Pike Testing Workshop

[pompeytheflatulent]

could you explain in detail so I understand?

Right now my understanding of the chart is barely enough to adjust the price from a similar unit. If you were to ask me to quote the price of a brand new unit built from scratch, I would have to spend many more hours examining the chart alongside burning of incense and prayers to the Omnissiah performed by a cadre of tech-priests.

[Schweetness101]

could you explain in detail so I understand?

Right now my understanding of the chart is barely enough to adjust the price from a similar unit. If you were to ask me to quote the price of a brand new unit built from scratch, I would have to spend many more hours examining the chart alongside burning of incense and prayers to the Omnissiah performed by a cadre of tech-priests.

lol k, and the chart as far as I can tell is really more guidelines than anything. If we are editing elements that do not appear directly on the chart but are just wrapped up in a unit capability, like lots of specific POA reductions and various CT modifiers, I think we could justify certain price reductions on our own and with some extra testing?

[MVP7]

The pikes base cost should be lowered from the current to bring the unit cost down. There's little benefit in 720 over 480 and and almost negligible benefit from 960 men over 720, neither is even close to being worth in terms of points cost increase. The unit size is cosmetic more than anything.

The Pike base value might seem cheap but that's purely because additional rows are relatively expensive and if unit size were reduced the base cost would have to be increased to keep the balance. That's another reason to settle on unit size before anything else.

The only reason the 3rd and 4th row have any impact on unit performance in the game (the way it currently is) is the direct loss of POA for Pikes from losing those rows. If I'm reading the combat predictions correctly a 960 man unit with light losses is actually considered under-sized even when compared to a full strength 480 man unit so on top of the unique POA loss they even suffer from regular POA loss as if they weren't twice the size of their opponent.

Personally I don't think aiming for the same unit cost for pikes as Hoplites is a sensible starting point. Emergence of Pikes made hoplites pretty much redundant so it seems sensible that Pikes are better and hence more expensive unit type.

[rbodleyscott]

If I'm reading the combat predictions correctly a 960 man unit with light losses is actually considered under-sized even when compared to a full strength 480 man unit.

No, it isn't considered under strength for combat strength purposes until it gets down below 480 men.

[Schweetness101]

The pikes base cost should be lowered from the current to bring the unit cost down. There's little benefit in 720 over 480 and and almost negligible benefit from 960 men over 720, neither is even close to being worth in terms of points cost increase. The unit size is cosmetic more than anything.

...

The only reason the 3rd and 4th row have any impact on unit performance in the game (the way it currently is) is the direct loss of POA for Pikes from losing those rows.

The combat strength modifier for a 480 man unit will begin to suffer immediately after losses, but the over sized unit has a buffer before it falls before 480, so after a number of turns of melee of both sides taking losses the over sized unit will be at significant advantage if it did not disrupted up to that point.

[MVP7]

If I'm reading the combat predictions correctly a 960 man unit with light losses is actually considered under-sized even when compared to a full strength 480 man unit.

No, it isn't considered under strength for combat strength purposes until it gets down below 480 men.

Ok thanks. I must have been looking at the value wrong way around then. Could you tell in what situations unit size affects melee POA?

[Geffalrus]

I need to see if I can get this thing set up on my computer to fully see what you see.

[Geffalrus]

Personally I don't think aiming for the same unit cost for pikes as Hoplites is a sensible starting point. Emergence of Pikes made hoplites pretty much redundant so it seems sensible that Pikes are better and hence more expensive unit type.

I think I was more aiming for Hastati as a cost starting point. 42 point hoplites just an easy analysis point since so many average protected units land at 42 points in game. I agree that pikes should be more expensive than citizen hoplites, just not by as much as they currently are (+30 points). And so I actually want their combat power to be reduced a bit to justify that.

[Schweetness101]

I need to see if I can get this thing set up on my computer to fully see what you see.

did you manage to download it? Once downloaded you should just be able to extract and paste into C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS and it should work.

You can easily edit squads.csv in there to mess with cost, armor, quality, unit size etc...

messing with POAs requires changing the code though, but I can show you where if you want

[Schweetness101]

I'm also using Macedonia 320 as a test faction. So far I just changed it to not requiring any Veteran PIkes (because I haven't messed with those specifically yet) and to permitting a few more normal pike units. It would be good to develop this along with a standard pike based army to test balance. Maybe this new Macedon 320 vs Roman 280 would be a good test case.

