The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[General Shapur]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

so something like, no double drops for (steady?) non-raw troops on impact?

What would you think instead about a rule that only permits double dropping when the unit matchup is one where the loser is at significant combat disadvantage? IE two steady close-ish in quality units (whether warband vs warband or warband vs hastati or whatever) would never double drop, but you could still get double drops from say hitting an average occupied unit in the rear with superior lancers, or charging raw shields with legions etc...

I think double drops for the receiver are acceptable. However, its units that are doing the charging I'd like to see encouraged into aggressive action by no chance of a double drop if they are not raw.

[rbodleyscott]

The double drops seem to plague pictish troops and those warbands - probably other things too. So much so I command them less aggressively than they really would have been, hanging the army back until the last half dozen turns if possible. What I'd like is for double drops to be disabled on the charge in non-raw troops - this would encourage more aggressive gameplay. Less of an issue in large games, but one double drop can ruin a medium or small game I think.

so something like, no double drops for (steady?) non-raw troops on impact?

What would you think instead about a rule that only permits double dropping when the unit matchup is one where the loser is at significant combat disadvantage? IE two steady close-ish in quality units (whether warband vs warband or warband vs hastati or whatever) would never double drop, but you could still get double drops from say hitting an average occupied unit in the rear with superior lancers, or charging raw shields with legions etc...

I think double drops for the receiver are acceptable. However, its units that are doing the charging I'd like to see encouraged into aggressive action by no chance of a double drop if they are not raw.

The problem with giving advantages to the charger is that it can lead to Mexican standoffs. Neither side may want to move into charge range, because if they do the enemy can charge them and get the advantage.

Also, the disadvantage of preventing steady troops from double dropping at impact is that it boosts spam armies, who are currently the ones most likely to double drop at impact.

[Schweetness101]

so something like, no double drops for (steady?) non-raw troops on impact?

What would you think instead about a rule that only permits double dropping when the unit matchup is one where the loser is at significant combat disadvantage? IE two steady close-ish in quality units (whether warband vs warband or warband vs hastati or whatever) would never double drop, but you could still get double drops from say hitting an average occupied unit in the rear with superior lancers, or charging raw shields with legions etc...

I think double drops for the receiver are acceptable. However, its units that are doing the charging I'd like to see encouraged into aggressive action by no chance of a double drop if they are not raw.

The problem with giving advantages to the charger is that it can lead to Mexican standoffs. Neither side may want to move into charge range, because if they do the enemy can charge them and get the advantage.

Also, the disadvantage of preventing steady troops from double dropping at impact is that it boosts spam armies, who are currently the ones most likely to double drop at impact.

currently in the alt mod I am testing out something like:

Code: Select all

			closeCombatMargin = CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating(me, enemy, me, 0) - CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating(enemy, me, me, 0);

			//this is not really tested or easy to test much, and I'm not sure if it works how I'm hoping
			if(closeCombatMargin < -20)
			{
				Log("At combat disadvantage, can double drop", me);
				drop = 2;
			}
			else
			{
				drop = 1;
				Log("Not At significant combat disadvantage, won't double drop", me);
			}

two questions:

1) does that do what I am hoping it would do? ie only permit double drops (for 'me') if the combat margin is below -20? This seems to prevent similar quality, same disorder state units from double dropping one another in front on close combat, but still permit it with large quality gaps and flanks.

2) what are some of the more important ways the above would alter game balance? low quality spam armies against say legions would still be double dropping it would seem? What do you think about the delta of 20 specifically?

[rbodleyscott]

I think double drops for the receiver are acceptable. However, its units that are doing the charging I'd like to see encouraged into aggressive action by no chance of a double drop if they are not raw.

The problem with giving advantages to the charger is that it can lead to Mexican standoffs. Neither side may want to move into charge range, because if they do the enemy can charge them and get the advantage.

Also, the disadvantage of preventing steady troops from double dropping at impact is that it boosts spam armies, who are currently the ones most likely to double drop at impact.

currently in the alt mod I am testing out something like:

Code: Select all

			closeCombatMargin = CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating(me, enemy, me, 0) - CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating(enemy, me, me, 0);

			//this is not really tested or easy to test much, and I'm not sure if it works how I'm hoping
			if(closeCombatMargin < -20)
			{
				Log("At combat disadvantage, can double drop", me);
				drop = 2;
			}
			else
			{
				drop = 1;
				Log("Not At significant combat disadvantage, won't double drop", me);
			}

two questions:

1) does that do what I am hoping it would do? ie only permit double drops (for 'me') if the combat margin is below -20? This seems to prevent similar quality, same disorder state units from double dropping one another in front on close combat, but still permit it with large quality gaps and flanks.

