Alternative Gameplay Mod v1.3

[Schweetness101]

also if you are interested you can checkout a mirror match, roman vs gallic, between me and snugglebunnies on his channel using the alt gameplay mod:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-vqughGnFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSVgOFIrlHQ

there were a few nice anarchy charges and use of the loss of secondary zoc for infantry charged by non light cav this turn in there.

[SnuggleBunnies]

So keeping in mind my perspective is as someone who was testing out of curiosity, and does not see the vanilla game as needing much change:

Anarchy charges are fun. Obviously, the specifics of when they happen could be tweaked, but unauthorized charges and refusals to charge are both an interesting mechanic.

"1) No automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks. Rear attacks unchanged (melee re-balancing)"

I hate this. Not as a matter of balance necessarily, but it just is utterly at odds with my personal interpretation of history.

"2) Units at 75%+ strength will not double-drop cohesion (melee re-balancing)"

I also dislike this. I enjoy the unpredictability that double drops provide. It is also notable in the mirror matches posted above that the Gallic Warbands do considerably better vs Romans than in the vanilla game, rallying up from Disrupted etc. I do not think this is desirable, nor historically supportable. It is also something that will weaken units like Lancers, who gain somewhat from the ability to double drop enemy units.

"3) Faster cavalry combat resolution (melee re-balancing)"

This I like very much. It isn't that noticeable in the above matches, but I do like the idea of cavalry vs cavalry combats resolving a little more quickly.

"4) Cavalry pursuit rules in melee changed, ZOC’s, adjacent enemy units prevent pursuit (melee re-balancing)"

this is frankly terrible, IMO. You can see the results in the match above where I play as the Gauls. my cavalry, instead of rushing through the gap between two triarii units, just charges one instead, leaving its rear exposed to the second unit. My cavalry then gets butchered. Sure, if I had understood the game mechanic I could have avoided this, but anything that makes a thin string of infantry more effective against cavalry is not a good thing IMO. Perhaps if the effect were limited to vs cavalry ZOCs it could make sense and not adversely effect balance, with the logic that cavalry are more capable of intervening against other pursuing cavalry units.

"5) Units will disperse after 3 turns of being routed (melee re-balancing)"

I haven't seen enough to judge this; my gut feeling is that it sounds good.

"6) 50% army rout threshold (melee re-balancing)"

I'm not sure what this accomplishes? Matches would end more quickly I suppose, but a match that is 49-49 isn't really much less chaotic than one that is 59-59

"7) Command radii for all generals reduced to 4 squares (command and control)"

I wonder how well this works with larger battles?

"8) Sub-Generals only control units in their starting contingent (command and control)"

This seems logical to me - though I assume the AI has difficulty with it? I only play MP so I don't care, but it could be an issue.

"9) Units will only attempt to rally when within command radius (command and control)"

So, I can see what this is attempting to do - preventing those edge of map rallies that save you from the brink of defeat. Yet, while those events may sometimes feel artificial, this felt artificial to me, too. "Well boys, we could come back to the fight, but we are now 250 yards from the action, so there's no coming back!" I'm not convinced that this is actually an improvement.

"10) v1 Anarchy rules with emphasis initially on troop type, troop quality and command radius (command and control)"

Personally I wouldn't mind more complex factors for Anarchy.

My overall feelings thus far (once again as someone who really enjoys the vanilla game) - everyone is going to have a different combination of these changes that they enjoy. I like #3, #8, and especially #10 (Anarchy). Some of the rest I don't care either way, and I hate the flanking changes.

[Swuul]

It seems if anything units dispersing sooner and being less likely to rally from routing is helping higher and not lower quality armies? IE low quality armies with masses of foot that are rapidly routed but then rally to fragmented on the far edges of the map and stay there are now at a greater disadvantage?

This can't possibly be true. As it is in vanilla game, low quality troops are very rare to rally back, while higher quality troops quite often rally back. The current meta of the game is already quite heavily tilted towards the cheap masses, and the high quality (ie more expensive per unit) armies are *already* having a hard time.

With removing the chance for higher quality units (because that is what the mod really does; the effect of making it impossible to rally back is for below average or raw units non-existential compared to current situation in vanilla, while the effect for average or above average units is miniscule compared to vanilla) the one small saving grace of high quality units are gone. They can't rally back, they can't no longer help with grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat, they have lost their purpose.

