Battle Mechanics Testing Problem

**phalanx_man** · August 01, 2010, 03:18 PM

PS - I have (upon advice of another member) reposted this question here - it was originally posted in RTR/Platinum Support. I hope this is acceptable this one time. Kind Regards - PHX_MAN
===========================================================================

I am investigating the measureable effects of various EDU variables in the battle mechanics and hope to publish the results thereof. However, I am running into a problem in that various AI units do not directly attack the front of a formation (usually phalanx but sometimes hoplites and even swordsmen as well).

Since I am measuring Kills/Minute with varying EDU variables I need all the custom battle attacks to occur at the same time and to do so directly without any flanking or "run & re-engage" attempts by AI.

When I am testing the AI attacking unit's Kills/min (against the HUMAN defending unit), I can easily overcome this by bumping up the "power" of the attacking unit (the relative bar displayed on the screen) by adding Armor, Shield, Hit Points etc.

But when I am testing the HUMAN Defending units kills/min (against the AI attacking unit), I cannot do it that way, since it obviously affects the very Kills/Min I am trying to test.

I have tried some basic changes to descr_formation_ai.txt but with no success.

Does anyone know of how to force AI to attack (any) unit from the front and NOT try to flank it or "run+re-engage".

Kind Regards for any help.

Phalanx_man.

**Spike** · August 02, 2010, 06:23 AM

just find some laptop with that mod within, draws some lan cables between them, and ask one of your friend to play test lan battles against you

**Aradan** · August 02, 2010, 06:29 AM

Regarding re-engaging, I have found that by giving the AI unit a slower skeleton in DMB, it occurred much less frequently. As for the flank attack thing, it's a 'hardcoded' attitude of the AI, that it will not charge frontally when outmatched. I guess you could try giving AI units the impetuous attribute and see if they overcome their reluctance to charge you head-on?

**Athenogoras** · August 02, 2010, 11:29 AM

or "run & re-engage" attempts by AI

This kind of behaviour are limited to units that occupy the general-position in the formation or non-skirmish cavalry. It occurs when the units "feels" it is losing

Does anyone know of how to force AI to attack (any) unit from the front and NOT try to flank it or "run+re-engage".

1. Dont give the AI only one unit. It will automatically occupy the general-position.
You can for example use this simple formation(increase ai_priority to make it override other formations). It will not make AI more eager to go frontal. It is just a lineformation with the general behind, but can be useful for testing purposes.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

2. Set general a little closer to the formation(10 meters behind instead of 15). Increases the "power-projection"(PP) of the units in front of the general making it more inclined to attack frontally. At least a little.
3. You can make the unit "hardy" or "very_hardy". Increases PP a bit but it also gives a little stamina boost
4. Make the unit "trained" or "highly trained". Increases PP a teeny weeny bit.
5. Meet the AI. Dont let it tire itself out coming all the way to you and fight on flat ground
6. Check the groundbonus on the units involved(set it all to 0,0,0,0). This value increases PP very much
7. Make it a warcry and berserk-unit: not recommendable since it also beefs up the effectiveness of the unit

Also a slightly related snippet of some things I wrote many moons ago

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

I have later confirmed that hardy and at least "highly_trained" gives a slight PP-boost.
Also HP(hitpoints) have no effect on PP. A unit with 1hp will behave the same as an identical unit with 2 hp.

From the graph you can for example see that armour-upgrade(1 means bronze-armour) gives a higher PP than EDU-armour. So this means that if I have two identical units and give human 1 bronze armour, AI will flank.
Another example from the graph. Human needs to add 9 soldiers to the unit in the EDU in order for the AI-attacker to start flank.

Units used in above tests

Spoiler Alert, click show to read:

Also note that this tabelle only gives a hint to the weight of the various factors than increase PP. If you for example halves or doubles the EDU-values of my unit(2Xattackskill etc) you will see a different result but the relative strenghts of the variables are still there.
Also note that in campaign there is also a general-bonus for commanding familymembers. This is not represented in custombattles.

