Slitherine

there are a lot of different mod threads I've started now or participated in, so this one is going to be host to an aggregate mod.

this is probably the base which will ultimately become some kind of alternative gameplay mod, but it is still a long way from that.

It is a continuation from the combination cav mod and flank angle mod found at the bottom of the op of the flank angle mod thread, but there is enough new stuff that it needs a new name

Here is the link to download Aggregate Mod v1.0 (OLD)
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u88sje69q3ti ... k5tda?dl=0

v1.1:
--never mind this one

v1.2:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k71t4kpveg90 ... iGcKa?dl=0

*let me know if there is anything wrong with the download or it doesn't work

this mod's changes:

1) Non-light Infantry units charged by non light cavalry this turn a) lose their secondary (NOT Primary) ZoCs this turn only and b) lose 6 AP for the next turn (their turn to move) preventing ZoC trap of cavalry.
2) Adds extra -1 to ct for non light cav vs non light cav on impact and in melee
3) Adds 33% more casualties in non light cav vs non light cav on impact and in melee
4) set the number of turns being pursued while routing before you disperse to 2, from 4 (plus the initial routing turn, so really to 3 from 5)
5) altered continue pursuit chances for cavalry (not to initial pursuit, but for follow up pursuit turns after first turn of pursuit):
-stop chances for cavalry now base 60 (up from base 50) *where stop chance is percent chance to stop this turn
-raised to 70 against other mounted if both same type of mounted
-if pursuer is light and fleer is non light then stop chance is only 50 (vanilla)
-if pursuer is non-light and fleer is light then stop chance is all the way up at 90
6) flank angle mod changes:
-cav vs cav; inf vs cav; ele vs ele; ele vs cav: same as vanilla
-cav vs inf or inf vs inf or ele vs inf: 90 degree flank attacks are +50 vs unoccupied and +100 with no autodrop vs occupied, the rear attacks are same as vanilla (+50 and +200 and autodrop respectively)
7) Reduced victory condition auto win down to 50% from 60% ***updated original link so this works ***actually still doesn't work lol, but in upcoming 1.3 it should
8 ) reduced all general command radii to 4
9) removed positive effects of general unless it is the CinC or an SG and you are on the SG's team, ie SG are now like allied generals for the units under their command
10) increased threshold for remaining men in pursued, broken fleeing unit for auto disperse from 1/20 of starting strength to 1/10 of starting strength
11) set odds of testing to rally to 0 if not in range of general's command, keeping in mind you are now only in range of general's command if it is your SG or the CinC, and that general is not in combat, and their radii now are all only 4 (this is a pretty massive nerf to rallying and will probably need to be adjusted back a bit, perhaps with changes to radii, perhaps by simply increasing or decreasing odds to rally if in or outside of command radius, rather than simply making in impossible outside of the command radius, etc...)

-I could use some help testing 7-11 as they are new and pretty untested and kind of would take awhile to make sure they are working correctly

v1.2:
1) removed flank angle mod section exception for mounted vs mounted, ie now cav don't get auto drops flanking one another, also i think same with ele I didn't test that yet
2) changed CheckPursuersSwitchTarget() to call the new Pursuit_ChanceOfCharging() rather than the old AI_ChanceOfCharging, which basically just increases the chance that a pursuing unit will derail its pursuit to charge a non routed enemy. helps to make cav pursuers in particular less slippery.

--could also use help testing those two, to make sure 1 is working and that 2 is not too far in the other direction

considering:

-adding extra 25 poa to heavy lancers and light spear cav on impact vs medium foot
-other medium foot changes?
-adding in the pike mod changes
-adding in the anarchy mod if at some point that is functioning (big if)
-a bunch of other stuff, please note what I've forgotten from other threads and discussions
-keeping old general effects for light units so you don't have to manually assign them to a general to get the free 45 degrees or morale boost or to rally for them

so a note on changing percent chance to continue pursuing:

5) altered continue pursuit chances for cavalry (not to initial pursuit, but for follow up pursuit turns after first turn of pursuit):
-stop chances for cavalry now base 60 (up from base 50) *where stop chance is percent chance to stop this turn
-raised to 70 against other mounted if both same type of mounted
-if pursuer is light and fleer is non light then stop chance is only 50 (vanilla)
-if pursuer is non-light and fleer is light then stop chance is all the way up at 90

so these changes only are for pursuits following the initial pursuit (also excluding pursuits off the map).
I basically made up the new numbers in terms of the specific values, but the reasoning behind the relative values should be pretty clear I think, but let me know if they are not.

