Pike Testing Workshop

[Cunningcairn]

I have posted 2 challenges with Macedonian pikes against warband and hoplite armies using the latest pike mod. Anyone interested in playing? Both are open challenges without PW.

yes! although I have just updated the op with a v1.1 download link and associated change list. Shall we test the newest version?

I will also need feedback on testing to make sure the changes have actually taken effect and are not failing in edge cases. I tested a bit and I think they are fine, but I want to make sure that there aren't any issues with - or + CT modifiers happening or not happening in the wrong circumstances, e.g. against non steady pikes or not against steady pikes or whatever. Also that there are no disparities between combat log messages and the actualy net poa or disruption or ct modifier results. I've tested but there are potentially so many edge cases with this many changes it would be good for everyone to keep an eye out for bugs.

thanks!

Belay that last message. I've posted two challenges with the new mod.

[Schweetness101]

I have posted 2 challenges with Macedonian pikes against warband and hoplite armies using the latest pike mod. Anyone interested in playing? Both are open challenges without PW.

yes! although I have just updated the op with a v1.1 download link and associated change list. Shall we test the newest version?

I will also need feedback on testing to make sure the changes have actually taken effect and are not failing in edge cases. I tested a bit and I think they are fine, but I want to make sure that there aren't any issues with - or + CT modifiers happening or not happening in the wrong circumstances, e.g. against non steady pikes or not against steady pikes or whatever. Also that there are no disparities between combat log messages and the actualy net poa or disruption or ct modifier results. I've tested but there are potentially so many edge cases with this many changes it would be good for everyone to keep an eye out for bugs.

thanks!

Belay that last message. I've posted two challenges with the new mod.

great! I just took them, I've also got one up myself

[kvnrthr]

Schweetness, I think I accepted one of your challenge games.

[kvnrthr]

Just tested out the mod against the AI. Skills of the AI aside, the effect of the changes in a 1v1 phalanx vs impact foot fight seems far tilted in the phalanx's favor.

Previously, the Romans had a chance of a big win on impact, while they were equivalent in melee over time, with phalanx combat strength modifier offset by loss of melee POA over time plus superior Roman armor and quality point for point. Now phalanxes are cheaper, the Romans have a very low chance of a big win on impact, and with equal losses the phalanxes will over time get better combat strength modifier.

Plus, the phalanxes are now doing just well enough to wear down the Romans but not push them back, which is actually a huge plus since they're much less vulnerable to unexpected push backs + flank charges.

I think one of the problems is that while Romans could historically use rough ground (e.g. phalanx pushing them back into rough ground), in this game it's pretty easy enough to avoid placing your phalanx anywhere near rough ground as you have enough supporting medium foot for that. It would be one thing if many maps were dotted irregularly with rough ground but the generator tends to clump them in avoidable patches.

Not sure what the solution could be. Perhaps some tying of melee (not impact) POA to casualties would make sense. Right now if I see a phalanx fighting a legion, I don't feel any sense of urgency since I can survive indefinitely, my combat strength modifier will only increase over time, and I don't risk a push back either. You could justify this as the slow loss of cohesion over time as the Romans get lucky and find more gaps in your formation, I don't know.

Then again I should probably hold off definitive conclusions until I try a multiplayer game.

[Schweetness101]

Just tested out the mod against the AI. Skills of the AI aside, the effect of the changes in a 1v1 phalanx vs impact foot fight seems far tilted in the phalanx's favor.

Previously, the Romans had a chance of a big win on impact, while they were equivalent in melee over time, with phalanx combat strength modifier offset by loss of melee POA over time plus superior Roman armor and quality point for point. Now phalanxes are cheaper, the Romans have a very low chance of a big win on impact, and with equal losses the phalanxes will over time get better combat strength modifier.

Plus, the phalanxes are now doing just well enough to wear down the Romans but not push them back, which is actually a huge plus since they're much less vulnerable to unexpected push backs + flank charges.

I think one of the problems is that while Romans could historically use rough ground (e.g. phalanx pushing them back into rough ground), in this game it's pretty easy enough to avoid placing your phalanx anywhere near rough ground as you have enough supporting medium foot for that. It would be one thing if many maps were dotted irregularly with rough ground but the generator tends to clump them in avoidable patches.