**phalanx_man** · August 02, 2010, 03:50 PM

Many Thanks to everyone who has responded with suggestions.

Let me first take a moment to explain the purpose of my study.

I noted in campaign game play that often units of similar stats had different battle-effectiveness. While there are reasons that this should be, it seems somewhat ad-hoc and arbitrary upon closer examination. That may be the reason why certain factions die out very quicky and others not. The makers of the gamer may have been trying to compensate certain factions resources being greater as well as combat effectiveness differences. But I think any such differences should be seperated and treated apart from each other. For example, Rome (which historicall had large reserves of manpower) could be given higher base fertility (for higher population growth) than other factions.

But bottom line is that BATTLE effectiveness should be as realistic as possible. When I tried to systematically create and implement values of SHIELD (based on historical shield sizes) and ARMOR (using a progressive scale again based on history), I was still not getting what I thought to be balanced results.

So I began to "dig deeper" and reset troop types to be equal in battle when they are equal in the standard combat parameters. This let to my furst study (which I appended to Aradan's Guide on EDU.txt).

So, What I am trying to do in this next (Phase II) study of Combat Mechanics is to "Balance" all units (using TUNING paramaters such as skeleton type, lethality, radius, height, animation delay, soldier spacing) for equal attack-vs-total-defense AND THEN make a realistic assesment of units using just the STANDARD combat paramaters (attack, charge, armour, shield, def skill, hardiness, spear bonuse vs cavalry, spear penalty vs infantry, etc...).

In other words, EVERY type of unit should do roughly the SAME kills (%/min) for a given combat frontage if they have the same attack, def, rate of tiredness, spacing etc.

Of course, in order to do this (measure kills/min) I need to have battles that are timed the same, so I need each battle to be AI walks forward and then attacks and sustains the attack for at least a few minutes.

I have started this "equalization testing" with spearmen and swordsmen, but have run into the AI sometimes doing the Run+Re-engage or not frontally attacking. This happens occasionally with some swordsmen and hoplites but ALWAYS with a long_pike phalanx.

A correct examination of a "long_pike" phalanx is particularly crucial because I have noted 2 "bugs" in the pike phalanxes (ie. for "long_pike" in weapon attribute).

(1) When it is in guard mode (which it normally would be in combat) and receiving a frontal attack, the rate of kills is EXTREMELY low with the default RTR settings (particularly Lethality = 0.4). On test battles (and prior campaign battles) ALL the other units will have resolved their combat while the pike phalanx will have barely made a dent in the enemy. And of course, once they reach "exhausted" state, the rate of kills is almost zero. To give you a comparison - the hoplites would tend to resolve an about 15-20 minutes game time but after 1 hour (or more) the phalanx pikes had only killed about half of the enemy.

(2) When it is off-guard-mode and is allowed to "charge" or push-into the enemy ranks, it sometimes does a lot of damage at first, then again reverts back to the low kill rate.

These low kill rates are particular only to troops with the "long_pike" attribute and even raising the damage to values like 16 makes a negligible difference (with Lethality = 0.4). I think there is a bug in the way the combat engine handles the "long_pike".

So, that brings us to my current question, to which...

Re Aradan:
I overlooked using the impetuous quality - I will give that a try tonite.
I didint know about the skeleton speed, I will also try a slower skeleton and let you know.l
I had tried undermatching the AI (giving higher ATT and giving the human phalanx zero Armor, Shield and Def Skill) but it still a problem.

Re: Strategos Lykos
Thats a good idea - and probably the easiest. Only thing is I dont have another computer available with the power needed to run RTR. My other friends are not into this game and they would need a LOT of convincing to sacrifice a day of battle-testing but if necessary it is a route I could go if all else fails.

