Alternative Gameplay Mod v1.3

[Quivis]

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?

I believe so, it would be the simplest solution. If one of the units in the line is in a very awkward direction, it would still be subject to rear charge auto drop.

[Schweetness101]

would you be willing to share?

Things that irk me or strike me as 'off' in the game. Warning, incoming wall of text.

...

thanks very much for the long post!

Skirmishers: I see the problem you are bringing up, how would you go about addressing this? What mod change could fix the skirmishers? Changes to evasion chances, AP, melee ability vs non lights, etc?

Pushback: what was the pushback change exactly? what change would you make? I think maybe pushbacks only happen now with some chance on winning impact, and not on winning melees? but maybe they happen on winning melees as well, I don't remember. Would you make it both?

Rallies: have you tried the mod changes? I think that they very well address what you are discussing there.

Terrain: I could look at the terrain generation, but I suspect that it is immensely complex. I think Pete also floated the idea of reducing the amount of rough terrain on maps. I guess most people just reroll maps they really dislike though. What kind of maps would you in general like to see more of?

Cav combat resolution: we talked about this in a few posts, but the idea is for cav combat, and subsequent pursuits, to end faster so that they are more likely to have time to serve their roll of flanking the main infantry line. It's definitely part of the changes all moving in that direction, so that one I would not say is a random change. To be clear, the cav still pursue in the mod, sometimes quite a lot, it's just not as much as before. Just a toning down of some values, and removing some of the pursuits by cav out of a large cav melee when they ought to stay and finish the melee. Even in the vanilla code actually you will find comments about how pursuit values may need tweaking, so its not like these are unprecedented or wild changes. Kind of has to be tried out to get a feel for though.

Flank angle: covered in other posts, but to be clear you still get +100 on flanks and auto drops on rear attacks. If anything, gameplay feels about the same with this change, and its in effect just a) a bit of a nerf to massed medium foot armies (which they needed) and b) a bit of an incentive to use more depth rather than breadth, and to focus on 2v1s rather than 90 degree flanks, which also seems to be in line with what you wanted to see with the pushbacks. All those considerations in your 7th paragraph ("The most egregious change...") are still taken into account when playing. It's not torn out, just modified a bit. I think you should really try out a game of it and see that the resulting effect on gameplay is actually pretty mild. There's been a lot of drama over this one change, but as I've asked people about repeatedly, no one has shown that in a real game it has affected the overall outcome that much. You can still do similar tactics, it just nerfs mediums a bit, removes gamey mid line flanks, and encourages keeping your line together with a bit more depth.

Anarchy: The anarchy stuff does not prevent you from doing planned moves. It more just punishes moving units right up to within charge range of the enemy and then doing nothing with them. If you charge the enemy yourself you'll find that you often don't even notice the anarchy (a lot of posters played whole games without it changing much). It adds flavor and disencentivizes weird moves where you try to use the grid in a strange way right in front of the enemy without charging, but its not preventing you from making plans. Has to be tried out to get a feel for though.

Charge Refusals: The refusals to charge are not in desirable matchups typically, but in undesirable ones (ie at combat disadvantage) and units will never refuse to charge a flank of an engaged unit and thereby lose out on an autodrop opportunity. The only good opportunity it potentially messes with that I can think of is flanking unengaged non-light cav with light cav to forcibly turn them, but I think most people agree that is a bad and gamey move that should (will?) be addressed. In fact, I think charge refusals are an arguably excellent solution to that problem. I think your paragraph discussing this that starts with "With anarchy as it is implemented..." is a bit hyperbolic and not how the gameplay actually plays out. Refusals to charge if anything are helping you make realistic plans, ie by not relying on a very low quality unit to charge a high quality unit in order for your plan to succeed. It adds more interesting decision making in that respect. Real life generals would not rely on a low quality unit that might refuse orders to pin an elite enemy with a charge at a key point. I really think that the refusals to charge add an interesting mechanic that expands risk/reward balance in a positive way. Like for example you say "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," but again only if your reserve unit is low quality and your engaged unit is beleagured by high quality foes. It would actually make sense if your reseve raw shieldwall unit refused to suicidally throw themselves at superior cataphracts that are about to break your line. That adds more gameplay variety and important decisionmaking with unit selection and deployment for the commander. And would also encourage more in depth lines, and keeping more and better units in reserve, like real armies did (rather than in the vanilla game where people tend to spread out as much as possible and have all decent units on the main line, and keep something like irregular foot or raw heavies as a reserve infantry).

