Slitherine

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:07 am There are also a lot of things I don't agree with about your mod or maybe straight up don't understand the need for. It really does feel like a random smattering of changes that were originally intended as tweaks to Vanilla to address a number of very specific issues that were then dumped into a blender and the served up with "anarchy" changes on its plate.

I have explained the two main areas we are looking at. "Command and Control", which is very underdeveloped in FOG2 in our view and "Melee Rebalancing". They are quite distinct from each other and would work OK in separate mods.

Like I don't understand what this cavalry combat resolution is supposed to accomplish. It is fine in Vanilla. Why are infantry all of a sudden losing their next turn if they get charged by cav? Why is cav made to chase less when that was like *the defining feature* of their behavior according to what limited information we have throughout this time period? I mean if we know anything at all about combat in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, it was that you can always count on the Cav to bugger off and chase like rabid dogs. The no double drop rule is clear in its intention when double drops were rare.

In your opinion it is fine in vanilla, in our opinion it is not. In virtually every cavalry battle in vanilla you get units pursuing vanquished enemy units out of a larger melee that is still unresolved. On many occasions you even get units from both sides pursuing vanquished enemy units out the larger unresolved melee. And then they have to turn round and charge back towards their baseline to make contact again. I am not saying that this never ever happened but it certainly did not happen regularly. The basic dynamic is that two cavalry forces come together, have a fierce melee, then one side breaks and the other one chases them off. Sometimes the chasing cavalry will pursue indefinitely, sometimes the chase will be curtailed and the cavalry then join an attack on the enemy's centre. That is what we are working towards. At the moment we are testing game mechanics that keep these larger melees together more and we both feel we are on the right track.

The most egregious change to me is the flank angle change. The entire premise of this game is built literally on auto-cohesion loss when charged in the flank while engaged. This entire game revolves around this dance where the expensive but better units try to use their PoAs to break opponents before their opponent manages to maneuver their more numerous army for a series of flank charges. How well can you maneuver your elite troops to do the most damage before the other side can stretch you out? How well can you gauge the timing for inferior troops to hold off elites while you make the flanking move? How good are you at RNG risk mitigation should either your elite troops fail to break their opponents on time, or your inferior troops fail to hold your opponent's elites in check?

This mechanic, along with how good you are at the geometry of physically moving troops around the grid to make the best use of ZoCs, is literally the two foundational blocks on how this game is meant to operate and you have just decided to straight-up tear one of them out. In its place, you have put in the anarchy "no charge" and "random charge" system which is, imo, one of the worst design features to come out any game (sorry for being harsh). The act of layering results after a player action behind multiple levels of RNG is inevitably unsatisfying for someone like me who is looking for skill-based results in a game. We already have two levels of RNG after a player initiates combat. The odds to win, followed by the odds to break morale for the loser if there is one. After this, the action is passed back to the player who then can react to that particular event with whatever resources he left at his disposal (reserves etc). There is a constant feedback between player action and an uncertain result.

You are grossly overstating your case here. You still get very large POA's when you hit a unit "in the side" and cohesion drops do often occur still so it is still a powerful tactic in the game. So nothing has been "ripped out" as you put it and so your argument falls. Flank attacks without automatic cohesion drops are already in the game. If a unit is hit in the side twice in the same turn in vanilla there is only one automatic cohesion drop. This is where the idea to remove automatic cohesion drops originally came from.

However, the way we are calibrating the mod now, where there is greater emphasis on getting 2v1 situations, means that battle lines are more likely to maintain their coherence and players are more likely to deploy in depth rather than sending off units to look for a so-called "flank attack". We feel this is more realistic.

One unintended consequence of this aspect of the mod is that you get a much better game out of the AI. Because the AI is not able to plan 2-3 moves ahead to get flank attacks it is at a severe disadvantage against a human player in the vanilla game. But take the flank attacks out of the equation and give greater importance to 2v1 combats, then AI has a much better chance. I am now getting very good games at Tribune and Legate level even though I have managed to defeat the AI on Deity level a few times.

