Flank Angle Mod

[Athos1660]

I feel like flank/rear attacks on unengaged non-light units could be more devastating : attacked infantry currently suffers a Net minimum PoA+50 and attacked cavalry flees. Those attacks in P&S were certainly too strong (with an automatic cohesion drop/Net PoA +200), but were more enjoyable. FoG2 ones seem too weak IMHO. A balance between the 2 could be nice, such as say the non-light cavalry wouldn't flee when attacked by a non-light cavalry and a cohesion test for the charged one. I don't know exactly what yet, anyway something a bit more 'spectacular' and devastating than currently.

[Schweetness101]

I feel like flank/rear attacks on unengaged non-light units could be more devastating : attacked infantry currently suffers a Net minimum PoA+50 and attacked cavalry flees. Those attacks in P&S were certainly too strong (with an automatic cohesion drop/Net PoA +200), but were more enjoyable. FoG2 ones seem too weak IMHO. A balance between the 2 could be nice, such as say the non-light cavalry wouldn't flee when attacked by a non-light cavalry and a cohesion test for the charged one. I don't know exactly what yet, anyway something a bit more 'spectacular' and devastating than currently.

I'm sympathetic to this too. It is very difficult to decide what is the best result in all circumstances. We've got:

1) Frontal charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied
2) Flank Charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied
3) Rear Charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied

and those with all unit matchups, cav vs cav, cav vs inf, inf vs ele, etc...

maybe it could be like (for unit matchups that are eligible to cause a cohesion drop):

1) Frontal charges
----a) against occupied: normal (but with strength modifier for facing multiple units)
----b) against unoccupied: normal
2) Flank Charges
----a) against occupied: +100 and not auto drop
----b) against unoccupied: +50 and no auto drop (normal)
3) Rear Charges
----a) against occupied: +200 and auto drop (normal)
----b) against unoccupied: +100 and no autodrop (like a flank against occupied in the mod)

that way with each tier up in type of charge, you increase deadliness against both occupied and occupied.

[stockwellpete]

Wouldn't unengaged soldiers just turn to face their attackers?

[Athos1660]

I feel like flank/rear attacks on unengaged non-light units could be more devastating : attacked infantry currently suffers a Net minimum PoA+50 and attacked cavalry flees. Those attacks in P&S were certainly too strong (with an automatic cohesion drop/Net PoA +200), but were more enjoyable. FoG2 ones seem too weak IMHO. A balance between the 2 could be nice, such as say the non-light cavalry wouldn't flee when attacked by a non-light cavalry and a cohesion test for the charged one. I don't know exactly what yet, anyway something a bit more 'spectacular' and devastating than currently.

I'm sympathetic to this too. It is very difficult to decide what is the best result in all circumstances. We've got:

1) Frontal charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied
2) Flank Charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied
3) Rear Charges
----a) against occupied
----b) against unoccupied

and those with all unit matchups, cav vs cav, cav vs inf, inf vs ele, etc...

maybe it could be like (for unit matchups that are eligible to cause a cohesion drop):

1) Frontal charges
----a) against occupied: normal (but with strength modifier for facing multiple units)
----b) against unoccupied: normal
2) Flank Charges
----a) against occupied: +100 and not auto drop
----b) against unoccupied: +50 and no auto drop (normal)
3) Rear Charges
----a) against occupied: +200 and auto drop (normal)
----b) against unoccupied: +100 and no autodrop (like a flank against occupied in the mod)

that way with each tier up in type of charge, you increase deadliness against both occupied and occupied.

Interesting.
Hard to say without testing.