One thing to keep in mind is that the pursuit continues only if it passes the roll every single turn, but stops if it fails even once. So, the math on these changes show them to be quite drastic. For example, for the base vanilla value of 50, the odds of continuing to pursue for, say, 3 turns after the initial pursuit, are, I think:

0.5*0.5*0.5 = .125 or 12.5% chance of rolling to 3 times in a row to continue pursuing, eg there is an 87.5 percent chance that the pursuit will have stopped by then (this is not taking into account other circumstances like pursuit being blocked or interrupted)

but by increasing the base percent chance to stop to .7 for mounted vs other mounted, for the odds to continue pursuing for 3 turns we get:

0.3*0.3*0.3 = .027 or 2.7%

at least I think that's how it goes. So, just keep that sort of calculation in mind when providing feedback on what the numbers ought to be

So, rather, than 50, 60, 70, 90 stopchances for cavalry now, depending on the matchup (light cav pursuing non light cav, base cav chance, same type, non light cav pursuing light cav), perhaps they should be some much more moderate changes like 50,55,60,70, or whatever. It would be nice if someone could test that a bit, especially if they are willing to mod the values to check which seem right. Those values will be under:
CombatTools.bsf -> WillUnitPursue(), down to line about 4129 under if (type > 0) until about line 4174

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 3:18 am 8 ) reduced all general command radii to 4
9) removed positive effects of general unless it is the CinC or an SG and you are on the SG's team, ie SG are now like allied generals for the units under their command
11) set odds of testing to rally to 0 if not in range of general's command, keeping in mind you are now only in range of general's command if it is your SG or the CinC, and that general is not in combat, and their radii now are all only 4 (this is a pretty massive nerf to rallying and will probably need to be adjusted back a bit, perhaps with changes to radii, perhaps by simply increasing or decreasing odds to rally if in or outside of command radius, rather than simply making in impossible outside of the command radius, etc...)

These provisional changes are intended to develop the command and control aspects of the game a bit more - and eventually they will be supplemented by the anarchy rules, in which the role of the commander is of central importance.

So the command radii are reduced to 4 squares for all generals now. Currently in the vanilla game sub-generals have a command radius of 4 squares so there is no actual change here, but field commanders (usually the C-in-C) have had a sharp nerf to their command area, reducing from a radius of 8 squares to 4. However, they will still be able to command all units in the army (except allies) whereas sub-commanders can now only give command to the units in their command group at the start of the game. So this makes it a bit more important to keep your units in the proximity of their original generals. It can be riskier to transfer some units from one side of your army to the other because only the C-in-C will be able to give them command now.

In terms of the rallying of units mentioned in point 11, it does put a premium of deploying your army with depth so that your C-in-C can attempt to rally routed units that have moved beyond the command radii of their own sub-general (cavalry will do this very quickly). And I think it makes it more likely that players will refrain from just charging all their army head first into the enemy, instead it may be more sensible to resolve an issue in one part of the battlefield first e.g. a cavalry battle on a flank.

This is certainly a command structure appropriate to the medieval period. I would like to hear whether players think it is entirely appropriate for the ancient period as well.

Play Test

I played as Andalusians against Spanish with Navarrese allies with the AI on Legate level. When I play against the AI I do not use any "gamey" type tricks that I inevitably have picked up from multiplayer (or I try not to anyway).

The battlefield had a huge wood on my left, a plateau in the centre with broken areas of rough ground. So I deployed my infantry in two lines, heavy spears in the front line, with mainly irregular MF in the second line and I massed my cavalry on the right. I also had a reserve of 2 armoured lancers with my C-in-C there.

