Cav ZoC/AP Mod Testing Workshop

[Athos1660]

you have the right idea, but for some reason in moraletools.bsf, impact and melee are designated reason 1 and reason 2 respectively, rather than phase 0 and phase 1 like in closecombatlogic lol. So you want something like this:

if ((IsMounted(me)) && (IsMounted(enemy)) && (IsLightTroops(me) == 0) && (isLightTroops(enemy) == 0) && (reason == 1))

Nice! Thank you very much.

[rbodleyscott]

you have the right idea, but for some reason in moraletools.bsf, impact and melee are designated reason 1 and reason 2 respectively, rather than phase 0 and phase 1 like in closecombatlogic lol.

Because reason 0 is shooting, which it seems reasonable to assume comes before close combat!

[Schweetness101]

you have the right idea, but for some reason in moraletools.bsf, impact and melee are designated reason 1 and reason 2 respectively, rather than phase 0 and phase 1 like in closecombatlogic lol.

Because reason 0 is shooting, which it seems reasonable to assume comes before close combat!

that is reasonable! i just mean as contrasted with the term 'phase' elsewhere, but i guess phase is appropriate elsewhere within the scope of only concerning non-ranged combat, ie the phases of non ranged combat are impact and melee. It is just confusing at first when you are looking for some indicator that you are looking at melee or impact combat and you see phase 0 and 1 correspond to reasons 1 and 2 respectively.

[rbodleyscott]

you have the right idea, but for some reason in moraletools.bsf, impact and melee are designated reason 1 and reason 2 respectively, rather than phase 0 and phase 1 like in closecombatlogic lol.

Because reason 0 is shooting, which it seems reasonable to assume comes before close combat!

that is reasonable! i just mean as contrasted with the term 'phase' elsewhere, but i guess phase is appropriate elsewhere within the scope of only concerning non-ranged combat, ie the phases of non ranged combat are impact and melee. It is just confusing at first when you are looking for some indicator that you are looking at melee or impact combat and you see phase 0 and 1 correspond to reasons 1 and 2 respectively.

I recommend reading the comments at the top of each major function.

[Schweetness101]

Because reason 0 is shooting, which it seems reasonable to assume comes before close combat!

that is reasonable! i just mean as contrasted with the term 'phase' elsewhere, but i guess phase is appropriate elsewhere within the scope of only concerning non-ranged combat, ie the phases of non ranged combat are impact and melee. It is just confusing at first when you are looking for some indicator that you are looking at melee or impact combat and you see phase 0 and 1 correspond to reasons 1 and 2 respectively.

I recommend reading the comments at the top of each major function.

yes, those are helpful. I was not actually confused myself.

[Schweetness101]

thinking about doing a v1.4 that removes the vs medium foot changes, just to concentrate on the cavalry modifications first, and maybe introduces the auto cohesion test on impact proposed by athos, and also alters the exact values for the -1 to ct and 33% casualty increase, and whether they happen on impact or melee or both

[Schweetness101]

updated op with version 1.4
additional v1.4 changes:
1) removed extra 25 poa for lancers and light spear vs medium foot
2) added extra mandatory CT on charge for non light cav vs non light cav

that mandatory ct on charge has a strong effect, and is too much with all of the changes combined, so we need to test to figure out what to keep. This is kind of all experimental stuff to figure out what combination of things is is best for balance while resolving cavalry fights more quickly.

[stockwellpete]

I have just been getting my head around these cavalry issues for the first time. I think the obvious thing to do is to increase the number of casualties as you have done in v1.3. That might be enough to speed things up significantly. And I think the v1.1 and 1.2 ideas around infantry secondary ZOC's and reduction of AP's are very good too.

Another issue I have with cavalry melees is the pursuit mechanism where, at the moment, a victorious cavalry unit will chase off its routed or evading cavalry opponent, but will often ignore the ZOC's of other enemy units (infantry or cavalry) in the vicinity. So they can look like a bit like a skier slaloming its way across the battlefield. I don't like that effect very much, particularly when you get units from both sides doing it in the same melee and then they have to turn back around to engage with each other again. That slows things right down. So I think enemy ZOC's (infantry or cavalry) should stop a cavalry unit pursuing a defeated or evading enemy.