Removing player agency by overloading it with RNG sucks...

again I think that is a bit hyperbolic. It is not removing agency, but adding more considerations to the gameplay. I think you should try it out and see that it is not having as dramatic of changes as you think. Although, it sounds like you are opposed to the Anarchy mod as a concept, in which case I guess I can only say that perhaps the mod is not for you, but I don't want to say that. I'd like you to try it out and see what you think in practice rather than in theory!

The point of the mod is not to use RNG to to "to stop it from being the game of footies and ZoCs," although I'm actually not sure what you mean there. Double drops are not eliminated across the board btw, just for units close to full strength. But, instead of that, in the next v2 version of the mod they will be permitted just for units at somewhat of a combat disadvantage or worse. More or less RNG though is not how I would describe the mod, its not about that either way. I think Pete explained pretty well what the overall idea of the mod is in another post.

Did introduce the flank angle mod knowing that so many potential random troop movements could leave a lot of units with vulnerable flanks?

those two elements, and more, in the mod do have a complementary nature

thanks for adding to the discussion!

[Schweetness101]

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

haha yeah it would. The thing to consider for me is that a standalone mod would not just require the work to break out all of the anarchy (and maybe general command and control stuff) into its own project, but would also require ongoing maintenance as any changes to anarchy values or bug fixes to anarchy stuff would have to be done twice, so I would like to do it once this mod is done or close to done.

[Nosy_Rat]

...

I didn't watch the Roman-Gaul game yet.

Those screenshots mostly show that with new flank rules player is willing to take unnecessary risk with charges and pursuits, that put charging unit into dangerous position, and is punished very little for it. That is not a player behaviour that should work well in a strategy game.

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.

As I said, that's not true in my experience. Massed cavalry attacks work very well already, something like 10 to 12 cavalry units (in 1600 points game) with skirmisher support overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant.
If the number of attacking cavalry is more or less matched by the defender, then yes, cavalry would be pretty much stopped dead in its track, but I'm not sure that's necessary a bad thing.

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.

I think that cavalry not being able to break a contact with ZoCing infantry is a problem, yes.
Being able to deactivate secondary ZoCs is kinda ok, as it is basically less riskier version of vanilla charge with blocked fallback shenanigans, but I'm afraid it would make Andalusia-style cheap cavalry spam even stronger than it is right now.
What I don't like is reducing infantry AP after being charged.

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.

1.If anything, it should be auto-drop and auto-doubledrop
2. It's more about psychological effect of being surrounded by enemies than any actual area of impact or whatever, imo.
3. That's a fair point and I would like to see some sort of battleline system for flank protection of adjacent units implemented, but it seems like it would be pretty hard to code and even harder to make easy to understand.
4. Weird grid games are actually fun (for me and Mike, at least, it seems), grinding down enemy in 1 vs X isn't.

A) and B) are not the same even in vanilla, though. A) is most likely to result just in a single cohesion drop from flank attack while B) due to additional cohesion modifiers and the result of an actual impact is likely to cause at least a double-drop or full rout.

[Schweetness101]

Those screenshots mostly show that with new flank rules player is willing to take unnecessary risk with charges and pursuits, that put charging unit into dangerous position, and is punished very little for it. That is not a player behaviour that should work well in a strategy game.

I explained why that was not the case though. Could you respond to the reasons I gave? Perhaps watch the gaul/roman game?

As I said, that's not true in my experience. Massed cavalry attacks work very well already, something like 10 to 12 cavalry units (in 1600 points game) with skirmisher support overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant.

I'm sorry, but it is not even close to true that cav can "overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant," almost to a point where it's like we are not playing the same game. I setup an editor scenario to show what I am talking about here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQJ_Mw ... e=youtu.be

that's 5x muslim spearmen at 36 points, and 4x msulim massed archers also at 36 points, or 324 points of infantry, not just holding off but badly defeating 11 armoured, average quality lancers at 44 points each, or 484 points of cavalry. You can mix those units up how you like, but you will not find that 10 cavalry units can just instantly overwhelm 'any reasonable amount of infantry defense,' that's just...I don't even know what to say...cheap spears can hold off many times their number of cavalry, and if backed up by a few massed archer units...you aren't just not getting through there, you're getting routed en masse.

