Slitherine

Hello! I've been working for a little while now in conjunction with StockwellPete and Kronenblatt on a Dark Ages Britain Mod (sort of branched off from the alt mod)

***updated below link to a new version 1.7 December 19 2023 to be compatible with newest map selection (plains)***
If you already installed the mod, I recommend deleting it before installing the new version below

The download link, including the .rar file for the mod to be extracted into CAMPAIGNS and the changelist in pdf form, can be found here:

download link: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... share_link
pdf: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16vzFow ... share_link

To install, extract the .rar file folder to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\CAMPAIGNS

you may also extract or copy it to:

C:\Users\YourName\Documents\My Games\FieldOfGlory2\MULTIPLAYER

to use it in multiplayer games.

The mod takes inspiration from Guy Halsall, Ian Heath, the Field of Glory - Wolves from the Sea: The Dark Ages tabletop ruleset, Legions Triumphant, and a few other sources including some Osprey Publishing material, and currently includes Dark Ages army lists from 400 AD to 1000 AD for Late Romans, Romano-British, Early Brythonic, Brythonic, Welsh, Early Picts, Later Picts, Early Scots-Irish, Later Scots-Irish, Early Scots, Late Anglo-Saxons, Middle Anglo-Saxons, Early Anglo-Saxons, Saxon Raiders, Norse-Irish, Viking Sea Raiders, and Vikings, as well as Mountable Fyrd versions of the Middle and Late Anglo-Saxons. I tried to concentrate in a deep but narrow way on a handful of lists, giving each of them their own gameplay style and character, while trying to stay true to the historical source material.

Ruleset changes include anarchy charges and refusals, shieldwall adjacency bonuses, flank and CinC changes from the alternative gameplay mod, unit capability changes to light spear, lancers, and heavy weapon, changes to how ranged units work, terrain disorder changes, unit size reductions, dismounting units in combat, and more, to try and make an experience custom tailored to the warfare of the time and place. Please see the pdf changelist at the above link, as playing will be a bit bewildering without familiarizing yourself with the changes first.

As with the TT mod, credit for the non-vanilla skins and banners goes to 'Little Big Men Studios' and Stephen Hales (of Little Big Men Studios) for giving me permission to use them in this mod, and also to Weeag of twcenter for Dark Age shield textures: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthre ... s-Resource

Please enjoy and feel free to provide historical, gameplay, or other feedback!

In this post I will explain how the adjacency rules work.

Receiving adjacency from either side counts as 'Partial Shieldwall', and will provide +20 POA on melee and on impact, in addition to a reduction in chance to anarchy charge or refuse to charge. Receiving Adjacency from both sides counts as 'Full Shieldwall' and provides a total +40 POA on melee and impact, as well as a +1 on Cohesion Checks, and also prevents both anarchy and refusals for the unit. All Offensive Spear and Defensive Spear units, as well as Armoured or better Heavy Weapon and Impact Foot, may give and receive Shield Wall bonus, although they may only provide it if not disrupted or fragmented.

Adjacency checks are based off of unit positions at the START of the turn.

When facing orthogonally, a unit may receive adjacency from allied units directly to it's left and right.

The blue spearmen here get a single adjacency to their right:



and here they get both adjacencies (note the refusal part of the tooltip showing that if Steady with full Shield Wall, a unit will not refuse to charge):



When facing diagonally, a unit may receive adjacency from units to it's sides and slightly forward or back, ie those adjacent squares that prevent other units moving between the two units. A diagonal facing unit does NOT receive adjacency from an allied unit exactly 90 degrees to it, as there is actually a space between those units that an enemy could move through if the units were engaged. This is kind of an artifact of having a square grid system, but the adjacency rules make sense once you have tested them out a bit. Note that to get full Shield Wall bonus you must be receiving adjacency from at least one allied unit on EACH side. Receiving it from two units on one side only, still just counts as Partial Shieldwall bonus.

