Anarchy charges poll . . .

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

Well yes the idea of small individual units taking off is the rub and again was the most logical complaint about anarchy in Fog1. In the tt it seemed much more realistic when a single battle group being maybe 1 of 10 or so total battle groups in a fight anarchy charged as it plausibility represented say an entire cavalry wing. Anyway I’d prefer if anarchy could by command( ie a leader and the assigned units might have to test under certain conditions and anarchy as a whole). Likely hard to code, likely not much interest either..

As it stands I like the idea of a mod that inserts anarchy as applied in Fog1, however I personally would lose interest if too many troop types are excluded as the whole notion of anarchy in this manner is highly abstract anyway and giving broad exemptions gives some armies abilities beyond what they would have had.

Btw in your Thapsus example, in game anarchy is not “rushing out” for no reason, the sub commander is engaging an enemy, after all. Seeking glory, defying the cnc for political or personal reasons etc....)

Maybe in the end the best way to have realistic anarchy is to flag units that have been shot at in a prior turn ( with some threshold) to anarchy if they take no action next turn No units would exempt, except skirmishers or bowmen class. Might give ha armies a boost!

[TheGrayMouser]

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

I’m afraid to read this, no doudt I have contradicted opinions in my misguided youth from now!

[stockwellpete]

I’m afraid to read this, no doudt I have contradicted opinions in my misguided youth from now!

This is from a player called Nihil, "Thank god rivers, lakes and such are just impassable, otherwise many of my troops would just die drowning trying to charge someone on the other shore."

[Schweetness101]

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.

I also think if anarchy charges are in it should be a very limited number of troops, but all with a decent chance to anarchy charge. As for the pass through, on the one hand it would seem not worth modding such a big change, but then I guess if you don't mod that in you could end up with a sceneario where you can 'game' the anarchy charges by just putting skirmishers in front of your prone to anarchy charge troops.

[76mm]

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

heh, hilarious, I have no recollection of that thread!

[stockwellpete]

I also think if anarchy charges are in it should be a very limited number of troops, but all with a decent chance to anarchy charge. As for the pass through, on the one hand it would seem not worth modding such a big change, but then I guess if you don't mod that in you could end up with a sceneario where you can 'game' the anarchy charges by just putting skirmishers in front of your prone to anarchy charge troops.

I am not sure that is too much of a problem if you are picking the requisite number of skirmishers at the start to give some protection to your more anarchy prone troops. The other player then has to clear that skirmisher screen away before anarchy comes into play. So that makes for quite interesting gameplay, I would say.

[76mm]

I am not sure that is too much of a problem if you are picking the requisite number of skirmishers at the start to give some protection to your more anarchy prone troops. The other player then has to clear that skirmisher screen away before anarchy comes into play. So that makes for quite interesting gameplay, I would say.

Dunno...some armies have very few skirmishers available, at least relative to the opposing army. Allowing the side which established "skirmisher supremacy" to then use it to trigger rampant anarchy charges might make some matchups unplayable.

[stockwellpete]

Dunno...some armies have very few skirmishers available, at least relative to the opposing army. Allowing the side which established "skirmisher supremacy" to then use it to trigger rampant anarchy charges might make some matchups unplayable.

Yes, we would have to identify such match-ups during the testing phase.

[rbodleyscott]

Perhaps worth quoting the original edition of the tabletop rules as food for thought:

"TROOPS WHO MAY CHARGE WITHOUT ORDERS
Shock troops are eager to get stuck in and may charge enemy within reach even if the commander (player) does not wish them to. In certain circumstances, shock troops who have not declared a charge need to pass a complex move test (see the General Movement Rules section) to avoid charging without orders. More specifically:
 Mounted shock troops must pass a CMT to prevent them from charging any enemy battle group(s) within charge range.
 Foot shock troops must pass a CMT to prevent them from charging any enemy foot battle group(s) within charge range.