Re: Athenogoras
It looks like you have gone in-depth into this.
You have given me a few things to try.
I had already put highly_trained, disciplined, and very_hardy
I had not thought of warcry and berzerk qualities but that would actually be good for this situation since the main problem is AI frontal attacking a pike phalanx - so the ATTACK effectiveness of the attacking unit would not be a problem so long as it attacks from the front (they usually do not reach the pikemen and I am interested in phalanx kills/min against the AI).
I will try your suggestions shortly and post back the results.

King Regards to all.

Phalanx_Man.

**Athenogoras** · August 02, 2010, 04:04 PM

A correct examination of a "long_pike" phalanx is particularly crucial because I have noted 2 "bugs" in the pike phalanxes (ie. for "long_pike" in weapon attribute).

(1) When it is in guard mode (which it normally would be in combat) and receiving a frontal attack, the rate of kills is EXTREMELY low with the default RTR settings (particularly Lethality = 0.4). On test battles (and prior campaign battles) ALL the other units will have resolved their combat while the pike phalanx will have barely made a dent in the enemy. And of course, once they reach "exhausted" state, the rate of kills is almost zero. To give you a comparison - the hoplites would tend to resolve an about 15-20 minutes game time but after 1 hour (or more) the phalanx pikes had only killed about half of the enemy.

(2) When it is off-guard-mode and is allowed to "charge" or push-into the enemy ranks, it sometimes does a lot of damage at first, then again reverts back to the low kill rate.

This is because the formation for the phalanx is too tight. You need to widen the depth and/or width of the soldier spacing. If you do this more enemies will "slip through" the first pikes and in so doing will be exposed to the next row of pikes in addition to the first. The phalanx will be more vulnerble from the front but also more lethal.

**phalanx_man** · August 03, 2010, 12:27 AM

Thats brilliant - I thought it was my imagination but yes, as you say, it seems as if the spear points themselves were keeping the attacking troops away from recieving actual combat damage. I was wondering about that !

I was, however, trying to keep the spacings of troops as historically accurate as possible. Polybius actually gives exact values for the spacing of soldiers both in a Macedonian Phalanx and a Roman Legion (as he was describing the Battle of Cynoscephalae in Book XVIII, Chapter 1 - quoted below) and I wanted to (among other things) also reform the spacing of all the different troop types based on this (and other) historical data.

With my preliminary experiments I did find that by raising Lethality from 0.4 to about 1.6 (for a pike phalanx) that I could get kill rates from the front of a phalanx to be roughly equivalent to hoplites, but that was before I knew what an "appropriate" kill rate (%/min) ought to be.

It was then that I decided to research what were typical kill rates in ancient battles and found the only battle for which both the casualties AND the duration of the battle were well known - The Battle of Cannae, whose numbers work out to (for Infantry) 60000 killed out of an initial 130000 over a 4 hour battle - about 12%/hour or about 0.2%/minute.

Thus I got into an attempt to "standardize" the kill rates for the different troop types, which in turn led me to my current research. Once I can continue to test and set the different troop types to have the same (standard) kill rate (for a presumed typical attack-minus-defense of -20). IOW, I can "tune" the troop types to give the same kill rates for the same A-D=-20. After that, I can substitute for these troop types the ACTUAL (historically accurate) weapon damages, armor, shield values etc...

With your earlier information I will try to see if I cannot continue this testing in the similar way.

For your interest I have included Polybius' quote here of the comparison of the Roman Legion and Macedonian Phalanx (I hope you find it as interesting as I did).
PS: 2 cubits = 1 yard.

Again thanks for your help - it is much appreciated.
Kind Regards,
Phalanx_Man

29 That when the phalanx has its characteristic virtue and strength nothing can sustain its frontal attack or withstand the charge can easily be understood for many reasons. For since, when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth, and the length of the pikes is according to the original design sixteen cubits, but as adapted to actual need fourteen cubits from which we must subtract the distance between the bearer's two hands and the length of the weighted portion of the pike behind which serves to keep it couched – four cubits in all – it is evident that it must extend ten cubits beyond the body of each man when he charges the enemy grasping it with both hands. The consequence is that while the pikes of the second, third and fourth ranks extend farther than those of the fifth rank, those of that rank extend two cubits beyond the bodies of the men in the first rank, when the phalanx has its characteristic close order as regards to both depth and breadth, as Homer expresses it in these verses:

Spear crowded spear,
Shield, helmet, man press'd helmet, man, and shield;
The hairy crests of their resplendent casques
Kiss'd close at every nod, so wedged they stood.

