Modding the Hundred Years War . . .

[stockwellpete]

Excuse me chaps, but this is mainly for Gabe (Schweetness 101) to look at, but feel free to contribute any other suggestions.

I am thinking of doing a HYW series in the autumn, maybe with another text campaign to go with it, but there is an issue relating to the way the vanilla game handles the contest between mounted knights and longbowmen behind stakes. All of these scenarios will just be for multi-player (MP) and I am told that, because of the one-sided nature of the contest between these two unit types, nearly all players will not attack the longbowmen head on and will seek to go round them. This would really make the scenarios fairly pointless to make. I could use impassable terrain to block off large areas of the map so players would be forced to attack head-on, but I don't think the re-playability factor would be very high and once players had tried a couple they might just ignore the rest. So the question is - how to make it so that the mounted knights feel they have a bit of a chance of making progress if they attack head on?

In addition, in the vanilla game, most of the losses suffered by the mounted knights occur after they make contact with the stake line. Very few are hit by the initial "arrow storm" itself. In fact, more are killed after "falling back" 2 squares after their initial contact with the stake line, because they are now in "short range" of the longbowmen (something they are able to avoid with careful play in the initial approach). So, to my way of thinking, something is a bit out of kilter here. There are a number of possibilities to change the dynamic a bit, so that re-playability is enhanced by giving the mounted knights a bit more of a chance to inflict some damage, at least.

There are another of possibilities, involving some limited modding, that might do the trick . . .

1) not really modding as such, but adjusting the relative values of units in the Squads Files
2) modding the impact of the "arrow storm" on approaching mounted knights by slowing them down with the loss of some AP on the next turn when they have been hit by archery fire (so they can move 1 square less)
3) modding the impact melee that, in vanilla, always sees mounted knights "fall back" from the stakes 2 squares even if they have drawn that impact melee, so that they then have to receive "short range" longbow fire on the next turn. This is what kills the mounted knights in this unit match-up. Such a change from vanilla would allow mounted knights to melee at the stake line continuously for a number of turns without suffering short range archery fire.
4) modding the ability of mounted knights, who remain "steady" in melee to withdraw when they want to (facing away from the stakes and moving 3 squares, not 2)

I will provide some screenshots in my next post, either later today, or tomorrow.

[rbodleyscott]

Unless you make the prospect of attacking the English position with mounted knights unhistorically attractive for players, it won't happen in MP.

The historical French learned better quite quickly, and didn't do it any more, because it wasn't a viable tactic.

So if you make it a viable tactic, your scenarios will not be realistic.

Rather than make the chances of mounted knights better (than historically accurate) you could have scenario scripts that automatically move the bulk of the French knights to attack. You could leave some troops under the French player's control so he has something to do other than watch disaster unfold.

No modding of non-scenario game scripts would then be required. Your scenarios would then be safe from being broken by future game updates.

[Paul59]

If the English stakes are to be prepositioned in the Editor, you might want to experiment with using Enclosure invisible overlay tiles in front of your stakes. This is what I did for the Agincourt scenario, although there it was to represent the mud. For your scenarios you could say that it represents prepared ground in front of the English positions.

The effect of Enclosure tiles is to reduce Mounted MAA movement to just two tiles per turn, thereby giving the effect you want without complex scripting, that would probably stop working each time the game is updated. You would probably need a 2 tile deep band of Enclosure tiles in front of your stakes. It doesn't affect foot movement.

You can rename the enclosure tiles if you wish, with a simple text entry in your scenarios Text9 file. For Agincourt, I called them Muddy Fields.

[Athos1660]

I tried it while making a Patay scenario but lacked of coding ability to complete it successfully, but to speak in general, I think that when making HYW scenarios, you must try to create the conditions for a small probability of a French win :
- at Patay, will the French vanguard arrive before or after the English put stakes ?
- at Agincourt, will a small detachment of mounted ones find a path in the woods to bypass the English line and attack from the rear or NOT ?
- at Formigny, will the French reinforcement force arrive on time (when) ? And will it arrive on the back of the English or in front of them who are behind their stakes (where) ?
- Etc.
... while keeping the Vanilla settings (PoA, shooting range...) that seem to me historically accurate.