Here the red spearmen (with general) get adjacency from the allied red spearmen to their back right:



Here the red spearmen in the middle get adjacency from both sides, in this case a unit to their front left and a unit to their front right:



Here the blue spearmen on the right do NOT receive adjacency from the blue spearmen 90 degrees to the left of their facing, as there is a space between them through which units can pass:



For simplicity's sake, the facing of units providing you with adjacency is not taken into account, but we can discuss whether that is worth updating. I find in practice that it does not come up much.

For those who prefer viewing this adjacency relationship as an abstract shape from top down, here is the orthogonal adjacencies (assuming that the red square is the adjacency receiving unit and is facing 'up' the screen, and that blue squares are allies):



and here is diagonal facing adjacency (with the red square facing the arrow's direction, and blue units being allies that can provide adjacency):



Hopefully that wasn't too confusing...it's pretty easy to get a hang of in your first game with the mod, or if you look at some of the editor made test maps under 'epic battles' for the mod.

reserved

But why adjacency ? What's the rationale of extra PoA ? What makes you more skilful/competent/deadly in melee and impact when (immobile) friends are nearby ? (I can understand why it could provide a reduction in chance to anarchy charge or refuse to charge though.)

Just a quick note to say what a pleasure it has been to have worked with Schweetness101 on this side-project from the broader Alternative Gameplay Mod, even though I have had trouble keeping up with his relentless pace over the past couple of weeks!

What interests me most about this excursion into the "Dark Ages" is the degree to which we are able to adapt the basic rules to particular types of early medieval warfare. For the most part, I have been testing shield wall mechanisms post 800 AD in conflicts between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. You can see some of the earlier tests in the most recent pages of the Alternative Gameplay Mod . . .

viewtopic.php?f=492&t=99967&start=60

Although I haven't finished testing the particular train of thought that I was following, it is clear that there is sufficient scope in the game system to encourage the reproduction of the particular types, or sub-types, of warfare in any historical period. From studying Guy Halsall's work very closely you can, for example, discern two basic types of Anglo-Saxon military response to the opponents they faced between 600-1016 AD. In the earlier part of the period, where we are primarily talking about the Northumbrian and Mercian polities, who were mainly facing the British and Welsh respectively, we can see that Anglo-Saxon armies had a much closer resemblance to their opponents than might be imagined. Depending on the scale of the encounter, they may have used cavalry and skirmish lines a lot more and their equipment may have been a bit lighter to match the mobility of the British and Welsh.

However, Halsall suggests that Anglo-Saxon warfare changed quite dramatically in the 9thC when confronted by Viking armies who always fought on foot in shield walls and often used fortifications. He thinks that, to counter this threat, the Anglo-Saxon armies quickly adapted to their enemy and also fought on foot in more rigid shield walls. All the accounts we have (in whatever form) of major battles between Anglo-Saxons and Vikings suggest they were fought on foot, so mounted units, or re-mount/dismount options, are probably ahistorical for this later period (although they are entirely appropriate for the earlier period). It also seems fairly clear to me that, in the later period after 800 AD, Anglo-Saxon and Viking armies did not deploy separate groups of skirmishers against each. Vikings did have archers just behind their shield wall and both sides would have thrown javelins at each other in the lulls in the fighting. Berserkers would also probably have been deployed as individuals right across the front line of the Viking army, rather than congregating in "a unit" altogether; and Anglo-Saxon hirdsmen were often deployed along the front of their army as well (as well as in the centre around the leader and banners), particularly to firm up those Anglo-Saxon levies fighting in the shield wall.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:23 am But why adjacency ? What's the rationale of extra PoA ? What makes you more skilful/competent/deadly in melee and impact when (immobile) friends are nearby ? (I can understand why it could provide a reduction in chance to anarchy charge or refuse to charge though.)