[Schweetness101]

Another idea I'm floating (haven't figured out quite yet the code to do it) is directly mitigating casualties in mutually steady pike vs infantry melee combats. Say I halve casualties for the sake of the argument.

It seems that would only make sense to do if only one party is pikes and both parties are steady? Or if both are pikes? not sure. The potential situations are

Pike vs Pike
1) Both steady: mitigate casualties because they just kind of hold each other at bay if both steady?
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nJNzWSzjGYo/maxresdefault.jpg
2) One party steady, the other non-steady: not mitigate casualties? or steady inflicts normal on nonsteady, but nonsteady inflicts half? What would happen here? If one pike wall disrupts the other while maintaining their own formation would they just totally roll over the non-steady side? I guess this is already reflected in the reduction to POA from disruption, dunno.
3) both parties not steady: casualties not reduced because now all mixed up in one another. Like this I guess:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-MSLRhW2odoI/ ... 8F%2B1.jpg
Or
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... ad-war.jpg

Pike vs Non-Pike
1) Both steady: mitigate casualties because they are also kind of holding each other off like this:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1c/74/e3 ... 1bb47d.jpg
https://i.redd.it/brekv6dxpgb11.jpg
2) Pikes steady, Non-Pikes non-steady: wouldn't make sense if casualties going both ways went back up to normal in this case if they are halved in above case, because that would mean a disrupted non pike unit would be doing more damage to steady pikes than the non disrupted unit. Maybe mitigate just non pike inflicted casualties? But pikes inflict normal. Because I guess it would be like this:
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/ ... ZE_480x480
2) Non-Pikes steady, Pikes non-steady: don't mitigate casualties because now they can have at one another I would think. I guess like the foreground here maybe:
https://www.ancientbattles.com/WAB_Succ ... _title.jpg
3) both parties not steady: don't mitigate casualties

assuming that you like this idea at all, which of the above cases should involve it? The idea again is just to drag out pike melee

Also, if this is done, would it also be done on impact?

[Neutrino_123]

I think that a lot of these tests are missing a "low-intensity" modifier. With pikes, it's not just a matter of which unit has the advantage, but of how quickly the combat will proceed. I mean this not just in morale/cohesion check (already implemented), but also in casualties. If there was some sort of "pike combat modifier" that proportionally reduced the intensity of casualties on both sides if the pikes are steady, then we could potentially get the results close to historical.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see the post immediately above! Fully agree.

[Schweetness101]

I think that a lot of these tests are missing a "low-intensity" modifier. With pikes, it's not just a matter of which unit has the advantage, but of how quickly the combat will proceed. I mean this not just in morale/cohesion check (already implemented), but also in casualties. If there was some sort of "pike combat modifier" that proportionally reduced the intensity of casualties on both sides if the pikes are steady, then we could potentially get the results close to historical.

Edit: Sorry, I didn't see the post immediately above! Fully agree.

what are your thoughts on the exact circumstances under which it should happen? I agree that there should be "some sort of "pike combat modifier" that proportionally reduced the intensity of casualties on both sides if the pikes are steady," but also what about the edge cases of one pike or non-pike not steady against the other?

[Neutrino_123]

I'd say that stead vs. non-steady pikes should have casualties mitigated. I imagine that without a solid wall, the disordered pikes will be backing up, trying to avoid the pike wall. They will still be disrupted, so they'd still lose combats a fair amount of the time, but I think steady pikes should be able to finish breaking them less quickly then a legion or warband, for example.

I'd also say that casualties should be mitigated on both sides for steady pike vs. disrupted non-pike. However, in both this situation and in steady pike vs. non-steady pike, I think that the disrupted unit should NOT get a cohesion bonus if they lose against the pikes (which normally happens, if I recall correctly). The pikes should thus still break what's left of their formation at a good rate, even if less quickly than other units.

Maybe tie disruption to pushback in some pike-related situations?

[Schweetness101]

I'd say that stead vs. non-steady pikes should have casualties mitigated. I imagine that without a solid wall, the disordered pikes will be backing up, trying to avoid the pike wall. They will still be disrupted, so they'd still lose combats a fair amount of the time, but I think steady pikes should be able to finish breaking them less quickly then a legion or warband, for example.

I'd also say that casualties should be mitigated on both sides for steady pike vs. disrupted non-pike. However, in both this situation and in steady pike vs. non-steady pike, I think that the disrupted unit should NOT get a cohesion bonus if they lose against the pikes (which normally happens, if I recall correctly). The pikes should thus still break what's left of their formation at a good rate, even if less quickly than other units.