Today I tried to mod FoG following P&S rule of Flank/Charge.
It seems quite easy but I didn't succeed. I'll try again. It was not the good day.
The rule is 'basic' (compared to FoG2) and the code straight forward :

Charges by units that start their (whole) move behind the flank of a unit count as flank/rear attacks. Unless they are non-light troops charged by light troops, the victims automatically drop 1 cohesion level (see the Cohesion/Morale section below), and the impact combat is fought on a net POA (see Points of Advantage in the Close Combat section below) of +200 to the flank attackers (+50 if lights charge non-lights). Being charged in the flank by non-light troops is VERY bad. Keils (units with very large blocks of pikemen) and units classed as Later Tercios are immune to flank attacks, and units classed as Early Tercios are immune to flank and rear attacks. Later units were in shallower formations and historically far less able to cope with being flanked (especially by cavalry). They do not therefore have the in-game ability to form square.
Foot are immune to the ill effects of flank/rear attacks across an obstacle (hedge, field fortification etc.), and when in a built- up area.
To qualify as a rear attack, the charger must be less than 45 degrees from directly behind the charged unit.

Code: Select all

            // Does it qualify as a flank/rear attack?
            flank_rear = IsFlankRearAttack(me, enemy);
            if (evaded == 1) // Automatically counts as rear attack if evader is caught
                {
                    flank_rear = 2;
                }

            if (flank_rear > 0)
                {
                    if (flank_rear == 1)
                        {
                            AddVizUnitText(me, "IDS_UNIT_FLANK_ATTACK", "ffffff", 1) ;
                            AddVizDelay(15) ;
                        }

                    if (flank_rear == 2)
                        {
                            AddVizUnitText(me, "IDS_UNIT_REAR_ATTACK", "ffffff", 1) ;
                            AddVizDelay(15) ;
                        }

                    if ((IsLightTroops(me) == 0) || (IsLightTroops(enemy) == 1) || (IsArtillery(enemy) == 1)) // Light troops only cause cohesion drop if flank/rear charging light troops or artillery
                        {
                            if (GetAttrib(enemy, "DroppedMoraleFromFlankAttack") == 0) // Has not already dropped morale this turn from another flank/rear attack
                                {
                                    morale_state = MoraleUpdate(enemy, me, 5, -1, 0);
                                    SetAttrib(enemy, "DroppedMoraleFromFlankAttack", 1);
                                    if (UseTutorialMode() == 1)
                                        {
                                            if (GetUniversalArray("OtherPopUps",6) == 0)
                                                {
                                                    AddVizCamUnit(me);
                                                    AddVizFunctionCall("FlankRearPopUp", enemy, GetAttrib(enemy, "MoraleState"));
                                                    SetUniversalArray("OtherPopUps",6,1);
                                                }
                                        }
                                    AddVizDelay(2);
                                }
                        }
		}

Vanilla FoG2 is very well balanced in my pov.
But I think it would be interesting to test the wild flank/rear charges of P&S with the well-behaved ZoC2 of FoG 2.
It could be a interesting match for those who want stronger cav over infantry. Who knows ?

It could mean progressively downgrading its effect thereafter.

Wouldn't unengaged soldiers just turn to face their attackers?

IMHO, it is more a matter of gameplay and thrill than of logic (Would they have the time to...?).

[SnuggleBunnies]

Keep in mind in PnS mixed formations and missile troops cannot charge cavalry though.

[Athos1660]

Keep in mind in PnS mixed formations and missile troops cannot charge cavalry though.

You are right.

I did not develop what I meant. It'd obviously take some adaptions / exemptions.
It would mainly concern MF/HF/non-light horses attacking MF/HF and non-light horses attacking non-light horses (maybe them could sometimes/rarely? evade). Maybe cavalry could still be able to evade from infantry. Likewise Light troops and Massed Something wouldn't cause PoA +200 and cohesion drop. Etc.

That's things I tried to mod today but e. g. those damned non-light cav did not want to evade when flank-attacked by HF.
Etc. Etc.

So P&S code is straightforward but indeed the modding wouldn't be so...

What do you think of the idea as a MP expert of both games ?

[stockwellpete]

IMHO, it is more a matter of gameplay and thrill than of logic (Would they have the time to...?).

