Cav ZoC/AP Mod Testing Workshop

[Athos1660]

(...)
I think the big advantage of this idea is that it would speed up overall cavalry melee resolution considerably. You wouldn't have situations where units from both sides end up pursuing vanquished units and then have to turn around and come back at each other again. In a greater proportion of cases, it would be a short, sharp fight where one side or the other would win the cavalry battle outright and then have the opportunity to mount a genuine flank attack on the centre.

Please, don't take it personally. It is just my modest opinion about a game, a mod and History.

But I really don't like this idea.
Speeding up the cav melee ? No.
Preventing pursuing ? No.
Short, sharp fights ? No. At least, not always. Sometimes, yes. Why ? Mainly because the charge screwed up. Not because cavalrymen were systematically super-butchers during melees.

(...) but I think the idea contained in the second paragraph does not go quite far enough. I have highlighted the key point above in bold text.
For example, you have 2 Norman lancers fighting 2 Breton lancers in a big open space, and one Breton lancer routs as a result of melee combat. Under the idea suggested above the victorious Norman lancer unit would first of all occupy the space previously held by the defeated Breton lancer and then check to see if there was another enemy to fight before it could pursue. The only other enemy unit in the vicinity is the other Breton lancer unit which is now adjacent (but obviously facing the other way and fighting the other Norman lancer). So unless the victorious Norman lancer has the ability to make a 90 degree turn in these circumstances to join the melee against the remaining Breton lancer it has no viable target and would pursue (defeating the intention of the modification). The alternative, which is much simpler, is that the victorious Norman lancer should check to see if there is another melee opponent before it moves at all to pursue. In this example, the victorious Norman lancer would have another opponent to fight and so would join the melee with the other Norman lancer against the remaining Breton lancer. There would be no impact phase in this situation, just a 2v1 melee. (I think this idea might also be applicable to shock infantry as well.)

Units are not computers that make the best choice, rationally, always, in order to make their side win.
Horsemen are men. They won the melee, have just made the enemy rout and now, full of adrenaline, they have one instinct : slaughter them all, get revenge for the wounded/killed friends so they will follow them to hell. A drive that does one contradict another one : leaving this goddamn battlefield alive and ASAP with a good excuse and (why not?) safely plunder the nearby farms. (This is quite in the spirit of the anarchy charges btw.)

I don't know but I don't think men of the Antiquity/Middle Age were more rational and less impulsive than the modern ones.


Just my 2 cent

[stockwellpete]

Please, don't take it personally. It is just my modest opinion about a game, a mod and History.

But I really don't like this idea.
Speeding up the cav melee ? No.
Preventing pursuing ? No.
Short, sharp fights ? No. At least, not always. Sometimes, yes. Why ? Mainly because the charge screwed up. Not because cavalrymen were systematically super-butchers during melees.

I don't think you have really understood this idea. How long do you think cavalry melees lasted for? Particularly if soldiers were wearing armour? They would generally be short sharp fights where one side prevailed over the other and then chased them off. So the "speeding up" is relative to what we have now where cavalry melees between evenly matched units can go on for 4 or 5 complete turns. That is quite a long time. This idea does not "prevent pursuits", it just changes the timing of them so that individual "units" (which don't actually exist in many armies) do not pursue defeated individual enemy "units" out of a wider melee that is still continuing. In many cases this change would have no effect at all because some cavalry melees start off in a more dispersed manner and stay that way throughout. So I am talking about the larger cavalry melees with multiple units in close proximity here.

Units are not computers that make the best choice, rationally, always, in order to make their side win.
Horsemen are men. They won the melee, have just made the enemy rout and now, full of adrenaline, they have one instinct : slaughter them all, get revenge for the wounded/killed friends so they will follow them to hell. A drive that does one contradict another one : leaving this goddamn battlefield alive and ASAP with a good excuse and (why not?) safely plunder the nearby farms.

I don't know but I don't think men of the Antiquity/Middle Age were more rational and less impulsive than the modern ones.