Not sure what the solution could be. Perhaps some tying of melee (not impact) POA to casualties would make sense. Right now if I see a phalanx fighting a legion, I don't feel any sense of urgency since I can survive indefinitely, my combat strength modifier will only increase over time, and I don't risk a push back either. You could justify this as the slow loss of cohesion over time as the Romans get lucky and find more gaps in your formation, I don't know.

Then again I should probably hold off definitive conclusions until I try a multiplayer game.

thanks for your response.

I understand this criticism, but the idea is a holistic balance in the context of existing army lists and terrain. IE, if you made an editor level with 5 phalanxes vs 5 legions starting facing each other on an open plain the pikes would seem OP for cost, BUT they are extremely vulnerable to flanks and rough terrain, and are much less maneuverable than legions/hastati, and come in army lists with fewer infantry. The idea is, can the Romans get around and get some infantry flanks in, or force pikes onto rough ground, before succumbing to autobreaking from extended melee.

The mod mitigates casualties vs steady pikes, and improves CT modifiers of heavy foot vs pikes, the idea being that they are basically holding enemies at bay for a longer period of time, neither inflicting nor receiving too many casualties. This extends fighting in melee considerably, incentivizing and enabling both the pike armies to flank with their cav, and the roman armies to flank with its more and more maneuverable infantry.

If you would, try and play a few games in MP (I see you've taken my game! very nice) and see what you think of the balance from a holistic standpoint, not a 1v1 legions vs pikes standpoint.

the potluck maps do tend to have large open areas, but the idea is that historically pikes were quite difficult to fight one on one in open terrain front on, but otherwise, if you got flanks in or got them on rough terrain they were extremely vulnerable. They were a kind of holding force while the cavalry, and perhaps the hypaspists, performed the more dynamic role of going in for the key charge or flank attack. I am trying to get that kind of realistic/historical feel, rather than the current paradigm where pikes are expensive steamrollers that can win the battles on their own.

I hope that helps to understand, let me know if you don't get what I'm talking about. The above comments in this thread and the other pike mod thread go over in more detail kind of the ultimate goal here.

because the ai is poor-ish at flanking and complex maneuvers they will likely not be very good against these pikes. I confess that I mostly have MP in mind here. Also, you should try this pike mod (everyone who wants to test it should!) against roman, warband, greek/offensive spearmen and medium foot armies etc...to get an idea of whether they are becoming unbalanced from the changes. I'm currently doing that to try and get a better idea of whether I am on the right track here.

Also, keep a lookout for any bugs!

thanks again for taking interest in the mod.

[Cunningcairn]

The mods are indeed enjoyable and resulting in fantastic contests. From a balance and feel perspective I think it is a good improvement of pike battles. The reduced cost allows good unit numbers of pike even at 1200 points which looks and feels better on the battlefield. One of the big improvements is that melees last longer and nonsensical game changing events in the middle of a line do not appear to be happening as frequently as they did which means good tactical play is rewarded.

There are one or two tweeks I would like to see.
1. I think that the fighting ability of pike needs to be re-introduced when they fall below 480.
2. The probability of follow up and fall back should also be changed back to the way it was as it should happen more frequently. Historically pikes lost their cohesion and effectiveness because of this phenomenon so it should still be modeled in the game. With the reduced pike unit cost support is now affordable to mitigate the problems caused to the pike by this phenomenon.

- The battles I have played against Romans have ended in blood baths with narrow victories to both Romans and Macedonians. Balance and feel was very good.
- Against hoplites I was pleasantly surprised that the hoplites have a chance and can fight a good few rounds of toe to toe fighting against the pikes. They eventually succumb as you would expect.
- Warband vs pike is something else. After a few games I have no idea which is better. I think this models warband behaviour pretty well and the games against them were very exciting and kept me guessing.
- I need to play more medium foot contests but think the additional -1 CT in the latest version might just do the trick.

[kvnrthr]

Did try mirrored multiplayer games (Romans vs Macedonians), but unfortunately I don't think I've really proven anything except that I'm not a very good player

Nothing decisive happened melee wise in those games, the winning maneuvers were essentially from flanking by the bigger army. Now it was the Romans who got a terrible push back opening them to a flank charge, which you almost never see in vanilla.