If the number of attacking cavalry is more or less matched by the defender, then yes, cavalry would be pretty much stopped dead in its track, but I'm not sure that's necessary a bad thing.

if the number of defending cavalry match the number of offending cavalry? yes they should stop and fight each other...what argument are you making here?

What I don't like is reducing infantry AP after being charged.

without either that, or increasing cav fallback, then there will be no escape from ZoC traps (losing secondary ZoC does not affect that because primary ZoC causes the trap). Have you tried a game using the alt mod, or are your points of opposition here all theoretical?

1.If anything, it should be auto-drop and auto-doubledrop
2. It's more about psychological effect of being surrounded by enemies than any actual area of impact or whatever, imo.
3. That's a fair point and I would like to see some sort of battleline system for flank protection of adjacent units implemented, but it seems like it would be pretty hard to code and even harder to make easy to understand.
4. Weird grid games are actually fun (for me and Mike, at least, it seems), grinding down enemy in 1 vs X isn't.

A) and B) are not the same even in vanilla, though. A) is most likely to result just in a single cohesion drop from flank attack while B) due to additional cohesion modifiers and the result of an actual impact is likely to cause at least a double-drop or full rout.

1) you could make an argument for that, as long as rear attacks are in some noticeable way better than flanks, that could be an improvement I think. But, then you would still have the mid line flank weirdness and so on that we've talked about ad nauseum.
2) but the point is that in a line that's 8 men deep and 1000 men wide, almost all soldiers will notice a rear attack, but a 90 degree flank will only even be seen by a few men, and those that could see it can probably turn to face it easily unless they are pikes, because if they turn to face it then they are turning their backs on their own men in the interior of their unit. It would just be like a bend/bow in the line like 3 below (except once the enemy gets around enough for a rear attack, and those should still have auto drop as in the mod and in vanilla). Rear attacks on the other hand sandwich the enemy between your own forces on each side, and all along their line, and it is thus sensible that they would be much more devastating psychologically, both per man they affect, and because they affect many more men in the targeted unit.
3) yes we've been discussing this and I'm not sure there's a way to implement it that won't be confusing to the player. I will maybe still try it though. But without doing that, the question becomes, which is the worse evil:
___a) having no representation of bending or bowing in the line in game at all with vanilla type flanks with autodrop, even on what should really be just a bend in the line, or
___b) the mod's losing autodrop on flank attacks that takes care of the bend/bow in the line issue, at risk of making some lone or end of line units not as vulnerable on the flanks as you think they should be (but those units would still be much more vulnerable to rear attacks than mid line units, so not much of a loss to tactics there)
4) I'm talking specifically about doing things just to cause a mid-line inf unit to turn at 45 degrees so you can get a 'flank' mid line, which is probably fun for veterans beating up on newbs who don't know the rules, but it motivates irregular line placement in a way that is ahistorical and gamey. Are you really arguing that mid-line 'flanks' are good? they seem patently ahistorical and bad and just an unintended artifact of the rules and grid system.

A and B are both +200 and autodrop. If you are a shock unit, whether in A or B, then you impose an extra negative modifier for impact. But that goes for both cases, so the comparison stands. In fact, in vanilla, an average quality impact foot unit on the flank is a better attack than a superior non shock cav in the rear.

[stockwellpete]

Those screenshots mostly show that with new flank rules player is willing to take unnecessary risk with charges and pursuits, that put charging unit into dangerous position, and is punished very little for it. That is not a player behaviour that should work well in a strategy game.

I explained why that was not the case though. Could you respond to the reasons I gave? Perhaps watch the gaul/roman game?

I could understand the argument that Nosy_Rat is making if we had completely nerfed what is called a "flank attack" in the vanilla game. If there was no automatic cohesion drop and no POA+'s in operation. But this is not the case in the mod. Attacks from the side are very powerful in the game and cause cohesion drops about one-third of the time. These are the most powerful types of attack in the early to mid game where rear attacks tend to be exceedingly rare.

[stockwellpete]

Play Test 4 Macedonian 260-148 BC (me) v Roman 199-106 BC (AI) Governor level, very large armies, very large map size
The terrain was too difficult for the AI. A deep stream ran across the centre of the map and a large number of Roman units decided to go paddling in it. My right hook of pikes and cavalry smashed the Roman left and then enveloped the centre. Macedonians won 42-0.

Not much anarchy . . .