The battle opened with a huge Spanish/Navarrese skirmish line marching towards me having taken control of the plateau. Their infantry also advanced being comprised of defensive shield wall and irregular foot (MF). I started by halting my infantry and attacking with my cavalry on the right because I outnumbered him there even though most of my cavalry was outclassed by his heavy cavalry. The cavalry fight was brutal and the Spanish/Navarrese got the better of it when a chain rout took my sub-general unit out. But even though my cavalry were defeated there were still enough of my cavalry units to stop the enemy getting on the flank of my infantry, my light horse harrying the enemy very effectively.

I then ordered my first line of infantry forward up the slope and into the area of broken ground. And they quickly smashed up the Spanish and Navarrese infantry there. Even when attacking into broken ground they held their own while my infantry decisively won the fight on the open ground squares. I was then able to get 2v1's and routed enemy units were causing cohesion drops on their units in rough terrain. The Spanish/Navarrese then committed the rest of their infantry and I sent some of my MF from my second line of infantry to plug the gaps. Some of my LH also attacked the rear of the Spanish/Navarrese position.

My C-in-C with the reserve was not engaged at all but they did move across to the right flank to help rally my routing cavalry units. As soon as my cavalry sub-general came into the command range of my C-in-C it rallied, as did another lancer unit. In the next couple of turns 2 more routed cavalry units of mine rallied. I detached one armoured lancer unit of my reserve to guard this group of recovering cavalry (it was engaged by enemy lancers right at the end of the battle and was still steady when their army routed). I am not absolutely sure whether my sub-general rallied itself or whether it was my C-in-C that did the trick, but it did have "No CC" on it so I think it probably was the C-in-C. So there is an issue - should routed commander units still be able to rally themselves?

I thought it was a very good battle. There were no problems with the command radius and the reduced pursuing stopped units being dragged all over the place. The only thing I am still not sure about is the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks from cavalry units. I think it might be better to have +100POA instead (which might, or might not, lead to a cohesion drop).

Sounds like a good battle! A few notes on your questions:

1) I just saw that the vanilla code only guarantees a rally on a unit with a general in it IF that unit had a greater than zero chance of rallying up until that point, which in vanilla would have meant it was not broken or, if broken, was not being pursued or shot at (ie pursued or shot at broken units, even with a general, do not rally). But, now I have also added a 0% chance to test to rally if not in command range of a non routed, non pursuing, non fighting general in your chain of command. So, now if you have a 0% chance to test to rally because outside of command range of a general in your command, which includes your own general if you are routing because he is also routing, then you have zero chance to rally even with a general. Sorry, that was a mouthful of code translation to full sentences. My point is your observation that the routed unit with sub general was not going to rally is correct, so I need to fix that, and I think I have done so with some edits.

1a) I may want to make a test version of the mod where the chance to rally given that you test is 100% so I can make sure tests are happening at the right stages. Or, I can log it somewhere it's easier to see.

2) Should there be a greater rally chance from the CinC than from a unit's own sub general? Or, is that just adding too much detail? It could be a good motivation to let the sub generals into combat if you like, or not, depending on circumstances, but to almost always keep the CinC out for rallying purposes unless he is desperately needed in the melee.

3) So, if I remember right a general unit can only provide CC if it is not in combat, not pursuing AND not broken, so if you are saying that the sub general in question was broken then no it would not provide itself with CC, BUT it should still provide itself with a chance to rally with the above edit. Is it that way it is in the base game? I.E. are broken units with general shown as no CC but still with 100% chance to test to rally? I guess CC doesn't matter for a broken unit...

4) should the base chance to rally for units be higher now that it can only happen within the range of the general? maybe we can test that later after working out the bugs up to this point.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 3:55 pm My point is your observation that the routed unit with sub general was not going to rally is correct, so I need to fix that, and I think I have done so with some edits.

Yes, I think sub-generals should still attempt to rally each turn.