Again you are missing my point. Just because one "unit" of cavalry has seen off an enemy "unit" of cavalry it does not mean the melee is won. There may be other enemies very close by to fight within that larger melee. You are regarding "units" as being distinct bodies of soldiers whereas I am regarding "units" as artificial sub-components (necessary for army selection purposes in the game) of larger contingents of cavalry. And I am saying that it would be better if these larger melees of multiple "units" had more of a chance of being resolved decisively and that pursuit should only happen at the end of this process. Given that the permutations involved in these melees are virtually limitless you are still going to get pursuits happening in all sorts of circumstances, but the change should increase the proportion of larger cavalry melees giving a decisive result to one side or the other.

[Athos1660]

On the contrary, I did understand your ideas and I disagree with them, which are two things that are not necessary incompatible. And this is no big deal about that.

How long do you think cavalry melees lasted for? Particularly if soldiers were wearing armour?

I honestly don’t know.
My guess : could last as long as infantry melees.

They would generally be short sharp fights where one side prevailed over the other and then chased them off.

You sure ?
I’m ready to believe you.
Sources ?

However, would it even be a good change for the game ?

So the "speeding up" is relative to what we have now where cavalry melees between evenly matched units can go on for 4 or 5 complete turns. That is quite a long time.

Vanilla cav melees are fine IMHO.
And you know, I tested quite a few different formulas of cav fights.
Casualties +33% makes them too fast.
0% is better.

This idea does not "prevent pursuits", it just changes the timing of them (…)

That’s rhetoric. And you wrote :

You wouldn't have situations where units from both sides end up pursuing vanquished units and then have to turn around and come back at each other again.

_______________

(…) so that individual "units" (which don't actually exist in many armies) do not pursue defeated individual enemy "units" out of a wider melee that is still continuing.
(…)
You are regarding "units" as being distinct bodies of soldiers whereas I am regarding "units" as artificial sub-components (necessary for army selection purposes in the game) of larger contingents of cavalry. And I am saying that it would be better if these larger melees of multiple "units" had more of a chance of being resolved decisively and that pursuit should only happen at the end of this process.
(…)
but the change should increase the proportion of larger cavalry melees giving a decisive result to one side or the other.

To be a unit or not ? That’s the question.
It seems that RBS does not totally agree with you on this subject.
I for one don’t have any knowledge about that during Antiquity/Middle Age. So, until further in-game change or notice on the forum, I will stick with the ‘units' as defined in the game : 240 horsemen for non-light cav.

I guess that if you were right, in-game 'units’ should come as blocks of squares. And one could buy 1, 2 or 3-square-long cav blocks.

Anyway, whatever was the organisation of cav units (that is ‘units' of 240 men or 2000 men), IMHO nothing would have prevented 10, 50, 120, 300 horsemen to pursuie routers at once. So units of 240 men pursuing, as currently, is fine.

[Athos1660]

So I am talking about the larger cavalry melees with multiple units in close proximity here.

Me too.

I am regarding "units" as artificial sub-components (necessary for army selection purposes in the game) of larger contingents of cavalry.

I don't think it is the only reason for their being in game.

Again you are missing my point.

I am not.
But I too might start asking that kind of question à la mode.

[Nosy_Rat]

How would that work with very different types of cavalry? I hardly imagine unit like klibanophoroi in the same "contigent" as some bedouins, for example. Or heavy chariots and cavalry.

[stockwellpete]

How would that work with very different types of cavalry? I hardly imagine unit like klibanophoroi in the same "contigent" as some bedouins, for example. Or heavy chariots and cavalry.

Well, at the moment what we can sometimes see in melees is either klibanophoroi chasing vanquished enemies out of a melee and leaving the Bedouin behind or vice versa.

My guess is that although these types of soldier would have lined up in distinct contingents at the start, once the melee with the enemy had been joined, they would mostly have got mixed in with each other, fought with each other to defeat the enemy, and then chased them off together at the end (the Bedouin being more suited to pursuit than the armoured cavalry). Then they would have re-grouped in their respective contingents. Isn't that what generally would have happened?