Macedonian
1) pike unit charged hastati unit that was already engaged by another of my units as I sought to position it elsewhere

Roman (AI)
1) disrupted hastati charged pikes (disrupted units will not anarchy from the next update)
2) one of the paddling hastati units refused orders to charge pike unit

[Nosy_Rat]

I explained why that was not the case though. Could you respond to the reasons I gave? Perhaps watch the gaul/roman game?

I think Pete got my point there (though he obviously disagrees with it) - it doesn't really matter how those units got in positions shown in screenshots, in vanilla, due to greater flanking effect, good player would've acted more cautiously in those situations and avoided taking completely unnecessary risk of charging skirmishers with a single unit in front of enemy or deliberately exposing flank to attack (also, at close range skutatoi are more effective than massed archers, so there was no need to "hide in melee" to avoid being shot at).

I'm sorry, but it is not even close to true that cav can "overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant," almost to a point where it's like we are not playing the same game. I setup an editor scenario to show what I am talking about here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaQJ_Mw ... e=youtu.be
that's 5x muslim spearmen at 36 points, and 4x msulim massed archers also at 36 points, or 324 points of infantry, not just holding off but badly defeating 11 armoured, average quality lancers at 44 points each, or 484 points of cavalry. You can mix those units up how you like, but you will not find that 10 cavalry units can just instantly overwhelm 'any reasonable amount of infantry defense,' that's just...I don't even know what to say...cheap spears can hold off many times their number of cavalry, and if backed up by a few massed archer units...you aren't just not getting through there, you're getting routed en masse.

We are clearly playing a different game then
Come on, even in your video leftmost and rightmost cavalry units can fall back one tile and then charge around the infantry line, resulting in complete massacre.

if the number of defending cavalry match the number of offending cavalry? yes they should stop and fight each other...what argument are you making here?

Sorry, I think I didn't write it clear - I mean that if flanking cavalry force consists of relatively few units (like 3 or 4 Noble cavalry in Classical, for example), then yes, it is quite easy for infantry to stop such an attack with ZoCs, or at least delay it for very long time, but I'm not sure whether forcing an infantry army to spend significantly more to achieve the same result would be right.

without either that, or increasing cav fallback, then there will be no escape from ZoC traps (losing secondary ZoC does not affect that because primary ZoC causes the trap). Have you tried a game using the alt mod, or are your points of opposition here all theoretical?

All-theoretical, obviously, I have stated it in the first message.
And I agree with you that this is a problem, I just don't like the particular solution.

2) but the point is that in a line that's 8 men deep and 1000 men wide, almost all soldiers will notice a rear attack, but a 90 degree flank will only even be seen by a few men, and those that could see it can probably turn to face it easily unless they are pikes, because if they turn to face it then they are turning their backs on their own men in the interior of their unit. It would just be like a bend/bow in the line like 3 below (except once the enemy gets around enough for a rear attack, and those should still have auto drop as in the mod and in vanilla). Rear attacks on the other hand sandwich the enemy between your own forces on each side, and all along their line, and it is thus sensible that they would be much more devastating psychologically, both per man they affect, and because they affect many more men in the targeted unit.
3) yes we've been discussing this and I'm not sure there's a way to implement it that won't be confusing to the player. I will maybe still try it though. But without doing that, the question becomes, which is the worse evil:
___a) having no representation of bending or bowing in the line in game at all with vanilla type flanks with autodrop, even on what should really be just a bend in the line, or
___b) the mod's losing autodrop on flank attacks that takes care of the bend/bow in the line issue, at risk of making some lone or end of line units not as vulnerable on the flanks as you think they should be (but those units would still be much more vulnerable to rear attacks than mid line units, so not much of a loss to tactics there)
4) I'm talking specifically about doing things just to cause a mid-line inf unit to turn at 45 degrees so you can get a 'flank' mid line, which is probably fun for veterans beating up on newbs who don't know the rules, but it motivates irregular line placement in a way that is ahistorical and gamey. Are you really arguing that mid-line 'flanks' are good? they seem patently ahistorical and bad and just an unintended artifact of the rules and grid system.

A and B are both +200 and autodrop. If you are a shock unit, whether in A or B, then you impose an extra negative modifier for impact. But that goes for both cases, so the comparison stands. In fact, in vanilla, an average quality impact foot unit on the flank is a better attack than a superior non shock cav in the rear.

