Anarchy charges poll . . .

[FrenchDude]

(...) typical behaviour (...) I think we have to restrict ourselves to the most likely cases (like warbands).

hot headed barbarians?

Etc.

Indiscipline among the so-called "Barbarians" (that simply means "foreigners" in ancient greek) is a (ancient) bias portrayed by... Roman (and Greek) authors.
But was it a reality ?
To what extend ?
Considering what modern archaeology says about the refinement of their lifestyle ?
Careful about cultural/psychological traits, especially when speaking about (unknown) Ancient times.

I think that what Athos said is a good point, we should try not to be too affected by historical bias and preconceived ideas as far as “barbarians” are concerned.
Iberian warriors fighting in Hannibal’s army in Italy showed great discipline and skill for example.

Impact foot anarchy charge probability for “barbarian” warbands and warriors should be higher than other troop types such as drilled roman legionaries but the probability for a charge shouldn’t be absurdly high either, and having a commander in command range should significantly affect the risk of an anarchy charge (while still making those charges not a very rare event)

And about the classification of the units for anarchy charges : how about using the undrilled/drilled modifier to help with the classification ? With undrilled units having a higher chance of anarchy charges than drilled ones ?

[stockwellpete]

we might classify them as follows . . .

High - .... elephants, camels, chariots

Apart from scythed and possibly heavy chariots, why?

Any evidence for Elephants or non-lancer Camelry anarchy charging?

Running amok due to missile fire and trampling friend and foe alike isn't even close to the same thing as an Anarchy charge. Unless they have an equal chance of Anarchy charging their own troops, and good luck with programming that! (Don't even think about it, it wouldn't be possible without making the elephants change sides, which wouldn't really be what they were doing).

No idea. I was just illustrating how I will try and set out a chart and then players can chip in with their suggestions. As you know, my knowledge of ancient warfare is very limited so people with far more knowledge than me need to chip in so we identify the most anarchy prone troop types. Where would you put elephants and camels on a high-medium-low scale? Light chariots - medium perhaps? If we involve as many people as possible in building this part of the eventual "alternative gameplay mod" then I think it will have more support.

Yes, personally, I don't think we want anarchy charges through your own troops as there was in FOG1. I can see a case for bursting through skirmishers but I take it from your comment that would not be feasible.

[rbodleyscott]

Where would you put elephants and camels on a high-medium-low scale? Light chariots - medium perhaps? If we involve as many people as possible in building this part of the eventual "alternative gameplay mod" then I think it will have more support.

Well I agree with those who think that having troops with a low (but more than 0%) chance of anarchy charging would be much more annoying than enjoyable, even for those who like the idea of anarchy charges in the game.

I would certainly not recommend adding additional types to the types that would anarchy charge in FOG1 - if anything the list needs to be reduced. So I think that trying to assess the anarchy charge risk for non-shock troops is a waste of time and effort.

Call it low for all non-shock troops, and then reduce it to 0!

Then decide which shock troops should have a "Medium" chance of Anarchy charging, and then consider whether to reduce that to 0 too.

Yes, personally, I don't think we want anarchy charges through your own troops as there was in FOG1. I can see a case for bursting through skirmishers but I take it from your comment that would not be feasible.

It could be done, similar to light foot passing though troops, but it would be a major bit of modding.

[Athos1660]

Running amok due to missile fire and trampling friend and foe alike isn't even close to the same thing as an Anarchy charge. Unless they have an equal chance of Anarchy charging their own troops, and good luck with programming that! (Don't even think about it, it wouldn't be possible without making the elephants change sides, which wouldn't really be what they were doing).

What about using the mechanism of CT when a friendly general is wounded or dead ?
When the elephants are broken, friendly units nearby have to take a test and might lose a certain amount of men (strength), instead of cohesion ?

I don't even know whether it would be possible to code that. And it would certainly be a major bit of modding !

[rbodleyscott]

It is probably also worth pointing out that the AI is not going to take any precautions against anarchy charges, so this mod would be degrading the competitiveness of the AI unless the AI was somehow re-written to take it into account. (And that would not be at all simple, perhaps not even possible. Timing is not the AI's strong point).

I appreciate that nobody would be forced to use the mod in SP, but it is worth raising the issue, especially as another reason why Anarchy charges are unlikely ever to be added to the vanilla game.

[rbodleyscott]

Running amok due to missile fire and trampling friend and foe alike isn't even close to the same thing as an Anarchy charge. Unless they have an equal chance of Anarchy charging their own troops, and good luck with programming that! (Don't even think about it, it wouldn't be possible without making the elephants change sides, which wouldn't really be what they were doing).

What about using the mechanism of CT when a friendly general is wounded or dead ?
When the elephants are broken, friendly units nearby have to take a test and might lose a certain amount of men (strength), instead of cohesion ?

I don't even know whether it would be possible to code that.

It would.

And it would certainly be a major bit of modding !

It wouldn't be too hard for a skilled modder.

