The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Schweetness101]

...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.

*emphasis mine

that is the key part that I would like to add to the game as a more explicit decision made by the player. To send a general back to get the rally, not for it to happen spontaneously away from commanders. That's the idea, and we're trying it out to see if it adds to the gameplay and historical feel. Maybe it won't, but why not try it out given that I am willing and able to mod it in?

[Schweetness101]

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.

I look forward to seeing the stats. Just anecdotally, I'm still in a game, and perhaps even about to win a game, in the DL against deserted fox because I had I think 6 rallies from broken, all at the map edge, and often of cav units, that he never had any chance of chasing down and taking care of. So, if we are going with anecdotes, it's easy to argue either way. But, like I said, I'm interested in seeing your stats!

[paulmcneil]

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.

I look forward to seeing the stats. Just anecdotally, I'm still in a game, and perhaps even about to win a game, in the DL against deserted fox because I had I think 6 rallies from broken, all at the map edge, and often of cav units, that he never had any chance of chasing down and taking care of. So, if we are going with anecdotes, it's easy to argue either way. But, like I said, I'm interested in seeing your stats!

I've just been in a game where my opponent after being out manoeuvred and largely trashed in melee got 2 Pike units, 2 hvy Cav units, and a Med Spr unit rally from rout after about 3 periods of rout each. It completely altered the game, he still lost but it absolutely knackered my winning score and made the game about twice as long as it would have been. In the same game I also got one rally from rout. So six in one game, and I'm not finding that number of rallies particularly unusual. Seems excessive to me.

[Schweetness101]

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.

I look forward to seeing the stats. Just anecdotally, I'm still in a game, and perhaps even about to win a game, in the DL against deserted fox because I had I think 6 rallies from broken, all at the map edge, and often of cav units, that he never had any chance of chasing down and taking care of. So, if we are going with anecdotes, it's easy to argue either way. But, like I said, I'm interested in seeing your stats!

I've just been in a game where my opponent after being out manoeuvred and largely trashed in melee got 2 Pike units, 2 hvy Cav units, and a Med Spr unit rally from rout after about 3 periods of rout each. It completely altered the game, he still lost but it absolutely knackered my winning score and made the game about twice as long as it would have been. In the same game I also got one rally from rout. So six in one game, and I'm not finding that number of rallies particularly unusual. Seems excessive to me.

what would you think about a higher chance to rally paired with only being within the general's command radius? so say 6 units rally from broken in a game, but they are all within around 4 tiles of where the battle is happening, and so quickly brought back/still close enough to be chased down by the enemy

[harveylh]

what would you think about a higher chance to rally paired with only being within the general's command radius? so say 6 units rally from broken in a game, but they are all within around 4 tiles of where the battle is happening, and so quickly brought back/still close enough to be chased down by the enemy

Rallying around the "flag," i.e. the commander seems realistic based upon my extensive reading of military history. So 4 tiles radius for a sub-general and 8 tiles radius for a C-in-C would be the only area where units that are routed could rally. Other rallies from disrupted and fragmented I would not alter. Just my two cents.

Harvey

[MikeC_81]

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.

I am establishing you have no historical basis for assuming the negative and thus requiring evidence for the positive. Sorry if the long-form answer is too much for you.

...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.

*emphasis mine

that is the key part that I would like to add to the game as a more explicit decision made by the player. To send a general back to get the rally, not for it to happen spontaneously away from commanders. That's the idea, and we're trying it out to see if it adds to the gameplay and historical feel. Maybe it won't, but why not try it out given that I am willing and able to mod it in?

If the player is the commanding general then he had no influence in these events. ACW regiments had their own officer staff that were lead by a Colonel. There are times when a Division or Corps commander intervened directly to rally fragments of their command but just as many examples exist of units reforming on their own once troops felt the immediate danger had passed.

I am not against anything. I am pointing out and addressing the faulty logic used by Paul and others when they repeatedly say that rallies without intervention by a general are "unrealistic" or "not historical". I have always said you can do your mod how you want. But far too often people advocate for changes they want in gameplay with the crutch of saying something is "historical" when they have absolutely no clue what happened historically. They do it just to wave a card and try to shut down views opposed to their own. Similarly, they frame their changes as something "better" than the current rules rather than really addressing the core matter which is that something isn't to their preference.