2) Troops fled at the sight of the enemy about to encircle them or even at rumour of such sight. I don't think that trying to rationalize the inner workings of panic is the best idea. Not being able to see what the hell is happening on the flank except knowing that something bad is going on for sure may be as well demoralizing as actually seeing enemy charging you in the rear.
3) Well yes, I realize that. I guess for me mid-line flanks are the lesser evil. It's easier for me rationalize them as a gap in a shieldwall or weak spot in the battleline salient or whatever than to believe in single unit away from any support behaving like a tercio.
4) Irregular line placement may be ahistoric and gamey, but it's a fun mechanic that involves player skill both to use and defend against.

[Schweetness101]

also, at close range skutatoi are more effective than massed archers, so there was no need to "hide in melee" to avoid being shot at

what? isn't that the point? that those skutatoi are better in melee so would not have cared about exposed flank in the game shown whether it was vanilla rules or not? You still did not respond to the reasons I gave, but whatever, agree to disagree I guess because we are just repeating ourselves at this point.

Come on, even in your video leftmost and rightmost cavalry units can fall back one tile and then charge around the infantry line, resulting in complete massacre.

no, they can't, because ZoC is preventing them from getting around in an at all reasonable time frame, and, as discussed, this is supposed to be a representation of a flank of cavalry meeting a flank defense of infantry. That is the context of the conversation: it is an example where the cavalry are already going around as it were, and the main opposing forces are supposed to be beside them. Again, they are both supposed to be forces on the flank of their respective main allied units. Those cav can't 'get around' the side where the main line is supposed to be, and if they tried to get around the other side, the inf can just keep following and turning and keep them out with ZoC and interior lines until the battle is over. Sorry, you just cannot argue that cav can "overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant" in the vanila game. It's just so far off of reality it's like I don't even know if it's worth continuing discussing the issue at that point.

I mean that if flanking cavalry force consists of relatively few units (like 3 or 4 Noble cavalry in Classical, for example), then yes, it is quite easy for infantry to stop such an attack with ZoCs, or at least delay it for very long time, but I'm not sure whether forcing an infantry army to spend significantly more to achieve the same result would be right

the more cav units a flank consists of, the more points it consists of, and so the fewer men in the main force of those cav units' army, and so the more infantry the defending opponent can afford to send off on the side to defend against that cav force. There will always be a huge points advantage to defending cheap spears over offending, flanking cavalry units. 3-4 noble cav at 44 points each are easily held off by 2-3 cheap spears at 36 points each. 10-12 noble cav at 44 points each are easily held off by 8-10 cheap spears at 36 points each, etc...that is the whole point, the issue scales up and down with army sizes and compositions. You can always almost indefinitely, at least for the whole main battle, hold off a larger, more expensive cav force with a smaller number of individually cheaper spears. It makes large cav flanks basically untenable. It is why instead often the best way to 'flank' is to hope for irregularities to open up in the line and take mid line 'flanks', which is not always terrible, but it just doesn't really make much historical sense for it to be the main means of flanking. When I first started playing multiplayer, I would deploy my cav on the flank and the infantry for the main line, thinking that roughly historical deployments were best. I instead very rapidly figured out that almost never works. It was an ahistorical revelation to figure out that the best place for cav is often behind your main line, waiting for irregularities and pushbacks, before they rush in piecemeal to take advantage of individual flanks. It's just a weird type of gameplay the current rules motivate that Pete and I are trying to fix. Our fix may or may not work, but that is what we are trying to do: make historical cavalry flanks a competitive and tenable strategy.

2) Troops fled at the sight of the enemy about to encircle them or even at rumour of such sight. I don't think that trying to rationalize the inner workings of panic is the best idea. Not being able to see what the hell is happening on the flank except knowing that something bad is going on for sure may be as well demoralizing as actually seeing enemy charging you in the rear.
3) Well yes, I realize that. I guess for me mid-line flanks are the lesser evil. It's easier for me rationalize them as a gap in a shieldwall or weak spot in the battleline salient or whatever than to believe in single unit away from any support behaving like a tercio.
4) Irregular line placement may be ahistoric and gamey, but it's a fun mechanic that involves player skill both to use and defend against.