Should there be a greater rally chance from the CinC than from a unit's own sub general? Or, is that just adding too much detail? It could be a good motivation to let the sub generals into combat if you like, or not, depending on circumstances, but to almost always keep the CinC out for rallying purposes unless he is desperately needed in the melee.

Probably not. I would tend to stick with the vanilla version here.

3) So, if I remember right a general unit can only provide CC if it is not in combat, not pursuing AND not broken, so if you are saying that the sub general in question was broken then no it would not provide itself with CC, BUT it should still provide itself with a chance to rally with the above edit. Is it that way it is in the base game? I.E. are broken units with general shown as no CC but still with 100% chance to test to rally? I guess CC doesn't matter for a broken unit...

Yes, I think that is correct.

should the base chance to rally for units be higher now that it can only happen within the range of the general? maybe we can test that later after working out the bugs up to this point.

Yes, I think we need to keep a stat about this from our play tests. I know you want to reduce the amount of rallying from routed in the game so we can test one or two variations as we go along.

The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:23 pm The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

updated the files in the link in the op to fix the 50% broken victory condition and to make sure that broken units with general can still rally even outside of command radius. I did not make a new link, just fixed files in old link, so if you downloaded it before the time on this post then you should download it again and replace the old mod folder (delete the old mod folder because they have the same name)

things to test for:

1) Do you now need to manually add all light units to a general in order for them to have a sub general and thus ever benefit from rallies or CC when outside range of CinC? If so, should I change that? I could perhaps update it so light units like non lights are auto added to generals
2) are light units when charged after having evaded not suffering the auto drop?
3) is ap loss for non light infantry from being charged by non light cavalry, or having non light cavalry fall back from them on the previous turn, able to be used in a gamey way? Like just repeatedly charging a unit so it can barely move, or charging it from the rear to prevent it from advancing another direction in a situation with nothing to do with ZoCtraps, or charging it/falling back from it repeatedly when the inf is in an inf line, and thus preventing it from even diagonal attacking another infantry the next turn.
4) are all the CC and chance to rally effects lining up correctly as per the op? could do with a lot of testing there
5) are the new 50% max victory conditions working?
6) is the auto disperse survivors remaining while being pursued change working? that one would be hard to track and test

some immediate things this mod changes to consider tweaking:

4) should base rally chances be improved? maybe just base rally chances for non broken units? (the issue with broken units rallying all the way away from the battlefield across the map is almost gone now because you likely won't have a general over there)
5) should you be able to rally if in command radius of general even if that general is in combat? or only if he is free?

next up large change:

1) something with odds to attack or angle at which you can attack a new unit while pursuing, might also
involve treating ZoCs like obstacles while pursuing

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:31 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:23 pm The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

I don't know. We will need to ask Richard.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:31 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:23 pm The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

No, they are fixed.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:09 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:31 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 4:23 pm The only other thing I have to mention is that the 4 square command radii for all the generals worked well on the medium-sized map and should be OK on the larger maps too. For very large maps maybe 5 squares would be more appropriate and for smaller and very small maps I think it should be 3 squares.

ok cool, is there something in vanilla that scales the general's radii with map size, or would that be an altogether new feature?

No, they are fixed.

one difficulty would be determining when exactly to increase or decresae the radii. Would it go by the small, medium, large...map sizes? or by some fixed numbers for map widths or heights (because you can manually edit them)? or by the small, mediun, large...army sizes? or by some fixed points amounts because those can be manually edited too? What if someone does a lopsided battle with a 1200 pt vs 1600 pt armies, then does one side get larger command radii?

Maybe the fixed base general radius should be 5 or 6 instead of 4? or the CinC should go back to a larger size? Or, larger armies should just come with more generals? Or, with a fixed number of generals and a larger army you just have to deal with the fact that sending some units out further means they will be without rallies or CC and that's just a risk you have to take?

I think I actually prefer the just having more generals on larger army sizes (does it not do this already?) It doesn't really make sense that the charisma/command shouting radius of a general would be larger because his army is larger, but it would make sense that he would have more sub generals to assist him.