That's giving the mounted French a chance, as English behind their stakes are almost unvulnerable. And of course, dismount the French MAA as they did.

[stockwellpete]

Unless you make the prospect of attacking the English position with mounted knights unhistorically attractive for players, it won't happen in MP.

The historical French learned better quite quickly, and didn't do it any more, because it wasn't a viable tactic.

So if you make it a viable tactic, your scenarios will not be realistic.

Rather than make the chances of mounted knights better (than historically accurate) you could have scenario scripts that automatically move the bulk of the French knights to attack. You could leave some troops under the French player's control so he has something to do other than watch disaster unfold.

No modding of non-scenario game scripts would then be required. Your scenarios would then be safe from being broken by future game updates.

But I have already demonstrated how it is possible to break through archer's stakes/pits in vanilla at least some of the time. So already, I will have to design the scenarios in such a way as to minimise the possibility of that happening. And I wasn't really talking about making it "a viable tactic" (in the sense of it being battle-winning), I was just suggesting that the French knights should be given bit more of a chance to make the occasional breakthrough, otherwise people will not bother playing the scenario. If the French did have a bit more chance then the English player would have to think about putting men-at-arms units behind the longbowmen to block any such breakthroughs and that might create weak spots elsewhere.

The real killer is the automatic "fall back" move that then leaves the French knights in short range of the longbows. Either the "fall back" criteria need to be relaxed a bit, so that knights drawing melees at the stake or pit line stay in contact until being forced to take a cohesion test, or maybe longbowmen should not be able to fire a "steady" volley at all if the French have fallen back in the previous turn (the rationale being that they would be disorganised by the melee, stakes/defences would be smashed up etc).

It seems from what you are saying that the fall back mechanism should not really be interfered with, so I am not sure whether I can really proceed with the HYW series. I do not like the way vanilla handles knights v longbowmen/stakes/pits at all. The "arrow storm" before the knights make contact is feeble, but then the knights are massacred on the stake/pit line, both in melee by archers and then by being shot to death after they fall back by archers who seem to be completely unaffected by the melee they have just participated in. I actually think the melee between knights and archers would be much more even - unless, of course, English men-at-arms and billmen joined the fray.

[stockwellpete]

If the English stakes are to be prepositioned in the Editor, you might want to experiment with using Enclosure invisible overlay tiles in front of your stakes. This is what I did for the Agincourt scenario, although there it was to represent the mud. For your scenarios you could say that it represents prepared ground in front of the English positions.

The effect of Enclosure tiles is to reduce Mounted MAA movement to just two tiles per turn, thereby giving the effect you want without complex scripting, that would probably stop working each time the game is updated. You would probably need a 2 tile deep band of Enclosure tiles in front of your stakes. It doesn't affect foot movement.

You can rename the enclosure tiles if you wish, with a simple text entry in your scenarios Text9 file. For Agincourt, I called them Muddy Fields.

Thanks, Paul. That would ensure that longbowmen did get a short range shot - and this shot would usually cause a cohesion test for the knights. So there is some chance of disrupting some of the knights before they reached their target. This seems realistic to me. But the automatic fall back result is killing the knights stone dead. Unless that can be adjusted, I don't think I am going to be able to proceed.

[Athos1660]

Does this expression "Storm of arrows" come from a specific medieval source : poem, song, battle report, royal ordinance, instruction for the longbowmen... ?

[stockwellpete]

What about this idea?

This is a basic test scenario only using longbowmen and mounted knights. The flanks of the archers are protected with rough ground (could have been forest or marshland). The longbowmen do not have the usual stakes planted and they are not the longbowmen type who have that capability. The word "stakes" is printed in small white text on each square where longbowmen are standing. Two rows out from the stake line is a row of "difficult terrain", extending right across the front of the stake line, which is intended to slow down the approach of the mounted knights. (I could make this a broken, rather than a solid line in future).