2/3) but it is not an encirclement, it is one 90 degree flank. They are not encircled if fighting only in front of them and to one side. That does not a circle make. That is the whole point, actual encirclement, ie fighting at the front and rear, ie fighting all around you, is worse than just at the front and on one flank. We aren't arguing that flanks aren't bad, we still have them at +100 POA, but they just aren't as bad as rear attacks, and making them as bad as rear attacks causes the game to not account for bending and bowing in the line at all. Even if a shieldwall had a gap that some enemies rushed into and started to pick apart, is that really as bad as a full on charge into the rear? Getting the +100 and likely but not guaranteed drop, + the extra casualties from losing when receiving the flank, + now being 2v1 and well on the road to breaking seems to represent a gap opening in the line well. Whereas the auto drop + likely second drop of a rear attack and almost guaranteed break either this or the next turn seems to represent getting charged in the rear quite well. Does no one care about how different flank and rear attacks would really be? I guess not...
4) to each his own, but for us ahistorical but effective tactics are the bane of an historical simulation. It's really that combo which is bad, ie ahistorical and ineffective tactics aren't used so they don't really matter.

thanks for sharing your thoughts! I have already implemented your suggested change on double drops and will probably do something like you suggested on refuse orders.

[Schweetness101]

3) Well yes, I realize that. I guess for me mid-line flanks are the lesser evil. It's easier for me rationalize them as a gap in a shieldwall or weak spot in the battleline salient or whatever than to believe in single unit away from any support behaving like a tercio.

one other thing that might help everyone understand what the changes are and why it does not make units behave like tercios. Tercios can potentially repulse flanks from all directions like a pike square in game. That is not at all what these flank changes do. This picture shows the relatively small difference we are dealing with between vanilla and the mod:



the yellow units all get an auto drop and +200, like in vanilla. Only the two blue circled units have their flank potency reduced to +100 and no auto drop. So, even units that end up on the flank flank of the target, but start back further than 90 degrees (the yellow highlighted ones right next to the blue circled units) still get the auto drop and +200.

Again, I think I lot of your issues with the changes are theoretical and not from experience, because as you said you haven't played the mod. Please actually try the mod out, maybe even in just one small size battle SP game, just to get an idea of whether your problems with it are real or imagined. It does not do much good to have a purely theoretical discussion.

[Nosy_Rat]

no, they can't, because ZoC is preventing them from getting around in an at all reasonable time frame, and, as discussed, this is supposed to be a representation of a flank of cavalry meeting a flank defense of infantry. That is the context of the conversation: it is an example where the cavalry are already going around as it were, and the main opposing forces are supposed to be beside them. Again, they are both supposed to be forces on the flank of their respective main allied units. Those cav can't 'get around' the side where the main line is supposed to be, and if they tried to get around the other side, the inf can just keep following and turning and keep them out with ZoC and interior lines until the battle is over. Sorry, you just cannot argue that cav can "overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant" in the vanila game. It's just so far off of reality it's like I don't even know if it's worth continuing discussing the issue at that point.

How to own infantry in two simple steps, spearmen hate it!!! Click to see more!!!

It's literally 3 turns from there to charging into archers.

3-4 noble cav at 44 points each are easily held off by 2-3 cheap spears at 36 points each.

That's just physically not possible unless you willingly cram all your cavalry into one unit's ZoC for some reason. You need at least the same amount of units, though units themselves may be cheaper than attacking cavalry.

I'm equally baffled by this conversation, to be fair.

[stockwellpete]

Play Test 5 Dacians 50 BC-88 AD (me) v Romans 24-196 AD (AI), Emperor Level, Large army, large map
A fairly flat map with a few areas of rough ground for my Dacians to use. My attack on the left went in first and was successful and I always had the numbers there throughout the battle. My cavalry attack on the other flank was held but the Romans were not able to flank my centre either. The Romans got the better of the battle in the centre but it was bitterly fought. Finally, I was able to crush the Roman right and my surviving cavalry got in among the AI's archers and artillery. Dacians won 56-37.

Lots of anarchy in this battle . . .

Dacian
1) falxmen charged legionary with sub-general in open terrain
2) warband ditto
3) warband ditto
4) cavalry unit charged legionary as it tried to skirt round Roman position

Roman
1-5) 5 anarchy charges by Roman cavalry at the beginning of the battle over 2 turns against my cavalry units
6-7) auxilia charged warband and falxmen unit in rough ground

[Schweetness101]

no, they can't, because ZoC is preventing them from getting around in an at all reasonable time frame, and, as discussed, this is supposed to be a representation of a flank of cavalry meeting a flank defense of infantry. That is the context of the conversation: it is an example where the cavalry are already going around as it were, and the main opposing forces are supposed to be beside them. Again, they are both supposed to be forces on the flank of their respective main allied units. Those cav can't 'get around' the side where the main line is supposed to be, and if they tried to get around the other side, the inf can just keep following and turning and keep them out with ZoC and interior lines until the battle is over. Sorry, you just cannot argue that cav can "overwhelm any reasonable amount of infantry defense you could expect in an instant" in the vanila game. It's just so far off of reality it's like I don't even know if it's worth continuing discussing the issue at that point.