Also, any thoughts on radii or general affect differences changing by army or unit types? like as described with warband in the anarchy poll thread? it might be too complex and confusing

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:44 pm one difficulty would be determining when exactly to increase or decresae the radii. Would it go by the small, medium, large...map sizes? or by some fixed numbers for map widths or heights (because you can manually edit them)? or by the small, mediun, large...army sizes? or by some fixed points amounts because those can be manually edited too? What if someone does a lopsided battle with a 1200 pt vs 1600 pt armies, then does one side get larger command radii?

I came up with these scales in the command radii thread (I prefer the first scale) . . .

very small 2-4-6
small 2-4-6
medium 3-6-9
large 3-6-9
very large 4-8-12

or if you wanted a softer effect . . .

very small 2-4-6
small 3-6-9
medium 3-6-9
large 4-8-12
very large 4-8-12

Maybe the fixed base general radius should be 5 or 6 instead of 4? or the CinC should go back to a larger size? Or, larger armies should just come with more generals? Or, with a fixed number of generals and a larger army you just have to deal with the fact that sending some units out further means they will be without rallies or CC and that's just a risk you have to take?

I think the smallest radii that would probably work on all maps would be 5 squares, but that is a very big area indeed on small or very small maps and it would affect rallying and anarchy too. Tomorrow I will playtest a 4 square command radius on a very large map to see what happens. If there is going to be problem it will be there, on the smaller maps everything will be fine.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 6:48 pm Also, any thoughts on radii or general affect differences changing by army or unit types? like as described with warband in the anarchy poll thread? it might be too complex and confusing

Yes, I think so. Let's keep things simple at this stage.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:32 am The only thing I am still not sure about is the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks from cavalry units. I think it might be better to have +100POA instead (which might, or might not, lead to a cohesion drop).

against other cav?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:47 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:32 am The only thing I am still not sure about is the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks from cavalry units. I think it might be better to have +100POA instead (which might, or might not, lead to a cohesion drop).

against other cav?

Yes, against infantry they just get +100POA now, don't they? (my memory is going ) If you lose the automatic cohesion drop for flank with cavalry v cavalry, I will do a stat and see how many times that +100 POA leads to a cohesion drop anyway. I think we would want it to happen around 33% of the time rather 100% of the time with the automatic drop. It just seemed today that the cavalry combats were resolving a bit too quickly, but not drastically so.

8 ) reduced all general command radii to 4
9) removed positive effects of general unless it is the CinC or an SG and you are on the SG's team, ie SG are now like allied generals for the units under their command

-----------------------------------------
Those two changes will make it hard for the AI in SP Scenarios and Campaigns.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:17 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 7:47 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:32 am The only thing I am still not sure about is the automatic cohesion drop for flank attacks from cavalry units. I think it might be better to have +100POA instead (which might, or might not, lead to a cohesion drop).

against other cav?

Yes, against infantry they just get +100POA now, don't they?

correct

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:17 pm If you lose the automatic cohesion drop for flank with cavalry v cavalry, I will do a stat and see how many times that +100 POA leads to a cohesion drop anyway. I think we would want it to happen around 33% of the time rather 100% of the time with the automatic drop. It just seemed today that the cavalry combats were resolving a bit too quickly, but not drastically so.

ok I'll publish a version of that later if you like

desicat wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 8:21 pm 8 ) reduced all general command radii to 4
9) removed positive effects of general unless it is the CinC or an SG and you are on the SG's team, ie SG are now like allied generals for the units under their command

-----------------------------------------
Those two changes will make it hard for the AI in SP Scenarios and Campaigns.

I confess I do not play those very much. I have not changed AI behavior in this mod, and the AI is of course written with vanilla rules in mind. For example, the AI is still going to try to line up flanks like they will cause an auto drop, when they no longer will in this mod. It may be worth making AI edits once this mod is close to complete, but for right now that is too ambitious to do alongside the rule changes, and would be inefficient if I was updating the AI with every rule change. Better to do that all at once at the end.

Specifically, why will the struggle with changes to command radii and rallying inside of the general's radius only? are there scenarios setup with units inside of an 8 tile radius that will now be outside of a 4 tile radius for example?