Flank Angle Mod

[TheGrayMouser]

It doesn't have exposed flanks, because of the ZOCs of the set-back units. That is one of main reasons for the ZOC rules!

As a practical matter, though, it does. I only play SP, so maybe this isn't an issue in MP, but as soon as you engage the unit behind (which can be done from the diagonal, leaving the space in front of that unit vacant), their ZOC disappears and the lead unit can be flanked. As I say, maybe in MP this doesn't happen, but against the AI, I've used flank attacks to lop off winning units that advance into this formation after push backs.

That’s not really the same situation though, as you are describing a cluster of units surrounded on multiple sides(and whom perhaps deserve their fate)

What schweetness is attempting is to prevent internal flanking when a battle line engages and then things get messy , units expose flanks not necessarily from the pushback but more often from the very act of routing one engaged enemy(or it breaks of) then your unit changes its angle to orient on the other and exposes a flank.


The push back flank problem was really only a problem when clashing on pure diagonals, and solved when RBS altered how often pushbacks happen.

[Schweetness101]

just fyi I probably will not try to implement some flank poas changing based on adjacent diagonal position of allies. It would be complex to implement and buggy and unpredictable so probably not worth it. The issue it's meant to address is probably taken care of by the alterations already implemented as suggested by a few others. It was just something interesting to discuss that someone brought up earlier in the thread and I thought I would comment on.

So, don't worry about that too much

[76mm]

That’s not really the same situation though, as you are describing a cluster of units surrounded on multiple sides(and whom perhaps deserve their fate)

Not totally the same, but similar. In that situation, you've got a bow in the line, but not necessarily have any flanks exposed, unlike in the game. The units behind, although engaged with units to their diagonal front, could/would still be in line with the unit in front.

What schweetness is attempting is to prevent internal flanking when a battle line engages and then things get messy , units expose flanks not necessarily from the pushback but more often from the very act of routing one engaged enemy(or it breaks of) then your unit changes its angle to orient on the other and exposes a flank.

Yeah...those situations are probably the most glaring example of a problem with the current flanking rules. But maybe that could be resolved in a similar way...no flanking if a unit has units in the tiles to its left and right, even if it is pivoted to the diagonal?

[Schweetness101]

...maybe that could be resolved in a similar way...no flanking if a unit has units in the tiles to its left and right, even if it is pivoted to the diagonal?

that could be interesting to try, and then there would have to be consideration though for units at an angle where their whole line is at an angle, might be kind of hard to distinguish

[travling_canuck]

It doesn't have exposed flanks, because of the ZOCs of the set-back units. That is one of main reasons for the ZOC rules!

As a practical matter, though, it does. I only play SP, so maybe this isn't an issue in MP, but as soon as you engage the unit behind (which can be done from the diagonal, leaving the space in front of that unit vacant), their ZOC disappears and the lead unit can be flanked. As I say, maybe in MP this doesn't happen, but against the AI, I've used flank attacks to lop off winning units that advance into this formation after push backs.

That’s not really the same situation though, as you are describing a cluster of units surrounded on multiple sides(and whom perhaps deserve their fate)

What schweetness is attempting is to prevent internal flanking when a battle line engages and then things get messy , units expose flanks not necessarily from the pushback but more often from the very act of routing one engaged enemy(or it breaks of) then your unit changes its angle to orient on the other and exposes a flank.


The push back flank problem was really only a problem when clashing on pure diagonals, and solved when RBS altered how often pushbacks happen.

Yeah, you make a good point. The situation you mentioned happens more frequently. The situation I described is more of an edge case, and it's a valid argument that the unit breaking through could reasonably be viewed to "deserve" to be in trouble. My mind went there because I ran into it a few times and then started playing around with purposefully setting this up as a trap to kill the best AI units - then stopped doing so as beating up on the AI with silly tactics isn't fun.

[TheGrayMouser]

As a practical matter, though, it does. I only play SP, so maybe this isn't an issue in MP, but as soon as you engage the unit behind (which can be done from the diagonal, leaving the space in front of that unit vacant), their ZOC disappears and the lead unit can be flanked. As I say, maybe in MP this doesn't happen, but against the AI, I've used flank attacks to lop off winning units that advance into this formation after push backs.

That’s not really the same situation though, as you are describing a cluster of units surrounded on multiple sides(and whom perhaps deserve their fate)

What schweetness is attempting is to prevent internal flanking when a battle line engages and then things get messy , units expose flanks not necessarily from the pushback but more often from the very act of routing one engaged enemy(or it breaks of) then your unit changes its angle to orient on the other and exposes a flank.


The push back flank problem was really only a problem when clashing on pure diagonals, and solved when RBS altered how often pushbacks happen.

Yeah, you make a good point. The situation you mentioned happens more frequently. The situation I described is more of an edge case, and it's a valid argument that the unit breaking through could reasonably be viewed to "deserve" to be in trouble. My mind went there because I ran into it a few times and then started playing around with purposefully setting this up as a trap to kill the best AI units - then stopped doing so as beating up on the AI with silly tactics isn't fun.