Again I would make the point that I made in the flank attack mod that "in "real life", soldiers tended to fight as contingents or "battles" (in the medieval period), not as separate units", so I don't think individual cavalry "units" should be pursuing enemy "units" out of a melee if that melee is still going on around them. Obviously the permutations of unit configurations in melees are endless, so the trick is to come up with something simple that works in most cases. One idea I have (and it may be no good) is that a victorious cavalry unit (that is no longer in melee with anything else) first of all moves into the square of the defeated enemy unit. If that brings it into contact with another enemy unit then it stops there immediately and begins to fight that next enemy unit. If there is no enemy unit to fight from that new square then it may pursue its defeated enemy subject to the ZOC restrictions I have mentioned before. I have no idea at all if this is easily moddable, but the purpose of it would be to make cavalry melees more decisive (by that I mean it would help to resolve all issues in one particular area of the battlefield), so that the victorious side would then have a chance of supporting their army in the centre.

[rbodleyscott]

Again I would make the point that I made in the flank attack mod that "in "real life", soldiers tended to fight as contingents or "battles" (in the medieval period), not as separate units"

I think that is probably a lot less true of cavalry than infantry.

[stockwellpete]

I think that is probably a lot less true of cavalry than infantry.

Even in ancient and medieval warfare? I would certainly agree as you move into the early modern period and you have regiments emerging. But for this earlier period? I am not sure about it.

[rbodleyscott]

I think that is probably a lot less true of cavalry than infantry.

Even in ancient and medieval warfare? I would certainly agree as you move into the early modern period and you have regiments emerging. But for this earlier period? I am not sure about it.

Well Roman and other regular armies were certainly organised into "regiments". And there is no way that horse archer armies could operate as monolithic "battles".

I think your thinking is too influenced by your interest in Medieval armies. And even then the old Oman idea of tactically inept Medieval armies has increasingly been shown to be an exaggerated over-simplification.

[rbodleyscott]

Again I would make the point that I made in the flank attack mod that "in "real life", soldiers tended to fight as contingents or "battles" (in the medieval period), not as separate units"

I think that is probably a lot less true of cavalry than infantry.

It is also arguable just how much it is true of the infantry either. Historical battle accounts tend to be drawn in broad strokes, and just because a battle account talks about a certain "battle" breaking does not necessarily mean that none of them broke sooner than the rest, before the morale of the whole "battle" collapsed. Battle accounts usually aren't that detailed.

Just because the account simply says that such and such a wing collapsed, does not necessarily mean it did so in a monolithic way, nor is it particularly plausible that it did. The use of reserves to bolster weak points in the battle line argues against such an interpretation.

[stockwellpete]

Well Roman and other regular armies were certainly organised into "regiments".

OK. My knowledge of the ancient world is very limited. Perhaps my remarks are more relevant to the medieval world?

[rbodleyscott]

Well Roman and other regular armies were certainly organised into "regiments".

OK. My knowledge of the ancient world is very limited. Perhaps my remarks are more relevant to the medieval world?

See my edited comment above. Our posts crossed.

However, it would be a big mistake to think of civilised Ancient armies (with the exception of Greek city state hoplites) as operating in the sort of monolithic formations that you think of as normal.

It is arguable for Medieval too. There are cases of Medieval armies having many more distinct units than the classic 3 "battles".

[stockwellpete]

It is also arguable just how much it is true of the infantry either. Historical battle accounts tend to be drawn in broad strokes, and just because a battle account talks about a certain "battle" breaking does not necessarily mean that none of them broke sooner than the rest, before the morale of the whole "battle" collapsed. Battle accounts usually aren't that detailed.

Just because the account simply says that such and such a wing collapsed, does not necessarily mean it did so in a monolithic way, nor is it particularly plausible that it did. The use of reserves to bolster weak points in the battle line argues against such an interpretation.

Yes, that's fair enough. That's why I used the term "tended to fight" to recognise the different situations that might occur in a battle. I do think though that some of us feel that things do get far too dispersed at times, to the point where you can't really describe to someone what has happened. Pike and Shot was more problematic in that regard to me than FOG2 is, but I think this "unit" versus contingent dichotomy is a fruitful area to look at in terms of modding.

[rbodleyscott]

Well Roman and other regular armies were certainly organised into "regiments".

OK. My knowledge of the ancient world is very limited. Perhaps my remarks are more relevant to the medieval world?

See my edited comment above. Our posts crossed.