[Athos1660]

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.

You mention "the medieval period".

"Knights were gathered in 2-3 "battles" (batailles or échelles in French). Each battle was made of several basic tactical units called "bannières" or "conrois". The horsemen of each of these units had to remain together around a banneret, a banner or a war cry. (...) The units of the "battle" rarely charged all at once. They generally charged sector after sector, starting with the right hand side. (And the author keeps on detailing how units charge, fall back under the protection of the nearby units charging in turn, etc.) (...) Inside a "battle", French knights were associated with other kinds of troops."

Source : R. Chauviré, Histoire de la Cavalerie.
(My poor translation)

Was it different during early Middle Age ?

[stockwellpete]

During the medieval period, "Knights were gathered in 2-3 "battles" (batailles or échelles in French). Each battle was made of several basic tactical units called "bannières" or "conrois". The horsemen of each of these units had to remain together around a banneret, a banner or a war cry. (...) The whole line of "battles" rarely charged all at once. They generally charged sector after sector, starting with the right hand side. (And the author keeps on detailing how units charge, fall back under the protection of the nearby units charging in turn, etc.) (...) Inside the battles, French knights were associated with other kinds of troops."

Source : R. Chauviré, Histoire de la Cavalerie.
(My poor translation)

Was it different during early Middle Age ?

Does this writer say anything about individual banners charging out of a melee to pursue fleeing enemy cavalry and leaving the others behind? From that short section you have translated it sounds like they all worked together to defeat the enemy. Which is what I am saying in the first place.

[Athos1660]

During the medieval period, "Knights were gathered in 2-3 "battles" (batailles or échelles in French). Each battle was made of several basic tactical units called "bannières" or "conrois". The horsemen of each of these units had to remain together around a banneret, a banner or a war cry. (...) The whole line of "battles" rarely charged all at once. They generally charged sector after sector, starting with the right hand side. (And the author keeps on detailing how units charge, fall back under the protection of the nearby units charging in turn, etc.) (...) Inside the battles, French knights were associated with other kinds of troops."

Source : R. Chauviré, Histoire de la Cavalerie.
(My poor translation)

Was it different during early Middle Age ?

Does this writer say anything about individual banners charging out of a melee to pursue fleeing enemy cavalry and leaving the others behind? From that short section you have translated it sounds like they all worked together to defeat the enemy. Which is what I am saying in the first place.

Come on !!!!!
The smallest tactical unit is the banner.
The cavalrymen received orders from their banneret.
Sectors of the battle (ie some units) charged.
When a unit fails to charge, it falls back and tries again alone.
Ok the text doesn't say anything about pursuing and routing or zoc. But except if my translation is sh...t, the text says the contrary of what you are saying :

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.

(edit)

It seems that, according to this author, during this period, "banners" were gathered in "sectors" that were gathered in "battles" to optimise the head-on charge. But the tactical unit was the banner that could do whatever after the initial charge.

[Nosy_Rat]

How would that work with very different types of cavalry? I hardly imagine unit like klibanophoroi in the same "contigent" as some bedouins, for example. Or heavy chariots and cavalry.

Well, at the moment what we can sometimes see in melees is either klibanophoroi chasing vanquished enemies out of a melee and leaving the Bedouin behind or vice versa.

My guess is that although these types of soldier would have lined up in distinct contingents at the start, once the melee with the enemy had been joined, they would mostly have got mixed in with each other, fought with each other to defeat the enemy, and then chased them off together at the end (the Bedouin being more suited to pursuit than the armoured cavalry). Then they would have re-grouped in their respective contingents. Isn't that what generally would have happened?

No idea, to be fair. I can as well assume that they would try to keep separated to prevent "friendly fire" so to speak, and to make mantaining order easier.

[stockwellpete]

Come on !!!!!
The smallest tactical unit is the banner.
The cavalrymen received orders from their banneret.
Sectors of the battle (ie some units) charged.
When a unit fails to charge, it falls back and tries again alone.
Ok the text doesn't say anything about pursuing and routing or zoc. But except if my translation is sh...t, the text says the contrary of what you are saying :

Erm, you have just found something in a book that you think makes your case against my argument, which you are still misrepresenting.

