Should pikemen be exempt from anarchy rules in the mod?

[stockwellpete]

I have cut and pasted this from the anarchy poll thread so we can just focus on completing this list. If we can think about pikemen next please . . .

"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."

[desicat]

Yes, by definition they are aligned in a tight formation based upon discipline. They advance at a walk, with determined purpose - not hot headed abandon. Wild charges do not fit the unit type in my humble opinion.

[Cunningcairn]

Yes, by definition they are aligned in a tight formation based upon discipline. They advance at a walk, with determined purpose - not hot headed abandon. Wild charges do not fit the unit type in my humble opinion.

I agree with desicat that they should not be prone to anarchy charges. I don't know of any historical accounts of them doing so but I could be wrong. Slightly off topic but are bow armed heavy chariots prone to anarchy charge or does heavy chariot in your list refer to LSp armed only?

[76mm]

I am an admitted phalanxophile and also think that they should not be subject to anarchy charges, at least in most cases (perhaps raw phalanxes?)

What about hoplites? In FOG1 hoplites were subject to anarchy charges, but "defensive spearmen" were not. Always seemed like kind of an odd distinction to me... And given the presence of hoplites in so many FOG2 armies, this might be relevant for more armies than phalanxes.

[stockwellpete]

Yes, by definition they are aligned in a tight formation based upon discipline. They advance at a walk, with determined purpose - not hot headed abandon. Wild charges do not fit the unit type in my humble opinion.

Yes, I agree with this. When I think about the medieval period this is generally the case. You have examples like the Scottish schiltron, which was defensive, and the French knights were beaten at Coutrai in 1302 by Flemish pikemen. And later on the Swiss pikemen were very successful because they had very high discipline. So I am not really sure why they were subject to anarchy charges in FOG1.

[stockwellpete]

Slightly off topic but are bow armed heavy chariots prone to anarchy charge or does heavy chariot in your list refer to LSp armed only?

No idea. They were subject to anarchy charges in FOG1 and no-one has told me to take them out so far.

[stockwellpete]

I am an admitted phalanxophile and also think that they should not be subject to anarchy charges, at least in most cases (perhaps raw phalanxes?)

I read something earlier in the week that suggested inexperienced pikemen were much more likely to fight in a defensive way because it took a lot of training to become proficient at attacking while keeping in formation. So they don't sound to me as if they should be in the most anarchy prone category.

What about hoplites? In FOG1 hoplites were subject to anarchy charges, but "defensive spearmen" were not. Always seemed like kind of an odd distinction to me... And given the presence of hoplites in so many FOG2 armies, this might be relevant for more armies than phalanxes.

Well, yes, there is a big group of offensive spear type units that were subject to anarchy in FOG1. I do not know if some of these should come out. Here are the types of hoplites in the game -veteran, mercenary, armoured, citizen, raw. Would you say none of these were particularly anarchy prone. What does the historical record say? The drilled and undrilled characteristic is relevant here as well.

[stockwellpete]

Slightly off topic but are bow armed heavy chariots prone to anarchy charge or does heavy chariot in your list refer to LSp armed only?

No idea. They were subject to anarchy charges in FOG1 and no-one has told me to take them out so far.

In Brian Todd Carey's book "Warfare in the Ancient World" he primarily describes all types of chariots primarily as mobile archer platforms and in the Bronze Age it was the leaders and wealthy in a society that tended to ride to battle on them. There is some support for the idea that they could also be used to smash up enemy infantry formations. So historians are divided on the issue. In terms of anarchy it doesn't sound like to me that they were particularly anarchy prone. He does mention the Sumerian chariots that were pulled by oxen as being difficult to control so perhaps these should be prone to anarchy when they eventually make it into the game.

Does anyone think heavy and scythed chariots should be in the anarchy group and if so, why?

[travling_canuck]

Does anyone think heavy and scythed chariots should be in the anarchy group and if so, why?

Scythed, no, for gameplay reasons. They're difficult enough to create a positive impact from.

[TheGrayMouser]

Yes, by definition they are aligned in a tight formation based upon discipline. They advance at a walk, with determined purpose - not hot headed abandon. Wild charges do not fit the unit type in my humble opinion.

So I am not really sure why they were subject to anarchy charges in FOG1.

Uhhh, Ravenna?

Sounds like a loaded poll, didn’t RBs just say that unordered advance is what “anarchy represents”? Haha. I fear the cherry picking will go on until only warbands and knights are left;)

Also, the list of troops that a prone to anarchy are the troop types most often used for offensive operations. Maneuvering these troops aggressively ( ie getting charge range) but then not attacking to say, exert zoc’s just Wouldn’t happen in real battle. So anarchy is to some degree is a control valve on player behavior.
Just food for thought.