With anarchy as it is implemented along with coming random charge features, you are loading a ton of RNG behind each player action and indeed potentially gating off entire sequences of play that maybe have been planned out. EX. A player can maneuver a unit into a desirable matchup only to have it not charge. A ZoC that the player had anticipated to be gone is now still intact potentially ruining a litany of subsequent moves. Maybe he was clever enough and the geometry was flexible enough to allow a second unit to come in an try to strip the ZoC but it would be a suboptimal move as that was a flanking unit. What happens if that unit refuses to charge as well? Maybe the entire strategy built up over several turns during movement to contact is now irrevocably shattered and none of these prior moves now make any sense at all given the new circumstances entirely outside his control. A reserve unit that was carefully husbanded meant to plug critical gaps in the line now might now randomly not charge to help a beleaguered friendly unit. A unit on the far end of a refused flank might all of a sudden break ranks to attack and compromise the entire position.

Removing player agency by overloading it with RNG sucks. In every game of every type. It sucked when WHFB decided that units don't just charge a fixed amount anymore but had to roll a die to find out how far it actually could charge AFTER you made the charge declaration. It sucks in Magic the Gathering when they inflated the cost for creature kill spells so high that the creatures could kill you before you had enough mana to actually cast the spell. It sucks in World of Warcraft when my character's haste proc happens when I don't need it but never procs when the boss is doing some insane raid-wide damage mechanic that I am struggling to heal through.

Maybe that is the entire point of your mod? To throw enough RNG at the game to stop it from being the game of footies and ZoCs that it currently is? But then why did you eliminate double drops if you want more RNG? Did introduce the flank angle mod knowing that so many potential random troop movements could leave a lot of units with vulnerable flanks? I just don't know what your mod is trying to achieve and how the changes are supposed to come together make that a reality.

No, it is not the entire point of the mod. When we have got the balance right, a good player will generally be able to mitigate most aspects of anarchy in their own army and take advantage of its manifestations in their opponent's. We are some way off getting the balance right at the moment but we have only been at it for a week.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:11 am Hey Pete, schweetness did not seek to be offended by my post, why are you? Truly, why would you want someone testing your mod to keep coming on here and posting the reasons they don’t like a feature or it won’t work , over and over? You just confirmed, yet again, you will rigorously defend your changes, but I think I have noted some “compelling”reasons why some of the addons are not good. My quoted post was basically asking permission from you two to try to pursuade you again with more data, because if not granted I would basically at that point just be trolling. Get it? Geez! Btw my one of my first posts mirrors what Mike_c said, mod it the way YOU want it, and then release it.

I am offended, am I? Thanks for letting me know.

The last we heard from you was that you had done some tests, which we had thanked you for, and that you were going to go and do some more tests. Then you come back again, indicating that you had done some more tests but that you were not going to share the results with us. So while I am thinking "why could this be?", I go on to read that you think we are being "dishonest" about our intentions with the mod. I mean to say, "WTF?" Do you relate to people like this in your "real life"? And how does it go for you? Have you misunderstood Dale Carnegie, or something?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:21 am ...

https://imgur.com/a/16XEtCI

So there are some examples of units charging with complete disregard of flank defense yet still not being punished for it like they would be in vanilla.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:21 am for the tooltip, would this be on looking at charging a non light cav into a non light inf? ie the tooltip would say 'if you charge this unit you will impose loss of ap and secondary zoc?'

Something like this, yes. Though I'd really prefer some other solution to cavalry being unable to break contact, like being able to fall back 3 squares or something like that (ie making cavalry more agile instead of reducing infantry mobility), as the current one feels extremy artificial.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:21 am I mean 'Large, multi unit maneuvers resulting from winning on one flank' of cavalry specifically. It's quite easy to do that already in vanilla with non light inf massed on a flank, but cavalry are typically prevented from doing so with ZoC traps and/or by virtue of the fact that by the time the cavalry vs cavalry combat has resolved, the infantry combat has as well. Although like you said it is interesting how different players have really different experiences.

Well yes, I also mean 'Large, multi unit maneuvers resulting from winning on one flank' of cavalry specifically It's a bread and butter of any cavalry-heavy army like Byzantines, Arabs, Sassanids, Andalusia etc. It happened in almost every my EMA game last season, for example.

I do not think Mike's argument RE flank attacks "fails" - in fact I wholly agree with it. Setting aside my (strong) historical opinions, you can see the problems with the mod's approach in my videos and Nosy_Rat's screenshots. Why ask for people's opinions and then respond dissmissively?