I find seeing game situations in my head but then laying them out on the actual screen often changes things a bit!
In the below is possibly how it it could look. 76mm, is this what you mean in your example? I cannot see why the fwrd placed hoplite should have a protected flank in a mod.

Screen_00000004.jpg (877.68 KiB) Viewed 2271 times

[travling_canuck]

I find seeing game situations in my head but then laying them out on the actual screen often changes things a bit!
In the below is possibly how it it could look. 76mm, is this what you mean in your example? I cannot see why the fwrd placed hoplite should have a protected flank in a mod.

Screen_00000004.jpg

I guess it depends on what level you consider a flank attack to be dangerous.

This whole layout makes my head hurt because it looks like a tactical RPG game with units standing in for fighters, rather than two ancient armies facing off against each other, but that aside I look at this and I see the forward Hoplite unit as having friendly troops to it's left and it's right, and so I don't see how it could be subject to a "flank" attack.

The backwards facing Hoplite unit (how the heck does that happen?), on the other hand, I do see as being vulnerable to being flanked, as there's no friendly troops to it's river-side.

[TheGrayMouser]

I find seeing game situations in my head but then laying them out on the actual screen often changes things a bit!
In the below is possibly how it it could look. 76mm, is this what you mean in your example? I cannot see why the fwrd placed hoplite should have a protected flank in a mod.

Screen_00000004.jpg

I guess it depends on what level you consider a flank attack to be dangerous.

This whole layout makes my head hurt because it looks like a tactical RPG game with units standing in for fighters, rather than two ancient armies facing off against each other, but that aside I look at this and I see the forward Hoplite unit as having friendly troops to it's left and it's right, and so I don't see how it could be subject to a "flank" attack.

The backwards facing Hoplite unit (how the heck does that happen?), on the other hand, I do see as being vulnerable to being flanked, as there's no friendly troops to it's river-side.

Well this was a shot of a hot seat game just to make the situation. The left rear hoplite charged the leader Warband ( i took the screenshot prior to the melee because no doubt the hoplite would have been clobbered and broke off, ruining the "moment")

So the left rear hoplite is engaged and facing south... Why would the middle north facing hoplite get any flank protection? Just because it has contact on its diagonal corners with friendly unit(s) ? Should the south facing unit get a protected flank because its in contact with the middle hoplite?

[travling_canuck]

So the left rear hoplite is engaged and facing south... Why would the middle north facing hoplite get any flank protection? Just because it has contact on its diagonal corners with friendly unit(s) ? Should the south facing unit get a protected flank because its in contact with the middle hoplite?

In my opinion, yes, those flanks are protected, because:
a) I see the hoplites as forming a continuous fighting formation, notwithstanding the "blocky" individual units that are placed on the map; and,
b) I see the danger of a flank attack as arising from the psychological impact of feeling surrounded, which I don't perceive as a risk arising in the centre of the fighting formation

I'll allow that others can view things differently, especially if you see each unit as a separate fighting formation locked into facing in only one direction at a time. And I'll especially allow that in this situation, where one unit is turned completely around on the map.

But what would that look like in real life? Would the hoplites have completely abandoned their discipline such that they are no longer supporting their adjacent hoplites? Or have some of the soldiers on the end of the line simply engaged with an enemy that somehow got behind them? If anything, it's the presence of Gallic fighting men behind the Greek line that I see as being a threat to the Greek morale - mitigated by the reserve troops who should now move up to engage and provide support, neutralizing that threat. But the Gauls lining the river? No, I don't see them as being in a dangerous flanking position on the centre of the Greek line, although I understand why some players could feel otherwise.

Anyway, great scenario and interesting food for thought!

[76mm]

76mm, is this what you mean in your example?

um, no...did I say that one of the units should be facing backwards? this is what I was discussing, if your two rear units are facing where the yellow bars are.

Screen_00000004.jpg (547.92 KiB) Viewed 2241 times

In the below is possibly how it it could look.

yes, it could indeed look like that, although that is not especially close to what I was talking about.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ok your saying that if the yellow barred units are in combat( same angles) the middle unit is safe from flank if it remains facing forward. It makes some sense if the intent of the player was to simulate being in a wedge or something but there is so many ways that this could happen by happenstance! For example, if the middle unit was well forward and used the back up function., or bounced off a combat. Or on of the side units could have a second enemy, it routs the first one and changes facing...
Dunno maybe I’m missing the point but it seems it be very complicated!!

[76mm]

It makes some sense if the intent of the player was to simulate being in a wedge or something but there is so many ways that this could happen by happenstance! For example, if the middle unit was well forward and used the back up function., or bounced off a combat. Or on of the side units could have a second enemy, it routs the first one and changes facing...
Dunno maybe I’m missing the point but it seems it be very complicated!!

Not saying it's not complicated, but I was tossing out ideas about how to deal with intra-line flank attacks rather than neutering flank attacks in general, as I believe this mod does. Maybe there's better ways, dunno.

And it doesn't have to be a wedge, I see it as more of a line "bowing" out or just uneven for one reason or another. Sure, there are various ways a unit could end up in this position, although I don't think they'd be able/likely to back up in the middle of a battle. I do think that eliminating/reducing the impact of intra-line flank attacks would be a significant improvement to the game, just not sure how to do it.