Well that rather depends on where you put it!

However, it only works correctly if "me" was the original attacker, because you are passing "me" to the "charger" parameter of CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating(me, enemy, me, 0). To make it work correctly you would need to determine who was the orignal attacker.

Or you could make it use the melee only combat ratings, which would make sense as that would be what the unit would be anticipating at the point of testing.

2) what are some of the more important ways the above would alter game balance? low quality spam armies against say legions would still be double dropping it would seem? What do you think about the delta of 20 specifically?

Maybe. Test it and see.

While removing some of the double drops in "equal" fights, which some people hate so much, it would (by itself) have the effect of slowing down cavalry vs cavalry combats.

It doesn't seem especially good design philosophy to have mods counteracting the effect of other mods, if it can be avoided.

[Schweetness101]

Or you could make it use the melee only combat ratings, which would make sense as that would be what the unit would be anticipating at the point of testing.

so just pass in 1 to the fourth parameter of CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating() for melee only? And would that mean I needn't worry about the value of the 3rd parameter (charger)? I'm a bit confused about that 3rd parameter because inside of CalculateModifiedCloseCombatRating it asks:

if ((charger == me) || (GetAttrib(me,"Attacking") == 1))

for both me and enemy before determining impact and melee poas, and for me before GetMoraleDisorderModifier(), so is the fact that it is asking for the "Attacking" attribute making passing in the charger parameter redundant? or is that like a failsafe? What if I just pass in -1 for charger and let the attribute take care of the 'charging' determination?

And yes it would be best for one part of the mod to not contradict another part, but cav combat is sped up quite a bit by the additions of casualty increases and negative CT modifiers already, so perhaps the double drop change would not be reducing that effect too much , and hopefully not at all for cav flanked by other cav, or with large quality disparities where the the combat advantage should still be sufficient to double drop. Would need a lot of testing of course

[desicat]

If the double drop for certain unit types (warbands) is WAD, and part of the game design and balanced for unit cost why change it? The unintended consequences will probably outweigh the immediate results.

[Schweetness101]

If the double drop for certain unit types (warbands) is WAD, and part of the game design and balanced for unit cost why change it? The unintended consequences will probably outweigh the immediate results.

I wouldn't change it for vanilla, but the mod is already changing many things that are WAD. It will of course require rebalancing once the changes are in effect and being tested.

[desicat]

If the double drop for certain unit types (warbands) is WAD, and part of the game design and balanced for unit cost why change it? The unintended consequences will probably outweigh the immediate results.

I wouldn't change it for vanilla, but the mod is already changing many things that are WAD. It will of course require rebalancing once the changes are in effect and being tested.

Let me explain. Anarchy and Refusal are not in the game, therefor not WAD. Same goes for the Command and Control additions and their impact upon rally and Anarchy/Refusal, something new.

As RBS stated Warbands and Picts are susceptible to double drops due to the cohesion modifiers when they take on Impact Foot.

-------------------------------
RBS - "You are not mistaken - it is because (a) they don't get +1 CT modifier for being Heavy Foot, (b) they are often fighting Impact Foot (-1 CT modifier)"
-------------------------------
The possible double drop for the units in question was known and a design decision, and the game balanced accordingly.

I do not want to discourage you, but be careful as there is a difference between changing things vs adding to them.

[Schweetness101]

If the double drop for certain unit types (warbands) is WAD, and part of the game design and balanced for unit cost why change it? The unintended consequences will probably outweigh the immediate results.

I wouldn't change it for vanilla, but the mod is already changing many things that are WAD. It will of course require rebalancing once the changes are in effect and being tested.

Let me explain. Anarchy and Refusal are not in the game, therefor not WAD. Same goes for the Command and Control additions and their impact upon rally and Anarchy/Refusal, something new.

As RBS stated Warbands and Picts are susceptible to double drops due to the cohesion modifiers when they take on Impact Foot.

-------------------------------
RBS - "You are not mistaken - it is because (a) they don't get +1 CT modifier for being Heavy Foot, (b) they are often fighting Impact Foot (-1 CT modifier)"
-------------------------------
The possible double drop for the units in question was known and a design decision, and the game balanced accordingly.