This mod is a nerf high quality armies, while in the name of balance the exact opposite should be aimed at. Already the armies of cheap chaff are too good, this mod makes the armies of cheap chaff the only viable option. That may well of course be the very aim of the mod designers. But please, if that is the aim, then at least have the decency to admit it: The mod is a nerf to quality armies, it takes away their last edge over cheap chaff armies, the ability to come back.

[stockwellpete]

This mod is a nerf high quality armies, while in the name of balance the exact opposite should be aimed at. Already the armies of cheap chaff are too good, this mod makes the armies of cheap chaff the only viable option. That may well of course be the very aim of the mod designers. But please, if that is the aim, then at least have the decency to admit it: The mod is a nerf to quality armies, it takes away their last edge over cheap chaff armies, the ability to come back.

Ludicrous.

How is removing automatic cohesion drops for flank attacks a nerf on high quality armies? It is the exact opposite as spam armies thrive on overwhelming smaller armies with flank attacks. And, no, our aim is not to tilt the balance further towards poorer quality armies. Why on earth would anybody want to do that? Our purpose is to try and improve gameplay so that melees become more coherent, battle lines more durable and genuine flank attacks (from the wings) can occur more often. The mod conclusively puts an end to battles that end with units scattered all over the place and are impossible to describe simply to a third party who asks "what happened?"

At the moment we are concentrating on the game mechanics. There will come a point, towards the end of the mod's development, when we will need to consider whether any points adjustments are required for certain types of units. That time is not now.

[Swuul]

And, no, our aim is not to tilt the balance further towards poorer quality armies.

Very well. Then I am even more confused with the line "It seems if anything units dispersing sooner and being less likely to rally from routing is helping higher and not lower quality armies?" as the statement simply defies logic and laws of mathematics. It *is* a nerf to high quality units, and trying to claim the opposite is, to quote, ludicrous.

Anyway, I get the drift. I am very clearly not in the target group the mod is aimed at, and thus I see no reason to comment further. Though I have to say I was fond of the idea of the anarchy rules.

[stockwellpete]

"1) No automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks. Rear attacks unchanged (melee re-balancing)"

I hate this. Not as a matter of balance necessarily, but it just is utterly at odds with my personal interpretation of history.

I genuinely do not understand the historical basis for this objection. Automatic cohesion drops for flank attack attacks have been removed, but significant POA+ remain in place that sometimes still do result in cohesion drops for these sort of attacks. Also, flank attacks without cohesion drops do already occur in the game now, albeit very rarely. This is when an engaged unit is hit in both flanks on the same turn. The first attack causes an automatic cohesion drop, the second one doesn't. So we are only building on what is already in the game.

"2) Units at 75%+ strength will not double-drop cohesion (melee re-balancing)"

I also dislike this. I enjoy the unpredictability that double drops provide. It is also notable in the mirror matches posted above that the Gallic Warbands do considerably better vs Romans than in the vanilla game, rallying up from Disrupted etc. I do not think this is desirable, nor historically supportable. It is also something that will weaken units like Lancers, who gain somewhat from the ability to double drop enemy units.

We started this at 75% to see what impact it has. Double-drops happen too much for my liking in the vanilla game, but they are few and far between when you consider the number of impact and melee combats that actually take place in a battle. This measure probably reduces them by half, although the new increased casualties for cavalry melees mitigates that number a bit anyway. So I don't see this as a particularly big change and I am not stuck on the 75% figure. It could be 80%, I guess.

"4) Cavalry pursuit rules in melee changed, ZOC’s, adjacent enemy units prevent pursuit (melee re-balancing)"

this is frankly terrible, IMO. You can see the results in the match above where I play as the Gauls. my cavalry, instead of rushing through the gap between two triarii units, just charges one instead, leaving its rear exposed to the second unit. My cavalry then gets butchered. Sure, if I had understood the game mechanic I could have avoided this, but anything that makes a thin string of infantry more effective against cavalry is not a good thing IMO. Perhaps if the effect were limited to vs cavalry ZOCs it could make sense and not adversely effect balance, with the logic that cavalry are more capable of intervening against other pursuing cavalry units.