As outlined above, I do actually enjoy/am intrigued by aspects of the mod, but ultimately I have no interest in testing or playing it further so long as it includes the flank changes, which I personally can't stand.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:36 am I do not think Mike's argument RE flank attacks "fails" - in fact I wholly agree with it. Setting aside my (strong) historical opinions, you can see the problems with the mod's approach in my videos and Nosy_Rat's screenshots. Why ask for people's opinions and then respond dissmissively?

Because I don't agree with Mike's argument at all. Cohesion drops do still regularly happen with attacks from the side in the mod. They just don't happen automatically now.

As outlined above, I do actually enjoy/am intrigued by aspects of the mod, but ultimately I have no interest in testing or playing it further so long as it includes the flank changes, which I personally can't stand.

I am sorry about that but I think the flank changes will be staying. After all, we are only building on what is already in the game.

If you release the standalone Anarchy Module maybe it should have its own thread? This one appears to be getting a bit heated.

desicat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:55 am If you release the standalone Anarchy Module maybe it should have its own thread? This one appears to be getting a bit heated.

We have permission to release it separately now, but we haven't decided yet whether to do so, or whether we wait until we have added the v2 anarchy changes. The other thing is that the anarchy changes really go with the reduction of command radii and the sub-generals only controlling their own contingents. It is really part of a larger command and control package that, in turn, is an important component of the alternative gameplay mod. So for those players who want to try out the anarchy idea, would you want it with, or without, the other command and control elements?

As for the "heat" in this thread, that will miraculously disappear when certain people stop accusing me and Schweetness101 of dishonesty.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 8:26 am

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 3:11 am Hey Pete, schweetness did not seek to be offended by my post, why are you? Truly, why would you want someone testing your mod to keep coming on here and posting the reasons they don’t like a feature or it won’t work , over and over? You just confirmed, yet again, you will rigorously defend your changes, but I think I have noted some “compelling”reasons why some of the addons are not good. My quoted post was basically asking permission from you two to try to pursuade you again with more data, because if not granted I would basically at that point just be trolling. Get it? Geez! Btw my one of my first posts mirrors what Mike_c said, mod it the way YOU want it, and then release it.

I am offended, am I? Thanks for letting me know.

The last we heard from you was that you had done some tests, which we had thanked you for, and that you were going to go and do some more tests. Then you come back again, indicating that you had done some more tests but that you were not going to share the results with us. So while I am thinking "why could this be?", I go on to read that you think we are being "dishonest" about our intentions with the mod. I mean to say, "WTF?" Do you relate to people like this in your "real life"? And how does it go for you? Have you misunderstood Dale Carnegie, or something?

I dont think you read my my post fully. I never said I was not going to share for some petty reason. I just didnt want to continue belaboring an issue about some of the add ons that based on your posts are likley not going to be changed. I also never said you were lying or dishonest, and yes perhaps a poor choice of words in retrospect , but when I wrote it I thought it was clear I was talking about clarity in the mods goals and whether any feedback would be seriously considered as something that could effect change. When you say things like you threw ideas against a a wall to see if they stick , to me that means that some of the content is actually expendable, but your contuined posts indicate that they really are important to you and are not going to be removed or adjusted easily. So, I asked the question: Will my testing and feedback be given any consideration, or are you just looking for beta testers for your own personal mod? And thats ok if you are, I just wanted you too to tell me before I continued to post. So Schweetness still wants feed back, do you?

Your last three sentances appear to be patronizing snipes of some sort and why you added them is beyond me.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 12:45 pm So, I asked the question: Will my testing and feedback be given any consideration, or are you just looking for beta testers for your own personal mod? And thats ok if you are, I just wanted you too to tell me before I continued to post. So Schweetness still wants feed back, do you?

All feedback is gratefully received, as yours was in the first instance. I haven't said anything to suggest otherwise. But we have a number of very clear ideas in the mod already as well as a few fuzzy ones. We are not going to remove the very clear ones unless there is a very strong reason for doing so. But we may amend aspects of them. For example, Nosy_Rat has made a very good point about the 75% threshold we have for no double-drops at the moment. He is suggesting that instead of having this blanket threshold we look at the relative POA values of the units involved. A very good idea and Schweetness seems to like it too - and it also sounds that it will not be too difficult to mod. I haven't spoken to Schweetness about it yet but I would say that has a good chance of getting in.