Banners were around 50 men, I believe, and conrois were much, much smaller, maybe 10-12 men. Our basic cavalry units in the game are 240 men, so banners and conrois are not really represented as such as they are too small. Nowhere does the text you are referring to say that banners and conrois operated independently of other banners and conrois and would have broken formation to pursue defeated enemies out of the melee in the way that happens in nearly every FOG2 battle at the moment (one side's cavalry pursue one way, and the other side's cavalry pursue the other way - and then they have to turn around and come back to fight again. This is bonkers!)

[Athos1660]

Erm, you have just found something in a book that you think makes your case against my argument, which you are still misrepresenting.

Banners were around 50 men, I believe, and conrois were much, much smaller, maybe 10-12 men. Our basic cavalry units in the game are 240 men, so banners and conrois are not really represented as such as they are too small. Nowhere does the text you are referring to say that banners and conrois operated independently of other banners and conrois and would have broken formation to pursue defeated enemies out of the melee in the way that happens in nearly every FOG2 battle at the moment (one side's cavalry pursue one way, and the other side's cavalry pursue the other way - and then they have to turn around and come back to fight again. This is bonkers!)

This discussion becomes too tense for me. So I will stop it after a few words.

I make no case. I just quote a reputed author who seems to contradict what you state. For the good of debate and for the game (or a mod, I don't know). That's all.

I give my source. You don't. You seem to know it all. Very well. See you later.

I guess you finally took it personally. I am sorry of that

(read my edit I was writing in my previous post while you posted)

(edit)
typo

[stockwellpete]

My source is "Warfare in the Medieval World" by Brian Todd Carey. Even the Byzantine army, which did have "regiments" (tagmata) is clearly depicted as fighting in contingents, not autonomous units.

[stockwellpete]

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.

(edit)

It seems that, according to this author, during this period, "banners" were gathered in "sectors" that were gathered in "battles" to optimise the head-on charge. But the tactical unit was the banner that could do whatever after the initial charge.

tend . . .

regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.

[Athos1660]

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.

(edit)

It seems that, according to this author, during this period, "banners" were gathered in "sectors" that were gathered in "battles" to optimise the head-on charge. But the tactical unit was the banner that could do whatever after the initial charge.

tend . . .

regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic.

If I extrapolate correctly what the author I quoted says :
- in medieval times, Cavalry is organised in 2-3 "battles"
- Opposing battles face each others
- Each battle is organised in sectors (group of several banners, ie several units)
- Each sector charges head-on, successively.
- Then banners (units) act autonomously

So a banner (unit) is able to pursue routers.

The organisation in battle, as I understand it for now, does not mean that the units of a "batlle" have to remain together during the entire battle. It is just a way to organise the units for the initial charge as you in game, you can scatter your cav units on the map or have then stay in a group during deployment time.

But I may be wrong as I am no expert.

So what is wrong about that way of seeing medieval "battles" ?
I am ready to learn.

[stockwellpete]

So what is wrong about that way of seeing medieval "battles" ?
I am ready to learn.

Nothing. All I am saying is that melees in FOG2 atomise too much, particularly cavalry melees. And the pursuit phase should only really happen once the overall melee has been resolved decisively in favour of one side or the other (or on rarer occasions where both sides withdraw after a fairly even encounter there will be no pursuit phase). But I know of no battle where some units on one side charged off victoriously in one direction and units on the other side charged off victoriously in the other direction after being involved in the same melee. It probably did happen somewhere once - but it happens way too much in FOG2. So I am just wondering if there is a way to modify this a bit.

[rbodleyscott]

So what is wrong about that way of seeing medieval "battles" ?
I am ready to learn.