I did confirm a feeling that regular pikes got the better of the above average hastati principes very consistently. I think after 2 rounds of combat the melee was at like a 22% chance of pike victory, 7% chance of hastati victory. But schweetness' point about the broad balance of the game still hold, I think the Romans just have much more infantry availability so if you have a proper army composition and placement you'll likely get to flank those pikes somewhere. (I'm not particulary good at maneuver though so I don't think I'd get much out of this army)

In the game when I played Macedonians vs Romans, I bought too much cavalry and let my line get outflanked without a fight so I can't say anything certain about balance from that. The pikes hadn't even fought for one round.

[Schweetness101]

The mods are indeed enjoyable and resulting in fantastic contests. From a balance and feel perspective I think it is a good improvement of pike battles. The reduced cost allows good unit numbers of pike even at 1200 points which looks and feels better on the battlefield. One of the big improvements is that melees last longer and nonsensical game changing events in the middle of a line do not appear to be happening as frequently as they did which means good tactical play is rewarded.

There are one or two tweeks I would like to see.
1. I think that the fighting ability of pike needs to be re-introduced when they fall below 480.
2. The probability of follow up and fall back should also be changed back to the way it was as it should happen more frequently. Historically pikes lost their cohesion and effectiveness because of this phenomenon so it should still be modeled in the game. With the reduced pike unit cost support is now affordable to mitigate the problems caused to the pike by this phenomenon.

- The battles I have played against Romans have ended in blood baths with narrow victories to both Romans and Macedonians. Balance and feel was very good.
- Against hoplites I was pleasantly surprised that the hoplites have a chance and can fight a good few rounds of toe to toe fighting against the pikes. They eventually succumb as you would expect.
- Warband vs pike is something else. After a few games I have no idea which is better. I think this models warband behaviour pretty well and the games against them were very exciting and kept me guessing.
- I need to play more medium foot contests but think the additional -1 CT in the latest version might just do the trick.

Glad to hear I am on the right track!

1) I am willing to look into this if it seems needed to balance. Perhaps you are thinking pikes are lasting too long even when taking huge losses? Or performing too well with huge losses? What kind of numbers seem correct? Would it would be only for melee POAs? For example I could reduce melee POA by say up to 25 points from the max of 100 for pikes from losses between say 480 and 240? Or between 480 and whatever the auto break point is for above average units with 720 man starting point. If we assume it's 240, then over the course of 240 losses, from 480 to 240, 25 points would be lost, or one point per 9.6 men. Say we round it to be just 1 point POA lost per 10 men lost. And would this be taken off of whatever the current POA is based on the steadiness of the pikes? So if you are already down to 50 poa from disruption as pikes you could lose another 25 from losses?

2) There is a losing_difference_constant set to 16 in the combat logic. Basically, if the losses delta in a round of combat is greater than 16 then the combat has a winner and a loser, and a lost combat comes with a CT test and I think a chance for pushback. I think you need to lose combat to have a chance to be pushedback, but I can look that up. If you do, that would explain why there are very few pushbacks with the mod, because if casualties are mitigated then the odds of getting to a 16 casualty delta are greatly decreased. So I could:
a) make a custom steady pike losing difference constant so that there are still more frequently winners and losers in vs pike combat, just with fewer casualties
i) however this would also come with more cohesion tests and could upset balance and greatly reduce the whole effect casualty mitigation was going for in the first place
b) look directly at the pushback code and add something for pikes there regardless of casualties or won or lost combat
c) alter casualty mitigation conditions. Currently, it's a fairly simple condition where casualties are mitigated on both sides by 25% if one, or the other, or both sides are steady pikes, and the the other is non light foot (medium or heavy foot, pike or not, steady or not). But, as discussed in some earlier post where I went through each possible situation, I thought this was a bit simplistic. Perhaps casualties should not be mitigated against non-steady non pike heavy foot units, or against mediums at all, or should only be mitigated one direction in such a case. Would pikes still only hold a disrupted enemy at bay, or cut through them really badly? For example (these are just examples of how mitigation could be made more complex):
-steady pike vs steady heavy foot, pike or not, mutual mitigation
-non steady pike against whatever, no mitigation
-steady pike against non steady heavy foot, mitigated inflicted on pikes but not inflicted by pikes
-steady pike against medium foot in any condition, mitigated inflicted on pikes but not inflicted by pikes (could make pikes pretty op vs medium foot)
-etc...lot's more potential matchups to think about.
the point being as it relates to pushbacks is that if casualties are not mitigated in certain conditions then pushbacks are back on the menu in those matchups. So, maybe the pushbacks start happening against mediums all the time and against heavy foot once the heavies are disrupted, and then the problem kind of takes care of itself in a way that feels somewhat realistic?