No, no, no. It's wonderful. I think there is something we could look at that when cavalry charge head first into units like triarii that they bounce off more, but that is a slightly different issue. I watched the match in question on your new channel and I think we do have to point out a couple of things - your cavalry unit was fairly isolated and its accompanying chariot unit was not really operating in tandem with it. Your cavalry unit also charged an enemy skirmisher unit that had two triarii units in relatively close support. So it was a dangerous situation for your cavalry unit anyway. I appreciate that you were just getting your head around the mod, but I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with the eventual demise of that cavalry unit at the hands of two triarii units. It was a tough fight for 2-3 turns and you may have been able to rescue your cavalry unit if it had not been so isolated.

"6) 50% army rout threshold (melee re-balancing)"

I'm not sure what this accomplishes? Matches would end more quickly I suppose, but a match that is 49-49 isn't really much less chaotic than one that is 59-59

It is experimental based on the observation that most of the tedious "mopping up" that has to be done happens when an army goes past 50% losses and its formation is basically shattered. With the quicker dispersal of routed units and stricter rallying conditions, it tidies up the game considerably.

"7) Command radii for all generals reduced to 4 squares (command and control)"

I wonder how well this works with larger battles?

Surprisingly well in the few tests that I have done against the AI in the largest format. You really do have to think hard about your battleplan and when you use your leaders in combat.

"9) Units will only attempt to rally when within command radius (command and control)"

So, I can see what this is attempting to do - preventing those edge of map rallies that save you from the brink of defeat. Yet, while those events may sometimes feel artificial, this felt artificial to me, too. "Well boys, we could come back to the fight, but we are now 250 yards from the action, so there's no coming back!" I'm not convinced that this is actually an improvement.

Yes, that's the intention. Once units are routed they tend to stay routed much more in this mod, except for routed leader units who have the same chance to rally as vanilla.

"10) v1 Anarchy rules with emphasis initially on troop type, troop quality and command radius (command and control)"

Personally I wouldn't mind more complex factors for Anarchy.

Yes, we have some in the pipeline, but we need to test the basic v1 anarchy ideas for a while now, to make sure we have got them right. Then we can add a bit of finesse. Schweetness has come up with a very interesting idea that would model the gradual degrading of a contingent's command and control structure through a battle as the number of anarchy events occurred.

At the moment we are using a 30-20-10-0 scale for units rated high-medium-low-exempt for anarchy. If we felt anarchy was too prevalent we could shift to a 25-15-5-0 scale, or if we felt it was too rare then we could go 40-30-15-0. Also, the out of command modifier is set at +20 at the moment, but if we felt that needed amplification we could go to +25 or +30. These are the sorts of issues we need to sort out first before moving to v2 anarchy.

[stockwellpete]

also if you are interested you can checkout a mirror match, roman vs gallic, between me and snugglebunnies on his channel using the alt gameplay mod:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-vqughGnFA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSVgOFIrlHQ

there were a few nice anarchy charges and use of the loss of secondary zoc for infantry charged by non light cav this turn in there.

Two great battles here that show the mod working - and pointing out a few things to think about too.

[garymann]

re Swuuls point

Routing rules.

Could you exempt superior units and above from this rule and just keep them on the old vanilla rules
- So keep routing (is it for 5 turns?) and random attempts to rally if no general attached.
- Can rally outside generals command radius?
representing greater military ethos/discipline

no guarantee that they will rally though, before they disperse.

worth the points invested for superior.

average and below on new rules.

pays your money . makes your choice

probably hideously complicated coding wise?

[stockwellpete]

re Swuuls point

Routing rules.

Could you exempt superior units and above from this rule and just keep them on the old vanilla rules
- So keep routing (is it for 5 turns?) and random attempts to rally if no general attached.
- Can rally outside generals command radius?
representing greater military ethos/discipline

no guarantee that they will rally though, before they disperse.

worth the points invested for superior.

average and below on new rules.

pays your money . makes your choice

probably hideously complicated coding wise?

I can see an argument for saying that routed superior units would test each turn until they disperse (ie routing movement now reduced from 5 turns to 3). And you might add a strength condition to that too, so only superior units over 66% strong (or something like that) would qualify for an automatic test. That would give superior units a greater chance of rallying. Something along those lines might be interesting.

[Schweetness101]

It seems if anything units dispersing sooner and being less likely to rally from routing is helping higher and not lower quality armies? IE low quality armies with masses of foot that are rapidly routed but then rally to fragmented on the far edges of the map and stay there are now at a greater disadvantage?