Play Test 3 Gallic 300-101 BC (me) v Roman 280-220 BC (AI) Legate level, large armies, large map size.
A fairly flat map with gentle hills at the Roman end with a huge area of rough ground (5x3) in the centre. The Romans virtually no cavalry so my combined Gallic cavalry and chariot force got on their flank straight away and were able to make persistent and damaging charges from the flank throughout the battle. My superior warbands eventually won the battle for me while the average warbands were surprisingly solid. It was a Gallic victory by 52-16.

Not too much anarchy this time . . .

Gallic
1. chariot charged hastati/principes unit head on and bounced off
2. Loose order warband unit charged uphill into a hastate/principes unit
3. chariot (out of command) refused order to charge hastate principes unit

Roman
1. cavalry with C-in-C charged enemy cavalry unit (commander anarchy nerf in pipeline)
2. triarii charged chariot unit

Another very good game, which was in the balance until about two-thirds of the way through. The Roman AI tends to over pick skirmishers to the detriment of cavalry, I feel. There were 12 "flank attacks" (using the vanilla definition) in the game and 5 of them resulted in cohesion drops.

Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is it possible to mod the game in such a manner that there is no automatic cohesion drop for flanking charge, only if the attacked unit is placed between at least two other friendly units (there are at least two friendly units in the adjacent hexes)? In other words, single unit would be treated as in vanilla, but if a unit is a part of a line (in between other units), then there is no automatic cohesion drop.

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:20 am https://imgur.com/a/16XEtCI

So there are some examples of units charging with complete disregard of flank defense yet still not being punished for it like they would be in vanilla.

ohhhhhh I thought you were referring to the more recent gauls vs romans game. That ghaznavid vs byzantine game was on a much older version of the aggregate mod, not the alt gameplay mod, and not a great representation of what we are trying to achieve because of some miscommunication between myself and snugglebunnies (ie I was trying to test out the mod changes in some specific conditions, not bring a competitive army or play competitively, and he was recording thinking it was a competitive game and brought mass heavy inf or ele armies) so those games played out weird. Can you give examples from the gauls vs romans alt gameplay mod game?

But, even so, I actually do not think that the examples you've shown there are very convincing. In the first example his Dailami got into the position from a pursuit, and the open flank was to horse archers in rough ground, and it kind of makes sense that horse archers charging out of rough ground would not auto drop a non light infantry unit? In the second example he also got into that position from a pursuit, so again not a position or orientation he chose to specifically advance to and willfully expose his flank uncaringly because of the flank changes. It was also a cavalry flank, and we have gone back and forth on whether to keep auto drops for cav vs cav flanks. I think perhaps we should keep cav vs cav auto drop flanks, because the idea of the flank changes is more about preserving the coherency of the non-light infantry line, and keeping cav flanks would make those cav vs cav battles resolve faster which is also in keeping with our goals there.

The third example is from near the end of the game (although he was only up 12-0 it was clearly basically over at that point). His exposed flank was a heavy infantry unit in the open that he exposed to flank attack from massed archers hiding in the rough in order to attack another massed archer unit rather than exchange fire at disadvantage. This would still likely make sense to do in vanalla. Because, even in vanilla the ghaznavid player would hesitate to take that flank, even with the auto drop, because those massed archers would be giving up their ranged advantage and rough ground advantage after rushing out and taking the flank, and would instead be subjected to melee in the open with heavy infantry that greatly outnumbered them.

On the whole though, more importantly, you couldn't say that looking at these games the flank mod changes are preventing you from using effective flanking and/or rear attack tactics, and winning based on skill, but they are removing the gamey mid line flank stuff, so taken holistically they appear to be having the desired effect, while also not causing the alleged drawback of fundamentally undermining the game design. Perhaps +150 or even +200, but still no auto drop, for flanks might be better? So that flanks attacks are still dangerous enough to motivate keeping flanks secure, but not so dangerous that they motivate the mid line flanks weirdness.

There is a lengthy discussion of the flank angle mod stuff in that specific thread, maybe look at what people were discussing there, or my earlier post on the subject in this thread which no one responded to?

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:20 am Well yes, I also mean 'Large, multi unit maneuvers resulting from winning on one flank' of cavalry specifically It's a bread and butter of any cavalry-heavy army like Byzantines, Arabs, Sassanids, Andalusia etc. It happened in almost every my EMA game last season, for example.