[Cunningcairn]

There are one or two tweeks I would like to see.
1. I think that the fighting ability of pike needs to be re-introduced when they fall below 480.

2. The probability of follow up and fall back should also be changed back to the way it was as it should happen more frequently. Historically pikes lost their cohesion and effectiveness because of this phenomenon so it should still be modeled in the game. With the reduced pike unit cost support is now affordable to mitigate the problems caused to the pike by this phenomenon.

1) I am willing to look into this if it seems needed to balance. Perhaps you are thinking pikes are lasting too long even when taking huge losses? Or performing too well with huge losses? What kind of numbers seem correct? Would it would be only for melee POAs? For example I could reduce melee POA by say up to 25 points from the max of 100 for pikes from losses between say 480 and 240? Or between 480 and whatever the auto break point is for above average units with 720 man starting point. If we assume it's 240, then over the course of 240 losses, from 480 to 240, 25 points would be lost, or one point per 9.6 men. Say we round it to be just 1 point POA lost per 10 men lost. And would this be taken off of whatever the current POA is based on the steadiness of the pikes? So if you are already down to 50 poa from disruption as pikes you could lose another 25 from losses?

2) There is a losing_difference_constant set to 16 in the combat logic. Basically, if the losses delta in a round of combat is greater than 16 then the combat has a winner and a loser, and a lost combat comes with a CT test and I think a chance for pushback. I think you need to lose combat to have a chance to be pushedback, but I can look that up. If you do, that would explain why there are very few pushbacks with the mod, because if casualties are mitigated then the odds of getting to a 16 casualty delta are greatly decreased. So I could:
a) make a custom steady pike losing difference constant so that there are still more frequently winners and losers in vs pike combat, just with fewer casualties
i) however this would also come with more cohesion tests and could upset balance and greatly reduce the whole effect casualty mitigation was going for in the first place
b) look directly at the pushback code and add something for pikes there regardless of casualties or won or lost combat
c) alter casualty mitigation conditions. Currently, it's a fairly simple condition where casualties are mitigated on both sides by 25% if one, or the other, or both sides are steady pikes, and the the other is non light foot (medium or heavy foot, pike or not, steady or not). But, as discussed in some earlier post where I went through each possible situation, I thought this was a bit simplistic. Perhaps casualties should not be mitigated against non-steady non pike heavy foot units, or against mediums at all, or should only be mitigated one direction in such a case. Would pikes still only hold a disrupted enemy at bay, or cut through them really badly? For example (these are just examples of how mitigation could be made more complex):
-steady pike vs steady heavy foot, pike or not, mutual mitigation
-non steady pike against whatever, no mitigation
-steady pike against non steady heavy foot, mitigated inflicted on pikes but not inflicted by pikes
-steady pike against medium foot in any condition, mitigated inflicted on pikes but not inflicted by pikes (could make pikes pretty op vs medium foot)
-etc...lot's more potential matchups to think about.
the point being as it relates to pushbacks is that if casualties are not mitigated in certain conditions then pushbacks are back on the menu in those matchups. So, maybe the pushbacks start happening against mediums all the time and against heavy foot once the heavies are disrupted, and then the problem kind of takes care of itself in a way that feels somewhat realistic?

1. I think 240 men would mean they would have already broken unless they are elite and I think even then they will break. My comments are not based on "arithmetic logic", yes I did just make up that phrase , but more a feeling about whether it feels correct. When you can see the numbers of your opponent being depleted it does not feel right that they are performing as they were at full strength. Remember the old story, "There we were 5 against 5000. Boy did we beat the hell out of the 5 of them". I think one reduction in fighting ability should be tested at below 480. I don't know what it should be so just pick a logical number and test it would be one way to go.