[Schweetness101]

If the player is the commanding general then he had no influence in these events. ACW regiments had their own officer staff that were lead by a Colonel. There are times when a Division or Corps commander intervened directly to rally fragments of their command but just as many examples exist of units reforming on their own once troops felt the immediate danger had passed.

ok, is that US civil war? ACW? would they have had more sophisticated command and control and more intermediate level officers than ancient armies though? I genuinely don't know.

For ancient armies, would anyone other than the CinC and a handful of sub generals had been a position to rally units under them? should that be in the game? asking because I don't know. When a unit rallies at the map edge away from any general, are we supposed to assume that some unit-local leader, a centurion or whatever, rallied them?

[Cunningcairn]

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.

That will be of help and is far more that we have at the moment. I really do think you should try a few games with the mod once the league finishes, The events that just don't feel correct to historical wargamers are now not happening as frequently as they currently do and the feel is better. Tactics now appear to be more important than luck in the game. That has not made anything more predictable. The changes to anarchy are still being tweaked but I feel that they have added a level of legitimate unpredictability to the game. Troops charging without orders is back and now also troops refusing to follow orders that are deemed too risky. Players now have to use warband tactics when using warband and not use them as defensive spear.

[stockwellpete]

I am against units being able to rally as much as they do in the vanilla game (especially when it happens near the map edge) because it is just so tedious from a gameplay point of view. In matches where there are lots of such rallies, either the other player is unable to reach the newly rallied units so the previous balance of the battle is altered (sometimes even the final outcome can be changed) or the other player has to spend 5 or 6 turns mopping up the fragged units, which means the game lasts about a third longer that it needed to. So, in the mod, units disperse more quickly and we avoid all this nonsense and the game is all the more enjoyable for it.

I am sure if you dig in the history books for long enough you will be able to find something to support any argument you care to make, but scattered rallying groups of soldiers very rarely changed the outcome of major battles so I have no qualms about the change we have made. Rallies from routed do still occur, but they are much rarer and tend to involve units who have a leader with them.

[MikeMarchant]

Looking at historical sources is fraught with difficulties. Often they are highly biased, and sometimes outright political propaganda. Just because a reporter is present at a battle does not mean he is writing a faithful account. Also, very often, the writer wasn't present, but had heard reports from those who were (still no guarantee of accuracy or faithfulness) , or more likely is writing long after the event and basing his account on the accounts of others he has read. Where there are accounts from a variety of sources, and sometimes sources from opposite sides of the field, you might wonder if they're describing the same battle.

What I want out of FoG is an historically accurate game. Unfortunately it doesn’t really deliver that. What it does deliver is the most historically accurate game available. It pains me that commanding an army in the way it would be commanded historically is likely to lead to failure, and it pains me that LF (just as in FoG 1) are more like elite squads of special forces than LF were historically. It pains me that the ridiculous occurs with great regularity.

The difficulty with any attempt to model things in the real world is that things in the real world are immensely complicated. it shouldn't be a surprise that warfare is far from the simplest real world thing. Modelling it in a game is close to impossible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

If you want to be able to have outlandish things happen, because outlandish things did happen in the real world, that's fine, but you need to ensure they happen with approximately the same regularity as in the real world. That can only be achieved if your RNG system is capable of generating numbers using some form of normal distribution. You can't achieve it with a roll of 2D6 (for example) since the range of values is limited to 2-12. And 1 in 36 is hardly a rare occurrence and not a sensible foundation for a 1 in a thousand event.

If the RNG generation used a normal distribution then you could allow for the most preposterous, most bizarre events occurring, while keeping the probability of them proportionately low.

What is the probability of three superior armoured lancers fragmenting on impact when charging the rear of average protected offensive spear on flat open terrain when those spear are engaged in melee to their front? I don't know, but I dare say it's pretty small. I have twice seen this occur in FoG 2.

What is the probability of a unit with a 58% chance of winning a melee (as reported by the game) scoring a draw, both on his turn and his opponents turn 9 times (that’s 18 melees) in a row? Actually, I could work that out, but I can't be bothered at the moment.

I could list many examples, but there's no benefit to doing that. We have all seen them, and we do all see them too often. This is not a complaint about there being luck in the game; it's a complaint about the ridiculous occurring with too great a regularity. It's a complaint about the game not being as historically accurate as I want it to be - not, I emphasise, as it should be, but as I want it to be. There have been times I have come close to quitting the game. There have been times when I have spent a great deal of time selecting troops for my army, deploying it, manoeuvring it, and then feeling I might as well have just saved myself all the time and effort and flipped a coin to decide the victor.