This can't possibly be true. As it is in vanilla game, low quality troops are very rare to rally back, while higher quality troops quite often rally back. The current meta of the game is already quite heavily tilted towards the cheap masses, and the high quality (ie more expensive per unit) armies are *already* having a hard time.

With removing the chance for higher quality units (because that is what the mod really does; the effect of making it impossible to rally back is for below average or raw units non-existential compared to current situation in vanilla, while the effect for average or above average units is miniscule compared to vanilla) the one small saving grace of high quality units are gone. They can't rally back, they can't no longer help with grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat, they have lost their purpose.

This mod is a nerf high quality armies, while in the name of balance the exact opposite should be aimed at. Already the armies of cheap chaff are too good, this mod makes the armies of cheap chaff the only viable option. That may well of course be the very aim of the mod designers. But please, if that is the aim, then at least have the decency to admit it: The mod is a nerf to quality armies, it takes away their last edge over cheap chaff armies, the ability to come back.

I think you are getting this impression from having read and focused on one of the new changes, and not from having played them. The higher anarchy among lower quality troops, their higher likelihood to refuse charges, and the lack of auto drops from flanks are all significant nerfs to low quality armies, especially the latter change. In mod games so far, if anything I have noticed that a small number of superior quality infantry might be OP.

Low quality troops are each less likely to rally in vanilla while routing per turn, but you have more of them. I've played vanilla games against say masses of Brythonic foot where 6 or more of them rally at the map edge to keep their rout percent down. It is not true that low quality units virtually never rally in vanilla.

Also, it does not make any sense, whether it is in vanilla or not, that the main strength of high quality armies is that after running away they can rally back at the map edge and then decrease their rout percent back down while not doing anything else. That is not the main strength of superior units in my experience, but if it were it should be changed.

[Athos1660]

"1) No automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks. Rear attacks unchanged (melee re-balancing)"

I hate this. Not as a matter of balance necessarily, but it just is utterly at odds with my personal interpretation of history.

I genuinely do not understand the historical basis for this objection. Automatic cohesion drops for flank attack attacks have been removed, but significant POA+ remain in place that sometimes still do result in cohesion drops for these sort of attacks. Also, flank attacks without cohesion drops do already occur in the game now, albeit very rarely. This is when an engaged unit is hit in both flanks on the same turn. The first attack causes an automatic cohesion drop, the second one doesn't. So we are only building on what is already in the game.

IMHO the issue is that Vanilla FoG2 already downgraded rear/flank charges compared to P&S and your mod re-downgrade this downgrading. And I for one am not necessarily a unconditional fan of the first downgrading in the first place (even though I understand and quite like Fog2 rear/flank rules too).

In Pike and Shot, the following situations lead to an automatic cohesion drop :

• an unengaged non-light cavalry rear/flank-charged by non-light cavalry. No evasion. Common non-light infantry can’t charge cavalry.

• an unengaged non-light common infantry (« the Pike and Shot ») rear/flank-charged by non-light cavalry/infantry

In Vanilla FoG2, all the situations mentioned above lead to no automatic cohesion drop, only a Net PoA +50. Cavalry can also evade if the following melee is to be heavily unfavourable, if I am not mistaken.

In your mod, automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks on engaged units is removed (while rear attacks on engaged units are unchanged compared to the Vanilla game).

IMHO, that’s too much downgrading for a feature that is fun in game and for a tactic that was historically devastating.

[Schweetness101]

We could do special rules for rallying from broken. Something like this could work:

Although you can't rally outside of command range, and you auto disperse after 3 turns in the mod, we could also significantly increase the odds of rallying for those three turns/within that radius, and tie those odds of rallying closely to unit quality. This could have a number of effects:

1) retains the desired goal of not having routed and then rallied, fragmented units on the far flung corners of the map, and of not losing cav to really long pursuits
2) makes it likely you could actually use routed units that rally because, if they rallied, they would be close to the battle still
3) motivates using light cav or whatever units to make sure broken enemies are pursued for 3 turns after breaking, which is historical behavior that people often don't intentionally do in the game because they don't want to waste those cav pursuing routed units all the way across the map for the whole battle, but it wouldn't be so bad to pursue for max 3 turns, or to just outside command radius.

