicate it in the test scenario (in the image below). I turned my Mounted Yari 45 degrees for free and even though the unit still has 16 APs, it can't charge enemy Ashigaru - charge icon is greyed out and returns "Unable to wheel to face". I can turn and move towards enemy with 4 APs still remaining, but I'm unable to attack.

https://imgur.com/a/oo1h0Ud

Later I tried to test it with different enemy units facing all possible 8 directions but I got "Unable to wheel to face" every time I tried to attack after 90 degrees turn. How to exploit this?

Sorry, if this is a stupid question, but I'm trying to dig deeper into mechanics of this game, it's fascinating.

The Fall Back bug is still in FoG, but Richard is aware and will be patching it out. Fall Backs cause a cohesion check if a unit is in movement range. What's not taken into account is that a unit that is out of command range will have reduced movement. So a unit that could normally move 3 tiles at 45 degrees could only move 2, etc. However, it can still charge a unit that is 3 tiles away, because the charge code just checks to see if the units would be in contact at that point.

Because the Fall Back check is only for within movement, not charge range, there are situations where a unit falling back from an enemy with low cc takes no cohesion check, even though it is in reality within charge range and should take a check.

A video is worth 1000 words, so here is an example from FoG: The first unit takes the check, the second doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxmaJuc ... uggleBunny

I managed to replicate this bug. But in this case I'm not sure changing this specific behaviour is worth the effort. At least in Sengoku Jidai (i didn't play FoG) it's almost as if it's more the bug of manual which says completely different thing (page 50: if a fall back move is performed when within charge reach of a non-routing non-light enemy unit) than what the code actually does.

The code just checks if the tile you are falling back from is within the general movement range of enemy non-routing non-light unit (irrespective of enemy's current state). As a result cohesion tests are currently triggered in multiple situations which have nothing to do with charge range. Like e. g.

• Light artillery can't charge at all but triggers cohesion test if it can reach the tile of your unit.
• Enemy units engaged in close combat can neither charge nor attack you but they still can trigger cohesion test.
• Cohesion test is also triggered by enemy units which can reach the tile of your unit after making 90 degrees turn (related to the first bug I couldn't replicate so IMO they can reach you, but can't attack you)

And I suspect the above isn't every behaviour which contradicts the manual. It looks like programmer had a completely different idea about this mechanic. Correcting this would probably need a complete script and logic overhaul. And it would make evasion cohesion tests significantly rarer. If there isn't any external reason to be faithful to manual after all these years it's probably wiser to assume checking movement range and not charge range is absolutely intended . After all in the height of battle what disorders units is psychological effect of thinking that your enemies might possibly reach you, not their actual capability of doing so. So checking simply if they are in your general area seems adequate enough.

However experimenting with this I found an oddity, which looks more like a bug, even under code logic. Namely - Honjin also triggers cohesion tests of evading units. The reason for that is that although Honjins can't move, Squads.csv defines their base number of AP as 10. Hard to say if it's oversight or 10AP are needed somewhere else in the code. For comparison, medium and heavy artillery have simply 0 AP. Looks like a bug, on the other hand maybe ordering your soldiers to fall back in the vicinity of the enemy commander is not so excellent an idea

[SnuggleBunnies]

Interesting, I wonder if a tiny hotfix updated out the turn issue. RE the Fall Backs, fair enough, it's a minor issue that isn't a big deal.