I have won battles I had no right to win and I have, less often, lost battles I had no right to win. I'd prefer the victory to go to the better play on the day more often than it does at the moment.

I am saying all this, I suppose like everyone else involved in this discussion, because I care about the game. If I didn't, I wouldn't be commenting and I wouldn't be playing. I want the game to be better, like I imagine everyone else does. And I completely accept that my idea of better may be completely different to someone else's.

If this all sounds too negative, I am sorry about that, so let me finish with something positive:

One of the reasons (quite an important one, actually) that I haven’t quit the game, is the community who plays it. I have never, with all the games I have played, and in all the other contexts I’ve been involved in online groups, come across a nicer, more welcoming, more sporting group of people. When the chips are down and the game is going very badly, and even when the Gods of the dice have been greatly displeased with me, it has always been a pleasure to meet with and chat with, my opponents.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the game is the community that it has built.


Best Wishes

Mike

[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

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.

Understood. Thanks, Pete.


Best Wishes

Mike

[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.

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 ?

LOL you are joking aren't you? Well some people do appear to be from other planets so yes aliens must exist!

[Cunningcairn]

Looking at historical sources is fraught with difficulties. Often they are highly biased, and sometimes outright political propaganda. Just because a reporter is present at a battle does not mean he is writing a faithful account. Also, very often, the writer wasn't present, but had heard reports from those who were (still no guarantee of accuracy or faithfulness) , or more likely is writing long after the event and basing his account on the accounts of others he has read. Where there are accounts from a variety of sources, and sometimes sources from opposite sides of the field, you might wonder if they're describing the same battle.

What I want out of FoG is an historically accurate game. Unfortunately it doesn’t really deliver that. What it does deliver is the most historically accurate game available. It pains me that commanding an army in the way it would be commanded historically is likely to lead to failure, and it pains me that LF (just as in FoG 1) are more like elite squads of special forces than LF were historically. It pains me that the ridiculous occurs with great regularity.

The difficulty with any attempt to model things in the real world is that things in the real world are immensely complicated. it shouldn't be a surprise that warfare is far from the simplest real world thing. Modelling it in a game is close to impossible. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

If you want to be able to have outlandish things happen, because outlandish things did happen in the real world, that's fine, but you need to ensure they happen with approximately the same regularity as in the real world. That can only be achieved if your RNG system is capable of generating numbers using some form of normal distribution. You can't achieve it with a roll of 2D6 (for example) since the range of values is limited to 2-12. And 1 in 36 is hardly a rare occurrence and not a sensible foundation for a 1 in a thousand event.

If the RNG generation used a normal distribution then you could allow for the most preposterous, most bizarre events occurring, while keeping the probability of them proportionately low.

What is the probability of three superior armoured lancers fragmenting on impact when charging the rear of average protected offensive spear on flat open terrain when those spear are engaged in melee to their front? I don't know, but I dare say it's pretty small. I have twice seen this occur in FoG 2.

What is the probability of a unit with a 58% chance of winning a melee (as reported by the game) scoring a draw, both on his turn and his opponents turn 9 times (that’s 18 melees) in a row? Actually, I could work that out, but I can't be bothered at the moment.

I could list many examples, but there's no benefit to doing that. We have all seen them, and we do all see them too often. This is not a complaint about there being luck in the game; it's a complaint about the ridiculous occurring with too great a regularity. It's a complaint about the game not being as historically accurate as I want it to be - not, I emphasise, as it should be, but as I want it to be. There have been times I have come close to quitting the game. There have been times when I have spent a great deal of time selecting troops for my army, deploying it, manoeuvring it, and then feeling I might as well have just saved myself all the time and effort and flipped a coin to decide the victor.

I have won battles I had no right to win and I have, less often, lost battles I had no right to win. I'd prefer the victory to go to the better play on the day more often than it does at the moment.

I am saying all this, I suppose like everyone else involved in this discussion, because I care about the game. If I didn't, I wouldn't be commenting and I wouldn't be playing. I want the game to be better, like I imagine everyone else does. And I completely accept that my idea of better may be completely different to someone else's.

