Slitherine

iainmcneil wrote:The aim was always to allow you to choose whether a unit evades. We have been looking for a good UI solution for this and trying to find the time to add it.

One option is to set an aggression level
* Low - always evade unles it would take you off table
* Medium - Evade if your combat odds are less than 50:50 with the enemy and you have room to evade.
* High - Do not evade - some troops would need to test not to evade.

I like it! thanks Slitherine for listening to us!

I also agree with IanIOW, but if fixing the evade AI is going to delay the improved evade logic then I'd say go ahead with improved evade logic ASAP and improve the evade path later.

The evade path is a completely different issue really so one can be changed without worrying about the other too much.

Just curious Ian, would these settings be global for all units, global per unit type ie heavy cav set to high agression, lf could be set to low etc, or on a per unit basis?

Would you be able to share the other options that were/are being considered?

Cheers

They'd be unit by unit. Most of the issues are related to UI rather than functionality. We've not decided on how best to offer this option yet.

Thanks for the response... I'm no progamer but maybe a unit could simply be "right clicked" and a window w the stances pops up?

Iain, would you also be doing a variable evade/pusuit as discussed by myself and others on here previously.

Yes it could but its about trying to integrate it in the most seamless way thats easy and intuitive to use. We need to try a few things out and see what works best.

Sounds great!

Goodluck with the testing and again thanks for listening. I do think you guys are doing a great job with this game and especially how you respond to feedback from us gamers.

SRW1962 wrote:Iain, would you also be doing a variable evade/pusuit as discussed by myself and others on here previously.

A combination of the flags to control your evaders reactions and variable pursuit/evade would make FOG's skirmishing system a lot more in line with the TT version and ultimately a much richer/robust system... If both are added, I think most people's concerns about skirmishers would pretty much be alleviated.

Glad to hear you guys are considering at least the control option for the skirmishers 'aggression'... Now to get the second part introduced.

Presumably the settings will either be done at individual unit level (which I think gives too much fine control to the player) or will be separate for light troops and for other cavalry. i may well want my javelin armed cavalry to stand and fight but want my skirmishers to evade.

Will anything be done about the auto-about face for non-light missile troops at any point? Or the ridiculous ease with which non lights manoeuvre (about face-move-about face...)? I really hope so. Because both these exploits result in issues as great as the evading problem for me.

RyanDG wrote: A combination of the flags to control your evaders reactions and variable pursuit/evade would make FOG's skirmishing system a lot more in line with the TT version and ultimately a much richer/robust system... If both are added, I think most people's concerns about skirmishers would pretty much be alleviated.

Almost..... I'd still like the final part about skirmishers addressed, i.e. that Cavalry (or LH minimum) be given a chance to catch skirmishers irrespective of a setting of evade.

So, to re-write and clarify my preferred option:
One option is to set an aggression level
* Low - always try to evade unless it would take you off table. Foot skirmishers may possibly be caught by LH/Cavalry/non-cataphract horse (delete as applicable)
* Medium - Evade if your combat odds are less than 50:50 with the enemy and you have room to evade.
* High - Do not evade - some troops would need to test not to evade.

Paisley wrote:Will anything be done about the auto-about face for non-light missile troops at any point? Or the ridiculous ease with which non lights manoeuvre (about face-move-about face...)? I really hope so. Because both these exploits result in issues as great as the evading problem for me.

I agree. Some of my battles have borne a strong resemblance to the hokey-kokey because of the latter issue.

And it's an easy one to remedy.

I would suggest
1) No free turn for non-light shooters.
2) Drilled non-light troops (and undrilled Cavalry - but not cataphracts, knights etc) get a free 60 degree turn at the end of the move, but no more than 60 degrees.
3) Light troops get a free turn at end of move as at present.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Paisley wrote:Will anything be done about the auto-about face for non-light missile troops at any point? Or the ridiculous ease with which non lights manoeuvre (about face-move-about face...)? I really hope so. Because both these exploits result in issues as great as the evading problem for me.

I agree. Some of my battles have borne a strong resemblance to the hokey-kokey because of the latter issue.

And it's an easy one to remedy.

I would suggest
1) No free turn for non-light shooters.
2) Drilled non-light troops (and undrilled Cavalry - but not cataphracts, knights etc) get a free 60 degree turn at the end of the move, but no more than 60 degrees.
3) Light troops get a free turn at end of move as at present.