[76mm]

I read something earlier in the week that suggested inexperienced pikemen were much more likely to fight in a defensive way because it took a lot of training to become proficient at attacking while keeping in formation. So they don't sound to me as if they should be in the most anarchy prone category.

Makes sense.

Well, yes, there is a big group of offensive spear type units that were subject to anarchy in FOG1. I do not know if some of these should come out. Here are the types of hoplites in the game -veteran, mercenary, armoured, citizen, raw. Would you say none of these were particularly anarchy prone. What does the historical record say? The drilled and undrilled characteristic is relevant here as well.

I couldn't really say at this point. Once I finish the current book I'm reading I could probably start going through my ancients library again, I have quite a bit on hoplite warfare but either read the books some time ago or haven't read them yet...

[76mm]

Uhhh, Ravenna?

There was a phalanx battle in Ravenna? I'm not familiar with medieval history but I don't recall any in classical history?

Sounds like a loaded poll, didn’t RBs just say that unordered advance is what “anarchy represents”? Haha. I fear the cherry picking will go on until only warbands and knights are left;)

What is the difference between calling it an "unordered advance" vs "anarchy charge"? Same difference, it seems like semantics. The fact is--IMHO--that certain types of units would seem to less prone to "unordered advances". I don't see what's wrong in looking at the historical record to see what happened.

Also, the list of troops that a prone to anarchy are the troop types most often used for offensive operations. Maneuvering these troops aggressively ( ie getting charge range) but then not attacking to say, exert zoc’s just Wouldn’t happen in real battle.

While you're probably correct, this raises all sorts of issues in a game setting...what if you are trying to defend? It seems like in many situations, troops ordered to stand their ground and await the enemy, would do so. What if you are attacking on one wing, trying to defend on another, perhaps due to favorable ground or superior troops to your front? Anarchy charges apply to everyone, everywhere--attacking, defending, whatever. And I raise my point about lancers charging phalanxes again--I just can't see that happening, although it also doesn't seem particularly likely that a lancer unit would just stand there in front of a phalanx either, seems like they'd try to redeploy before they got too close.

[stockwellpete]

Uhhh, Ravenna?

Ravenna when? 1512? That is your best example and it is not even covered by the time period of the game?

Sounds like a loaded poll

What do you mean? It just asked if people were interested in an idea.

didn’t RBs just say that unordered advance is what “anarchy represents”? Haha. I fear the cherry picking will go on until only warbands and knights are left;)

Did he? I am following his suggestion of starting with the FOG1 notion of shock troops = anarchy and removing those unit types that do not generally fit that equation.

Also, the list of troops that a prone to anarchy are the troop types most often used for offensive operations. Maneuvering these troops aggressively ( ie getting charge range) but then not attacking to say, exert zoc’s just Wouldn’t happen in real battle. So anarchy is to some degree is a control valve on player behavior. Just food for thought.

But huscarls with axes were often used in offensive military operations and they are not on the list at all. The more I think about it the less convinced I am by the equation that shock troops = anarchy. I think it is quite crude really. Were lancers more prone to indiscipline than light spear/sword cavalry? I doubt it very much. Were offensive spearmen more unruly than soldiers carrying heavy weapons like axes? No, I don't think so.

Another way of looking at this is to identify certain societies whose military culture tended to value individual prowess on the battlefield, or were renowned for their aggression and frequent indiscipline. So armies like the Ancient Britons, Caledonians, Dacians, Galatians, Gauls and early Franks should generally be more prone to anarchy than armies like the Byzantines or Romans, I would guess. But all armies should become more prone to indiscipline if their leadership is seriously being degraded in a battle. So contingents (I mean group commands from the start of a battle) that have lost their leader should be more likely to suffer anarchy than those contingents that have retained command and control.

I think from a players point of view learning which armies are more prone to anarchy is a reasonable ask from a wargame, together with knowing that the loss of your leaders is likely to make your situation increasingly difficult.

[TheGrayMouser]

Uhhh, Ravenna?

There was a phalanx battle in Ravenna? I'm not familiar with medieval history but I don't recall any in classical history?

Sounds like a loaded poll, didn’t RBs just say that unordered advance is what “anarchy represents”? Haha. I fear the cherry picking will go on until only warbands and knights are left;)

What is the difference between calling it an "unordered advance" vs "anarchy charge"? Same difference, it seems like semantics. The fact is--IMHO--that certain types of units would seem to less prone to "unordered advances". I don't see what's wrong in looking at the historical record to see what happened.