[Schweetness101]

It makes some sense if the intent of the player was to simulate being in a wedge or something but there is so many ways that this could happen by happenstance! For example, if the middle unit was well forward and used the back up function., or bounced off a combat. Or on of the side units could have a second enemy, it routs the first one and changes facing...
Dunno maybe I’m missing the point but it seems it be very complicated!!

Not saying it's not complicated, but I was tossing out ideas about how to deal with intra-line flank attacks rather than neutering flank attacks in general, as I believe this mod does. Maybe there's better ways, dunno.

And it doesn't have to be a wedge, I see it as more of a line "bowing" out or just uneven for one reason or another. Sure, there are various ways a unit could end up in this position, although I don't think they'd be able/likely to back up in the middle of a battle. I do think that eliminating/reducing the impact of intra-line flank attacks would be a significant improvement to the game, just not sure how to do it.

I do like the idea of reducing or eliminating flank bonuses when in that configuration, at least ideally, but it would be hard to implement in a way that took care of every edge case and didn't create unintended anomalies. By greatly reducing, but not eliminating, flank bonuses, but keeping rear attacks on occupied units at +200 and an autodrop, you indirectly and more simply create a similar situation. No more mid line flanks. No more flanks on units that are one square forward from a pushback. But, getting all the way around for a rear attack is still just as damaging. Have you tried out the aggregate mod?

[travling_canuck]

I do like the idea of reducing or eliminating flank bonuses when in that configuration, at least ideally, but it would be hard to implement in a way that took care of every edge case and didn't create unintended anomalies. By greatly reducing, but not eliminating, flank bonuses, but keeping rear attacks on occupied units at +200 and an autodrop, you indirectly and more simply create a similar situation. No more mid line flanks. No more flanks on units that are one square forward from a pushback. But, getting all the way around for a rear attack is still just as damaging. Have you tried out the aggregate mod?

That may well be the best solution, and may also address the concern about players finding the current game flank angle rules non-intuitive. If the most serious effect - the auto cohesion drop - is reserved for situations where the attacker contacts only the back corner of the target, it may actually be more intuitive to the player when a unit is in that hammer blow position on the map. Any other attack from the side can then get a smaller bonus, one that reflects the tactical advantage, but not a tide-of-battle changing impact.

[Schweetness101]

I do like the idea of reducing or eliminating flank bonuses when in that configuration, at least ideally, but it would be hard to implement in a way that took care of every edge case and didn't create unintended anomalies. By greatly reducing, but not eliminating, flank bonuses, but keeping rear attacks on occupied units at +200 and an autodrop, you indirectly and more simply create a similar situation. No more mid line flanks. No more flanks on units that are one square forward from a pushback. But, getting all the way around for a rear attack is still just as damaging. Have you tried out the aggregate mod?

That may well be the best solution, and may also address the concern about players finding the current game flank angle rules non-intuitive. If the most serious effect - the auto cohesion drop - is reserved for situations where the attacker contacts only the back corner of the target, it may actually be more intuitive to the player when a unit is in that hammer blow position on the map. Any other attack from the side can then get a smaller bonus, one that reflects the tactical advantage, but not a tide-of-battle changing impact.

yeah that's kind of what we are thinking.

like, for example, in vanilla a flank on occupied elite infantry from irregular foot counts for the same as being hit directly in the back by superior lancers, and that seems a bit wrong

[SnuggleBunnies]

like, for example, in vanilla a flank on occupied elite infantry from irregular foot counts for the same as being hit directly in the back by superior lancers, and that seems a bit wrong

To be fair, that's not actually true; Irregular Foot aren't Shock troops, and thus won't case the extra negative cohesion modifier that troops suffer for losing Impact to Shock units. So both will cause automatic cohesion drop, but the Superior Lancers are far likelier to cause a further drop to Fragmented or even a double drop to routed.

[Schweetness101]

like, for example, in vanilla a flank on occupied elite infantry from irregular foot counts for the same as being hit directly in the back by superior lancers, and that seems a bit wrong

To be fair, that's not actually true; Irregular Foot aren't Shock troops, and thus won't case the extra negative cohesion modifier that troops suffer for losing Impact to Shock units. So both will cause automatic cohesion drop, but the Superior Lancers are far likelier to cause a further drop to Fragmented or even a double drop to routed.

ok sure, so average quality impact foot in the flank vs elite lancers in the back.

[kronenblatt]

Does vanilla make any difference at all between 90 degree flank attacks and 180 degree (rear) attacks?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Does vanilla make any difference at all between 90 degree flank attacks and 180 degree (rear) attacks?

No. The distinction matters vs some unit types in Pike and Shot, but so far there are no such units in FoGII.

[kronenblatt]

Does vanilla make any difference at all between 90 degree flank attacks and 180 degree (rear) attacks?

No. The distinction matters vs some unit types in Pike and Shot, but so far there are no such units in FoGII.

Ok, thanks for quick answer. As you can tell I'm a newbie in this game, trying to get my grips on it. Truly loving it though! Can't understand I've not come across it in three years, but happy about it now.