However, it would be a big mistake to think of civilised Ancient armies (with the exception of Greek city state hoplites) as operating in the sort of monolithic formations that you think of as normal.

It is arguable for Medieval too. There are cases of Medieval armies having many more distinct units than the classic 3 "battles".

For example, at the Battle of Tannenberg the Teutonic Knights were organised into 52 "banners", and the Poles and Lithuanians into 50 and 40 "banners" respectively.

[Schweetness101]

...I do think though that some of us feel that things do get far too dispersed at times, to the point where you can't really describe to someone what has happened. Pike and Shot was more problematic in that regard to me than FOG2 is, but I think this "unit" versus contingent dichotomy is a fruitful area to look at in terms of modding.

I'm sympathetic with this idea. Sometimes the battles end up looking like a bunch of table top pieces just scattered all over and you couldn't really describe it as having had a main line, or particular cavalry flank, or even wings really. Not always of course, or even most of the time and maybe some battles really ended up like that so it's fine, but it would be interesting and challenging to think about what changes might give the battle a more...I'm not sure, cohesive feel?

I'm not sure what I would do about that though. Maybe ZoCs affecting pursuits would be one thing, but unpredictable pursuits is a pretty big part of the game design I think so I'm not sure about touching that one. It might also be really hard to change the pursuit ai to...I'm not sure exactly I guess you would have them look at ZoC'ed squares as like obstacle squares, dunno.

[Athos1660]

Here are the links to my Cavalry charge mod (WIP).
It focuses exclusively on non-light cav vs cav fights. No ZoC modification.
According to me, this should be sufficient to have nice modded cav fights.

Thanks to Schweetness101.

1) Cav Charge Mod v.1 :
The cavalry fight as a 2-stage process : an impact than a melee. Automatic Cohesion Test at the impact for both units, no matter what the result of the impact, to simulate the risk related to the preceding charge both units had faced. The melee unfolds as in the Vanilla game. The number of casualties during the Impact and the melee are the same as in the Vanilla game.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/nza3s5xu8 ... 1.rar/file

2) Cav Charge Mod v.2 :
The cavalry fight as a 3-stage process : charge, impact and melee; the three steps being perilous can lead to a cohesion test. Several unpredictable factors can make a charge less effective leading, in turn, to a less effective impact. Both cohesion tests during Charge and Impact get a +1 modifier to reduce the occurrence of cohesion drop. The melee unfolds as in the Vanilla game. The number of casualties during the Impact and the melee are the same as in the Vanilla game.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/7fl9apd0g ... 2.rar/file

To use them in Custom battles, extract them to C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

To use them in multiplayer games, extract them to C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

There is also a "Scenario" for quick testing of cav vs cav fights.

Of course you can look at the Combat log to see how both charges unfold.

_________

(edit)

As an update to the Cav Charge Mod v.1, one could give a +1 modifier during the Impact cohesion test to the winner of the impact. I don't know whether one can mod it so.

[Nosy_Rat]

I'm sympathetic with this idea. Sometimes the battles end up looking like a bunch of table top pieces just scattered all over and you couldn't really describe it as having had a main line, or particular cavalry flank, or even wings really. Not always of course, or even most of the time and maybe some battles really ended up like that so it's fine, but it would be interesting and challenging to think about what changes might give the battle a more...I'm not sure, cohesive feel?

It usually happens in close battles when both sides go to over 40% routers as there's simply not enough units left. So lowering auto-lose threshold to something like 35-40% would solve this issue (and would, arguably, be more realistic).

That said, I'm pretty sure, though, that auto-lose is set so high deliberately for gameplay reasons, and wouldn't (and shouldn't) be changed outside of mods.

[rbodleyscott]

I'm sympathetic with this idea. Sometimes the battles end up looking like a bunch of table top pieces just scattered all over and you couldn't really describe it as having had a main line, or particular cavalry flank, or even wings really. Not always of course, or even most of the time and maybe some battles really ended up like that so it's fine, but it would be interesting and challenging to think about what changes might give the battle a more...I'm not sure, cohesive feel?

It usually happens in close battles when both sides go to over 40% routers as there's simply not enough units left. So lowering auto-lose threshold to something like 35-40% would solve this issue (and would, arguably, be more realistic).

That said, I'm pretty sure, though, that auto-lose is set so high deliberately for gameplay reasons, and wouldn't (and shouldn't) be changed outside of mods.

Exactly.