I think it goes against the direction of the mod though where we are toning down the effects of flank attacks. I think infantry attacking unengaged infantry does not really need a modifier at all while cavalry attacks on unengaged units (infantry or cavalry) from the rear would be more disconcerting and are worth a modest +POA bonus.

[Athos1660]

IMHO, it is more a matter of gameplay and thrill than of logic (Would they have the time to...?).

I think it goes against the direction of the mod though where we are toning down the effects of flank attacks.

Indeed, "it goes against the direction of" your mod. But maybe there can be more than one mod...

I for one think that downgrading the Vanilla flank/rear rules would make them vanish.

I think infantry attacking unengaged infantry does not really need a modifier at all while cavalry attacks on unengaged units (infantry or cavalry) from the rear would be more disconcerting and are worth a modest +POA bonus.

Very respectable opinion !!

Anyway, while I suppose that the Vanilla rules in this matter might be the best-balanced ones, I'd like to test something wilder, more punchy... Would it be fun that way ? I don't know. I need to test it.

[stockwellpete]

Indeed, "it goes against the direction of" your mod. But maybe there can be more than one mod...

I for one think that downgrading the Vanilla flank/rear rules would make them vanish.

Yes, certainly.

Well, we are already testing our changes to the vanilla flank attack rules and the automatic cohesion drop has indeed vanished, but the +100POA is still very damaging (see the stats I provided yesterday). Rear attacks have not been altered at all by our mod though and have certainly not vanished.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Wouldn't unengaged soldiers just turn to face their attackers?

I think this is in fact totally wrong, for multiple reasons.

1) A "flank attack" would involve the attackers hitting the side, and then wrapping around the "front" and "rear" of the formation, which would be disorienting and terrifying for the flanked troops.
2) A large portion of the unit couldn't even see or know what was going on, only that they were getting unexpectedly attacked from the side.

IMO, in terms of realism, the game is already far too forgiving of flanking. We have examples of entire armies collapsing into flight at the mere rumor of approaching enemies from the flanks or rear. Everything I have read of warfare before the rifle age suggests that troops were incredibly sensitive to any threat of flank attack, and that the most common result of such an attack was a rout. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm, dabbling in test rounds with Schweetness out of curiosity; I have nothing against such a mod being made. It just absolutely does not reflect my own reading of the sources.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Keep in mind in PnS mixed formations and missile troops cannot charge cavalry though.

What do you think of the idea as a MP expert of both games ?

I think both rule sets have their places.

Pike and Shot

I think the benefit of the Pike and Shot automatic drop for all system is that it benefits cavalry greatly. Players really have to be careful about watching their flanks, and a rogue cavalry unit really can "roll up" a line of enemy infantry that are not engaged in melee, but perhaps in a musketry battle. Further, since non-light cavalry can't evade, auto cohesion drops can really force a rapid decision in a cavalry wing battle.

I think it is appropriate in Pike and Shot that ranged and mixed units cannot charge non-light cavalry, as it basically almost never happened. Pike blocks can of course do so. The non-pike foot that is capable of doing so is very rare in the game, only a few units. I do think non-Pike infantry charging cavalry should not cause automatic cohesion drop.

The other thing I would tone down in Pike and Shot is infantry pursuits, reducing though not eliminating the chances of it occurring (leaving it elevated for Warriors, of which there is only one unit). That would make the battle lines a little more solid. Perhaps a future Pike and Shot II would have such features, who can say.

Sengoku Jidai

Sengoku has the same system as Pike and Shot, except that Bow cavalry can evade, Medium Foot melee troops can't charge cavalry, and there are many more Warrior units present. Again, I would tone down non-Warrior infantry pursuit chances. I would probably also enable all-melee units of Medium Foot to charge cavalry, though without automatic cohesion drop. I would consider leaving the auto drop for Warriors charging cavalry, due to the ferocity of their onset, but I'd be fine taking that out, too.