Screen_00000000.jpg (397.3 KiB) Viewed 4648 times

This screenshot shows the longbowmen units - 100% longbows and 100% swords with 25% heavy weapon (HW) and rated as "above average" with "some armour" to reflect the likelihood of some men-at-arms and billmen being with the archers to protect them from knights breaking through the stake line. Ammo is set at 2.

Screen_00000001.jpg (448.05 KiB) Viewed 4648 times

And this screenshot shows the French knights, also rated as "above average" but with 33% heavy lances, instead of 100% (I am not sure how much of a difference this makes on impact).

[stockwellpete]

The French knights begin their advance, but are slowed down by the "difficult" terrain just in front of them. The strength of the knights unit is about 100 men. The archers are just over 200 men. The English player has a choice now - do they take a long range shot with some or all of their longbowmen units, or do they wait and try and maximise their short range shots? . . .

Screen_00000003.jpg (478.68 KiB) Viewed 4647 times

Now the knights have to cross the "difficult" terrain and can only move 2 squares, meaning that the longbowmen will get a short range shot i.e. the "arrow storm" happens before they make contact . . .

Screen_00000004.jpg (518.2 KiB) Viewed 4647 times

For the short range volley, the predicted losses are between 6 and 22, for a unit that may have been reduced to below 95 men by the long range shot. A cohesion test is almost a certainty from the effect of the shooting . . .

Screen_00000005.jpg (546.27 KiB) Viewed 4647 times

[stockwellpete]

As it happens, just 1 of the 5 French knight units is disrupted and 3 pass their cohesion tests, 1 didn't need to test. So things are looking promising for the French so far . . .

Screen_00000007.jpg (536.45 KiB) Viewed 4644 times

The French knights move into contact. Their leader unit goes first attacking the archer leader unit with promising predicted winning odds of 37%-4% with 59% the draw . . .

Screen_00000008.jpg (516.08 KiB) Viewed 4644 times

However, the archers stand resolute behind their stakes, assisted by the men-at-arms and billmen (who are abstracted as 25% HW and 67% "some armour" in the longbowmen unit). They suffer no cohesion drops despite taking two cohesion tests and they inflict a further cohesion drop on the previously "disrupted" knight unit on the French right . . .

Screen_00000009.jpg (612.24 KiB) Viewed 4644 times

[stockwellpete]

The longbowmen unit on the right of the line had held back one of its shots and now uses it to cause a cohesion drop on the French knights directly opposite. All the longbowmen are out of Ammo now. The French charge a second time and cause one cohesion drop on the centre left of the English line . . .

Screen_00000010.jpg (531.25 KiB) Viewed 4643 times

The English longbowmen can only stand and wait for the next charge, but their leader does switch to the "disrupted" unit to try and boost its fighting ability . . .

Screen_00000011.jpg (621.84 KiB) Viewed 4643 times

The French charge for a third time and cause another disruption, but the English leader successfully rallies the longbowmen he is now with. The "fragmented" French knights on the their right flank attempt to withdraw and the other units are beginning to look a bit ragged. Will they charge again?

Screen_00000012.jpg (552.62 KiB) Viewed 4643 times

[stockwellpete]

They do and cause another disruption right of centre, this time staying in contact with the longbowmen, but their unit on the other flank also drops to "fragmented" . . .

Screen_00000013.jpg (546.08 KiB) Viewed 4642 times

The English leader moves back to the centre of the line and the French leader decides to attack him in an effort to break the line. The "disrupted" longbowmen and leader hold . . .

Screen_00000014.jpg (584.99 KiB) Viewed 4642 times

But the other "disrupted" longbowmen unit is dropped to "fragmented", by the French knight unit that remained in contact with it . . .

