The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

I should point out that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament as per my undertaking with Richard and Slitherine, so none of the changes that are likely to make it into the alternative gameplay mod will be operative here. However, it will be possible for us to run smaller tournaments, outside the FOG2DL format, using the new mod if there is sufficient interest.

[gamercb]

I should point out that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament as per my undertaking with Richard and Slitherine, so none of the changes that are likely to make it into the alternative gameplay mod will be operative here. However, it will be possible for us to run smaller tournaments, outside the FOG2DL format, using the new mod if there is sufficient interest.

I haven't tried the mod but would be interested in giving it a go in a small tournament.
Colin

[stockwellpete]

I haven't tried the mod but would be interested in giving it a go in a small tournament.
Colin

OK. We are some way from v1 completion at the moment but the mod is developing rapidly, so we'll see.

[gamercb]

Whenever we get into discussions of results the fact that Pantherboy, Dkalenda and Nosy_Rat still win most games is brought up. Perhaps it is not just that they are the most skillful but they are the most lucky as well. And before anyone says that luck plays no part, if there is a 3% chance of something happening in your favour and it does, that is luck.

When I charge with a unit with a 50+ chance of winning and a 2% chance of lossing, I do not expect them to double drop. I have basically come to the conclusion that I should not charge anything but I still do.

Colin

[stockwellpete]

Whenever we get into discussions of results the fact that Pantherboy, Dkalenda and Nosy_Rat still win most games is brought up. Perhaps it is not just that they are the most skillful but they are the most lucky as well. And before anyone says that luck plays no part, if there is a 3% chance of something happening in your favour and it does, that is luck.

Colin

I don't think there are lucky and unlucky players really. Over a period of time I think luck evens out for everyone, more or less. The issue for me is much more that luck for one player can spoil the enjoyment of both players in a significant proportion of matches. And so the goal of the mod is to reduce the proportion of matches affected in this way.

[Cunningcairn]

I should point out that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament as per my undertaking with Richard and Slitherine, so none of the changes that are likely to make it into the alternative gameplay mod will be operative here. However, it will be possible for us to run smaller tournaments, outside the FOG2DL format, using the new mod if there is sufficient interest.

Please count me in if you run a tournament Pete.

[Athos1660]

I'm largely happy with the state of RNG in the game.
(…)
as I said, I do not feel strongly that such a change is needed, and I am resistant to more radical changes. I enjoy the unpredictability of the game. Luck normally evens out over the course of a battle.

I fully agree with this, and also with your idea that a modest change is often enough to achieve the desired effect.

Luck normally evens out over the course of a battle. When it's very much in my favor, I can grin take full advantage of it! When it turns against me, it's best to laugh at the sheer magnitude of the disaster and crack another beer. Some of the most memorable matches I've had are when I've clawed my way to victory after some bad luck.

I for one am happy whatever the results of the RNG are. RNG creates an interesting distance between my units on the battlefield and I, the real general of my army. When I fall into a trap playing chess, it is all my fault. I was unable to foresee it in time. But when RNG plays a role in a FoG2 battle, it is the unit that fails or succeeds, which, in turn, adds an advantage or creates an obstacle to my general plans. It forces me to adapt to the changes. It also helps to roleplay. Very nice.

(And if I lose, it is a 'collective' defeat )

[MikeMarchant]

I should point out that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament as per my undertaking with Richard and Slitherine, so none of the changes that are likely to make it into the alternative gameplay mod will be operative here. However, it will be possible for us to run smaller tournaments, outside the FOG2DL format, using the new mod if there is sufficient interest.

I'd be delighted to join in too, Pete.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

I should point out that the FOG2DL will remain a vanilla tournament as per my undertaking with Richard and Slitherine, so none of the changes that are likely to make it into the alternative gameplay mod will be operative here. However, it will be possible for us to run smaller tournaments, outside the FOG2DL format, using the new mod if there is sufficient interest.

I'd be delighted to join in too, Pete.


Best Wishes

Mike

Way too early to be thinking about a mod-related tournament I'm afraid, chaps. And someone else will have to organise it (and collect names) as I already have more than enough on my plate with the FOG2DL and KO Tournament.

[Cunningcairn]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

I know of two offhand.

Battle of Magnesia (Romans vs Seleucids). Livy describes Seleucid cavalry breaking the Roman left which proceeded to stream back to their fortified camp. A tribune in charge of the camp went out and supposedly rallied the fleeing mass by initiating executions of the routers by the camp guards. Apparently it was successful and with Macedonia and Thracian troops prodding them back, they re-engaged and checked the Seleucid cavalry threat.