I've played as Andalusia and now Byzantines in the tournaments, and as Arabs and plenty of other mixed infantry line + lots of cav armies in dozens, maybe hundreds, of games, and generally I find that large flanking cavalry maneuvers are ineffectual because a) they can be stopped by a small number of much cheaper non light spear infantry and b) even if they do win, by the time they defeat the enemy cav, get back from pursuit and return to the battle, the infantry line is already in tatters and there's nothing left to flank. In vanilla competitive games as Andalusia I actually found the most effective way to get cav flanks to work is to bring slow non light spears and massed archers with me on the flank. To win the cav battle by bringing infantry...seems a bit wrong. Maybe just try the mod out to see what I mean?

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 9:20 am Something like this, yes. Though I'd really prefer some other solution to cavalry being unable to break contact, like being able to fall back 3 squares or something like that (ie making cavalry more agile instead of reducing infantry mobility), as the current one feels extremy artificial.

ok I can consider a longer cavalry fallback instead. Do you have other ideas for fixing ZoC traps of cavalry by cheap infantry? assuming you think it is a problem that is? I'm not sure though that the current mod changes feel totally artificial. It is certainly different from vanilla, but not necessarily any more artificial than various vanilla mechanics like ZoC in the first place. I mean, a much faster cavalry unit simply not being able to get around an infantry unit in an otherwise empty field with no one else around, like in vanilla, is what feels artificial. Perhaps though snugglebunnies can help explain the reasoning here a bit more given that it was actually his concept to begin with, even though he has turned against it now.

Quivis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:41 pm Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is it possible to mod the game in such a manner that there is no automatic cohesion drop for flanking charge, only if the attacked unit is placed between at least two other friendly units (there are at least two friendly units in the adjacent hexes)? In other words, single unit would be treated as in vanilla, but if a unit is a part of a line (in between other units), then there is no automatic cohesion drop.

this was discussed in the dedicated flank angle mod thread, and I found it to be a good idea. It would not be that hard to implement, given that I've already used code for checking if there are enemies in front of or to the side of you for the cav pursuit purposes, so checking if there are allies behind or to the side of you would be a pretty simple change for me to make.

The only issue I have is it might end up seeming too arbitrary or difficult to predict for players, and they may end up confused on why sometimes flank attacks auto drop and sometimes they don't. It is worth trying I think though.

We would have to figure out exactly what arrangement, in straight and diagonal facing lines, would count as having at least 2 friendly units adjacent. Does it matter what their or the friendly units facing is if adjacent? can it only be if those units are to the side but not front and rear of your facing?

so, for example, say this unit X, where A are its allies cannot be flanked by any enemies E, even if X is at an angled facing:

_EEE_
_AXA_

but what about:

_EEE_
__X__
_A_A_

or

_EEE_
_AX__
__A__

or that same third scenario but where the allies A are facing down or to the left and not at the enemy? or where they are even engaged in those directions? What I worry about is that a good idea in theory would end up having a huge number of arbitrary seeming examples where flanks end up applying or not applying and the player can't really tell why.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 10:36 am I do not think Mike's argument RE flank attacks "fails" - in fact I wholly agree with it. Setting aside my (strong) historical opinions, you can see the problems with the mod's approach in my videos and Nosy_Rat's screenshots. Why ask for people's opinions and then respond dissmissively?

As outlined above, I do actually enjoy/am intrigued by aspects of the mod, but ultimately I have no interest in testing or playing it further so long as it includes the flank changes, which I personally can't stand.

can you point out the flank problems in the gauls vs romans game that uses the actual alt gameplay mod? Some examples of the flank changes in action from the game where I was gaul are:

a) around 21:30, followed up with the flank attacks at 23:40 and 25:38, when my chariots that got around from the imposed secondary zoc loss, and took the flank twice on a roman unit, but only managed to cohesion state drop them on their second flank attack. But, that seems...fine? like what might happen realistically? like chariots might have to go in for two flank attacks on heavy roman infantry before they broke them. Speaking historically, sometimes cav had to hammer at the flanks with multiple charges and withdrawals to break an enemy. So, that does not seem unrealistic? Maybe the flank mod changes could be paired with a much higher likelihood for cav to fall back from non light infantry so they can repeat flank attacks more? that might actually be a good change to try.
b) around 19:25 when my warband on my far right was flanked at 90 degrees by your cavalry, which did not manage to get a drop, but still bounced back, and were in position to try again, were they not then followed up by more warband. Your cav could have tried again, like the chariots above, and with the same reasoning for needing multiple tries, except for intervention by more enemy units. Your cav unit could have, if you check the video, also chosen to go left and spend a few more turns to get in position for rear attacks with no one to stop them, but instead risked hoping on getting a drop from a 90 degree flank because it could be taken now, but the risk did not payoff. IE the flank changes introduce risk/reward mechanics that are not in vanilla: do I try a flank now with a decent but not guaranteed chance of a drop, or do I spend a few more turns setting up a rear attack for a guaranteed drop? that seems like it opens up more interesting decision making than having flanks and rear attacks be identical, and arguably the definition of gameplay is interesting decision making, risk reward stuff, like what the refuse orders chance adds as well.
c) when your legions on that same side chose to just 2v1 the warband in front of them around 18:16 rather than spend another few turns positioning for a flank, but that had the desired affect of keeping your infantry line more coherent rather than breaking it up to get mid line flanks, so that seems a good result. Adding to above, you have the following risk reward options, asking yourself, do I:

1) charge in now to get 2v1 advantage for as long as possible
2) spend another turn or two to get a +100 flank with decent chance of a drop in, or do I
3) spend another turn or two on top of that to get a guaranteed drop rear attack in?

More importantly though, could you actually give your historical opinions? Are there like specific battles you are thinking of where a 90 degree flank is as important as a rear charge, or the determining factor? What about examples of where the men on the flank just turned to face the threat and repulsed it? which is more common? should both be possible, or should it always be that a flank charge is overwhelming and no one could turn to face it, even the best quality imaginable target flanked by the worst quality imaginable non-light flanker?

That also brings up the importance of flanking for different unit types. I would like I think to retain 90 degree flank auto drops not just potentially for cavalry as stated above, but probably for pike units as well who definitely cannot turn 90 degrees easily while already engaged. But, men with swords and shields? why can the men in such a unit to the side and back, who are not directly engaged, not just turn to face you?

what about my earlier post, which I don't think anyone responded directly to, where I wrote:

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.

thanks for your feedback! I hope things do not seem 'heated'. I am enjoying writing and discussing on this subject and I hope that everyone else is as well.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:02 pm That also brings up the importance of flanking for different unit types. I would like I think to retain 90 degree flank auto drops not just potentially for cavalry as stated above, but probably for pike units as well who definitely cannot turn 90 degrees easily while already engaged. But, men with swords and shields? why can the men in such a unit to the side and back, who are not directly engaged, not just turn to face you?

Do you remember that I did this test for flank attacks on pike formations?

Re: Should pikemen be exempt from anarchy rules in the mod?
19 May 2020 14:20 stockwellpete wrote:

I have done the testing for this today . . .

Vanilla
automatic cohesion drop and then +200POA
28 out of 50 no further cohesion drop
15 out of 50 further drop to fragmented
7 out of 50 double drop to routed

Alternative 1
no automatic cohesion drop and just +100POA
41 out of 50 no cohesion drop
7 out of 50 cohesion drop to disrupted
2 out of 50 double drop to fragmented

Alternative 2
no automatic cohesion drop and +200POA
29 out of 50 no cohesion drop
15 out of 50 cohesion drop to disrupted
6 out of 50 double drop to fragmented

I think Alternative 2 might be hitting the sweet spot here. In vanilla, nearly half the sample are either fragged or routed after just one impact phase from an attack from the side, while in Alternative 2 only about 1 in 8 are. 40% are disrupted though.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:34 pm

Quivis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:41 pm Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is it possible to mod the game in such a manner that there is no automatic cohesion drop for flanking charge, only if the attacked unit is placed between at least two other friendly units (there are at least two friendly units in the adjacent hexes)? In other words, single unit would be treated as in vanilla, but if a unit is a part of a line (in between other units), then there is no automatic cohesion drop.

this was discussed in the dedicated flank angle mod thread, and I found it to be a good idea. It would not be that hard to implement, given that I've already used code for checking if there are enemies in front of or to the side of you for the cav pursuit purposes, so checking if there are allies behind or to the side of you would be a pretty simple change for me to make.

The only issue I have is it might end up seeming too arbitrary or difficult to predict for players, and they may end up confused on why sometimes flank attacks auto drop and sometimes they don't. It is worth trying I think though.