This description is both true and fine, and it is evident that each man of the first rank must have the points of five pikes extending beyond him, each at a distance of two cubits from the next.

30 From this we can easily conceive what is the nature and force of a charge by the whole phalanx when it is sixteen deep. In this case those further back and the fifth rank cannot use their pikes so as to take any active part in the battle. They therefore do not severally level their pikes, but hold them slanting up in the air over the shoulders of those in front of them, so as to protect the whole formation from above, keeping off by this serried mass of pikes all missiles which, passing over the heads of the first ranks, might fall on those immediately in front of and behind them. But these men by the sheer pressure of their bodily weight in the charge add to its force, and it is quite impossible for the first ranks to face about. Such being in general and in detail the disposition of the phalanx, I have now, for purposes of comparison, to speak of the peculiarities of the Roman equipment and system of formation and the points of difference in both.

Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth but as in their mode of fighting each man must move separately, as he has to cover his person with his long shield, turning to meet each expected blow, and as he uses his sword both for cutting and thrusting it is obvious that a looser order is required, and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him, if they are to be of proper use. The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx, so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes, and it is both impossible for a single man to cut through them all in time once they are at close quarters and by no means easy to force their points away, as the rear ranks can be of no help to the front rank either in thus forcing the pikes away or in the use of the sword. So it is easy to see that, as I said at the beginning, nothing can withstand the charge of the phalanx as long as it preserves its characteristic formation and force.

**Lanceari** · June 05, 2011, 11:13 AM

I like your approach very much. And, I think you quote is most valuable. However, i would ask we have a closer look at this quote because there are some inconsistencies:

Originally Posted by phalanx_man

29 That when the phalanx... when it has closed up for action, each man, with his arms, occupies a space of three feet in breadth...

30 Now in the case of the Romans also each soldier with his arms occupies a space of three feet in breadth... and each man must be at a distance of at least three feet from the man next him in the same rank and those in front of and behind him... The consequence will be that one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx, so that he has to face and encounter ten pikes.

So the author tells us that phalangites and Romans stood three feet abreast, yet he tells us that "one Roman must stand opposite two men in the first rank of the phalanx. Clearly, one of the two statements is wrong, for if phalangites and romans, all stood three feet appart, then each roman would face one phalangite in front of him.

As always, there is more than possible explanation for this inconsistency. Perhaps the author meant to say that phallangites supported each other while romans fought individually. So a phallangite could count on the pikes of his buddies next to him to help him. Or, there could be a translation or transcrption error. These ancient manuscripts were re written many times through the centuries. We could speculate the original text may have stated a different spacing (eg. 1 cubit).

I am inclined to accept that 2 cubits, which is about 3 feet, or .9 meters, is about right. Phallangites probably stood sideways to the enemy, and, a phallangite probably needed two feet of space for himself. However, four additional pikes from the rear ranks had to fit between him, and his buddy next to him. And, these pikes were not thin arrows. These were heavy poles, probably a couple of inches thick. Finally, if these pikes were to serve any purpose, they needed some room to move around. So, probably, the phalangites probably stood about two cubits or three feet abreast.

One other point of interest: the roman cubit was a bit smaller than the greek cubit. The roman cubit was 0.4445 meters while the greek cubit was .4742 meters. Though Polybius was greek, I understand he was at the service of a Roman family, and, writting to a Roman audience. More important, did he care about exact measurements? Or was he simply trying to impress his audience how difficult it was to attack a phalanx head on?