Slitherine

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 6:36 pm 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?

Maybe missile fire could be made more damaging if hitting the rear of a unit? It would have to be across the board though, wouldn't it? Not just for anarchy situations. What else?

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 6:55 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 6:16 pm 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?

It did when FOG1 was first released, but it was so awful that they changed it.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:01 pm 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.

Careful with (2) or you will be making some units test twice. It should only be units that have not moved at all, because the others will already have tested under (1).

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."

Move.BSF
Turn.BSF

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:01 pm 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...

I think you can build up the anarchy aspect in stages. Forget about breakthroughs and what have you at first. The first step is to identify those troop types that going to be subject to anarchy in 3 or 4 armies so that we can try them out. Just Gauls, Spanish, Romans and Carthaginians will do. And we can build it from there.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:09 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:01 pm 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.

Careful with (2) or you will be making some units test twice. It should only be units that have not moved at all, because the others will already have tested under (1).

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."

Move.BSF
Turn.BSF

ok thanks I'll take a look

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:50 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:24 pm 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.

Yes, I think this is a fair point. What are the arguments against this then? One is that the player has not actually refused to charge the unit. I can understand that argument, but does it override 76mm's main point? I am not sure it does. What other arguments are there against anarchy happening at the start of a turn?

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:02 pm Maybe missile fire could be made more damaging if hitting the rear of a unit? It would have to be across the board though, wouldn't it? Not just for anarchy situations.

I think missile fire from the rear doing more damage would be a welcome addition in general; from a physical (less armor) and morale (we're getting shot in the back!) perspective it would seem like it would be more damaging. The main downside I see to this would be an increase in what is probably an ahistorical use of light troops to slip behind enemy lines to shoot them in the back--not sure if this was really done?

As to your main point, I think that the best way to reduce gamey anti-anarchy moves would be to make it less annoying so that most players didn't feel the need to resort to gamey tricks to deal with it.

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:14 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:02 pm Maybe missile fire could be made more damaging if hitting the rear of a unit? It would have to be across the board though, wouldn't it? Not just for anarchy situations.

I think missile fire from the rear doing more damage would be a welcome addition in general; from a physical (less armor) and morale (we're getting shot in the back!) perspective it would seem like it would be worse. The main downside I see to this would be an increased potentially ahistorical use of light troops to slip behind enemy lines to shoot them in the back. Not sure if this was a "real" tactic?

Exactly. It wasn’t. Perhaps it might have been, if practicable, but it wasn’t. It would be easier to achieve in game than in real life, so we don’t want to do anything that would give an advantage for doing it.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:57 pm Yes, I think this is a fair point. What are the arguments against this then?

There must be something, because RBS says above that it was originally like that in FOG1 but was changed because it was horrible. I don't remember why at this point, seems like it would be better than troops charging in the middle or end of the turn, but I'm probably forgetting some major issue.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:17 pm Exactly. It wasn’t. Perhaps it might have been, if practicable, but it wasn’t. It would be easier to achieve in game than in real life, so we don’t want to do anything that would give an advantage for doing it.

Yes, it is very easy to imagine players maxing out on skirmishers and then camping their main line near the back edge so their skirmishers could plink away at the enemy from the rear as they approach. That wouldn't be a good outcome.

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:22 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:17 pm Exactly. It wasn’t. Perhaps it might have been, if practicable, but it wasn’t. It would be easier to achieve in game than in real life, so we don’t want to do anything that would give an advantage for doing it.

Yes, it is very easy to imagine players maxing out on skirmishers and then camping their main line near the back edge so their skirmishers could plink away at the enemy from the rear as they approach. That wouldn't be a good outcome.

yeah, agreed, that would probably be a bad change. Although just as a thought, perhaps the command radii and rally changes would make sending skirmisher unit that you probably don't want a general in all the way around the enemy army would be undesirable, but probably not enough to counterbalance the getting to shoot the enemies in the back

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:14 pm I think missile fire from the rear doing more damage would be a welcome addition in general; from a physical (less armor) and morale (we're getting shot in the back!) perspective it would seem like it would be worse. The main downside I see to this would be an increased potentially ahistorical use of light troops to slip behind enemy lines to shoot them in the back. Not sure if this was a "real" tactic?

I don't know. I think foot skirmishers tended to retreat through their own lines and then act as flank or rear guards in many armies But the light horse already get behind enemy lines and shoot and rear charge. They can be a real nuisance as it is now.

As to your main point, I think that the best way to reduce gamey anti-anarchy moves would be to make it less annoying so that most players didn't feel the need to resort to gamey tricks to deal with it.

Yes, I think we need a minimalist approach to anarchy. I have been reading those old discussions from FOG1 this evening and some of the battles sound like the Benny Hill show! So we should have it affecting specific armies that had lots of impetuous troop types, but even then it should be possible for good players to control the worst of it.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:26 pm

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:14 pm I think missile fire from the rear doing more damage would be a welcome addition in general; from a physical (less armor) and morale (we're getting shot in the back!) perspective it would seem like it would be worse. The main downside I see to this would be an increased potentially ahistorical use of light troops to slip behind enemy lines to shoot them in the back. Not sure if this was a "real" tactic?

I don't know. I think foot skirmishers tended to retreat through their own lines and then act as flank or rear guards in many armies But the light horse already get behind enemy lines and shoot and rear charge. They can be a real nuisance as it is now.