For what it's worth, I started a separate thread with a proposal for handling facing changes. I assume you would include undrilled LCh and non-cataphract camels in with undrilled cavalry.

Chris

Paisley wrote:Presumably the settings will either be done at individual unit level (which I think gives too much fine control to the player) or will be separate for light troops and for other cavalry.

THe problem with some kind of global setting is that it would not allow you to have different evade settings for both flanks and the center, which I think is clearly necessary. While a setting at the individual level seems like a bit too much micro-management to me, I don't see how else you could do it.

batesmotel wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

Paisley wrote:Will anything be done about the auto-about face for non-light missile troops at any point? Or the ridiculous ease with which non lights manoeuvre (about face-move-about face...)? I really hope so. Because both these exploits result in issues as great as the evading problem for me.

I agree. Some of my battles have borne a strong resemblance to the hokey-kokey because of the latter issue.

And it's an easy one to remedy.

I would suggest
1) No free turn for non-light shooters.
2) Drilled non-light troops (and undrilled Cavalry - but not cataphracts, knights etc) get a free 60 degree turn at the end of the move, but no more than 60 degrees.
3) Light troops get a free turn at end of move as at present.

For what it's worth, I started a separate thread with a proposal for handling facing changes. I assume you would include undrilled LCh and non-cataphract camels in with undrilled cavalry.

Yup. Essentially the same undrilled troops that are more manoeuvrable than other undrilled troops in FOG TT.

It might be tedious to make individual settings at the start of a game, but probably there would be no need to change them later. For example, I would probably always have heavy cav stand no matter what and javelin LF always set to evade. Come to think of it, why not have default stances that reflect how troops are intended to function? Slingers would default to always evade, but you could override that if you're willing to sacrifice them to hold ground.

Deeter

P.S. Thinking about the agression settings, another thing missing is reaction charges. Perhaps setting a unit to an agressive stance could allow it to do this? There are also restricted zones, but that's sort of relfected by zones of control.

As I said elsewhere, I think only superior and/or javelin armed light foot should be able to charge steady javelin armed light foot, in any circumstances. I can see Cretans being induced to charge velites perhaps, but not low quality hillmen with slings and cheese knives charging velites. No way.

I think any change of facing (wheeling a line being harder than about facing) coupled with a move should mean a CMT, failure resulting in a loss of one level cohesion (like the Spartans at Leuctra). this would allow the dreaded about face - move - about face but make it very risky unless supervised by an inspired general, and even then it would be chancy. Keep the difference between drilled and undrilled as it is now. Thus drilled have the potential to do all kinds of fancy marching (like pretty boy Alexander impressing the Triballans) but at some risk. Don't ban complex manoeuvres, make them more difficult and a matter for judgement.

And bowmen - foot and mounted (but not lights) who move should roll less dice for shooting than currently. And the dread 'about face - fire' should count as a move (and yes, CMT involved too).

Would it not be a lot simpler if the decision as to whether an eligable unit evades is given to the player at the point of contact. A test could be taken if under normal circumstances the skirmisher unit would evade and you are asking them to stand. Fail the test the unit drops a cohision leval and be forced to evade. Pass and they stand.

That would slow the game down as you'd have to return the game to your opponent to see if he wanted to evade or not!

Paisley wrote:As I said elsewhere, I think only superior and/or javelin armed light foot should be able to charge steady javelin armed light foot, in any circumstances. I can see Cretans being induced to charge velites perhaps, but not low quality hillmen with slings and cheese knives charging velites. No way.

Well, I can think of situations where I would charge Velites with a sling and a cheese knife. Just consider, as one example, the Velites are about to reach the baggage carts where your wife, children and all your worldly goods are. Or, consider the situation that you know that if you are facing a terrible opponent and if you lose this battle the whole town/city is going to be destroyed and all citizens killed / raped etc. Now, the enemy is breaking through to a very favourable position and the only thing that stands between them and certain victory are the hillmen and his friends, there are good troops on the way, but they won't get there in time, now if someone can hold the bridge for a few minutes.....

But, in broad terms I agree with you. The only difference I'd make is to make a test before doing so. It maybe that using your example, the hillmen with slings and cheese knives fail the test 2 times in 3, but there should be some chance that they will do as ordered.