If this all sounds too negative, I am sorry about that, so let me finish with something positive:

One of the reasons (quite an important one, actually) that I haven’t quit the game, is the community who plays it. I have never, with all the games I have played, and in all the other contexts I’ve been involved in online groups, come across a nicer, more welcoming, more sporting group of people. When the chips are down and the game is going very badly, and even when the Gods of the dice have been greatly displeased with me, it has always been a pleasure to meet with and chat with, my opponents.

Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the game is the community that it has built.


Best Wishes

Mike

Very well written Mike.

[MikeC_81]

If the player is the commanding general then he had no influence in these events. ACW regiments had their own officer staff that were lead by a Colonel. There are times when a Division or Corps commander intervened directly to rally fragments of their command but just as many examples exist of units reforming on their own once troops felt the immediate danger had passed.

ok, is that US civil war? ACW? would they have had more sophisticated command and control and more intermediate level officers than ancient armies though? I genuinely don't know.

For ancient armies, would anyone other than the CinC and a handful of sub generals had been a position to rally units under them? should that be in the game? asking because I don't know. When a unit rallies at the map edge away from any general, are we supposed to assume that some unit-local leader, a centurion or whatever, rallied them?

Command and Control at a tactical level didn't change on a technological level until the widespread use of telegraph lines and mobile radio sets. World War One saw the use of laid telephone lines on the ground to help facilitate communications but many orders were still delivered by hand. There is a common myth that generals in the American Civil War (ACW) and World War 1 "didn't care" for their men and kept sending them into meat grinder situations with formed infantry attacks when the reality was, especially in the ACW that a unit commander could only command as far as his voice and musical signallers could carry the message. An army still maneuvered primarily with the use of mounted messengers on horseback racing up and down the lines with reports. You get stories of messengers being lost, orders being misunderstood, attacks being delayed and information not being passed back up the chain of command.

Up until the advent of modern armies, there was very little "middle management" so to speak so individual tactical actions were usually carried out by officers who lead individual units. If we are to believe Polybius or Livy (I forget which one wrote on this subject), Roman victories at Pydna or Cynoscephalae where Roman maniples managed to exploit breaks in Pike lines were the result of local commanders like a Tribune or a senior Centurion taking the initiative and not as a result of a top-down command issued to them. So rallying and reforming also likely was the result of local small unit commanders taking initiative though that is not to say that a General or a prominent member of his staff could not also have influenced and rallied men. Personal charisma was undeniably a factor and was written about both in ancient sources and modern ones. Was one more effective than the other? Who knows for sure.

Also, this entire discussion of random rallies winning games is an artifact of game design. Random rallies win tight games because there is a magical 60% cutoff where you auto lose the battle. I am sure every soldier in ancient armies had a magical counter tracking exactly how much of the army he was in was still in the fight and it beeped at them on time, every time when the 60% mark was reached and they dutifully dropped their weapons and ran for the hills . We have incidents where entire armies disintegrated at the first sign of trouble and others that seemed to have fought stubbornly through excessive casualties. A mechanic which made you lose the game on a random roll with a stacking penalty each time a line unit got routed or wiped out would probably be the most "realistic" if you really wanted to go that route but I doubt it would be fun or engaging if we lost games after a couple of units were lost and the game decided that our army panicked and ran away. It is annoying enough as it is when you watch adjacent units fail checks due to friendly units routing for example.

I stress again, do what you want from the mod, it just bugs me when people wave the "realism" or "historical accuracy" card to as the reason to modify something that is a personal preference.

[Cunningcairn]

If the player is the commanding general then he had no influence in these events. ACW regiments had their own officer staff that were lead by a Colonel. There are times when a Division or Corps commander intervened directly to rally fragments of their command but just as many examples exist of units reforming on their own once troops felt the immediate danger had passed.

ok, is that US civil war? ACW? would they have had more sophisticated command and control and more intermediate level officers than ancient armies though? I genuinely don't know.

For ancient armies, would anyone other than the CinC and a handful of sub generals had been a position to rally units under them? should that be in the game? asking because I don't know. When a unit rallies at the map edge away from any general, are we supposed to assume that some unit-local leader, a centurion or whatever, rallied them?