Also, the list of troops that a prone to anarchy are the troop types most often used for offensive operations. Maneuvering these troops aggressively ( ie getting charge range) but then not attacking to say, exert zoc’s just Wouldn’t happen in real battle.

While you're probably correct, this raises all sorts of issues in a game setting...what if you are trying to defend? It seems like in many situations, troops ordered to stand their ground and await the enemy, would do so. What if you are attacking on one wing, trying to defend on another, perhaps due to favorable ground or superior troops to your front? Anarchy charges apply to everyone, everywhere--attacking, defending, whatever. And I raise my point about lancers charging phalanxes again--I just can't see that happening, although it also doesn't seem particularly likely that a lancer unit would just stand there in front of a phalanx either, seems like they'd try to redeploy before they got too close.

No I get it, we could add a million rules to cover "defensive position" etc and it still would have exceptions. Yes the quipp was semantics and was off the cuff for fun

Ravena was a 16th battle where the Swiss pike columns refused to allow the French employers time to soften up the entrenched Imperial army with artillery, they charged on their own and met with heavy losses.


Certainly though the Athenian charge at Phillips retreating pikes at Charonea making gap in the line was not a plan of the allies... While dinking coffee this AM I leafed thru Xenophons account of Cunaxa, Cyrus' Greek hoplite on his right flank first refused to charge Ataxerxes center... As the KIngs much lager army got closer the greeks then charged the kings left flank . It sis decribed at men ran to battle but tried to keep ranks, but th emen left behind and really had to run to catch up.... Sound almost like an adhoc decision to charge and not all the units got the message all at once.. Nor does it sound like Cyrus ordered the attack either ( and then the greeks contnued to chase the broken left flank persians so that Cyrus feared they would be charge in their rear so he led his body guard cavalty directly at theKings center, where he was killed.... Sound like reverse anarchy, anarchy and unconrolled pursuit all at once!!

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete, just saw your post, that was a poke for fun!! But I do think that when you use a term like anarchy it does imply something different than unauthorized advance, no?

[stockwellpete]

Pete, just saw your post, that was a poke for fun!! But I do think that when you use a term like anarchy it does imply something different than unauthorized advance, no?

FOG1 called it "anarchy".

[stockwellpete]

Just another question. Impact foot soldiers, like warbands, should generally be included in the more anarchy prone category. But in the game this also includes the a lot of Roman troop types. I don't think they should be treated the same as warbands. Does anyone disagree with this?

[TheGrayMouser]

Pete, just saw your post, that was a poke for fun!! But I do think that when you use a term like anarchy it does imply something different than unauthorized advance, no?

FOG1 called it "anarchy".

I know, but he didnt develop FOG1 hexwar did, and in the TT it was not called anarchy. Hexwar kept the mechanic but changed the name, launching a hundred forum arguments and polls : )

Yes Pete, I know Ravenna isnt yet covered, I used it because YOU posted that you questioned why swiss pike were subject to anarchy in FOG1.

[stockwellpete]

I know, but he didnt develop FOG1 hexwar did, and in the TT it was not called anarchy. Hexwar kept the mechanic but changed the name, launching a hundred forum arguments and polls : )

Yes, it was Keith who mainly designed FOG1, wasn't it?

Yes Pete, I know Ravenna isnt yet covered, I used it because YOU posted that you questioned why swiss pike were subject to anarchy in FOG1.

Ravenna is Pike and Shot territory really as the cut-off is at about 1500 between FOG and P+S. I wasn't talking specifically about the Swiss though, was I? I was talking in general terms about pike-type formations in the medieval period. There is nothing to suggest that these formations were particularly volatile. Are you arguing that the Swiss were generally anarchy-prone then? Really?

[Schweetness101]

I also think that pikes should not anarchy charge. I am leaning towards offensive spearmen not anarchy charging either. Like RBS and a few others were saying, I think it should at least start out as a feature that only happens at all on the units that it seems would be most likely to do it.

for infantry, I think that's:
Warbands (loose, close, average, superior, all types)
probably other non-legion impact foot
warriors (falxmen, forgot what others)

I still like the idea of it happening on certain barbarian style heavy weapon and light spear units as well, but that is a lower priority and so probably shouldn't be in at first or perhaps at all.

is there any interest in an anarchy mod that does the charges at the start of the turn, and at some fixed percent chance to charge for all shock units, just as an initial test? To see what this sort of thing does to the gameplay? I can put that up if desired. Or, I can wait to refactor to try and do the thing where it happens on the move if you non-charge move shock troops within charge distance, or don't move them then it happens at the end.