Freaking Anarchy

[TheGrayMouser]

Well there are some wargame tactical combat module that does that like dominion 3.

But in antique games, command and control is generally represnt by the concept of group to prevent unit to disperse in unhistorical way. here, the unit are really independant. On the other hand, being able to control unit precisely allow us to mimics romans tactics more exactly (an echelon attacks, hastati first, then princeps). I tend to think that for drilled troops that have a good planning that's not so much absurd, but for more anarchic amry well it is less but who want to play an uncontrollable army?

One solution would be to implement an order system that could be only change with either having leader near, special condition, or by sending a messenger to change the order (ie takes times).

I ti is easy to implement that on tabletop but hard to change rule for computer games.

I think something like you suggest is possible for a realtime game, for a hex based game i think would be very difficult or even impssible (though would love to see it!)

For example lets say you gave an order for a "brigade" of 3 units of Gallic cavalry to "advance to contact".... How does the program limit you to where those units need to advance to ? Now you might need to declare a "target" ie an enemy formations(s) or even a hex.. But what if the enemy moves or scatters?
Also, when its your turn how does the game display the hexes where your brigade can move too? a cone? What if you dont want to move your units, should the game force you to move them forward (without the command conveyed by courier to stop advancing)?
I dont think i have even scracthed the surface of odd things that could occur..

[magobarca]

C & C in a wargame is based on having a general figure(s) with a range of command. This general figure/icon doesn't represent just the general himself but also his staff, messengers, & some subcommanders. The Roman & hellenistic militaries had good C & C & good subcommanders that could take advantage of opportunities or perform necessary reactions to counter enemy movements; attacks, breakthroughs, etc. For example, look at the Roman Tribune at Cynocephelae that took the rear posioned triarii units from the right wing & moved them rapidly to the left wing to assail the macedonian right wing in its rear & flank. There are many, many instances of things like this occurring. However, the chaos of an ancient mass battle would be tremendous, hence the limitations & penalties on generals/commanders in wargames. Another point, it is known that the ancients were very good at signalling, using trumpets etc. as well as messengers to transmit orders, somewhat alleviating the chaos started once battle was joined. Despite the chaos & noise the armies & their subunits did could maneuver & do so very well at times, if they couldn't events like Cannae, Cybocephalae, & other very numerous battles wherein complicated & sometimes spontaneous & reactionary maneuvers that occurred couldn't have happened. It's hard to try & represent all this in a wargme to 100% accuracy, impossible maybe. Other good games & rules are Classical hack for the TT (very accurate system) & for the PC Punic Wars by HPS (clunky/difficult UI, scenarios with usually huge/mind boggling numbers of units, but good C & C representation where units out of command can't move & become fixed until back in C & C, has its pros & cons). FoG represents C & C OK, & the commanders & subcommanders represent the higher level generals/leaders, while the centurion etc. leaders at the individual level are represented by allowing the units to move but the units can still be oout of command range of the higher level leaders & the units suffer penalties for this. In Punic Wars you have to use hordes of centurion unit level leaders & it is a hassle, especially when they get killed because the unit(s) they commanded get fixed, become immovable. Pros & cons to every games system just as in the RW.

BTW, as an aside Roman legionaire frontages were ~3ft./man for close order & ~6ft./man for open order, & it seems that the legions normally deployed in open order but not always of course. Macedonian pike phalanx frontages were ~1.5ft./man in close order & 3ft./man in open order, & I would bet that the phalanxx usually but not always deployed in open order.

[76mm]

Here we go again...in a current battle, I had about six off spearmen lined up on a steep hill, waiting to defend against an advancing phalanx. Over the course of about three turns, all of them anarchied off the hill and were slaughtered, basically destroying my entire left flank. This is really getting to be kind of a joke...

[Pawsy]

I kinda like not having total control over my units. I think its more historically accurate. Not everything should go to plan the units with high morale were very likely to use their initiative. It would (sometimes) be just as accurate to have units change sides in the battle.

[Skanvak]

Behaviour of french knight at Azincourt was kind of a Joke but did happen. What you describe seem logical, the first lose temper and the other follow in the battle. Bad luck if they were drilled, to be expected otherwise.

Mabe we could do with more level of of control than drill and undrilled so people can more anticipate if they could trust a unit to hold a line or not.

[76mm]

I kinda like not having total control over my units. I think its more historically accurate. Not everything should go to plan the units with high morale were very likely to use their initiative. It would (sometimes) be just as accurate to have units change sides in the battle.