Nothing. All I am saying is that melees in FOG2 atomise too much, particularly cavalry melees. And the pursuit phase should only really happen once the overall melee has been resolved decisively in favour of one side or the other (or on rarer occasions where both sides withdraw after a fairly even encounter there will be no pursuit phase). But I know of no battle where some units on one side charged off victoriously in one direction and units on the other side charged off victoriously in the other direction after being involved in the same melee. It probably did happen somewhere once - but it happens way too much in FOG2. So I am just wondering if there is a way to modify this a bit.

As I have pointed out before, the battle accounts available to us are at best summaries of the actual events. There is really no way of knowing whether your "monolithic" interpretation is correct or not. Yes, it may seem that way from the battle accounts, but possibly only because they lack the detail that would reveal a more complex series of events. i.e. They mostly report outcomes rather than process.

The many armies with proper permanent or ad-hoc regiments were organised for independent tactical manoeuvre if required. The extent to which they made use of such capability remains to be seen.

Those armies who lacked such organisation and discipline would surely be even more likely to "do their own thing" when the enemy immediately in front of them fled.

You seem to be edging towards a system whereby the battle is decided by 3 huge melees. Even if that were realistic, which is open to doubt, it would not make for a game that most of us would enjoy playing.

[Schweetness101]

I wonder if a few subtle changes might nudge the system towards what stockwellpete is talking about without fundamentally changing it.

a few ideas come to mind:

1) decrease max number of turns a unit spends pursuing, and/or increase odds of stopping pursuing during any given pursuit turn
_____a) in particular this could be done by unit type, perhaps cataphracts should be less likely to pursue a long distance, or units of more disciplined armies are less likely to pursue a long distance, or of higher or lower quality, or of light vs heavy cav etc...
2) alter the angle at which a given pursuing unit will charge into another unit rather than continuing the pursuit (I think it's 45 degrees currently), and/or change the number of turns of pursuit before charging another unit is an option if it is already greater than zero (I don't know that it is, do units ever auto charge another unit on pursuit without moving even one square?)
3) treat enemy ZoCs like obstacles to pursuit that stop the pursuit
4) decrease number of turns until a broken fleeing unit disperses, so its pursuer can get back into combat
5) give a unit that has finished a pursuit this turn enough AP to turn 180 degrees, rather than no AP (i think it's no ap now anyway). I actually kind of like this one, it just simply decreases the amount of time it takes to get back into combat by a full 1 turn
6) decrease odds of routing units rallying
7) create some kind of odds of catching and auto-dispersing a routing unit rather than just chasing it until it leaves the battlefield or auto disperses from X turns of routing so that the pursuer can be finished chasing them sooner

the evade/pursuit code is pretty complex, and I'm not familiar with it yet, so some of the above ideas might be irrelevant or just wrong, and altering that code would be difficult, but certainly not impossible and maybe worth it. But, if I am going to do so we should hash out what if anything should be altered exactly.

I mean, ideally anyway. I guess I could just stumble around the pursuit code until I found something which, if altered, is likely to produce the desired result, but that's not very efficient.

[stockwellpete]

As I have pointed out before, the battle accounts available to us are at best summaries of the actual events. There is really no way of knowing whether your "monolithic" interpretation is correct or not. Yes, it may seem that way from the battle accounts, but possibly only because they lack the detail that would reveal a more complex series of events. i.e. They mostly report outcomes rather than process.

OK, so none of us really knows what happened in many of these battles and therefore all we can do is express our own opinions about them. You have expressed your opinion through the design of FOG2 and I am expressing my opinion on a limited range of issues in the game that may, or may not, end up in a mod.

The many armies with proper permanent or ad-hoc regiments were organised for independent tactical manoeuvre if required. The extent to which they made use of such capability remains to be seen.

If we don't know now then we are unlikely ever to. The societies represented in this game were strictly hierarchical, so I think we can deduce that their military cultures tended to be hierarchical too. So my guess is that the scope for, and incidence of, independent tactical manoeuvre was very limited, but not completely unknown.

Those armies who lacked such organisation and discipline would surely be even more likely to "do their own thing" when the enemy immediately in front of them fled.