Like most things in FoG, it is an abstraction meant to motivate more historical play, in this case to represent the advantages in staying power (both physically and psychologically) gained by maintaining the integrity of the shield wall, or, put the other way, lost by failing to maintain the shieldwall. POA and Cohesion bonuses do not exclusively represent being more "more skilful/competent/deadly" in FoG. It's not like DPS in an RPG. It represents quality and capabilities yes, but also armor, terrain advantages, the presence or loss of a general, specific matchup types, etc...it is a totally abstracted number system representing all sorts of distinct phenomena, and there is nothing inherently inconsistent about using it to represent the advantages of maintaining a shieldwall. In fact, existing FoG rules around 'Flank Threat' and taking CT checks when adjacent allies rout already hint at this sort of thing. The exact numerical means of representing the phenomena, whether it is POA, CT, a straight reduction in casualties, etc...is somewhat immaterial, so long as, from the top down level, it gets the balance right and results in the correct effect.

Halsall et. al. tend to describe warfare of the period in terms such as these:

As far as can be ascertained, in set-piece battle warriors were assembled in dense masses, such as Old English literature described as ‘shield-walls’...The same point can be made of poetic, especially vernacular, sources’ references to shield-walls, shield-burhs, battle-enclosures, war-hedges and so on. The general sense of all, however, is of closely packed bodies of warriors

and furthermore that

A battle-line would have to be sufficiently deep to prevent the enemy being able to cut straight through it as a result of a small local advantage. If this happened, the opposing warriors would be able to start striking at the flanks and rear of the troops on either side of this breach, and disaster would ensue.

and so breaking up into a dozen or more distinct spear units with gaps between them, as is typical in games of FoG, would seem unthinkable for the period. He mentions armies at the time deploying in divisions, although those divisions were likely just regional organizational units rather than literally spatial divisions:

It was important to stand alongside people whom you knew and trusted. Here we must distinguish between organisational units, which might, like Penda’s ‘thirty legions’ at Winwæd, be numerous, and battlefield, tactical units, which seem to have been few.

He mentions further that

Armies may have been deployed in more than one body, or division, though the evidence is, as ever, vague. From Nithard’s account, at Fontenoy the two sides both seem to have drawn up in three divisions

which seems about right for games I've played using the mod, ie typically I have one shieldwall, but terrain or enemy deployment may dictate that I deploy in two or rarely three distinct lines. But, again, what divisions were mentioned seemed to mostly have been organizational, not spatial.

Certainly, they would have not split themselves into dozens of FoG style units with huge spaces between them, and in odd checkerboard arrangements, as is common in vanilla games. Halsall repeatedly emphasizes the importance of not breaking the line for shield-walls, and the lengths they went to in order to maintain it, both during the battle and while marching up to the melee:

Once deployed and closed up, the armies would have been within but a short distance of each other. Their divisions would square up to face one another. Doubtless an eerie silence fell, as the two sides eyed each other. Concentrations of well-equipped warriors, horses and banners would mark the centre of each body of troops...Periodically, the divisions would halt to straighten the line. Older, more experienced warriors would restrain those who, like the Franks in the Süntel mountains, wanted to respond to the psychological strain and the fear by rushing forward towards the enemy. This response, to drive away the threat at all costs, the ‘flight to the front’ as nineteenth-century French military theorists would call it, would only break the line and spell doom, as in the Süntel. ‘Since the approach had gone badly, badly went the battle’...Thus, in set-piece battle, the advance to combat was slow and steady...Too rapid advances split up units and sometimes left rash leaders dangerously exposed...The cohesion of formed bodies of troops, on foot or on horseback, seems thus to have been paramount. A ragged line would allow the enemy to break into, or even right through, the formation and strike at the unprotected or unshielded sides or backs of warriors engaged to their front. It would also prevent the troops from mutually supporting each other, each man protecting the man to his left with his shield, and rob them of the moral effect of knowing that there was a warrior close to either side.