Sengoku has a smaller, and thus overall less experienced MP playerbase than Pike and Shot. The current rules do somewhat favor large cheap armies, but I think that is just as much a problem with overall unit pricing than with the auto-drop rules

Field of Glory II

Overall, I think FoG2's rules suit the periods it depicts well. If it were up to me, I'd probably make only one light change -

I think cavalry rear/flank attacks on unengaged units should be at +100 POA, not 50. This still isn't nearly as brutal as Pike and Shot's auto drop, but it would lessen the chances of players being able to simply shrug and ignore cavalry units behind their infantry. You can still take the chance, and *probably* survive the charge without cohesion drop, but it would make doing so a little riskier. Let's face it, cavalry needs the help anyway.



...but all this is academic. Sengoku's community is certainly far too small to endure mod rules floating about. Pike and Shot certainly has a larger community, but again, I think too small to endure more than one rule set being used on a large scale. FoGII does have the playerbase to support gameplay mods I suppose, but I have no interest in playing them much other than dabbling in testing out of curiosity. I certainly would not engage in tournament play with mods. It doesn't help of course that the changes being made in this mod thread are anathema to my reading of the history, but even if they were changes more in line with what I wanted, I would stick to playing the vanilla game.

[stockwellpete]

Wouldn't unengaged soldiers just turn to face their attackers?

I think this is in fact totally wrong, for multiple reasons.

1) A "flank attack" would involve the attackers hitting the side, and then wrapping around the "front" and "rear" of the formation, which would be disorienting and terrifying for the flanked troops.
2) A large portion of the unit couldn't even see or know what was going on, only that they were getting unexpectedly attacked from the side.

IMO, in terms of realism, the game is already far too forgiving of flanking. We have examples of entire armies collapsing into flight at the mere rumor of approaching enemies from the flanks or rear. Everything I have read of warfare before the rifle age suggests that troops were incredibly sensitive to any threat of flank attack, and that the most common result of such an attack was a rout. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm, dabbling in test rounds with Schweetness out of curiosity; I have nothing against such a mod being made. It just absolutely does not reflect my own reading of the sources.

In a IGOUGO game?

The flank attacks I read about in accounts about ancient and medieval battles usually happen when one side gains complete dominance on a flank (often after a large cavalry fight) and is then able to menace the enemy's centre unopposed on that side. But I have never read about multiple flank attacks happening in the centre of melees. FOG2 vanilla has plenty of this second type of so-called "flank attacks", but precious few of what might be called classical, or historical, flank attacks. The mod is partly an attempt to rectify this imbalance.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Yes I understand the goal of the mod, I've been testing the various iterations. The problem is it also results in weird ahistorical situations, just not the specific ones that bother you. Overall, I don't mind the "flank attacks" in the center of the line; they are almost always the result of someone making a mistake. High level players watch out for such occurrences, which results in a slower move to contact, and the maintenance of a straighter battle line. I am fine with that.

[stockwellpete]

The problem is it also results in weird ahistorical situations, just not the specific ones that bother you.

We have only just started though. Which situations are you referring to?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Namely, the situation where an engaged unit gets charged in the flank and doesn't auto-drop? This can even occur on the far ends of the battle line. Also we know the Romans defeated Macedonian armies with these sorts of "center line flank attacks." Greek Hoplite battles could also be decided by a force hitting an engaged force from the side, not the rear.

And as to your comment about this being an IGOUGO game - I don't understand your point. Yes, if you left your troops in a position to be charged in the flanks, that means they did not wheel in time. It's IGOUGO, that's why you don't get to take action in your opponent's turn, that's why your troops should be penalized for mistakes you made in your turn!

Edit: And my issue remains that an infantry unit deployed 8 ranks deep and 56 wide, engaged or not, should suffer if charged in the flank. They couldn't just 90 degrees and be fine, the whole formation, and the men's attention, is oriented the wrong way.