Screen_00000015.jpg (572.12 KiB) Viewed 4642 times

[stockwellpete]

The English leader unit charges the French knight unit in contact with the "fragmented" longbowmen and forces it to "fall back" . . .

Screen_00000016.jpg (578.31 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

The French make one final forlorn charge and the "fragmented" longbowmen hold! The English longbowmen advance towards the line of "difficult" terrain . . .

Screen_00000017.jpg (570.14 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

And the French prepare to withdraw. Amazingly the score is still 0-0 . . .

Screen_00000018.jpg (554.15 KiB) Viewed 4640 times

[stockwellpete]

Is this realistic enough still? It seems more exciting than what normally happens in vanilla now. Does the absence of physical stakes matter? Does the labelling of "stakes" linked to the line of "difficult" terrain suffice as a replacement? Do the modified longbowmen and French knight units seem OK? What about the Ammo being set at 2? Seems low, but it does give the English a decision to make about whether to take the long range shot. If they don't take it, the French knights might survive the "arrow storm" of the short range shot a bit better. I am wondering if a "re-supply" script is possible for the start of Turn 10, where Ammo is +1 for all longbow units (maximum Ammo is still 2 though).

Any thoughts?

[stockwellpete]

First thing I did this morning was to address my own query about the value in the Squads File for Heavy Lances. Normally, the figure is set at 100, but I had it at 33 for my tests yesterday. The difference on the predicted odds for Impact are considerable. At 100 the knights are predicted to win 86-0 against the longbowmen with some billmen unit; at 33 the predicted odds are 38-2. I will test today with the value at 50. I am conscious of the fact that in a scenario mounted knights may well fight with troop types other than longbowmen, so they cannot be nerfed too much or these encounters will be distorted too much, but they do need to be nerfed if I am not going to use the vanilla archer stakes.

The other thing that I am looking at is the tactics of the English longbowmen with the 2 shots of Ammo that they have. When the French knights first move within range at 3 squares, the English player has a number of options - hold fire and hope to use all the Ammo at short range; use all the long range shots available evenly across the attacking line of knights to increase the chance of causing cohesion drops when the knights move in close; use all, or some of, the long range shots, but concentrate the fire on a couple of the French knights (usually in the centre to protect the centre of your own line) and try and cause a cohesion drop at long range (if this happens the sensible thing for the French player to do is to halt that unit and not move into short range where it is almost certain to be "fragmented"). I think this is interesting gameplay.

[rbodleyscott]

First thing I did this morning was to address my own query about the value in the Squads File for Heavy Lances. Normally, the figure is set at 100, but I had it at 33 for my tests yesterday. The difference on the predicted odds for Impact are considerable. At 100 the knights are predicted to win 86-0 against the longbowmen with some billmen unit; at 33 the predicted odds are 38-2. I will test today with the value at 50.

Heavy_Lancers is coded as an all or nothing effect. (as is Light_Lancers)

50% or more Heavy_Lancers capability gets 100% effect.
Less than 50% Heavy_Lancers capability gets 0 effect.

You were effectively testing them without any POA for lance.

(Check out detailed tooltips)

[stockwellpete]

Heavy_Lancers is coded as an all or nothing effect. (as is Light_Lancers)

50% or more Heavy_Lancers capability gets 100% effect.
Less than 50% Heavy_Lancers capability gets 0 effect.

You were effectively testing them without any POA for lance.

(Check out detailed tooltips)

OK, that is not very helpful. So I could show units as 49% knightly lancers, 49% lancers (sergeants) and actually still have no POA for lances? Hmm. Having no POA for lances actually works for me around the stake line. I get a different and more interesting interaction between mounted knights and longbowmen because the knights do have an outside chance of a breakthrough. It is worth attempting whereas in vanilla it is not. The question really boils down to the relative values between opposing units. I still have to check French mounted knights against other English HYW troop types.