Other sources for the period are more or less in agreement, that maintaining the integrity of the shield-wall was of paramount importance, and that the experienced men went to great effort to keep everyone together to present a solid mass at all times. Representing the failure to do so as a POA/CT loss/succeeding to do so as a POA/CT gain is in-keeping with the general spirit of the FoG ruleset imo, and is just a more granular application to a particular period. Are you thinking that the importance of maintaining the shieldwall in general is a controversial claim, or are you taking issue with it being represented by POA/CT? What else is there to represent it as in FoG? I guess units out of shieldwall could count as disordered as an alternative, but I don't think that would make more sense.

I didn't want to clutter up the technical changelist notes or the OP with long paragraphs of quotes, but sometimes that sort of thing is necessary to pre-empt certain responses, hence this long post. Sorry if I've gone on at too great a length.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:30 am Although I haven't finished testing the particular train of thought that I was following, it is clear that there is sufficient scope in the game system to encourage the reproduction of the particular types, or sub-types, of warfare in any historical period.

Yes, I like the idea of going narrow but very deep on army lists, representing distinct forces like pre and post viking invasion Anglo-Saxon force, or perhaps even distinct kingdoms.

Snugglebunnies suggested to me that these ruleset changes could even be used to support a hoplite mod! Making distinct unit lists for different ancient Greek City State lists could be another interesting project, getting granular with the small differences between Athenian, Spartan, Theban, even Syracusan, lists could be fun. But, one thing at a time.

This mod looks really interesting! Maybe we can use it in a nice Britain tournament?

Do you have the change list pdf easily available for separate download or attachment here?

kronenblatt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 7:11 pm This mod looks really interesting! Maybe we can use it in a nice Britain tournament?

Do you have the change list pdf easily available for separate download or attachment here?

yes! it should be at the above link as well, but here's a link just to the pdf:

[edit: use link from OP or below v1.1 update as mod and changelist have been updated]

and eventually a tournament would be great, maybe like a general Dark Ages Britain one, or one with a few themed events like Viking Invasion or fall of the Romans in Britain etc...

Thanks! I like that the mod is based on a specific era with its unique tactics (in this case, shieldwalls).

Just let me know when you're ready for a tournament, what you'd like it to encompass, and if you need a hand with it or "merely" participation.

If you look in the army list for this mod you will see the following 3 armies that I have been concentrating on testing . . .

Anglo-Saxon 800-1016 AD
Viking 800-899 AD
Viking 900-1016 AD

For the Anglo-Saxon list the main points are that they have one less hirdsmen unit than the Viking lists, because some of those hirdsmen are dispersed across the front of the army, particularly to firm up the levies (shown as General Fyrd in the list). There are also 2 types of Select Fyrd with up to 2 units having "some armour" to represent wealthier thegns and government officials in their ranks. There are no separate contingents of skirmishers.

For the 2 Viking lists, the only difference between them is that the huscarls are mainly armed with spears in the earlier period and increasingly adopt the Danish axe in the later period. There are 3 types of Bondi (freemen); those with berserker support, those with archer support, and those without any supporting troop types. There are no separate contingents of skirmishers and berserkers.

In the tests I have done so far the advantage has been with the Viking army, so I then introduced a differentiation in both the Select Fyrd and the Levies to try and get a more even contest. I still need to test this a bit more to see if I have got it right. The key tactical difference between this version of the mod and vanilla is that the side to break up their enemy's shield wall first is very likely to win. So unit selection, including the possibility of taking an extra general, and the choice of formation at the start is very important. I have tested mainly at the smallest size of army (600pts) and battlefield and I think this gives a really interesting game.

One feature which I don't think made it into this version is that a whole army (so not individual units) should take a "fight or flight" morale test if they have no leaders left alive or un-routed. The vanilla game already has a "kill the king" feature which, arguably, might make for another interesting option.