I'm not convinced such a change is necessary though, because as I wrote above, I do not think it is correct that this mod is disadvantaging superior units. But, it's worth writing down to keep all the ideas in the thread going.

another thing to point out is that the changes motivate new behaviors, for example putting your CinC on a cav unit and riding him back and forth across the line to get rallies, or even riding him after a routed unit to bring them back into the battle, both of which are realistic and historical. We'll have to test more to see if they are good for gameplay as well.

[Schweetness101]

"1) No automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks. Rear attacks unchanged (melee re-balancing)"

I hate this. Not as a matter of balance necessarily, but it just is utterly at odds with my personal interpretation of history.

I genuinely do not understand the historical basis for this objection. Automatic cohesion drops for flank attack attacks have been removed, but significant POA+ remain in place that sometimes still do result in cohesion drops for these sort of attacks. Also, flank attacks without cohesion drops do already occur in the game now, albeit very rarely. This is when an engaged unit is hit in both flanks on the same turn. The first attack causes an automatic cohesion drop, the second one doesn't. So we are only building on what is already in the game.

IMHO the issue is that Vanilla FoG2 already downgraded rear/flank charges compared to P&S and your mod re-downgrade this downgrading. And I for one am not necessarily a unconditional fan of the first downgrading in the first place (even though I understand and quite like Fog2 rear/flank rules too).

In Pike and Shot, the following situations lead to an automatic cohesion drop :

• an unengaged non-light cavalry rear/flank-charged by non-light cavalry. No evasion. Common non-light infantry can’t charge cavalry.

• an unengaged non-light common infantry (« the Pike and Shot ») rear/flank-charged by non-light cavalry/infantry

In Vanilla FoG2, all the situations mentioned above lead to no automatic cohesion drop, only a Net PoA +50. Cavalry can also evade if the following melee is to be heavily unfavourable, if I am not mistaken.

In your mod, automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks on engaged units is removed (while rear attacks on engaged units are unchanged compared to the Vanilla game).

IMHO, that’s too much downgrading for a feature that is fun in game and for a tactic that was historically devastating.

rear charges are historically devastating and still in the mod. Flank charges are more controversial for a number of reasons that have been discussed across multiple threads.

1) it does seem there should be some distinction in effectiveness between flank and rear charges. It is easier to turn the relatively small number of men on your side to face a flank threat, than to spin all the way around to face a rear threat. No such distinction is made in vanilla.
2) there is a much broader and more vulnerable rear than flank to most real army lines we are talking about here. A hoplite formation 8 men deep and 1,000 men wide is not as vulnerable on its flank as on its rear. There's a huge difference in surface area there. That's been discussed as well quite a bit
3) Real life army lines bent and bowed quite a lot all along the line without breaking or exposing flanks, but this is not really represented in game because of the grid system. See the threads where we have already discussed this at length.
4) We are trying to get rid of the weird grid games people play to open up 'flanks' mid line. These games cause them to adopt ahistorical stances and irregular lines with no historical precedent

Again I'll ask, like I did in another thread, should the impact effect on an infantry unit of a) being charged in the flank while engaged by low quality infantry be the same as b) being charged in the rear by high quality cav while engaged? It doesn't really make sense that those would be the same.

I don't really play P&S anymore, although I can't say those rules sound very appealing. Seems like it would make you just spread cavalry all over the place to try and charge unengaged units in the back without bothering with a normal line. Really, an auto-drop on charging an unengaged unit doesn't seem to make sense and I can see why it was dropped. An unengaged unit in real life would just turn to face an attacker anyway it seems (remember that lots of horses are loud and not really that fast, you would have time to turn to face them). But I would prefer not to turn this into a P&S debate thread

The current +100 for flanks in the mod is still quite deadly anyway, and often results in an drop even without the autodrop.

[stockwellpete]

I'm not convinced such a change is necessary though, because as I wrote above, I do not think it is correct that this mod is disadvantaging superior units. But, it's worth writing down to keep all the ideas in the thread going.

Yes, one for the "back burner" at the moment, but the point is well made by garymann.

[Quivis]

From my perspective, I like the P&S system more than vanilla FoG2, but mostly due to its more unpredictable nature. Vanilla FoG2 feels more like a game of chess to me (which is not a bad thing if the game is focused on multiplayer).