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
 If their move* could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.
 If they are medium foot starting 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.
 If their move* could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank.
 If they are fragmented (they cannot charge).
(* If the enemy who would be charged are capable of evading - see later - assume a charge move distance of 2 MUs more than the shock troops’ normal move distance. This is the maximum variable move distance that could be added.)

Otherwise, if shock troops would normally be required to test to prevent them from charging without orders, the following rules apply if they could not contact the enemy without passing through friends, even by wheeling and/or dropping back bases:
 They do not test (and will not charge) if the friends are shock troops or already in melee.
 They do not test (and will not charge) if all the enemy in reach are skirmishers.
 Otherwise the battle group must take a CMT as normal. If it fails, it must burst through the friends. (Note that a player cannot choose to allow his shock troops to burst through in this way, they can only do so if they fail their CMT and charge without orders).

The following additional rules apply to CMTs to avoid charging without orders:
 The CMT is taken by each individual battle group separately, even if it is part of a battle line. A commander cannot therefore be counted as “with” the battle group for the test unless he is actually with the battle group that is testing.
 Quality re-rolls do not apply.
 Mixed battle groups including any shock troops must test as if entirely shock troops.

Shock troops charging without orders who cannot contact all potential target battle groups within charge range, charge the one(s) nearest to straight ahead.

Shock troops that successfully test to prevent charging without orders can move normally in the manoeuvre phase. They must take another CMT then if they want to make a complex move.
"

[rbodleyscott]

"Bursting through friends
In various circumstances battle groups may be forced to burst through other battle groups that they cannot normally interpenetrate. This is not voluntary and causes difficulties.

A battle group burst through by friendly shock troops drops one cohesion level:
o Move the shock troops their full move. Then, if necessary, shift back the entire battle group being passed through so that they are behind the shock troops.
o Any other friends behind are shifted back to make room.
o If it is impossible (due to enemy troops, impassable terrain or the table edge) to shift friends back sufficiently to make room, the shock troops do not move at all and (if they were STEADY) drop to DISRUPTED.

A battle group burst through by friendly evaders or routers drops one cohesion level:
o Move the evading or routing battle group to the full extent of its move. If its move does not completely clear all friends, it is placed beyond any battle group(s) it is currently bursting through if there is room for it beyond, otherwise it is destroyed and removed from the table. No cohesion test is taken for friends seeing this.

A battle group that is burst through by more than one friendly battle group in the same phase only drops one cohesion level."

[rbodleyscott]

Also worth noting that the FOG: Renaissance tabletop rules did not have any "Anarchy charge" rules.

This was more to do with taking something out of the rules to make room for other stuff without increasing the overall complexity of the rules, than it did to any idea that charges without orders were less common in the Renaissance period.

However, the intentional omission certainly did not cause any outcry.

[76mm]

Thanks Richard, interesting! Not being familiar with the TT rules, I have two questions:
1) Roughly how many FOG2 "units" are equivalent to a TT "battle group"?
2) My understanding is that the TT rules provide that anarchy charges would apply before the movement phase, is that correct?

[rbodleyscott]

Well a normal number of battle groups in an TT army would be about 12.

So maybe 2 to 2.5

[rbodleyscott]

2) My understanding is that the TT rules provide that anarchy charges would apply before the movement phase, is that correct?

Superficially true, but TT had separate charge and normal movement phases, and anarchy charges came after charge declarations but before non-charge moves. So anarchy charges only occurred after the player had decided not to voluntarily declare a charge for a unit that was capable of charging.

In the context of FOG2 it makes sense to have them after all opportunities to make an orderly charge have been ignored, so either if the player attempts to move the unit other than as a charge, or if he has not moved it by the end of the turn.

Having them at the start of the turn would emphatically not be equivalent to how the TT rules worked, and frankly, would be rather silly. Anarchy charges should only occur if the general has wilfully failed to give the order to charge that the troops were eager to hear.

