Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

[Schweetness101]

I've made a lot of progress on the anarchy mod (it is pretty close to being able to be released to the community for further testing), and I've recently added the refusal to charge chance section.

There is a chance to refuse to charge if:

-lights are ordered to charge non lights
-light foot are ordered to charge anything other than light foot
-disrupted units are ordered to charge
-a unit is ordered to charge an enemy at very significant disadvantage (I don't think this is a FOG1 rule, just one I added)

right now all of the above are just at a fixed 25% chance to refuse.

any ideas about other kinds of charge refusals and/or what the percent chance should be?

[stockwellpete]

The only thing at the moment is that disrupted units would be more inclined to charge other disrupted or fragmented units than they would be to charge steady units. It sort of slides into your fourth point really.

[Schweetness101]

The only thing at the moment is that disrupted units would be more inclined to charge other disrupted or fragmented units than they would be to charge steady units. It sort of slides into your fourth point really.

oh right that would be easy to do, just if(me is disrupted and target is steady){ have chance to refuse}

perhaps being disrupted means a unit is more likely to refuse orders to charge regardless of the target? like two disrupted units might still lack the confidence to charge one another and just kind of stare at each other instead until they got themselves together. Or some range of values like

if(me is disrupted)
{
____increase chance to refuse
____if(target is steady)
____{
______increase chance to refuse even more
____}
}

[MVP7]

Shouldn't these modding threads be made in the modding subforum?

[Schweetness101]

Shouldn't these modding threads be made in the modding subforum?

yes, but there is so little activity there that I host them here so that people actually see it. Maybe I shouldn't, I dunno...

[TheGrayMouser]

Does this mod effect the AI?

[Schweetness101]

Does this mod effect the AI?

it will make them anarchy charge and refuse orders at the same rate as the player, yes

it does not affect their decision making otherwise

I've thought perhaps that after finishing up the aggregate mod I would look at adjusing AI decision making to account for new changes, but it may not be necessary. I've actually found that the AI performs a bit better in the aggregate mod and in the anarchy mod than in vanilla, because it reduces the micro where the player has the advantage.

[TheGrayMouser]

Does this mod effect the AI?

it will make them anarchy charge and refuse orders at the same rate as the player, yes

it does not affect their decision making otherwise

I've thought perhaps that after finishing up the aggregate mod I would look at adjusing AI decision making to account for new changes, but it may not be necessary. I've actually found that the AI performs a bit better in the aggregate mod and in the anarchy mod than in vanilla, because it reduces the micro where the player has the advantage.

I haven’t followed the anarchy thread recently, but I assume it is following the notion that warbands are the ones that predominantly anarchy( charge without orders). If so it seems to be a double whammy that burdened with that stereotype, they will also refuse to charge too!

[desicat]

Does this mod effect the AI?

it will make them anarchy charge and refuse orders at the same rate as the player, yes

it does not affect their decision making otherwise

I've thought perhaps that after finishing up the aggregate mod I would look at adjusing AI decision making to account for new changes, but it may not be necessary. I've actually found that the AI performs a bit better in the aggregate mod and in the anarchy mod than in vanilla, because it reduces the micro where the player has the advantage.

I haven’t followed the anarchy thread recently, but I assume it is following the notion that warbands are the ones that predominantly anarchy( charge without orders). If so it seems to be a double whammy that burdened with that stereotype, they will also refuse to charge too!

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside. When they get their blood up and charge they should get a POA plus up, and consider the random charge beginning from 3 hexes.

[travling_canuck]

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside.

For me, the prospect of this mod seems like it will make these units and armies built around them more fun to play, not less, as I suspect commanding them will be a more interesting challenge.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of SP, however, where I've recently stopped losing to the AI at level IV. To continue to enjoy the game, I either need to rachet the difficulty level up again, although constantly fighting on an outnumbered basis is getting kind of tedious, or find some other way to keep the battles fresh and interesting.

So if these changes make certain armies more difficult to manage on the battlefield, I see that as a big positive, and I'll be very drawn to using those armies.

[Schweetness101]

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside. When they get their blood up and charge they should get a POA plus up, and consider the random charge beginning from 3 hexes.

I am totally open to both of these ideas (poa bonus on anarchy charge and anarchy charge distance changes) and I think they would be worth testing. They would also be relatively straightforward to implement for testing, so why not? It could become part of the warband tactics, trying to make the most of the impetuosity.

WAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!

and if they don't add to it i could just remove them

[Schweetness101]

haven’t followed the anarchy thread recently, but I assume it is following the notion that warbands are the ones that predominantly anarchy( charge without orders). If so it seems to be a double whammy that burdened with that stereotype, they will also refuse to charge too!

it's not necessarily predominately warbands. There are, as of right now, low, medium and high anarchy units (warbands are high anarchy but so are a number of other units, stockwellpete has posted the anarchy tiers). It could actually improve their relative performance in some ways given that they are vulnerable to micro managed flank charges, and this mod reduces micro somewhat, but especially when combined eventually with the aggregate mod.

[desicat]

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside. When they get their blood up and charge they should get a POA plus up, and consider the random charge beginning from 3 hexes.

I am totally open to both of these ideas (poa bonus on anarchy charge and anarchy charge distance changes) and I think they would be worth testing. They would also be relatively straightforward to implement for testing, so why not? It could become part of the warband tactics, trying to make the most of the impetuosity.

WAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!

and if they don't add to it i could just remove them

Fantastic, although since this is StockwellPete's brainchild I will wait for him to weigh in.

[stockwellpete]

Shouldn't these modding threads be made in the modding subforum?

yes, but there is so little activity there that I host them here so that people actually see it. Maybe I shouldn't, I dunno...

I think it is probably OK to continue posting in here, unless Richard asks us to stop. The ideas in the various mod threads have generated a lot of interest around the game and we are hearing from lots of new voices.

[stockwellpete]

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside.

For me, the prospect of this mod seems like it will make these units and armies built around them more fun to play, not less, as I suspect commanding them will be a more interesting challenge.

I'm coming at this from the perspective of SP, however, where I've recently stopped losing to the AI at level IV. To continue to enjoy the game, I either need to rachet the difficulty level up again, although constantly fighting on an outnumbered basis is getting kind of tedious, or find some other way to keep the battles fresh and interesting.

So if these changes make certain armies more difficult to manage on the battlefield, I see that as a big positive, and I'll be very drawn to using those armies.

And remember also that we are going to tie indiscipline into the command structure too. Command radii will be reduced to 4 squares and sub-generals will only be able to give command to their starting contingent. So it will be more challenging to play. I have been testing the mod with a Gaul v Roman match-up and I am getting very good games on Tribune and Legate level now, which I never did before.

[stockwellpete]

Another reason I think there should be a positive associated with the Anarchy Charge - it is not fun to have a once very good group of units being given a host of negative traits with no upside. When they get their blood up and charge they should get a POA plus up, and consider the random charge beginning from 3 hexes.

I am totally open to both of these ideas (poa bonus on anarchy charge and anarchy charge distance changes) and I think they would be worth testing. They would also be relatively straightforward to implement for testing, so why not? It could become part of the warband tactics, trying to make the most of the impetuosity.

WAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!

and if they don't add to it i could just remove them

Fantastic, although since this is StockwellPete's brainchild I will wait for him to weigh in.

No, I am just the admin assistant and occasional (rather dodgy) historical adviser. Schweetness101 is Professor Brainstorm who is working in the lab day and night on this mod.

Yes, a small bonus for anarchy charging might be worth testing +25POA on 50% of occasions, or something like that. But if you introduce the possibility that the range of the charge could be increased by a square then you will make indiscipline much, much harder to control - and that may be a step too far for some players.

[Athos1660]

(…) warbands (…) burdened with that stereotype (…)

+1

haven’t followed the anarchy thread recently, but I assume it is following the notion that warbands are the ones that predominantly anarchy( charge without orders). If so it seems to be a double whammy that burdened with that stereotype, they will also refuse to charge too!

it's not necessarily predominately warbands. There are, as of right now, low, medium and high anarchy units (warbands are high anarchy but so are a number of other units, stockwellpete has posted the anarchy tiers).

Nonetheless, Roman army troop types are exempted from anarchy charge last I noticed, right ?

Yet, the better quality of their troops in game already takes into account their better training, advice and direction and, why not, their so-called better observance of the military orders.

Teamwork between tribes within an army of several tribes was certainly a more complex task than the coordination of a structured army such as Rome, because of the dynamics between tribe leaders which would affect alliances and strategies first.

But at the tactical level of a unit (and thus concerning anarchy charge), it is difficult (maybe even counter-intuitive) to posit the hypothesis that within a tribe, a clan, a family, a small society with client-patron relationships, the respect for the leader (and thus the discipline) would be much poorer on the battlefield than within a Roman unit whose army had fewer strong and direct interpersonal relationships but more management.

Warbands were not movie cavemen. They had political institutions, crafts, etc.

Shouldn't these modding threads be made in the modding subforum?

yes, but there is so little activity there that I host them here so that people actually see it. Maybe I shouldn't, I dunno...

(...) The ideas in the various mod threads have generated a lot of interest around the game and we are hearing from lots of new voices.

Visibility of the products is the key!

Threads of the sub-forums are indeed much less visible/readily available on this forum software.