The unpredictability of P&S is based on the following rules:

Units pursue broken units more (and charges other units while doing so). Therefore, after you’ve committed your unit, you may lose control over it for a few turns. In other words, more units behave like cavalry. Therefore, you need to think twice, before committing the second unit into a fight. Moreover, there is a separate melee phase which is played automatically. As a result, you can’t simply resolve a fight and see the result before deciding if you want to use a second unit or not. If you don’t commit, you’ll have to wait till the next turn to see the result.

The above effect is strengthened by the fact, that units while pursuing broken units may decide to charge someone else and that uncontrolled charge may hit other unit’s flank or rear, leading to automatic cohesion drops.

The above unpredictability means, that keeping your units in reserves is more important. Firstly, because, you don’t want to overcommit your units (you may lose control over them), and secondly, you need to have a tool to counter eventual enemy charges into your flanks/rear more, which may be devastating.

Having said that, I’m not really looking into more automatic cohesion drops. I like what you’ve done in this mod, because I feel that the game is more realistic without automatic drops when a unit is part of the battle line (i.e. there are friendly units on its left and right). I’m more interested in the mods aspects which may lead to the more unpredictable nature of battles - like the anarchy rules. Therefore, please add more to that system.

[Schweetness101]

So keeping in mind my perspective is as someone who was testing out of curiosity...

thanks for taking the time to make a very thorough comment! I'll just address a few things because some of them need some more in depth discussion.

1) discussed in another post and at great length in the flank angle mod thread, so I won't add much here, except to ask if you found it changed the outcome of our mod games together? Really I haven't found it to change the ultimate outcome of a battle as much as expected

2) this one is definitely a tentative change, might not be necessary, might be better at 90%, or even something like 95%, just to remove seemingly very unfair and random double drops from totally fresh units. I don't really find unpredictability of double drops to be enjoyable, it just seems pure RNG to me, but that's subjective. Warbands double dropping all the time is what makes them pretty useless in competitive armies, but I wouldn't want them to be made OP with these changes either, so it needs balancing of course. This change is not related to rallying up though. Lancers you will still find commonly double drop other cav because of the cav changes.

4) lots of stuff here, sorry for the essay lol.
Cav pursuits are less slippery and more likely to charge a non-routed target of opportunity while pursuing in the mod. To be clear, this specific change has nothing to do directly with ZoCs (other changes do though). In vanilla, the AI code used for switching targets while pursuing relies on a generic AI_ChanceOfCharging() method that is used across the board for AI charges, and is not tailor made for the specific scenario of a unit, whether player or the AI, deciding to switch from a pursuit to charge a target of opportunity, but it is used for that anyway. This results in some weird behavior I thought, and in some kind of gamey tactics. For example, charging and pursuing light inf with cavalry, not to attack the light inf necessarily, but instead to get through an area ZoC locked by spearmen behind the lights that you would not normally be able to just order the cav through. That tactic seems like a workaround to just slip cav right through the enemy line in a way that doesn't really make a lot of sense. I replaced that code with an altogether new Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging() only used for this one purpose. It could definitely be further tweaked though. Two things I'm considering are increasing the effect of combat advantage and flank threat more than they already are when considering whether to break off pursuit and charge. I don't think that the vanilla tactic though of charging one evasive unit to auto pursue through the ZoC of another really makes sense historically or gameplay wise, and is more an ahistorical artifact of other rules, which veteran players can take advantage of.

Although another take, which is I think Pete's take, is that pursuing impetuous cavalry will make stupid mistakes, and if you as commander choose to have them attack and pursue an agile light infantry unit with spears right behind it, and your cavalry end up on those spearpoints, then that was your mistake.

The other ZoC changes that remove secondary ZoC for non light infantry units that have been charged this turn by cavalry would disincentivize spreading infantry units out in the way you are describing. In part this also motivates bringing a larger cav wing on the flank, rather trying to sneakily slip past one cav unit with a weird pursuit through ZoC game mid line. It's all kind of part of a whole moving in that direction. It is perhaps also just a case of knowing the new rules, ie like you said you would not have charged that light unit there if thinking about the new pursuit rules.

One other concern I think you brought up is if light slingers or archers are used they could shoot you at greater range, and you wouldn't want to charge them head on with your cav if they have spear behind them because then your cav end up on the spears, but again that seem to me like a good and historical result. Match their lights with your lights, don't charge non light cav into lights with spears right behind. Also, the new flanking rules mean that spread out units are relatively at greater danger of suffering auto drop flanks than units in a line, and tighter and more important command radii also disincentivize spreading out so much, so I don't think on the whole this mod is incentivizing spreading way out like you are describing, in fact it is keeping most things much tighter I find.