Battle of Verneuil (Lancastrian English vs French). Accounts a fuzzy as always but apparently the Milanese cavalry initiated a massive charge on the English right-wing which was made up of archers. The dry and hard-packed soil prevented their now standard defensive earthworks and stakes and the Longbowmen were promptly overrun. Many fled and were later executed for treason. The Milanese cavalry proceeded to run off the battlefield to try and loot the English baggage trains and with the threat gone, the English right flank regained their composure and at some point in the battle rejoined part of the main battle and attacked the French infantry which was locked in a stalemate with the one contingent of English men-at-arms (the main battle line had split in two at this point). The French apparently tried to flee shortly afterwards and were either drowned in the nearby moat or massacred. The English then went back to surround the Scots which were still facing off against a separate division of the English army. Apparently no quarter was given to the Scots.

Thanks for answering Mike. The Magnesia example isn't exactly what I was referring to as there was "friendly interference" in the rally. However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

I know of two offhand.

Battle of Magnesia (Romans vs Seleucids). Livy describes Seleucid cavalry breaking the Roman left which proceeded to stream back to their fortified camp. A tribune in charge of the camp went out and supposedly rallied the fleeing mass by initiating executions of the routers by the camp guards. Apparently it was successful and with Macedonia and Thracian troops prodding them back, they re-engaged and checked the Seleucid cavalry threat.

Battle of Verneuil (Lancastrian English vs French). Accounts a fuzzy as always but apparently the Milanese cavalry initiated a massive charge on the English right-wing which was made up of archers. The dry and hard-packed soil prevented their now standard defensive earthworks and stakes and the Longbowmen were promptly overrun. Many fled and were later executed for treason. The Milanese cavalry proceeded to run off the battlefield to try and loot the English baggage trains and with the threat gone, the English right flank regained their composure and at some point in the battle rejoined part of the main battle and attacked the French infantry which was locked in a stalemate with the one contingent of English men-at-arms (the main battle line had split in two at this point). The French apparently tried to flee shortly afterwards and were either drowned in the nearby moat or massacred. The English then went back to surround the Scots which were still facing off against a separate division of the English army. Apparently no quarter was given to the Scots.

Thanks for answering Mike. The Magnesia example isn't exactly what I was referring to as there was "friendly interference" in the rally. However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

If you watch my first posted DL game, I'm pretty sure there is a grand total of one non- light unit rallying from broken. When the season is over I'll use my 36 recordings to make spreadsheets and keep count of various occurrences and statistics. It's a small sample size with just my games with whatever effect my playstyle has, but it's a start.

[Athos1660]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

Can you provide any proof that it never happened ?

However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

Can you provide any proof that it did not happen more than twice over this period ?

It is an easy position to ask for numerous proofs about a not-well known phenomenon.
But if you ask for proofs about something you disagree with, you must be able to prove the contrary, without using such argument as : if you can't prove aliens don't exist, then it means they exist.
So ?

[paulmcneil]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

Can you provide any proof that it never happened ?

However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

Can you provide any proof that it did not happen more than twice over this period ?

It is an easy position to ask for numerous proofs about a not-well known phenomenon.
But if you ask for proofs about something you disagree with, you must be able to prove the contrary, without using such argument as : if you can't prove aliens don't exist, then it means they exist.
So ?

Although "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous outside of a closed system.

[Athos1660]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

Can you provide any proof that it never happened ?

However that aside, it still only gives 2 examples over a period of approximately 1800 years. And that is the point. The probability of it happening was exceptionally low.

Can you provide any proof that it did not happen more than twice over this period ?

It is an easy position to ask for numerous proofs about a not-well known phenomenon.
But if you ask for proofs about something you disagree with, you must be able to prove the contrary, without using such argument as : if you can't prove aliens don't exist, then it means they exist.
So ?

Although "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous outside of a closed system.

Indeed, it is the objective, reduction to absurdity, to show that both stances can't be proved.

[paulmcneil]

Can you provide any proof that it never happened ?



Can you provide any proof that it did not happen more than twice over this period ?

It is an easy position to ask for numerous proofs about a not-well known phenomenon.
But if you ask for proofs about something you disagree with, you must be able to prove the contrary, without using such argument as : if you can't prove aliens don't exist, then it means they exist.
So ?

Although "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous outside of a closed system.

Indeed, it is the objective, reduction to absurdity, to show that both stances can't be proved.

But the positive stance, effectively saying that it does happen is included in the rules, so needs to be backed by evidence. You cannot prove a negative in historical research, you can only show an absence of evidence, and that absence of evidence should be accepted until evidence is shown, but in the case under discussion, it's the frequency and the effect of the occurrence that is the problem, even if you accept that it "could" happen.