Command and Control at a tactical level didn't change on a technological level until the widespread use of telegraph lines and mobile radio sets. World War One saw the use of laid telephone lines on the ground to help facilitate communications but many orders were still delivered by hand. There is a common myth that generals in the American Civil War (ACW) and World War 1 "didn't care" for their men and kept sending them into meat grinder situations with formed infantry attacks when the reality was, especially in the ACW that a unit commander could only command as far as his voice and musical signallers could carry the message. An army still maneuvered primarily with the use of mounted messengers on horseback racing up and down the lines with reports. You get stories of messengers being lost, orders being misunderstood, attacks being delayed and information not being passed back up the chain of command.

Up until the advent of modern armies, there was very little "middle management" so to speak so individual tactical actions were usually carried out by officers who lead individual units. If we are to believe Polybius or Livy (I forget which one wrote on this subject), Roman victories at Pydna or Cynoscephalae where Roman maniples managed to exploit breaks in Pike lines were the result of local commanders like a Tribune or a senior Centurion taking the initiative and not as a result of a top-down command issued to them. So rallying and reforming also likely was the result of local small unit commanders taking initiative though that is not to say that a General or a prominent member of his staff could not also have influenced and rallied men. Personal charisma was undeniably a factor and was written about both in ancient sources and modern ones. Was one more effective than the other? Who knows for sure.

Also, this entire discussion of random rallies winning games is an artifact of game design. Random rallies win tight games because there is a magical 60% cutoff where you auto lose the battle. I am sure every soldier in ancient armies had a magical counter tracking exactly how much of the army he was in was still in the fight and it beeped at them on time, every time when the 60% mark was reached and they dutifully dropped their weapons and ran for the hills . We have incidents where entire armies disintegrated at the first sign of trouble and others that seemed to have fought stubbornly through excessive casualties. A mechanic which made you lose the game on a random roll with a stacking penalty each time a line unit got routed or wiped out would probably be the most "realistic" if you really wanted to go that route but I doubt it would be fun or engaging if we lost games after a couple of units were lost and the game decided that our army panicked and ran away. It is annoying enough as it is when you watch adjacent units fail checks due to friendly units routing for example.

I stress again, do what you want from the mod, it just bugs me when people wave the "realism" or "historical accuracy" card to as the reason to modify something that is a personal preference.

Mike you make good points. Your last paragraph sums it up and is what I've been saying. With respect to rallies out of sight and with the ability to effect the battle it is not RNG but an aspect of game design and it does not make sense. I am willing to bet that no-one will find historical precedent of those magical counters either. Also the mechanic of stacking penalties that you mention is already in the game although maybe not to the extent you mean. There cannot be many players that play MP games that have not had entire flanks evaporate due to a chain of breaks. Devastating when you are the receiving and satisfying when you have instigated it. My experience of these events is that it is normally the result of good intuition and well timed and appropriate attacks at weak points in the enemy line by cavalry or elephants. The rules in my opinion are subtle and yet effective in this regard. So I'm left puzzled about why you disagree. The waving of "historical precedent cards" as you put it was merely used to illustrate that it did not make sense as their was no historical precedent. Being "bugged" is not caused by an external source it comes from within.

[Schweetness101]

fyi just updated the alt gameplay mod with a large number of changes, among which is an moderate increase to chance to test to rally for broken units, but still those tests only happen within the general's command radius or on units with a general, so could be interesting to test and see if this resolves some difficulties and/or creates some new ones

[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 ?

LOL you are joking aren't you? Well some people do appear to be from other planets so yes aliens must exist!

Sorry to see you did not understand that your reasoning was wrong.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Cunningcairn,

I'm not sure if you were telling me to try the mod? I've played 6 matches with various versions, four are on my channel. I personally disliked most of the changes, and liked a few, as I said in the main mod thread in detail. It was not self evidently better or more realistic IMO, but I'll certainly explore later versions more after my current league games are done.

[Cunningcairn]

Cunningcairn,

I'm not sure if you were telling me to try the mod? I've played 6 matches with various versions, four are on my channel. I personally disliked most of the changes, and liked a few, as I said in the main mod thread in detail. It was not self evidently better or more realistic IMO, but I'll certainly explore later versions more after my current league games are done.

Yup that is what I was saying. That is good maybe we could have a game using the type of armies that do give more of the issues that are currently being discussed. The mods are changing so when the league is finished the version will probably be different to the ones you have already tried.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I will note that in my second finished League game this season, once again a grand total of one non-light unit rallied from broken.