To what extent do you think mounted knights actually charged into stake or pit lines still holding their lances? Some would have, but the combined disruption from the "arrow storm" and the difficult terrain and/or stakes would probably have rendered them fairly useless. Horses just wouldn't charge straight into stakes - they would slow down quickly, shy away, throw their riders etc. There would be a lot of disorder and confusion. Knights near the stake line, either still horsed or unhorsed would probably be using swords, axes and maces rather than the lance at that stage, I guess. For scenarios centred on an assault by mounted knights, would the 49-49 trick be acceptable to you? It would be explained in the scenario notes.

[rbodleyscott]

Heavy_Lancers is coded as an all or nothing effect. (as is Light_Lancers)

50% or more Heavy_Lancers capability gets 100% effect.
Less than 50% Heavy_Lancers capability gets 0 effect.

You were effectively testing them without any POA for lance.

(Check out detailed tooltips)

OK, that is not very helpful. So I could show units as 49% knightly lancers, 49% lancers (sergeants) and actually still have no POA for lances? Hmm. Having no POA for lances actually works for me around the stake line. I get a different and more interesting interaction between mounted knights and longbowmen because the knights do have an outside chance of a breakthrough. It is worth attempting whereas in vanilla it is not. The question really boils down to the relative values between opposing units. I still have to check French mounted knights against other English HYW troop types.

To what extent do you think mounted knights actually charged into stake or pit lines still holding their lances? Some would have, but the combined disruption from the "arrow storm" and the difficult terrain and/or stakes would probably have rendered them fairly useless. Horses just wouldn't charge straight into stakes - they would slow down quickly, shy away, throw their riders etc. There would be a lot of disorder and confusion. Knights near the stake line, either still horsed or unhorsed would probably be using swords, axes and maces rather than the lance at that stage, I guess. For scenarios centred on an assault by mounted knights, would the 49-49 trick be acceptable to you? It would be explained in the scenario notes.

It doesn't matter whether it is "acceptable" to me or not, you can do your own thing in your own custom scenarios. But it does seem a bit "off the wall", especially as it will nobble them against other opponents (e.g. dismounted MAA) and not just longbowmen.

[stockwellpete]

It doesn't matter whether it is "acceptable" to me or not, you can do your own thing in your own custom scenarios. But it does seem a bit "off the wall", especially as it will nobble them against other opponents (e.g. dismounted MAA) and not just longbowmen.

Yes, but I may not have to do it in all scenarios, just the ones where there is a "set piece" against a large fortified position e.g. Crecy, Poitiers. In other scenarios I may be able to keep things nearer their vanilla values. The dynamic of a battle like Azincourt is different again, anyway, as the French were largely dismounted, so the relative values I use could well be different from Crecy/Poitiers type battles. In some battles where English longbowmen were known to be caught in the open they they will not have stakes at all and the French knights will probably have vanilla values. The overall purpose is to create a 2-player text campaign based on the HYW that does a reasonable job of representing its military diversity.

[rbodleyscott]

It doesn't matter whether it is "acceptable" to me or not, you can do your own thing in your own custom scenarios. But it does seem a bit "off the wall", especially as it will nobble them against other opponents (e.g. dismounted MAA) and not just longbowmen.

Yes, but I may not have to do it in all scenarios, just the ones where there is a "set piece" against a large fortified position e.g. Crecy, Poitiers. In other scenarios I may be able to keep things nearer their vanilla values. The dynamic of a battle like Azincourt is different again, anyway, as the French were largely dismounted, so the relative values I use could well be different from Crecy/Poitiers type battles. In some battles where English longbowmen were known to be caught in the open they they will not have stakes at all and the French knights will probably have vanilla values. The overall purpose is to create a 2-player text campaign based on the HYW that does a reasonable job of representing its military diversity.

Fair Enough. You may need to stick with 1 "campaign" folder per scenario then, because you can only have one squads file in a folder.

Alternatively you could add duplicate units to the squads file, modify their capabilities, and use the modified ones only in the scenarios that need it. That would allow you to put all the scenarios in one folder if you wanted to do that.