Two things. Firstly, when contingents of armies break then they tend to break at the same time (I am watching Ken Burn's series on the ACW and this is a regular feature of that conflict). In the game you might have a 5v5 infantry fight where units 2 and 5 of one side rout - but it wouldn't happen like that in real life, would it? Eventually one side would not be able to stand their ground and all 5 units would run and there would be a pursuit (where most of the casualties would occur).

Secondly, unarticulated formations tended to fight as a mass. I think you need specific organisational (leadership) structures for independent tactical initiatives to occur other than on an exceptional basis and they don't exist in these sort of formations. So I think basically they charged (or received a charge), fought, pursued if they won and legged it it if they lost - in most circumstances anyway.

You seem to be edging towards a system whereby the battle is decided by 3 huge melees. Even if that were realistic, which is open to doubt, it would not make for a game that most of us would enjoy playing.

Not at all. What I am saying is that when large melees do occur in a battle in FOG2 (either in the centre or on the flanks) it would be better if they were resolved more decisively more often than they are now. Infantry melees are generally fine, but cavalry melees can get hopelessly dispersed with victorious units on both sides pursuing in opposite directions. This happens a lot in FOG2 (I know because I have been keeping a stat).

However, large melees do not always form on the flanks in some battles. Usually there is a big melee in the centre, but sometimes the cavalry battles on the flank are absent, or they take place sporadically and never really coalesce into larger melees. You will still get lots of pursuits from these melees so I don't think it is too much of a problem.

One thought I have is - and anyone playing the game can try this - I think you should be able to describe to a third party what a particular FOG battle was like. What its main features were. In a few sentences. If you cannot do this most of the time then I think there is an issue to do with the battles being messy and atomised with units ending up all over the place.

[stockwellpete]

I wonder if a few subtle changes might nudge the system towards what stockwellpete is talking about without fundamentally changing it.

a few ideas come to mind:

1) decrease max number of turns a unit spends pursuing, and/or increase odds of stopping pursuing during any given pursuit turn
_____a) in particular this could be done by unit type, perhaps cataphracts should be less likely to pursue a long distance, or units of more disciplined armies are less likely to pursue a long distance, or of higher or lower quality, or of light vs heavy cav etc...
2) alter the angle at which a given pursuing unit will charge into another unit rather than continuing the pursuit (I think it's 45 degrees currently), and/or change the number of turns of pursuit before charging another unit is an option if it is already greater than zero (I don't know that it is, do units ever auto charge another unit on pursuit without moving even one square?)
3) treat enemy ZoCs like obstacles to pursuit that stop the pursuit
4) decrease number of turns until a broken fleeing unit disperses, so its pursuer can get back into combat
5) give a unit that has finished a pursuit this turn enough AP to turn 180 degrees, rather than no AP (i think it's no ap now anyway). I actually kind of like this one, it just simply decreases the amount of time it takes to get back into combat by a full 1 turn
6) decrease odds of routing units rallying
7) create some kind of odds of catching and auto-dispersing a routing unit rather than just chasing it until it leaves the battlefield or auto disperses from X turns of routing so that the pursuer can be finished chasing them sooner

the evade/pursuit code is pretty complex, and I'm not familiar with it yet, so some of the above ideas might be irrelevant or just wrong, and altering that code would be difficult, but certainly not impossible and maybe worth it. But, if I am going to do so we should hash out what if anything should be altered exactly.

I mean, ideally anyway. I guess I could just stumble around the pursuit code until I found something which, if altered, is likely to produce the desired result, but that's not very efficient.

Yes, there are some very good ideas here.

1) reduce the pursuit time - heavy cavalry could pursue 3 turns instead of 5
2) if a unit has a chance to charge another unit successfully instead of pursuing then it should
3) this is the single most important thing and I hope we can mod this
4) reduce to 4 maybe
5) yes, I had this thought today as well. Maybe heavy cavalry types do not get a free turn, but other cavalry should
7) yes, light units maybe 2 turns of pursuit, infantry 3 turns, cavalry 4 turns