[Athos1660]

But the positive stance, effectively saying that it does happen is included in the rules, so needs to be backed by evidence. You cannot prove a negative in historical research, you can only show an absence of evidence, and that absence of evidence should be accepted until evidence is shown (...)

First thing, I for one have no historical knowledge about this specific subject. So I can't say, as you seem to imply, that there is no (or too few?) evidence(s) of this phenomenon. MikeC_81 has just mentioned two occurrences of it... Maybe there are more. I guess so but I can't say. And that's an important missing data in this discussion.

(...) but in the case under discussion, it's the frequency and the effect of the occurrence that is the problem, even if you accept that it "could" happen.

Tbh, in the case under discussion (as in many others discussed on this forum, such as rear/flank charges, effect of the terrain, effect of this or that), it is a matter of perception and gameplay preferences, not of historicity. Here it comes down to : how much RNG do you like ?

[paulmcneil]

But the positive stance, effectively saying that it does happen is included in the rules, so needs to be backed by evidence. You cannot prove a negative in historical research, you can only show an absence of evidence, and that absence of evidence should be accepted until evidence is shown (...)

First thing, I for one have no historical knowledge about this specific subject. So I can't say, as you seem to imply, that there is no (or too few?) evidence(s) of this phenomenon. MikeC_81 has just mentioned two occurrences of it... Maybe there are more. I guess so but I can't say. And that's an important missing data in this discussion.

(...) but in the case under discussion, it's the frequency and the effect of the occurrence that is the problem, even if you accept that it "could" happen.

Tbh, in the case under discussion (as in many others discussed on this forum, such as rear/flank charges, effect of the terrain, effect of this or that), it is a matter of perception and gameplay preferences, not of historicity. Here it comes down to : how much RNG do you like ?

The whole basis of Historical Wargaming is Historicity.

[MikeC_81]

Although "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", asking someone to prove a negative is ridiculous outside of a closed system.

Indeed, it is the objective, reduction to absurdity, to show that both stances can't be proved.

But the positive stance, effectively saying that it does happen is included in the rules, so needs to be backed by evidence. You cannot prove a negative in historical research, you can only show an absence of evidence, and that absence of evidence should be accepted until evidence is shown, but in the case under discussion, it's the frequency and the effect of the occurrence that is the problem, even if you accept that it "could" happen.

That is a fallacy because it is only a positive stance if the underlying assumption is that it never happened. Sources dating back to this time period are next to non-existant. Almost no battles that are described are from primary sources and thus are necessarily vague and only offer the broadest strokes and even then we have to interpret heavily as to what actually happened. Even a primary observer like the commanding general can only survey only a small sector of a battlefield and be oblivious to anything other than what was immediately in front of them. So little is known about the mechanics of how battles were fought. It isn't until the American Civil War where the common man was able to write and we have preservation of huge amounts of personal written material that we can begin to understand what was happening.

We don't really know how Hoplites or Pikes or Romans really fought. No one really knows how shield walls really worked and how weapons were employed in the Viking era. The frequency of actual contact between men in the ranks and the pace of battle is absolutely unknown. The behaviour of subunits within an army is absolutely guesswork. Experimental archaeology helps but can only go so far as to suggest was is practical rather than proving what actually happened. Even when we get written first-hand accounts that are preserved like what we see in the Hundred Years War, they are still vague. For example at Vernuil, we don't know how far the English archers fled, in what direction, how long pressure was applied to them by the Milanese before they decided to try and enrich themselves at the baggage train, who if anyone attempt to start the rally or if it was a spontaneous event.

When we do look at historical battles where an abundance of primary material is available, we do absolutely know that spontaneous rallies did occur. The ACW is replete with examples in many battles where regiments broke and ran only to be reassembled by their Colonel or a passing staff officer and pressed back into action once pursuit by the enemy ceased. No significant battlefield command and control technologies were available to these men. So unless human nature inexplicably changed from the 1400s to the 1800s I see no reason to put forward the assumption in the negative form that you did. I am sure there are other examples to be found in Antiquity and the Middle Ages other than the two I have shown if I was to comb the sources.

[paulmcneil]

Indeed, it is the objective, reduction to absurdity, to show that both stances can't be proved.

But the positive stance, effectively saying that it does happen is included in the rules, so needs to be backed by evidence. You cannot prove a negative in historical research, you can only show an absence of evidence, and that absence of evidence should be accepted until evidence is shown, but in the case under discussion, it's the frequency and the effect of the occurrence that is the problem, even if you accept that it "could" happen.