You didn't really mention the adjacent units preventing cav pursuit bit much? It didn't really come up in the game too much because Romans didn't have much cav, but I am considering having it only if those adjacent units are also cav, not sure.

9) I think we are talking a lot more than 250 yards here, although I am not sure how wide exactly a tile is supposed to be. You could kind of turn this around though and say something like: In the vanilla game, a unit will run what looks like a few miles away, after being broken and beaten and taking serious losses, be totally out of the sight of their comrades, have no chance of returning to the battle, and for all intents and purposes be routed. But, then they are, psychologically, considered to be back to being part of the army again after rallying to fragmented out of everyone's sight (ie percent routed goes back down when they rally to fragmented), which seems to make less sense than a beaten and broken unit continuing to run away even though they see the battle 250 yards off.

10) I'm up for including lots more complexity in the anarchy algorithm, we'll figure that one out with time. We should discuss which of the listed things in the OP that are commented out that should be made active again.

Yes, it is possible that everyone will like some things and dislike others to an extent that no one ends up wanting the mod because one of the changes is too much for them, which we want to avoid. Hopefully, with testing, we can make an alternative gameplay mod that does not have any feature that is so undesirable or unjustifiable that it alienates people who might otherwise try it.

thanks again for commenting and feedback!

[SnuggleBunnies]

RE: the flank issue, Pete, we've discussed it elsewhere and I won't repeat myself - clearly we are not going to convince one another of our views.

As to the cavalry hitting the Triarii - I understand that my cavalry wasn't well supported. The internal logic I see for pursuing between secondary ZoCs of the enemy is that you as a player take a risk in putting lights ahead in front of a line that is not solid. Your own men aren't able to intervene in time because of the chaos and confusion caused by fleeing friendlies, dust, etc. etc. Setting aside how I visualize the situation, if cavalry needs more support to operate successfully - whether that is more cavalry, or more lights - then you will just make cavalry even less desirable than in the vanilla game, without *major* price reductions.

And Schweetness - a square is approximately 60 meters.

[rbodleyscott]

From my perspective, I like the P&S system more than vanilla FoG2, but mostly due to its more unpredictable nature. Vanilla FoG2 feels more like a game of chess to me (which is not a bad thing if the game is focused on multiplayer).

It isn't. It is just that the competitive MP players are the most vociferous on the boards.

[Athos1660]

From my perspective, I like the P&S system more than vanilla FoG2, but mostly due to its more unpredictable nature. Vanilla FoG2 feels more like a game of chess to me (which is not a bad thing if the game is focused on multiplayer).

I agree with you about P&S Single Player being more unpredictable and chaotic while FoG2 SP being more rational, 'methodical'. I really like the unpredictability of P&S SP. It feels like you actually are on a battlefield where anything can happen. But the 'rationality' of FoG2 is far from being a bad thing for SP. It is also nice to be able to plan in advance your attack logically and methodically and see it often work. Well maybe it is actually too often... However, this is two different gameplays, both very nice. Maybe the ideal SP gameplay is in-between. Or maybe both should coexist...

[stockwellpete]

Play Test 1 Roman 490-341 BC (me) v Samnite 355-272 BC (AI) - Tribune level, army sizes large, map large
"Samnite map" with hilly ground, rough hilltops and difficult slopes. Three narrow approach routes with good ground for Romans to use. Very tough fight in first half of the battle, level at 24-24 after 12 turns. Then a dramatic, last turn Samnite collapse saw Romans draw away to win comfortably 61-21.

Plenty of anarchy in the game . . .

Romans (me), 5 times
- hoplite, in command radius, charge Samnite foot that already had 2 Roman units fighting it
- cavalry with C-in-C (!), charged enemy cavalry with sub-general that was already fighting a Roman cavalry unit. I was trying to position for a rear attack.
- veteran hoplite with sub-general charged Samnite foot, as it waited for new Roman battle line to form up around it.
- 2x velites units refused to charge Samnite medium foot from higher ground on difficult slope

AI, 10 times
- 9x Samnite foot
- cavalry unit

Note: it is likely that a negative anarchy modifier for commander units will be added for v2.