As to your main point, I think that the best way to reduce gamey anti-anarchy moves would be to make it less annoying so that most players didn't feel the need to resort to gamey tricks to deal with it.

Yes, I think we need a minimalist approach to anarchy. I have been reading those old discussions from FOG1 this evening and some of the battles sound like the Benny Hill show! So we should have it affecting specific armies that had lots of impetuous troop types, but even then it should be possible for good players to control the worst of it.

Just a few for flavor, not to spoil the overall game. Make them selective enough to allow folks who want to use them the opportunity, but to not make them so widespread as to limit the options of those who don't want them in their armies.

So maybe just start with Warbands and see how it goes? They are part of many armies, but a Thracian General could go without them and still field a good force, same goes for the Iberians and Carthaginians.

At the moment our thoughts about anarchy are based on the charge range of a unit. Cavalry can move 4 squares generally, infantry 2 squares and so they may anarchy from those distances. But what if it was half that distance? 2 squares for all cavalry types and 1 square for infantry (we would need to think about diagonals, maybe 1 square for everything). So anarchy would only happen when you could see the "whites of their eyes". Would that help or are their insurmountable problems with it? It would stop the about face and moon at your enemy malarkey at least.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:42 pm At the moment our thoughts about anarchy are based on the charge range of a unit. Cavalry can move 4 squares generally, infantry 2 squares and so they may anarchy from those distances. But what if it was half that distance? 2 squares for all cavalry types and 1 square for infantry (we would need to think about diagonals, maybe 1 square for everything). So anarchy would only happen when you could see the "whites of their eyes". Would that help or are their insurmountable problems with it? It would stop the about face and moon at your enemy malarkey at least.

Or for Warband infantry make it either 1 OR 3 - never 2. That would get rid of some gaminess and also have the possibility of an Anarchy charge being a potentially positive factor instead of always a negative? Sometimes good things did happen.....

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:00 am 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).

Mercenary elephants. Offer them a better batch of tree branches and they'll flip sides every time.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:05 pm

76mm wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 6:55 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 6:16 pm 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?

It did when FOG1 was first released, but it was so awful that they changed it.

So I took a stroll down memory lane and went thru 30 of the 50 pages of forum posts of Fog 1 and never found a transition or discussion of the new vs old anarchy rules... then I realized that the tech help forum had 50 pages itself and many of the threads within weren’t bug reports at all but normal discussion! Then I stumbled upon a post of my own bemoaning the fact apparently there was a server glitch and a lot of forum posts had been deleted forever. That being said anarchy and break offs were certainly 2 big ticket topics.

The original anarchy rules typed out by Keith Martin, the developer, were that at the start of your turn the program would secretly roll if your shock troops passed or failed the cmt for anarchy. The very act of selecting the said unit would trigger the anarchy charge had it been failed. Otherwise if you never selected a unit it would charge via anarchy when you hit end turn.

Interestingly enough it seemed more people liked the original way than the newer version( tt players seemed to be the primary supporters of the newer). One thing noted was quite a few players felt that somehow a bug was introduced as the # of failed cmt tests seemed to reach as high as 20 % or more! Anyway, whether it was a bug, a new undocumented feature or just subjectiveness I doubt we”ll ever know!

I could not find the thread I recall about players having their battle lines of heavy foot facing away from the enemy, although it was noted as a tactic in one player thread. I suspect people did it for a short time as there was a two fold bug where enemy troops could shoot thru your own light foot screen and also your own troops could anarchy thru your own lights , a double whammy I guess which forced players into such a goofy tactic.

My only other takeaway, whatever happened to Paisley?!

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:06 am My only other takeaway, whatever happened to Paisley?!

Yes, I had the same question, and the same about Deeter? Miss them from the old days!

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:42 pm But what if it was half that distance? 2 squares for all cavalry types and 1 square for infantry (we would need to think about diagonals, maybe 1 square for everything). So anarchy would only happen when you could see the "whites of their eyes". Would that help or are their insurmountable problems with it? It would stop the about face and moon at your enemy malarkey at least.

Hmmm, interesting question... One issue is whether anarchy charges would really have much of an effect at all at that point? I think you would at least need to retain the old FOG1 rules about medium foot not anarchy charging out of rough terrain, etc. If you keep those, it seems like it would only make a "one turn difference" in most cases--if you didn't plan to charge the enemy that turn, then he probably planned on charging you the next.

I guess one of the main effects would be to reduce the effectiveness of using lancers as defenders by ZOC locking enemy troops...is that a good thing? After reading some of my comments in the FOG1 thread, I remain rather dubious that lancers--orders or not--would charge into the pointy end of a phalanx or hoplite formation, as was a frequent occurrence (at least for me!) in FOG1. Just thinking out loud here...maybe lancers should only anarchy charge against other cavalry?

Other than regarding lancers, a one hex range does seem a bit more "realistic" to me...instead of anarchy charging across a wide distance that would open a hole in the line, troops might charge the last few meters without orders in their eagerness to start beating the hell out of the enemy, even if it wasn't necessarily the greatest idea.

What do you others think?

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:06 am I could not find the thread I recall about players having their battle lines of heavy foot facing away from the enemy, although it was noted as a tactic in one player thread.

Amazing that you remember specific threads from ten years ago.

Meanwhile, I could barely remember the general topic at all!