[Schweetness101]

Yes I understand the goal of the mod, I've been testing the various iterations. The problem is it also results in weird ahistorical situations, just not the specific ones that bother you.

could you list these for us and maybe I can see if they can be addressed?

[SnuggleBunnies]

...well, like I said, I think it's just a difference of interpretation. I think flank attacks on engaged troops should cause auto drop, and on unengaged troops should still have a decent POA minimum. I think not having those creates weird ahistorical situations, such as troops not caring about getting charged from the side. I don't think there is a way to reconcile my difficulties with the mod. Like I said in my 3 game comparison post above, the only change I would make to the vanilla FoGII flanking rules is increasing the minimum POA that cavalry get from charging unengaged enemy units from 50 to 100, which is the opposite direction that this mod is taking.

[stockwellpete]

Namely, the situation where an engaged unit gets charged in the flank and doesn't auto-drop? This can even occur on the far ends of the battle line. Also we know the Romans defeated Macedonian armies with these sorts of "center line flank attacks." Greek Hoplite battles could also be decided by a force hitting an engaged force from the side, not the rear.

Edit: And my issue remains that an infantry unit deployed 8 ranks deep and 56 wide, engaged or not, should suffer if charged in the flank. They couldn't just 90 degrees and be fine, the whole formation, and the men's attention, is oriented the wrong way.

But that's not an objective historical situation, it is your subjective historical judgement. We have removed the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks but the remaining +100POA is still enough to cause cohesion loss about 40% of the time. It is my subjective historical judgement that this might be more realistic overall because it will allow time for larger melees to form, particularly on the flanks (i.e. cavalry melees). In many situations players will be able to feed cavalry units into a larger melee and, with the changes to the pursuit criteria as well, it should lead to more decisive outcomes that will allow historical flank attacks to materialise more often. So actually by slowing individual melee combat down we will be speeding contingent melee combat up.

Most types of unengaged units would just turn to face a new threat. Maybe pike phalanxes would be at a bigger disadvantage, but legionaries, warbands, irregular foot, cavalry etc would just turn and face. A small POA disadvantage for being charged by cavalry in this situation is sufficient, in my view. These sort of incidents tend to happen much more in the second half of a battle where the formations are starting to break up.

And as to your comment about this being an IGOUGO game - I don't understand your point. Yes, if you left your troops in a position to be charged in the flanks, that means they did not wheel in time. It's IGOUGO, that's why you don't get to take action in your opponent's turn, that's why your troops should be penalized for mistakes you made in your turn!

My point is that IGOUGO games tend to distort time and the better ones try to address this issue as much as they can. And it is not necessarily the case that a player has made a mistake if his unit is in a position to be flank or rear-charged currently. Sometimes pursuits and routs create these situations.

[SnuggleBunnies]

...well if you want to take it in that direction all of this interpretation is subjective is it not? And speaking of subjective, "legionaries, warbands, etc. would just turn and face"?? I think that is a very physical view of the situation, not a moral one which is more important in my view. Not to mention these were *not* modern armies that could just turn and face like so.

Finally, yes, sometimes pursuits and route create those situations. That's why a player has to do their best to plan for pursuits and routs! Not planning for the unexpected *is* a mistake.

You can achieve the increased influence of cavalry on the battle without modding flank attacks at all.

[Athos1660]

@SnuggleBunnies : your 3 games comparison is very interesting (as always). I agree for the most part with it about P&S and FoG2 (I don't know Sengoku Jidai).

(...) the only change I would make to the vanilla FoGII flanking rules is increasing the minimum POA that cavalry get from charging unengaged enemy units from 50 to 100, which is the opposite direction that this mod is taking.

I agree. I tested that yesterday with PoA = 100 then 125 (I don't know which one I prefer). Really nice indeed.
(In this case, when rear/flank charged (at least by non-light cav), unengaged non-light cav shouldn't be able to evade most of the time too.)