[rbodleyscott]

And, of course, in TT they were called “charges without orders” rather than “anarchy charges”. The latter probably gives the wrong impression of what they were intended to represent.

[76mm]

Having them at the start of the turn would emphatically not be equivalent to how the TT rules worked, and frankly, would be rather silly. Anarchy charges should only occur if the general has wilfully failed to give the order to charge that the troops were eager to hear.

Thanks for the info. The one advantage I would see to having "charges without orders" at the beginning of a turn is that it would at least allow a player to move the rest of the line up to support a "rogue" unit, even if it hadn't been his original intent. It doesn't really seem that this would be "unrealistic": you can imagine a general attempting to restrain his units, but then when he failed and one of them surged forward, he would order the rest of the line to follow rather than leaving a gaping hole in his lines.

[TheGrayMouser]

Having them at the start of the turn would emphatically not be equivalent to how the TT rules worked, and frankly, would be rather silly. Anarchy charges should only occur if the general has wilfully failed to give the order to charge that the troops were eager to hear.

Thanks for the info. The one advantage I would see to having "charges without orders" at the beginning of a turn is that it would at least allow a player to move the rest of the line up to support a "rogue" unit, even if it hadn't been his original intent. It doesn't really seem that this would be "unrealistic": you can imagine a general attempting to restrain his units, but then when he failed and one of them surged forward, he would order the rest of the line to follow rather than leaving a gaping hole in his lines.

If you have the original Fog1 installer, you can try exactly that out.

[Schweetness101]

I think this has been addressed a few times, but what is a way to prevent gamey anti anarchy charge moves like turning all anarchy prone troops to face away from enemies you don't want them to charge? maybe only anarchy charge if enemy is in charge range of you AND you are in charge range of enemy? that way turning your flank to them gives them a free +50 charge on unoccupied flank?

[76mm]

If you have the original Fog1 installer, you can try exactly that out.

I probably have it somewhere, but if I didn't like it then (as I apparently didn't!) I don't think I'd like it more now. But I thought that in FOG1 it didn't necessarily happen at the beginning of the turn?

[Schweetness101]

2) My understanding is that the TT rules provide that anarchy charges would apply before the movement phase, is that correct?

Superficially true, but TT had separate charge and normal movement phases, and anarchy charges came after charge declarations but before non-charge moves. So anarchy charges only occurred after the player had decided not to voluntarily declare a charge for a unit that was capable of charging.

In the context of FOG2 it makes sense to have them after all opportunities to make an orderly charge have been ignored, so either if the player attempts to move the unit other than as a charge, or if he has not moved it by the end of the turn.

Having them at the start of the turn would emphatically not be equivalent to how the TT rules worked, and frankly, would be rather silly. Anarchy charges should only occur if the general has wilfully failed to give the order to charge that the troops were eager to hear.

this and the breakthrough bits would be very hard to change I think. I don't want to be pessimistic, but the more details I learn about making an anarchy charge mod, the more it seems to be, if not beyond my capacity, at least beyond my willingness to commit to right now, but maybe once I'm done with the aggregate mod stuff and it's in testing I'll take a deeper look...

Maybe it's not that hard though?

It would be something like:
1) If you give a unit a non charge move order, check if it is an anarchy troop. If yes, check if there are enemies to charge within its charge range. If yes, check if they are the appropriate type and terrain matchups, etc...If yes, then Roll the dice, and if you lose the dice roll then anarchy charge the closest/most appropriate enemy in charge range (and in that case you just call an otherwise normal assault).
2) At the end of each turn, loop through each unit, check if it is an anarchy type that did not move this turn (and/or has non zero AP left?), and do the same check for enemies in charge range etc...down to rolling for the charge.

Initially I was trying to put this stuff in StartTurn, but it looks like instead it should be somewhere else. Where in the code can I find where 1 and 2 happen? ie where "if the player attempts to move the unit other than as a charge, or if he has not moved it by the end of the turn."