[stockwellpete]

Nonetheless, Roman army troop types are exempted from anarchy charge last I noticed, right ?

Yet, the better quality of their troops in game already takes into account their better training, advice and direction and, why not, their so-called better observance of the military orders.

Teamwork between tribes within an army of several tribes was certainly a more complex task than the coordination of a structured army such as Rome, because of the dynamics between tribe leaders which would affect alliances and strategies first.

But at the tactical level of a unit (and thus concerning anarchy charge), it is difficult (maybe even counter-intuitive) to posit the hypothesis that within a tribe, a clan, a family, a small society with client-patron relationships, the respect for the leader (and thus the discipline) would be much poorer on the battlefield than within a Roman unit whose army had fewer strong and direct interpersonal relationships but more management.

Warbands were not movie cavemen. They had political institutions, crafts, etc.

You are overdoing this argument.

First of all, this is a work in progress, and to start with it makes sense for us to identify what might be called "high anarchy-prone" troop types in order to get the basic mechanisms working in the game and to use these troop types as our initial benchmark in terms of how often indiscipline should happen in a game. This is not an easy thing to get right in itself. Roman units are not exempted from indiscipline in the mod, but we have them started off in the "low" band while "raw" Roman troops will be in the "medium" band. By the time we have finished it should be the case that most troop types will be able to suffer indiscipline in the mod if certain modifiers come into play (being out of command radius being a key one, being "triggered" by friendly adjacent units is another possibility) but these combinations will happen quite rarely for some armies.

We are quite aware that "warband" societies were complex and sophisticated and we are not seeking to perpetuate any ludicrous "barbarians were backward" trope. Our understanding of the military culture of these types of societies suggests that their tactics were generally attacking in nature (so not always) and therefore "anarchy" in the game will penalise the player who faffs around with their units in the proximity of the enemy or tries to implement defensive tactics while the enemy skirmishers have local dominance on the field. To get the best out of a Frankish or Gaul-ish army in this mod you will need to move quickly into contact with the enemy once the two battle lines are close together. We think this is generally historically realistic.

[Athos1660]

You are overdoing this argument.

I don't know exactly what this sentence means.

However, I (for one, not for us) just think that 720 men of a warband unit have as many reasons to follow (or not) the orders of their dad, village chief, clan chief, tribal leader or patron than legionnaires to obey (or not) their hierarchical superior, even if these reasons are different. Or at least, that the differences shouldn't be huge.

Our understanding of the military culture of these types of societies suggests that their tactics were generally attacking in nature (so not always) and therefore "anarchy" in the game will penalise the player who faffs around with their units in the proximity of the enemy or tries to implement defensive tactics while the enemy skirmishers have local dominance on the field. To get the best out of a Frankish or Gaul-ish army in this mod you will need to move quickly into contact with the enemy once the two battle lines are close together. We think this is generally historically realistic.

Their tactics being « generally attacking in nature » is already handled by Impact Foot like… the Romans. Anarchy will be about obeying first of all, not attacking.

« Frankish or Gaul-ish armies » have already been « penalised » (as you put it) in game by the quality of their troops (few Superior troops, lots of Average ones) that already reflects their average training, advice, direction, etc. and, if you like, discipline. If you compare Gallic with Rome :

1) Rome 105-25 BC (medium Force) :
Elite Legionaries : 3 units
Superior Legionaries : 7
Average troops : 11
Raw troops : 3

2) Gallic
Superior Warband : 2
Average Warband : 23
Untrained troops : 2

Anarchy charge, as you depict it, risk increasing this difference and thus creating imbalances between armies :

Roman units are not exempted from indiscipline in the mod, but we have them started off in the "low" band while "raw" Roman troops will be in the "medium" band.

[travling_canuck]

However, I (for one, not for us) just think that 720 men of a warband unit have as many reasons to follow (or not) the orders of their dad, village chief, clan chief, tribal leader or patron than legionnaires to obey (or not) their hierarchical superior, even if these reasons are different. Or at least, that the differences shouldn't be huge.

I think you've identified the heart of the issue. The social structure and military structure of these societies differed greatly. Why the soldiers were fighting and what they were fighting for also varied greatly. But how much of a difference did it really make on the battlefield?

The Superior vs Average vs Raw distinctions are a great way to cover the huge breadth of societies and the differing motivations of the soldiers and distill it down to a single set of rules that covers a crazily long period of time.

From the perspective of being a commander of those armies, however, to me one army feels very much the same as another in FOG2. I may need to use my units differently depending on their makeup and the makeup of my opponent, but command-and-control feels identical.

So from purely a game variety perspective, I'd like to see some armies play differently than others in terms of how I, as the player, have to manage my troops.