How to own infantry in two simple steps, spearmen hate it!!! Click to see more!!!

It's literally 3 turns from there to charging into archers.

disappointingly, you did not read what I wrote. That picture is supposed to be a representation of the flank combat, where some infantry are defending against cav that outnumber them to try and hold off the flank while the infantry battle rages on. So, a) at most the cav could only get around one side, because as I said the other consists of the main battle line, and b) the red arrows you are showing as the means of attacking won't work because the cav bounce off of the spear infantry, often being disrupted in the process, and typically being broken in a few turns if they get stuck into the melee, and cannot go through secondary ZoCs. And, if they try to get around instead of charging, the infantry can use interior lines and ZoC to continually keep them out. You learn this stuff in like the first 3 MP battles you try...I just don't get how you are not understanding.

And that's an example where the cavalry outnumber the infantry, and outpoint them by 50%! In a real game you have as many points as the enemy, and could match them on the flank. Imagine an equal points number of spear infantry. You are never getting around that, especially in time to get to the main infantry line before it resolves.

3-4 noble cav at 44 points each are easily held off by 2-3 cheap spears at 36 points each.

That's just physically not possible unless you willingly cram all your cavalry into one unit's ZoC for some reason. You need at least the same amount of units, though units themselves may be cheaper than attacking cavalry.

it is physically possible and in fact trivially easy. 2-3 spearmen behind your line and facing the flanks/rear can virtually always hold off a cavalry flank attempt for longer than the main battle line takes to resolve. Every time cav ends up in the ZoC of non light infantry they are either ZoC trapped by the primary ZoC, or forced to turn around move away for 1-2 turns, and then begin attempting to cut back in. That is, it takes at least 3, but typically more, turns to get around a single non light infantry, assuming that non-light infantry doesn't even bother to move. If they are moving along with you, using ZoC and interior lines to keep you out, then you are never getting in.

saying that:

You need at least the same amount of units

of non light infantry to repulse non light cav betrays a bizarre lack of understanding of the effectivenss of ZoC coming from such an experienced player. That video literally shows 11 cavalry held back by 5 non light inf, who are much cheaper per unit, by using ZoC. It's like...your own screen shot shows that what you are saying doesn't work.

And, even further, that is with lancers, who at least don't turn around and run off across the map when attacked by non light inf. If we were doing light spear cav they would be spending way more than 3-4 turns to try to get around, as every time non light inf attacked them they would run off and have to spend two turns just to turn around and come back alone.

I am also baffled that you do not know these things. I mean...the red arrows you drew go through the secondary ZoCs where the cav can't go...

[Nosy_Rat]

I am also baffled that you do not know these things. I mean...the red arrows you drew go through the secondary ZoCs where the cav can't go...

None of the arrows on the flanks cross the ZoC of spears, one arrow pointing directly at spearmen means that cavalry unit needs to move forward to ZoC the spears.

Here, I made high-quality tactical diagram.



You are for some reason assuming that all of the attacking cavalry has to form a straight line and march alltogether into enemy ZoCs. But if cavalry player plays correctly, then there's simply no way for infantry unit to force their ZoC on a more than one cavalry, as being much more mobile cavalry dictates the terms of engagement. So what happens is quite opposite to what you describe - cavalry ZoCs infantry in one-on-one standoffs, while the rest of the cavalry is free to move around the flank defense line. There's literally no way for infantry unit to be able to ZoC cavalry before cavalry can ZoC it (obviously, unless a cavalry player makes a mistake and moves several units into position where they could be ZoCed at once).

[Swuul]

I mean...the red arrows you drew go through the secondary ZoCs where the cav can't go...

Not correct. The first move is a fallback diagonally, the second move is to move around the corner spearmen (who are locked in place by the zoc provided by the cavalry in their face) which happens without crossing the zoc of the spearmen, the third move is the charge.