How many times are people going to talk about Agincourt? Regardless of how many examples you cite, I cannot agree that it is "realistic" for units conistently, in every game, to leave favorable hilltops positions to make suicidal attacks. The devs have already changed the game so that medium infantry does not anarchy out of non-open terrain--where is the logic of this fix, while continuing to allow troops to anarchy from hilltops? I don't see any logic, so I assume it is a programming issue.

And as I've stated before, if you are complaining about having too much control over your troops, why is no one asking for "passive anarchy", where you order units to do something (like leave a favorable hilltop position) only to have them refuse to move. THAT would be realistic, rather than random units in dribs and drabs charging all over the place.

[Xiggy]

76mm this is a context question, were the foot in questions touching a general? Were the in command? An easy solution to this would be to allow the general to set up his heavy foot spear in defensive or offensive mode. I do not think defensive spear anarchy as much as offensive spear, but I could be mistaken.

[TheGrayMouser]

76mm this is a context question, were the foot in questions touching a general? Were the in command? An easy solution to this would be to allow the general to set up his heavy foot spear in defensive or offensive mode. I do not think defensive spear anarchy as much as offensive spear, but I could be mistaken.

I think 76mm knows the game mechanics that mitigate anarchy, I believe what he is questioning is troops cant defend positions(like hills) because of anarchy.

Defensive spears dont test for anarchy, only "shock troops" : pike, off spear, lance , impact foot


I wouldnt mind some type of command to give troops ie defensive or offensive, the offset needed though is you couldnt easily switch back and forth between moves.

[Skanvak]

76mm, just to be clear, I am not against a passive anarchy, that's coherent (actually it does happen for disrupted and light troop).

And if you don't like Azincourt, I can cite waterloo too. I will try to find antique example.

As for being able to defend on hill tops, my understanding is that impetuous troops cannot on the long run, they will want to join the battle. Now if you speak of drilled troop with a commander near them, I might agree the chance shoudl tend toward zero. May be there is not enough modifier to anarchy (like increase anarchy with time or if another unit is engage in combat, this would lead to less anarchy in the begining of the game and more if you try to keep your impetuous troops out of the battle).

Gray, you are begining to advocate an order system (why not, but this should be think for every thing).

One last question : how different is computer rule from the TT rule? Is there such discussion?

[TheGrayMouser]

Gray, you are begining to advocate an order system (why not, but this should be think for every thing).

One last question : how different is computer rule from the TT rule? Is there such discussion?

Ha ha , not sure I advocate anything, things like anarchy have so many permiations, so many ways to handle it/represent it in a game that a change here equires a change there... in the end the game might not look anything like the original....

The TT as far as i know has no command and control, offensive / defensive stances.... Anarchy does play out differntly because there are fewrr units on the field and because it is phase based, you have the opportunity to support troops that go anarchy

I have no problems with the concept for orders/stances for troops(if done correctly) , I just dont like the idea of command radii where troops outside cant move , or lose movement etc
Not sure what you meant in the parenthesis'

[Skanvak]

If it is phase based, then we can just have troop test for anarchy at the begining of the turn and let the player decide when they resolve combat. So we no longer have the I have finish my turn and a loner anarchy without the rest of the army being able to react before it is destroyed. May be, moving the anrchy default test to the begining of the turn, instead of the end of the turn can aleviate some problem.

[TheGrayMouser]

If it is phase based, then we can just have troop test for anarchy at the begining of the turn and let the player decide when they resolve combat. So we no longer have the I have finish my turn and a loner anarchy without the rest of the army being able to react before it is destroyed. May be, moving the anrchy default test to the begining of the turn, instead of the end of the turn can aleviate some problem.

Well, that the way it was in the beginning and it recieved a lot of negative feed back so they changed it to the way it is now, which is kind of a compromise between the TT and the PC game which has no phases...
I wouldnt mind a phase based aproach but that is against the design philosphy for the pc game and I doudt that will be changed (plus i imagine the retrofit programming would be huge)

[Skanvak]

I understand, but having the unmoved unit check for anarchy at the end result in the same problem.
May be we could have a way to tell the computer this unit will not move, check anarchy for it, so we could know that our unmoving line have narchy or not before we push the end button. This would be more in line with the no phase of the PC game.

[TheGrayMouser]

I understand, but having the unmoved unit check for anarchy at the end result in the same problem.
May be we could have a way to tell the computer this unit will not move, check anarchy for it, so we could know that our unmoving line have narchy or not before we push the end button. This would be more in line with the no phase of the PC game.