2. I think in games I played against you with the hoplites I received CT testing losses in 3 combats and fell back without the pike following up. That didn't feel correct. Is it possible to implement a follow up/push back result whenever a unit is forced to CT irrespective of the result of the test? As we change the rules players will change tactics based on these rule changes. I'm not sure exactly how this will play out but if you don'y try you will never know. Success is when the changes in the rules cause the players to adopt tactics that were used in the period being modeled.

[Schweetness101]

1) so currently pikes are no longer suffering poa losses from manpower losses of course in the mod, but no other unit ever did either. Instead, pikes just get the same combat strength modifier loss as any other 720 man unit. Is that still insufficient?

2) I'm looking into fallback/pushback changes now. Are you suggesting that pikes in particular be more likely to inflict a pushback and not a fallback, or in general that should happen?

[Schweetness101]

ohhhhh I've figured out what is going on. Only shock troop infantry follow up, and a unit is considered a shock troop or not by a function called IsShockTroops() in which the condition for pikes to be considered shock troops is

Percent16RanksPike(me) > 0

but that is never the case now I'm pretty sure, because pikes are not 16 ranks anymore, so they are actually never following up. Instead I will make tthem shock troops just by virtue of being pikes and not only if they have a certain number of ranks.

[Cunningcairn]

ohhhhh I've figured out what is going on. Only shock troop infantry follow up, and a unit is considered a shock troop or not by a function called IsShockTroops() in which the condition for pikes to be considered shock troops is

Percent16RanksPike(me) > 0

but that is never the case now I'm pretty sure, because pikes are not 16 ranks anymore, so they are actually never following up. Instead I will make tthem shock troops just by virtue of being pikes and not only if they have a certain number of ranks.

Ahaa I'd like to try it after that mod.

[rbodleyscott]

It is worth noting that I am open to suggestions for improving pike interactions, but I am not willing to change the size of pike units. So if you want your changes to possibly eventually be included in the vanilla game, you are going down a blind alley by changing the size of pike units.

Of course, if you are happy for your changes to just be a mod forever, then that does not matter.

[desicat]

It is worth noting that I am open to suggestions for improving pike interactions, but I am not willing to change the size of pike units. So if you want your changes to possibly eventually be included in the vanilla game, you are going down a blind alley by changing the size of pike units.

Of course, if you are happy for your changes to just be a mod forever, then that does not matter.

There really is an epic majestic aura encompassing the battlefield when a glorious pike army advances upon its foe.

[Schweetness101]

It is worth noting that I am open to suggestions for improving pike interactions, but I am not willing to change the size of pike units. So if you want your changes to possibly eventually be included in the vanilla game, you are going down a blind alley by changing the size of pike units.

Of course, if you are happy for your changes to just be a mod forever, then that does not matter.

thanks for the update!

we should discuss and decide amongst ourselves here if we are content to make a pike rebalance mod, or if we ought to have the ambition of applying to have some changes made to the main game. I never expected the latter, but if it is an option and people are interested then I would of course fall in line with the parameters set by RBS.

Edit: if I make a 960 man/4 rank pike version of the mod, what else if anything should be changed/unchanged from the mod so far?
-v1.1 already gets rid of ranged casualty mitigation.
-I'm thinking some armor for pikes and vet pikes is still good with their new POAs?
-Should all pikes still be considered shock troops always, ie so they pushback always in the right conditions otherwise, or only if 4 ranks deep like in vanilla?
-Any melee casualty mitigation changes? Amount of mitigation or vs certain units or not or different conditions?

[GeneralKostas]

My suggestion is to improve the stats of the Pike and Veteran Pike Phalanx units.


Pike Phalanx - Troop Quality: from Average to Above Average & Armour: from Protected to Some Armour

Veteran Pike Phalanx - Armour: from Protected to Some Armour

These changes are going to give to the pike units more resilience in the battlefield.