Just on a flavour perspective I do not necessarily agree that a 'shieldwall' involved the troops in the front line overlapping shields. I think this is a reenactorism and a Hollywood meme. That a 'solid line of troops with no gaps between them is a useful tactic - this is entirely true. Having gaps between units can be useful but only if you have very organised troop tactics. If you have lots of skilled individuals with good armour then getting them all to face the same direction and being able to mutually support each other makes for a very secure formation. Locking shields means that you cannot move of fight effectively. Also if you are at the front of a formation facing the enemy, you get to see all the enemy troops and none of your own. Having troops either side is a huge boost to morale. As is hearing the cheers/songs/ boasts of your fellow warriors behind you. These 'shieldwall' tactics make a lot of sense for the culture of fighting at that time. The rules do make sense in that their effect on the battlefield encourages the generals to organise their forces in ways that represent the historical record. Most shieldwall battles are either won on the flanks or by a special event in the centre that changes the balance - boarsnouts or Dane axes. Berserkers are scary for the inexperienced but laughable for experienced warriors.

It is a shame that all the units are visible/identifiable as in battles on the battlefield, I like to hide my 'special' troops behind the front line and send them in where they will have the most impact. Not enough FOW!

Captainwaltersavage wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:12 pm Just on a flavour perspective I do not necessarily agree that a 'shieldwall' involved the troops in the front line overlapping shields. I think this is a reenactorism and a Hollywood meme. That a 'solid line of troops with no gaps between them is a useful tactic - this is entirely true. Having gaps between units can be useful but only if you have very organised troop tactics. If you have lots of skilled individuals with good armour then getting them all to face the same direction and being able to mutually support each other makes for a very secure formation. Locking shields means that you cannot move of fight effectively. Also if you are at the front of a formation facing the enemy, you get to see all the enemy troops and none of your own. Having troops either side is a huge boost to morale. As is hearing the cheers/songs/ boasts of your fellow warriors behind you. These 'shieldwall' tactics make a lot of sense for the culture of fighting at that time. The rules do make sense in that their effect on the battlefield encourages the generals to organise their forces in ways that represent the historical record. Most shieldwall battles are either won on the flanks or by a special event in the centre that changes the balance - boarsnouts or Dane axes. Berserkers are scary for the inexperienced but laughable for experienced warriors.

I agree with you here, I did not mean to imply in the above that the shields literally interlock, which is at best a controversial idea. It's more about the psychology and denying the enemy the opportunity to get in on your flanks, as you mentioned.

Captainwaltersavage wrote: ↑Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:12 pmIt is a shame that all the units are visible/identifiable as in battles on the battlefield, I like to hide my 'special' troops behind the front line and send them in where they will have the most impact. Not enough FOW!

having units block line of sight to units behind them and on the same or lower terrain level could be an interesting mod indeed! I've never had a look at the fog code, so I can't say how difficult it would be, but I do like the idea.

The mod has been updated to a new v1.1

including many new units and army lists from the early and mid Dark Ages, as well as various stat tweaks, gameplay changes, anarchy/refusal balance tweaks, POA and unit costings rebalances, etc...please see the change list at the above link where the mod can also be downloaded, or here if you just want to view the updated change list:

[link deprecated]

I've just downloaded this today and it is great, I really like the charge refusals and anarchy charges, it really adds to the flavour of the battle. I like the small unit sizes too, I did find though that it made lights quite powerful and able to pretty much disrupt anything with 2 or 3 shots but this observation is a very minor criticism, (i've only tried 3 battles as yet), but I love it, great work.

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:56 pm I've just downloaded this today and it is great, I really like the charge refusals and anarchy charges, it really adds to the flavour of the battle. I like the small unit sizes too, I did find though that it made lights quite powerful and able to pretty much disrupt anything with 2 or 3 shots but this observation is a very minor criticism, (i've only tried 3 battles as yet), but I love it, great work.

thanks very much! Yes, the lights firing is more powerful now, to balance out removing shooting once out of ammo, but I have perhaps made them a bit too strong in shooting? Let me know what other balancing tweaks I ought to make, as now that I have (I hope...) all of the armies in, I would like to concentrate on balancing unit capabilities, costs, army lists, etc...more than they are currently.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 11:29 pm