I do not want to discourage you, but be careful as there is a difference between changing things vs adding to them.

yeah I know, although the mod does already do a lot of changing of existing things, in addition to the altogether new mechanics, so changing such a thing is not unprecedented for the mod. I'm not set on altering double dropping, but it's something worth looking at and testing changes to if I can

[rbodleyscott]

What if I just pass in -1 for charger and let the attribute take care of the 'charging' determination?

That would probably work. The problem is that I don't really have time to fully think through or test mods. That isn't really my job! You need to test it and then ask me how to fix something if it does not work as intended.

[Schweetness101]

What if I just pass in -1 for charger and let the attribute take care of the 'charging' determination?

That would probably work. The problem is that I don't really have time to fully think through or test mods. That isn't really my job! You need to test it and then ask me how to fix something if it does not work as intended.

haha of course, thanks for the help

[Tratmot]

again on rally point, sorry for bothering … BUT

Last 3 games on 3 played, 2 for me and one for my friend, have cluster of 5 rally in same turn … you are ALL SURE is normal statistic distribution ? me, absolutly not.
If add another games last week, 4 games documented in one week.

Cosimo (and friends)

[rbodleyscott]

again on rally point, sorry for bothering … BUT

Last 3 games on 3 played, 2 for me and one for my friend, have cluster of 5 rally in same turn … you are ALL SURE is normal statistic distribution ? me, absolutly not.
If add another games last week, 4 games documented in one week.

Cosimo (and friends)

Not that such an example proves anything about the RNG, but can we be clear that we are talking about the same thing?

Do you mean 5 rallies from rout, or 5 rallies. (From disrupted, fragmented or rout). Obviously the latter should be much more common than the former.

[rbodleyscott]

again on rally point, sorry for bothering … BUT

Last 3 games on 3 played, 2 for me and one for my friend, have cluster of 5 rally in same turn … you are ALL SURE is normal statistic distribution ? me, absolutly not.
If add another games last week, 4 games documented in one week.

Cosimo (and friends)

Not that such an example proves anything at all about the RNG, but can we be clear that we are talking about the same thing?

Do you mean 5 rallies from rout, or 5 rallies. (From disrupted, fragmented or rout). Obviously the latter should be much more common than the former.

I sometimes wonder whether those players who are apparently seeing far more "rallies" than others are counting all rallies (fanfares) rather than just rallies from routs. The fanfare sound effect is exactly the same for both.

I mostly play Medium or Large battles and I don't think I have ever seen 5 rallies from rout in the same turn. (Whereas 5 rallies of all types would not be particularly remarkable).

[SimonLancaster]

I see one or two units rallying from routing max on each side in medium sized battles.

With some units like warbands and pikes I always expect these kind of units to rally from routing because of their size. It doesn’t always happen but I am prepared!

[paulmcneil]

Most I've seen is 6 units rallying from rout over 2 turns (one turn for each player), I agree with SLancaster Pike's seem to rally from rout more than other units, I'm guessing because they are large units, fairly easily outflanked if not in square, easier to break with flank attacks early on, but more likely to rally because they tend to have more of their original numbers in play?

[harveylh]

Most I've seen is 6 units rallying from rout over 2 turns (one turn for each player), I agree with SLancaster Pike's seem to rally from rout more than other units, I'm guessing because they are large units, fairly easily outflanked if not in square, easier to break with flank attacks early on, but more likely to rally because they tend to have more of their original numbers in play?

I've seen the same thing pike units seem to rally more than other units and I think Paul has the correct reason that pike units usually have more of their original numbers left.

[Tratmot]

game 1 of 3, 5 routing unit ralling in one turn
game 2 of 3, again 5 routing ralling in one turn (my friend)
game 3 of 3, 3 unit ralling from rout, 2 recovery from fragmented

AND, i'm in ITC sector from old 1983 … game is GREAT, for real but, imho, have some trouble with mechanics of random generation and use in game
IMHO, repeat

Cosimo

[MikeMarchant]

Have the rules changed regarding rallies or have I just misremembered them?

I've just had an opposition unit rally for the second time after breaking. He broke initially and then rallied and then broke a second time and has now rallied again. I didn't think this was possible. I haven't bothered chasing untis that have broekn twoce.


Best Wishes

Mike

[Karvon]

If the unit hadn't taken many casualties, multiple rallies wouldn't be out of the question, particularly if a better morale grade or with a general. I don't recall ever reading multiple rallies weren't possible.