Hmm, let me think about this one, basically your idea would be to place a "hold order" on a unit (assuming as no phases any time you want) If the unit pass its anarchy check it stay in place (the hold holds), if not, you still have the option to move other units to support that anarchist.
I would assume though that the hold order is final, ie the units move is done for the turn once it holds. Their would be no need for an anrchy check at the end of turn, or would there?

Here is the only hole in the idea, for it to work a player would be forced to "do something" with every single battle group, every turn (if in range of an enemy bg so needs to check anarch) i e you would have to click on every unit to tell it to hold, there is no way around that because if you just hit end turn those units still need to test(and conduct impact charges) and thus defeats the entire purpose of your idea....

I like the idea though, just would be a lot more mouse clicks players would need to do, and I dont think many would feel it worth it.

[Skanvak]

You get my idea.
Well the game could tell the player unit eligible for an anarchy test so we would have only to click on unit that are eligible.

[Pawsy]

Seems like you want total control without some random events like an impetuous charge. The solution seems over complicated. I cannot see how a ancient general had such control.

[TheGrayMouser]

Seems like you want total control without some random events like an impetuous charge. The solution seems over complicated. I cannot see how a ancient general had such control.

Not sure who you are responding to here but I (nor others do i belive) really am not arguing for MORE control. You would have no way of knowing this but I am one of the few players that actually liked anarchy the way it was prior to its change in one of the later patches where you had a significant lessor degee of control. Not saying i dont like how its done now though and it is a pretty good compromise.

All the talk of formations etc is of course hypothetical, and generally should limit what players can do(in terms of unrealistic situations, movement etc etc )

The root of the discussion is of course that units cant hold a defensive line/hill/river line very well due to the game mechanics . Since this can get quite complicated when trying to think of hypothetical changes and how they would impact the game, things tend to go off on a tangient.

I do believe some kind of command and control functions/concept of a battle line could enhance the game, these of course could give advantages in some siations but be liabilities in others
Cheers!

[magobarca]

The discussion is really about both, that is, the ability of BG's to hold a defensive line on any type of terrain with a lesser chance of anarchy & with a lesser chance of anarchy that itself would entail more control to the player. Some type of defensive stance mode as others here have suggested would be OK, since disciplined troops ordered to defend would be more likley to obey their standing orders & not go anarchistic. However, there are a good number of instances of Gauls & Germans etc. fighting in well ordered ranks in a defenive mode & not breaking their ranks & going anarchistic, so a selector button allowing a defensive mode to be set just might be the trick, with disciplined troops having a much less chance of anarchy occurring than would undisciplined troops. Great idea for a defensive mode. A simpler solution would be to simply lower the anarchy percentage chances in the game for both disciplined & undisciplined troops. It would be interesting to have an offensive mode button that would give higher chances of anarchy, thus creating a wild brawl that did sometimes occur in ancient battles. Fun with both options methinks. With the offensive mode button/selector you could have a very interesting & chaotic battle/brawl. Pure bedlam.

[deadtorius]

how different is computer rule from the TT rule? Is there such discussion?

This has been discussed before many times, basically the combat mechanisms are very similar with the PC game having some different POA's and losing dice for being attacked by more than one enemy. The main difference is that the T game is done in phases and you have a player who can make decisions regarding evades etc which we finally have in the PC game.
Anarchy is present on the TT too. It is harder to hold back undrilled than drilled troops, but if they are in charge range of an enemy with certain exceptions, you have to roll the dice to see if they will anarchy charge on you.
Those exceptions on the TT are:
If their move would end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them
If they are MF who start wholly in uneven, rough, or difficult terrain and the move could end even partly in open terrain.IF they are foot defending fortifications, or a riverbank.
If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted (there are no intercepts in the PC game)
If their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank
if they are Fragmented ( they cannot charge)

If they have to pass through friends they will be exempt from the test if:

They do not test and will not charge if the friends are shock troops already in melee
Will not test and will not charge if all the enemy in reach are skrimishers

Those are right out of the FOG TT rule book

So standing on a hill on a table top will not allow your offensive spears to stand fast either, they would still have to test.
Generals can add + to the die roll depending on how close they are to the unit but I have had knights adjacent to a general go charging off so that does not always seem to be a guarantee either.

I think the devs need to work out more of the anarchy exceptions like foot charging mounted and lights being the only troops in range.

[76mm]

Those exceptions on the TT are:
If they are MF who start wholly in uneven, rough, or difficult terrain and the move could end even partly in open terrain.IF they are foot defending fortifications, or a riverbank.
If their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank

All of these exceptions for riverbanks seem odd and inconsistent since they do not effect MF combat in any way, unlike hills...