Maybe tie disruption to pushback in some pike-related situations?

So only if either party is a steady pike then mitigate casualties, regardless of whether the other part is a steady or non-steady pike or not?

I haven't looked at pushback code but I've considered it (I thought maybe steady pikes shouldn't be able to be pushed back)

[Schweetness101]

so I've implemented the casualty mitigation idea. Right now it's just halving casualties between any non-light foot unit and pikes if the pikes are steady. It has an extremely powerful effect on dragging the combat out, not just because it takes units twice as long to lose combat power from unit size, but also because there is a fixed casualty disparity between units in melee to kick off a 'lost' melee round, and at half casualties it pretty much never happens.

In a hastati vs pike 10v10 it took 15 turns for one unit to disrupt.

So, halving is likely too much. Also, I'm not sure if it should be happening on impact. Edit: reducing by 25% and not doing the mitigation on impact seems an ok solution for now.

[Schweetness101]

Does anyone know if I need to make any changes to the Pike Mod in order to get it to work in multiplayer other than pasting it into:

C:\Users\Name\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

?

I did so, and it let me host a game, but when I view my own challenge it's scenario name is '(Unknown custom scenario)'. Does that matter? Will it prevent it from working, or is it gonna work fine but the default unfound scenario name is used because I haven't changed the text file? Where can I change that one?

EDIT: Paul helped me out with this one, needed to add campaign.txt to the main mod folder, i've updated the uploaded mod files as well so it should work with multiplayer now hopefully

[Schweetness101]

also I updated the OP with all changes and a new download link

[Schweetness101]

One extra question for anyone out there is, for preliminary testing purposes, how should I alter an existing army list to account for these changes to pikes?

Current pike-centric lists don't permit you to purchase that many Pikes, probably because of how expensive they are, compared to main infantry numbers in contemporary army lists, and instead supplement with pretty large numbers of hoplites, thureophoroi, romphaiai etc...

However, if pikes are made cheaper, then the corresponding pike armies should have their lists altered I would think to have more pikes and fewer supplemental infantry?

For example, the Macedonia 355-329 list by default looks like (numbers for 2000 pt army, I'm not sure exactly what math is used to scale down to other pt armies):

Pike:
MIN 3
MAX 10

Vet Pike:
MIN 1
MAX 3

Thureophoroi
MIN 0
MAX 5

Light_Javelins
MIN 0
MAX 3

Cretan_Archers
MIN 0
MAX 3

Light_Archers
MIN 0
MAX 3

Light_Slingers
MIN 0
MAX 3

E_Greek_LH_Jav
MIN 0
MAX 3

Xystophoroi
MIN 2
MAX 5

Grk_arm_cav
MIN 0
MAX 3

Vet_Arm_Cavalry
MIN 0
MAX 3

Merc_Hoplites
MIN 0
MAX 5

Heavy_Artillery
MIN 0
MAX 2

Citizen_Hoplites
MIN 0
MAX 5

Thracians
MIN 0
MAX 5

Prodromoi
MIN 1
MAX 3

If the idea is to make Hellenistic armies a bit more historical with more and cheaper but less powerful pikes, and more reliant on cavalry, then I would think you would do something like:

Increase max Pikes by 2-4
Increase max Vet Pikes by 1-2
Increase Vet_Arm_Cavalry, Grk_arm_cav, and Xystophoroi and also Prodromoi by 1-4 each? not sure what numbers really here but seems they should go up a bit
And also perhaps:
Greatly decrease from MAX 5 to more like MAX 2 for medium infantry and non-pike heavy infantry like Thureophoroi, Merc_Hoplites, Thracians, and Citizen_Hoplites?
And then do what with light foot? if anything.

Anyone know if this army composition picture for Ancient Macedonians is more or less accurate?



*it seems that what the picture is labeling skirmishers are FOG2's light infantry, and what it is labeling 'allied light infantry' are FOG2's medium infantry?
If that's true then there should be considerably more Pikes than all of the medium infantry together?
And Hypaspists would be what in FOG2? superior hoplites? I think that's a contested point historically?
And would the peltasts in that picture be massed peltasts in FOG2?
Would those light cavalry be javelin light horse or Prodromoi?

The point is though, would that be a decent starting point for making an army list to test these Pike Changes?

For now the hosted mod just adds a few more to the max normal pikes for Macedonia 320 and gets rid of Vet Pike min in case you want to test without those.