[Athos1660]

Running amok due to missile fire and trampling friend and foe alike isn't even close to the same thing as an Anarchy charge. Unless they have an equal chance of Anarchy charging their own troops, and good luck with programming that! (Don't even think about it, it wouldn't be possible without making the elephants change sides, which wouldn't really be what they were doing).

What about using the mechanism of CT when a friendly general is wounded or dead ?
When the elephants are broken, friendly units nearby have to take a test and might lose a certain amount of men (strength), instead of cohesion ?

I don't even know whether it would be possible to code that.

It would.

And it would certainly be a major bit of modding !

It wouldn't be too hard for a skilled modder.

Very interesting !

It is probably also worth pointing out that the AI is not going to take any precautions against anarchy charges, so this mod would be degrading the competitiveness of the AI unless the AI was somehow re-written to take it into account. (And that would not be at all simple, perhaps not even possible. Timing is not the AI's strong point).

I appreciate that nobody would be forced to use the mod in SP, but it is worth raising the issue, especially as another reason why Anarchy charges are unlikely ever to be added to the vanilla game.

This is indeed a very important clarification !!!

[stockwellpete]

Well I agree with those who think that having troops with a low (but more than 0%) chance of anarchy charging would be much more annoying than enjoyable, even for those who like the idea of anarchy charges in the game.

I would certainly not recommend adding additional types to the types that would anarchy charge in FOG1 - if anything the list needs to be reduced. So I think that trying to assess the anarchy charge risk for non-shock troops is a waste of time and effort.

Call it low for all non-shock troops, and then reduce it to 0!

Then decide which shock troops should have a "Medium" chance of Anarchy charging, and then consider whether to reduce that to 0 too.

Yes, I agree 100% with this approach. I'll spend some time now making a simple chart so that we can identify the borderline cases for discussion.

[stockwellpete]

What I have done is to take the categories that FOG1 used for anarchy prone troops and then gone through the troop roster in the Scenario editor to try and identify borderline cases. So following Richard's guidance, I think it is much more a case of removing certain categories of soldiers from the chart below so that we establish which are the most anarchy prone types we want to cover in this mod . . .

Updated

1) Mounted lancers

2) Heavy chariots

3) Scythed Chariots

4) Pikemen

Possible exemptions - should these be subject to anarchy rules? The various types are veteran phalanx, pike phalanx and raw phalanx.

5) Offensive spearmen

Possible exemptions - should any of these be removed from the anarchy rules? African spearmen (including veterans), Phoenician spearmen, hoplites (veteran, mercenary, armoured, citizen, raw), dismounted lancers and other cavalry, Triarii, , hirdsmen, huscarls with spear, offensive shieldwall, veteran Muslim spearmen, Pictish spearmen (MF), Thorakitai (MF), Thracian spears (MF), Thureophoroi (MF).

6) Impact Foot

Possible exemptions - Roman army troop types such as Hastati/Principes, Mediocre Legionaries, Praetorian Guard (87pts), Veteran Legionaries, Legionaries, Raw Legionaries and Imitation Legionaries.


Exempt from anarchy
Elephants
Camels
Light spear/sword cavalry
Horse archers
Mixed archer/light spear cavalry
Light chariots
Artillery
Mob
Defensive spearmen
Light spear/sword infantry
Light foot
Archers
Light horse


So maybe we can start off from here and I can update this as the discussion progresses. If I have missed out something important please let me know.

[TheGrayMouser]

I see a lot of comments of certain troop being excluded from anarchy. Why? Legions, pike and hoplites certainly could be prone to “unauthorized” charges, as history shows.

Legit question: your memory is obviously far better than mine...can you point us to any of these engagements where legions, pikes, and hoplites conducted "anarchy" charges? You probably remember your answer to the same question from FOG1!

While I don't recall any engagements like that, that doesn't surprise me and certainly doesn't mean that I'm correct, but if not I'd like to get educated on the issue!

Off the top of my head, Two of Sulla’s legions attacked the Sparticate army without orders, and the survivors were decimated. Thapsus has been mentioned, but also the out of control legions of Titus sacking the Temple. Post Carthage’ absolute defeat, mutiny and desertion in the army became a problem ( Jugertine Wars). Cato supposedly had rocks thrown at him by the newly recruited Roman Plebs legions because he made them work and drill too hard. The Marian reforms tried to address some issues but in the end even popular generals needed to buy loyalty of legions if they expected them to fight for them... I know some of these are not battfield anarchy yet the idea of legions swearing their oath and following orders to the hilt is overestimated. Why all the draconian punishments if romans were so easy to order around?

[stockwellpete]

1) Mounted lancers, including cataphracts and prodromoi (light horse lancers)

Possible exemptions - Tagmatic and Thematic lancers are both listed as 50% bows, 50% lancers so should these qualify as lancers for anarchy purposes?

I think the answer to this query is "yes", they should be treated as lancers. In FOG1 their archer capability is really secondary to their role as lancer heavy cavalry.

[TheGrayMouser]

1) Mounted lancers, including cataphracts and prodromoi (light horse lancers)

Possible exemptions - Tagmatic and Thematic lancers are both listed as 50% bows, 50% lancers so should these qualify as lancers for anarchy purposes?