Btw, this can also easily be done with medium infantry too.

[Schweetness101]

I mean...the red arrows you drew go through the secondary ZoCs where the cav can't go...

Not correct. The first move is a fallback diagonally, the second move is to move around the corner spearmen (who are locked in place by the zoc provided by the cavalry in their face) which happens without crossing the zoc of the spearmen, the third move is the charge.

you do not appear to know how ZoC works:



just being 'in the face' of the enemy does not make their secondary ZoC disappear. They cannot get around without the other unit of lancers charging and staying in combat with the spears, which they will not do but will instead fall back.

[Nosy_Rat]

Seriously, you are getting rude at this point. Swuul is correct, look at your own video, please.

[Schweetness101]

I am also baffled that you do not know these things. I mean...the red arrows you drew go through the secondary ZoCs where the cav can't go...

None of the arrows on the flanks cross the ZoC of spears, one arrow pointing directly at spearmen means that cavalry unit needs to move forward to ZoC the spears.

Here, I made high-quality tactical diagram.

...

You are for some reason assuming that all of the attacking cavalry has to form a straight line and march alltogether into enemy ZoCs. But if cavalry player plays correctly, then there's simply no way for infantry unit to force their ZoC on a more than one cavalry, as being much more mobile cavalry dictates the terms of engagement. So what happens is quite opposite to what you describe - cavalry ZoCs infantry in one-on-one standoffs, while the rest of the cavalry is free to move around the flank defense line. There's literally no way for infantry unit to be able to ZoC cavalry before cavalry can ZoC it (obviously, unless a cavalry player makes a mistake and moves several units into position where they could be ZoCed at once).

The arrows literally go through the secondary ZoC'ed tile next to the spear unit...I just...I just can't even...like...what is even going on? Are you trolling me? see the above photo you posted here: https://i.imgur.com/k6ulWcX.png those arrows go through the secondary zoc

I am not assuming that "all of the attacking cavalry has to form a straight line and march alltogether into enemy ZoCs" at all. I am saying the opposite in fact, that even if you try to get around, the inf can also move and use interior lines and ZoC to keep you out, at least for much longer than it takes for the main combat to resolve.

So what happens is quite opposite to what you describe - cavalry ZoCs infantry in one-on-one standoffs, while the rest of the cavalry is free to move around the flank defense line.

So you are saying that you can get cavalry around if you have more cavalry than the enemy has flank defending infantry, ie one cav for each one on one with the infantry, plus the extra flankers, where the cavalry are more expensive per unit. That makes my point, not yours. Even then you can use one inf to ZoC multiple cav, see the videos and photos already posted.

There is no point in continuing to write paragraph after paragraph on this subject though, when I can just show you a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFLXWea ... e=youtu.be

In the video you have:

12vs12 muslim spearmen line with two more in reserve on each main line

and for the blue team flank:
12x44pt = 528 points of average armoured lancers
flanking the red team's:
4x36pt massed archers and 10x36pt muslim spears, for 14x36pt = 504 pts, so still favoring the cav flanking force by 24 points

The cav attempt to move around, and use as few cavalry as possible to stand facing the flank defending infantry while the rest move around the side. They are given a giant open field with zero rough or difficult terrain to do it in, which you pretty much never get. Even so, they are totally unable to flank the main line. It takes them 10 turns to get even a single unit around, in which time the main battle line combat is already resolved.

This is also assuming that the flank forces meet at about the same time as the main line forces, when in fact flank defenders are often held back even more in echelon and the main battle line is going for a few turns before the flankers even begin to go around the side.

Average defensive spearmen take a long time to grind one another down comparatively. In a real game a couple units of superior foot on each side would have seen the main battle line resolve even more quickly.

Tell me what magical cavalry dance you would have done to get through all of those spear ZoCs in time to participate in flanking the main battle line?

[Schweetness101]

Seriously, you are getting rude at this point. Swuul is correct, look at your own video, please.

go ahead and look at the video I just posted. How were those cav supposed to get around?

And, you are the one who brought rudeness into the discussion with your unnecessary, sarcastic comments. Remember this:

How to own infantry in two simple steps, spearmen hate it!!! Click to see more!!!

[SnuggleBunnies]

Seriously, you are getting rude at this point. Swuul is correct, look at your own video, please.

I believe this is correct. The secondary zoc is the tile to the diagonal front. This route would pass it by.