That is a fallacy because it is only a positive stance if the underlying assumption is that it never happened. Sources dating back to this time period are next to non-existant. Almost no battles that are described are from primary sources and thus are necessarily vague and only offer the broadest strokes and even then we have to interpret heavily as to what actually happened. Even a primary observer like the commanding general can only survey only a small sector of a battlefield and be oblivious to anything other than what was immediately in front of them. So little is known about the mechanics of how battles were fought. It isn't until the American Civil War where the common man was able to write and we have preservation of huge amounts of personal written material that we can begin to understand what was happening.

We don't really know how Hoplites or Pikes or Romans really fought. No one really knows how shield walls really worked and how weapons were employed in the Viking era. The frequency of actual contact between men in the ranks and the pace of battle is absolutely unknown. The behaviour of subunits within an army is absolutely guesswork. Experimental archaeology helps but can only go so far as to suggest was is practical rather than proving what actually happened. Even when we get written first-hand accounts that are preserved like what we see in the Hundred Years War, they are still vague. For example at Vernuil, we don't know how far the English archers fled, in what direction, how long pressure was applied to them by the Milanese before they decided to try and enrich themselves at the baggage train, who if anyone attempt to start the rally or if it was a spontaneous event.

When we do look at historical battles where an abundance of primary material is available, we do absolutely know that spontaneous rallies did occur. The ACW is replete with examples in many battles where regiments broke and ran only to be reassembled by their Colonel or a passing staff officer and pressed back into action once pursuit by the enemy ceased. No significant battlefield command and control technologies were available to these men. So unless human nature inexplicably changed from the 1400s to the 1800s I see no reason to put forward the assumption in the negative form that you did. I am sure there are other examples to be found in Antiquity and the Middle Ages other than the two I have shown if I was to comb the sources.

Try reading some Xenophon. But, apart from that, most of what you are arguing against is not what I said. But don't let that stop you.

[Schweetness101]

I'm largely happy with the state of RNG in the game. That said, rallies probably on the whole benefit horde armies more than smaller high quality forces, as the latter have a higher proportion of auto-broken units amongst the routed. Perhaps a modest change, such as routers dispersing after 4 turns instead of 5 could make a small but noticeable difference.

But as I said, I do not feel strongly that such a change is needed, and I am resistant to more radical changes. I enjoy the unpredictability of the game. Luck normally evens out over the course of a battle. When it's very much in my favor, I can grin take full advantage of it! When it turns against me, it's best to laugh at the sheer magnitude of the disaster and crack another beer. Some of the most memorable matches I've had are when I've clawed my way to victory after some bad luck.

just to be clear, there is no RNG that is altogether removed from the game in the alt gameplay mod. There are still percent chances to rally, drop, double drop, win, lose, break, pursue, evade, etc...along with new chances to anarchy charge and refuse orders, so actually on the whole if anything the mod increases RNG. Although, I should point out that the phrase RNG refers to a general concept of using random numbers to determine outcomes. Changing the odds of any given outcome being randomly selected is not removing or adding RNG per se. The mod does increase and decrease the odds of some rolls happening, but that is not removing or adding randomness itself exactly, and I do not think it would change necessarily the balance between veteran and novice players. The mod is kind of aimed at changing which tactics are most viable to try and move them in a more historical direction. It should also be pointed out, even though this is kind of a pithy statement, that if you like vanilla balance then you can play vanilla and not the mod. The mod changes so much stuff, there's no chance of it being incorporated into vanilla. That was never my intention and not something that I think anyone should be worried about.

Rallies in particular are being discussed here a lot, and I think with good reason. They are an interesting and dynamic and historical part of the gameplay, and I have no intention of removing them. In historical battles, units rallying and returning to the battle to decide the issue by returning to fighting after rallying was indeed common and should be in game. The main issue I have with rallies, and that I think some other people have with rallies, is where they occur far outside of the main battle area, and to an already devastated unit that just comes back to fragmented and stays there the rest of the game. Such a unit does not end up returning to the fight, would have no to little fighting ability if it did do so, and is likely not within line of sight of its comrades, and thus would not add physical or psychological weight back to its own side again, and so it doesn't feel right that rallying to fragmented and hanging out on the map edge should help you to win. By only rallying within the general's command radius, the units that do rally will rally close to the battle, and so the aforementioned issues would be allayed or removed altogether, ie those units can be seen to rally by their allies and are close enough to be brought back into the fight.

One change I have floated is combining rallying only within the generals command radius (or for units with a general) with a higher odds of rallying from broken, so you end up with about as many units rallying, but only close to the battle. Something like that I think would remain historical, retain the RNG factor a lot of players like and improve the gameplay quite a bit, and add some new gameplay decisions, like whether to attach a general to a mobile cav unit and have them on rallying duty (which is I think quite historical, someone mentioned a case of a general leaving the main battle to chase down routers and rally them?)