I think the answer to this query is "yes", they should be treated as lancers. In FOG1 their archer capability is really secondary to their role as lancer heavy cavalry.

Plus even if they have only “50%” lances , they still get the poa as if they have 100%.

I don’t think light lancers should be included, they are skirmishes after all.

[rbodleyscott]

1) Mounted lancers, including cataphracts and prodromoi (light horse lancers)

Possible exemptions - veteran Byzantine lancers and Byzantine lancers are shown as "50% bows, lancers" in the editor, which I think really means "50% bows, 100% lancers" so these qualify as lancers. But Tagmatic and Thematic lancers are both listed as 50% bows, 50% lancers so should these qualify as lancers for anarchy purposes?

Yes, they have full lancer effect, even though only the front ranks have lances. According to the Strategikon their tactical doctrine was to charge with lance. The unit was not to stop to shoot, but charge immediately supported by bowfire from the rear ranks.

LH Lancers are not shock troops

[76mm]

Off the top of my head...I know some of these are not battfield anarchy yet the idea of legions swearing their oath and following orders to the hilt is overestimated. Why all the draconian punishments if romans were so easy to order around?

Thanks for these examples, although as you mention most of them don't really pertain to anarchy charges. But for me, the point is not that the legions "swore an oath and followed orders to the hilt", but that for units for whom remaining in formation is critical, taking your little subunit and running forward could be foolhardy in the extreme. Out-of-control pillaging, desertion, etc. seem totally different.

I seem to vaguely recall one or two "unordered advances" by hoplites/phalanxes as well, but they were also unique circumstances not really comparable to anarchy charges: for instance two hoplite armies got into an unplanned scrap when a fight erupted while soldiers from both sides were drawing water from the stream separating their camps, with more and more men leaving the camps to join in the brawl at the river, resulting in a general battle.

In addition, Wikipedia says that at Cynocephalae "one of the Roman tribunes in command, stationed on the inside edge of the now advanced Roman right wing, on his own authority, detached twenty maniples (a smaller tactical unit within the legion) of heavy infantry, in total numbering about 2,000 men, spun them around and led them to the left and back to attack the Macedonian center and left wing – from behind and the side." This sounds like the Thapsus example, where Roman officer acted without orders because he saw a good opportunity and took it, rather than just dashing out in front of the line for no reason, as in anarchy charges.

[stockwellpete]

1) Mounted lancers, including cataphracts and prodromoi (light horse lancers)

Possible exemptions - veteran Byzantine lancers and Byzantine lancers are shown as "50% bows, lancers" in the editor, which I think really means "50% bows, 100% lancers" so these qualify as lancers. But Tagmatic and Thematic lancers are both listed as 50% bows, 50% lancers so should these qualify as lancers for anarchy purposes?

Yes, they have full lancer effect, even though only the front ranks have lances. According to the Strategikon their tactical doctrine was to charge with lance. The unit was not to stop to shoot, but charge immediately supported by bowfire from the rear ranks.

LH Lancers are not shock troops

OK, I will change this in the chart. Next up is Pikes. What do people think about these? My understanding is that the poorer standard pikemen were likely to be very defensive, whereas the veterans were much more aggressive.

[76mm]

Question: why are lancer cavalry being singled out for anarchy charges? Is it because an ordered charge by non-lancers would be a suicide mission against most types of troops?

Not saying that this is possible or desirable in the game, but it seems like realistically the chance of any (even non-lancer) cavalry being subject to anarchy would depend to some degree on the enemy in front of it? For instance, any cavalry might anarchy charge pesky light foot or horse nearby?

[76mm]

My understanding is that the poorer standard pikemen were likely to be very defensive, whereas the veterans were much more aggressive.

I would expect that while veteran phalanxes might have been more aggressive, they would also be more disciplined and very much more likely to realize that breaking the line would be a really bad idea.

[stockwellpete]

My understanding is that the poorer standard pikemen were likely to be very defensive, whereas the veterans were much more aggressive.

I would expect that while veteran phalanxes might have been more aggressive, they would also be more disciplined and very much more likely to realize that breaking the line would be a really bad idea.

Yes, I think that is a fair point. In FOG1 pikes were prone to anarchy but I am not sure about it myself. Pikemen very much depended on each other to get through a battle which suggests teamwork rather more than a propensity for anarchy.

[stockwellpete]

Question: why are lancer cavalry being singled out for anarchy charges? Is it because an ordered charge by non-lancers would be a suicide mission against most types of troops?

Not saying that this is possible or desirable in the game, but it seems like realistically the chance of any (even non-lancer) cavalry being subject to anarchy would depend to some degree on the enemy in front of it? For instance, any cavalry might anarchy charge pesky light foot or horse nearby?

I assume that it is because they are the most aggressive type of cavalry and can attack many types of unit head on. Yes, I am sure they could be baited by enemy skirmishers, but then so could most other types of soldiers.

[stockwellpete]

Found it! "Freaking anarchy" thread from FOG1 started by?

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=19959

And this was an earlier discussion called "Anarchy poll". Some of it is comical. Some things never change . . .

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=16674