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 27, 2021 9:56 pm I've just downloaded this today and it is great, I really like the charge refusals and anarchy charges, it really adds to the flavour of the battle. I like the small unit sizes too, I did find though that it made lights quite powerful and able to pretty much disrupt anything with 2 or 3 shots but this observation is a very minor criticism, (i've only tried 3 battles as yet), but I love it, great work.

thanks very much! Yes, the lights firing is more powerful now, to balance out removing shooting once out of ammo, but I have perhaps made them a bit too strong in shooting? Let me know what other balancing tweaks I ought to make, as now that I have (I hope...) all of the armies in, I would like to concentrate on balancing unit capabilities, costs, army lists, etc...more than they are currently.

I'm not sure they need tweaking necessarily, looking at it from another angle maybe other units should treat them with more respect (avoiding woods where they might be lurking for instance). Another thought I had was, does the AI know what to do with archers who cannot shoot? this is something new and is probably not in the coding. Will it for example try to move them so as to shoot and then find they can't? If this is the case on balance I think the way to go may be tone them down a bit and give them back their half strength shooting after arrows are depleted. Just a couple of thoughts, as I say i've only played 3 games as yet and it's very good as is.

Well, i've just finished another game. This time I played as Welsh v middle Saxon and I maxed out on lights to test them. You can't see the map before you buy your army (another excellent feature), I got lucky with the map with a large easily defendable steep sloped rough hill in the middle, although greatly outnumbered I won easily though the lights weren't as deadly at shooting as I hoped they might be. Once they'd used their arrows they moved to the difficult slopes where the Saxons were easily outfought. I'm sure it wouldn't have been so easy against a good human opponent. It was a very enjoyable game, were the lights too strong? I don't think they were in this instance. The more I play it the more I like it!

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 8:01 am Another thought I had was, does the AI know what to do with archers who cannot shoot? this is something new and is probably not in the coding. Will it for example try to move them so as to shoot and then find they can't? If this is the case on balance I think the way to go may be tone them down a bit and give them back their half strength shooting after arrows are depleted. Just a couple of thoughts, as I say i've only played 3 games as yet and it's very good as is.

In changing the ability for lights to attack fragmented non-lights in the open (and disrupted non-lights in the open if the lights have melee capabilities) it did also change the AI code, as those 'can charge' checks are the same for player and AI, so they know how to do that. Similarly, the 'can shoot' code checks if they are able to, which they are not when out of ammo, so they will do other stuff if out of ammo.

In doing a test game where I just let the AI lights defeat mine, such that they are left with a bit of ammo for some but not all of them afterwards, once they defeated my lights they advanced with their whole army as per usual, lights out front, who then used the rest of their ammo on my non-light inf line in some places while just charging with their own non-lights in others. Once the non light-inf lines had closed, their remaining skirmishers hung out in their reserve for awhile, until the line had begun to break up, then I kept an eye out for any light enemies charging my fragmented or disrupted non-lights in the open, and I saw it happen three times, all enemy javelinmen that charged fragmented or disrupted non-light kerns and one disrupted irish foot, so that appears to be working. If they are out of ammo and aren't able to charge or don't feel that they are at enough advantage to attempt to do so, then they tend to stand and turn to face any nearby enemies, as AI non-ranged at disadvantage tend to do. They do NOT attempt to shoot without ammo, ie they won't play a shooting animation but then nothing happens, if that's what you are worried about in part.

So, the AI did an adequate job of handling the new shooting rules I think.

markwatson360 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:34 am The more I play it the more I like it!

Yay! Yes, there is some discovery involved in playing the mod as you familiarize yourself with the new/changed mechanics, but I'm also finding that it makes playing the game, both against the AI and in MP, fun for me again after that had gotten stale from playing vanilla so much. Anarchy/refusals in particular throw a wrench into the works that keeps an otherwise predictable vs AI game a bit more interesting, if I may say so.