We would have to figure out exactly what arrangement, in straight and diagonal facing lines, would count as having at least 2 friendly units adjacent. Does it matter what their or the friendly units facing is if adjacent? can it only be if those units are to the side but not front and rear of your facing?

so, for example, say this unit X, where A are its allies cannot be flanked by any enemies E, even if X is at an angled facing:

_EEE_
_AXA_

but what about:

_EEE_
__X__
_A_A_

or

_EEE_
_AX__
__A__

or that same third scenario but where the allies A are facing down or to the left and not at the enemy? or where they are even engaged in those directions? What I worry about is that a good idea in theory would end up having a huge number of arbitrary seeming examples where flanks end up applying or not applying and the player can't really tell why.

Well if that would be implemented, I think that for the sake of simplicity, each situation should prevent auto drop (even if units are placed in a column facing the exact same direction – which I believe is quite rare to be caught in such formation), e.g.:

X: friendly units protected from auto drop from flank;
A: friendly units which may auto drop from flank;

AX__X_XXXX_A____A____AA___AXA_A
__XX_X____X

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:51 pm Do you remember that I did this test for flank attacks on pike formations?

...

oh yeah I did forget about that, there have been so many things lol. So maybe +200 and no auto drop for pikes?

and what do you think about retaining auto drops for cav for the v1.2 to test that? and perhaps increasing from +100 to +150 (and still no autodrop) for all other flanks?

Quivis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 6:55 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 5:34 pm

Quivis wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 1:41 pm Sorry if that has been discussed already, but is it possible to mod the game in such a manner that there is no automatic cohesion drop for flanking charge, only if the attacked unit is placed between at least two other friendly units (there are at least two friendly units in the adjacent hexes)? In other words, single unit would be treated as in vanilla, but if a unit is a part of a line (in between other units), then there is no automatic cohesion drop.

this was discussed in the dedicated flank angle mod thread, and I found it to be a good idea. It would not be that hard to implement...

Well if that would be implemented, I think that for the sake of simplicity, each situation should prevent auto drop (even if units are placed in a column facing the exact same direction – which I believe is quite rare to be caught in such formation), e.g.:

X: friendly units protected from auto drop from flank;
A: friendly units which may auto drop from flank;

AX__X_XXXX_A____A____AA___AXA_A
__XX_X____X

ok interesting, and it would be if you have 2 adjacent friendly units in any of the 8 squares around you, regardless of their facing or engagement, or whether they are in front of or behind you?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:09 pm oh yeah I did forget about that, there have been so many things lol. So maybe +200 and no auto drop for pikes?

Yes, I think it works OK. There will still be plenty of cohesion drops for attacks on the sides of already engaged pike units.

and what do you think about retaining auto drops for cav for the v1.2 to test that? and perhaps increasing from +100 to +150 (and still no autodrop) for all other flanks?

I am opposed very strongly to any automatic cohesion drops for what are considered "flank attacks" in the vanilla game. I think they should just be abolished for our mod. Instead, I think everything should be balanced by the POA modifiers so that some cohesion loss does still occur. At the moment I think the +100POA for the other flanks is fine. Cohesion drops do occur about one-third of the time now and I think it feels about right. Even when there is not a cohesion drop the unit so attacked suffers a high number of losses (in red numbers) which often puts it on the road to destruction. The only auto drops for cavalry should be for rear attacks and we haven't had to touch this vanilla part of the game at all. Rear attacks are fine as they are. This is how I feel anyway.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:28 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 03, 2020 7:09 pm oh yeah I did forget about that, there have been so many things lol. So maybe +200 and no auto drop for pikes?

Yes, I think it works OK. There will still be plenty of cohesion drops for attacks on the sides of already engaged pike units.

and what do you think about retaining auto drops for cav for the v1.2 to test that? and perhaps increasing from +100 to +150 (and still no autodrop) for all other flanks?

I am opposed very strongly to any automatic cohesion drops for what are considered "flank attacks" in the vanilla game. I think they should just be abolished for our mod. Instead, I think everything should be balanced by the POA modifiers so that some cohesion loss does still occur. At the moment I think the +100POA for the other flanks is fine. Cohesion drops do occur about one-third of the time now and I think it feels about right. Even when there is not a cohesion drop the unit so attacked suffers a high number of losses (in red numbers) which often puts it on the road to destruction. The only auto drops for cavalry should be for rear attacks and we haven't had to touch this vanilla part of the game at all. Rear attacks are fine as they are. This is how I feel anyway.

ok cool