EDIT: what do you think about this list:


too much cav? too many mediums or hoplites? too many pikes? How would you change light cav or light foot options? Should I add superior hoplites as a stand in for hypaspists?

[Schweetness101]

could I get some feedback on the following additional changes I am considering:

1) -1 CT to pikes vs other pikes in melee, as per Geffalrus suggestion AND/OR removing casualty mitigation for pikes vs pikes. This would be because the pausing effect pikes have on combat by holding their opponents at length is removed when their opponents are also pikes. IE pikes should slow things down except vs other pikes where it seems they should roll over or surrender to one another more quickly than normal melee even.

2) remove casualty mitigation vs medium foot? Or just remove it from what the pikes inflict. IE medium foot still receive full casualties while inflicting half vs steady pikes in the open. I am somewhat concerned that with these existing changes a massed medium foot army would be at too great an advantage vs pikes because casualty mitigation would let cheap mediums hold up pikes for too long while also outnumbering, surrounding and flanking them. I haven't tested if that's actually a problem though.

3) Adding some casualty mitigation to ranged damage vs steady pikes to help them resist ranged fire without adding expensive armor.

4) Causing Severe Disruption to Pikes on rough, and not just difficult, terrain like with cataphracts, chariots and artillery. I like this idea because it lets terrain have an overwhelmingly negative effect on Pikes (removing all POA) while maintaining the only half loss POA from disruption (morale loss), but still full loss on fragmentation.

5) Editing odds to pushbacks and fallbacks vs pikes. For example, I could greatly increase the chance to fallback of non-pike heavy or medium infantry against steady pikes, because it seems like that was common historically? IE when against pikes in the open legions would attack and then fallback repeatedly without much effect, but wouldn't stay caught up in melee for a long unbroken period I think?
Also, I could remove any chance of steady pikes being pushed back (I can't see them being pushed back while steady and in the open against anything but other pikes), but increase their chances of performing/inflicting a pushback, because one of their weaknesses seemed to be that they would win so hard when steady that they would push their opponent back onto rough ground or into a position where they could be flanked more easily. Specifically, now that casualties are mitigated against steady pikes, it is unusual for either side in a steady vs steady melee to 'win' and thus roll a chance to pushback, so perhaps I could add a chance for pikes to pushback opponents in melee even if the Pikes don't win.

6) Perhaps some additional Cohesion Test modifiers like an additional -1 to CT for pikes on being flanked, and an additional -1 to CT for pikes if disordered. Those I would consider after trying and testing all current and above changes if they're still not quite balanced.

7) What number of total Pikes should we see in, say, a Medium Size 1200 pt Hellenistic army? Geffalrus suggested one way of balancing the cheapness of these newer pikes would be to not increase the unit cap on them by too much. And by Pike quality? Currently, for example:

Macedonian 355:
Pike: 2 + 0/4
Vet Pike: 1 + 0/1
Max: 8 Pikes
Macedonian 328:
Pike: 1+ 0/3
Vet Pike: 1 + 0/3
Max: 8 Pikes
Ptolemaic 217:
Pike: 2 + 0/4
Vet Pike: 1 + 0/1
Raw Pike: 0/6
Max: 14 Pikes *I think this is the most pikes you can get currently and they're almost half raw so maybe a bad example?

I didn't check them all but I think generally you can max out ~8 pikes for 1200 pt armies (but almost never would because of cost)

*of course, these armies are typically supplemented by about 6 hoplites and 6 medium foot on medium size armies. So, if that were reduced to 2 hoplites and 2 medium foot on medium size, then you could compensate by increasing pike number by 8? (6+6 = 12, 2+2 = 4, so diff of 8 ). Or maybe just by 6? If by 6 that would be 14 pikes total.

That could look like:
Pike: 4 + 0/6
Vet Pike: 1 + 0/3
just as an example

By contrast, Rome 280 can bring 18 legions (of all qualities including raw), and an additional 5 triarii.
Greek Mercenaries 460 can bring a whopping 27 hoplites and additional medium foot
Carthage 235 can bring 2 warband, 5 african spears, and 2 mercenary hoplites for 9 heavy foot, but an additional 16 medium foot and 3 elephants making for a very large line potentially
etc...

You get the idea...basically current pike armies can't match the width of their contemporaries in game, especially not for cost. What, then, ought to be the max cap for numbers on pike units? And how much medium foot/non pike heavy foot support should they get at a given unit cap? It might help to retroactively figure out cost and quality by working back from how many you should be able to have in 1200 pt armies.

thanks for any help!