[Schweetness101]

another thing worth testing at the moment, is the Melee POA of cataphracts vs pikes now. Snugglebunnies pointed out a large net poa there



Mounted swordsmen already have melee poa vs pikes reduced, but not cataphracts which get a +50 POA back, so perhaps I could only do that +50 for cataphracts vs non pikes in melee. Even if that were removed the cataphracts with a genrral would have a net +100 poa advantage vs pikes, and without a general a net +50 POA vs pikes, but at substantial combat power disadvantage. After accounting for combat strength modifier (960 men) that leaves pikes with a small advantage in melee, which does not seem correct? Should steady pikes be massively advantaged in melee vs even Cataphracts? Perhaps there should be a negative poa modifier for cav vs pikes in melee like there is for foot swords, spears, heavy weapon etc...

I hadn't thought about it much until now because most cav bounce off of pikes and don't spend much time in melee with them, but with the current changes you could get a scenario where melee oriented cataphract cavalry is competitive with steady pikes in the open in melee which seems wrong.

I should also perhaps remove the +50 lancer impact poa vs defending pikes and spears if the defenders are pikes.

[MikeC_81]

Mounted swordsmen already have melee poa vs pikes reduced, but not cataphracts which get a +50 POA back, so perhaps I could only do that +50 for cataphracts vs non pikes in melee. Even if that were removed the cataphracts with a genrral would have a net +100 poa advantage vs pikes, and without a general a net +50 POA vs pikes, but at substantial combat power disadvantage. After accounting for combat strength modifier (960 men) that leaves pikes with a small advantage in melee, which does not seem correct? Should steady pikes be massively advantaged in melee vs even Cataphracts? Perhaps there should be a negative poa modifier for cav vs pikes in melee like there is for foot swords, spears, heavy weapon etc...

I hadn't thought about it much until now because most cav bounce off of pikes and don't spend much time in melee with them, but with the current changes you could get a scenario where melee oriented cataphract cavalry is competitive with steady pikes in the open in melee which seems wrong.

I should also perhaps remove the +50 lancer impact poa vs defending pikes and spears if the defenders are pikes.

Just make steady Pikes vs any mounted (non elephant) as +200 like before.

[Schweetness101]

Just make steady Pikes vs any mounted (non elephant) as +200 like before.

so here are the numbers:

Pikes vs Cataphracts:

In Vanilla:

Impact:
open ground, pikes steady, pikes initiating charge:
pikes +100
cata: lancers +100, quality +50
net: cata +50

and lancers charging:
pikes +200
cata: lancers +50, quality +50
net: pikes +100

Melee:
open ground, cata steady, and pikes steady:
pikes: +100, +100 deep pikes
cata: swordsmen +50, armor + 100, quality + 50
net poa: 0

pikes disordered:
pikes: +100
cata: swordsmen +100, armor + 100, quality + 50
net: cata + 150

so shall we shoot for those net poas? I don't think there were issues with pikes vs lancers in vanilla.

currently in the Pike Mod it's:

Impact:
pikes initiating charge:
pikes: +0
cata: lancers +100, quality + 50
net: cata +150 (100 more than in vanilla)

lancers initiating charge
pikes: +125
cata: lancers +50, quality + 50
net: pikes +25 (75 less than in vanilla)

Melee:
pikes and cata steady
pikes: +100
cata: swordsmen +50, armor +100, quality + 50
net: cata + 100 (100 more than in vanilla)

pikes disordered and cata steady
pikes: +50
cata: swordsmen +100, armor +100, quality + 50
net: cata +200 (50 more than in vanilla)

Potential Solutions:
-make pikes not lose their +100 when charging lancers, would bring it back down to net 50 favoring cataphracts, same as vanilla

-remove lancer capability when lancers charging steady pikes (then pikes would be +75 when charged
by lancers instead of +100, perhaps ok since they are cheaper than vanilla

-remove 100 from mounted swordsman poa in melee vs steady pikes (would then be same as vanilla)

-somehow give 50 back to pikes when disordered in melee vs cata, maybe extend cata sword reduction
from 100 to 50 vs steady spears and pikes to also happen against disrupted/disordered (but not fragmented) pikes, or keep
it the way it is and say it's part of the more extreme degradation of pike capability when they
are disordered

thoughts?

[SnuggleBunnies]

These mostly sound good. I would be interested in trying out keeping the catas sword in melee vs disrupted pikes. After all, since Pikes are cheaper, we want them to have weaknesses - and having their primary weakness being vulnerability when unsteady seems appropriate. Of course, it could be going too far so we'll have to game it out.