Slitherine

repost

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:59 pm 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.

hmmmmm I do like this line of reasoning. It would help with some of the weird games with the grid and ZoC you can play by moving offensive units right up to the enemy and and angling them in just the right way to cause flank threats or whatever. It also kind of makes sense.

Maybe offensive spearmen would be like medium tier likely to anarchy charge, and only on to open terrain, and only against other non-light infantry?

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:57 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:54 pm 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".

A poor choice of terminology in my opinion, but I wasn't consulted.

76mm wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:38 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 1:59 pm 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.

while modding the changes to pursuit chances to charge I saw some code that does a combat margin comparison between a given unit and an enemy that it could hypothetically charge. I could use that sort of thing to compare the odds of a unit liable to anarchy winning a battle with an enemy it anarchy charges, with the odds of winning if it stayed in place and was charged by that same unit, and if that latter is too much better than the former it chooses not to anarchy charge. IE have some degree of impetuosity at play, even if it puts you at some disadvantage sometimes, but not so much that steady hoplites on a hill will anarchy charge down into a large stream to attack medium foot or anything like that.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:35 pm 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.

Yes, I agree about pikes and I think most offensive spears would not be particularly anarchy prone either. I have been reading about hoplites this afternoon and Brian Todd Carey describes their phalanxes as "defensive". When attacking it was similar to push of pike. Also shield wall are described as offensive spear in many of the lists (defensive spear in a few) but I don't regard them as anarchy-prone either. I am also doubtful that lancer cavalry was generally more volatile than light spear cavalry. I think heavy and scythed chariots should be taken out as well, but light spear light chariots (Ancient British, Caledonians, Gauls et al) should definitely go in as those whole armies are fiercely aggressive, as are Dacians and Thracians and any other warband type. I also think Romans should be taken off the anarchy prone list too.

I have been going through the army lists this afternoon and have got these troop types as definitely anarchy prone at the moment (I may be wrong about some of them) - light chariots with spear, all types of warbands, beserkers, falxmen, Thracians with Rhomphaia and Thracian spearmen. In my query list I have Spanish Scutari, Imitation Legionaries, Zealots, Samnite Foot, Well-armed Slaves, Lusitanian Heavy Caetrati, Scots-Irish Foot and Irish Foot.

More and more I am thinking that an army's command structure is key here. A good player, with commanders intact, should be able to control anarchy for the most part in even the most anarchy prone armies (like Dacians or Thracians). But if the command structure is damaged then problems should begin in these sort of armies. With units being allocated to specific generals at the start and not being transferable, the loss of a commander could be very costly. Either the C-in-C has to go and command that contingent or the chance of anarchy there should increase considerably. If both the sub-commander and then the C-in-C are killed that ends command and control for both the contingent and the reserve for the rest of the game. And maybe, in time, we can come up with a simple mechanism whereby a unit that does misbehave can then trigger anarchy to other units in its contingent (even if they normally would not be subject to anarchy themselves). In that way it would be possible for any unit in the game to anarchy in certain situations.

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.

If you haven't got sick of me by now I'll give it a whirl.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:49 pm A poor choice of terminology in my opinion, but I wasn't consulted.

What would you prefer?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:58 pm while modding the changes to pursuit chances to charge I saw some code that does a combat margin comparison between a given unit and an enemy that it could hypothetically charge. I could use that sort of thing to compare the odds of a unit liable to anarchy winning a battle with an enemy it anarchy charges...

Interesting find...I think that removing suicide charges would make the whole concept more palatable.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 4:28 pm More and more I am thinking that an army's command structure is key here. A good player, with commanders intact, should be able to control anarchy for the most part in even the most anarchy prone armies (like Dacians or Thracians). But if the command structure is damaged then problems should begin in these sort of armies. With units being allocated to specific generals at the start and not being transferable, the loss of a commander could be very costly.

While I don't disagree with your logic, it seems like this would make the whole anarchy issue rather moot, since generally commander losses don't occur until both sides are joined in battle anyway...

76mm wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 4:49 pm While I don't disagree with your logic, it seems like this would make the whole anarchy issue rather moot, since generally commander losses don't occur until both sides are joined in battle anyway...

But isn't that when you would want any anarchy effects to start taking effect?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:35 pm 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.

I not sure RBS gave any suggestions on what troops should or should not anarchy, he appears to have suggested to not ADD any new ones from the TT/FOG1 types and then weed out ones as needed...

It appears the interest here is to leaning towards the concept of a more literal definition of "anarchy" which I suppose is being imagined as individual soldiers getting too excited and charging despite their unit officers, NCO's, chieftains etc trying to curb it, and thus pulling the entire unit into the fray?.. If that is what the the person(s) actually making the mod prefer then have at it! I'm sure this could happen to any troop type but likely is not something thats quantifiable..

I would not be too interested if that is the case, as in the end it will be warbands knights and maybe lancers will be treated in this matter, whether its for "flavour" or stereotypical notions or whatever. BTW this is not addressed at anyone in particular even though I am quoting and hopefully no one takes offense. If the mod goes the direction that anarchy is "sub commanders/a general attacking without orders" then we MUST accept that the game engine likley will only support individual units rushing off with all the inherent abstractions therein... I prefer the latter ( or nothing at all) despite the issues.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 5:51 pm But isn't that when you would want any anarchy effects to start taking effect?

No, because if units are already locked in melee, there is no scope for "anarchying"--they are already in melee and can't move, orders or not. The whole point of anarchy effects is that they take effect as units approach each other, but before initiating combat.

I'm hoping for Anarchy as a "side dish", where people can pick to partake if they wish as opposed to a "spice" that flavors the "entire meal".

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 6:36 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:35 pm 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.

I not sure RBS gave any suggestions on what troops should or should not anarchy, he appears to have suggested to not ADD any new ones from the TT/FOG1 types and then weed out ones as needed...

It appears the interest here is to leaning towards the concept of a more literal definition of "anarchy" which I suppose is being imagined as individual soldiers getting too excited and charging despite their unit officers, NCO's, chieftains etc trying to curb it, and thus pulling the entire unit into the fray?.. If that is what the the person(s) actually making the mod prefer then have at it! I'm sure this could happen to any troop type but likely is not something thats quantifiable..

I would not be too interested if that is the case, as in the end it will be warbands knights and maybe lancers will be treated in this matter, whether its for "flavour" or stereotypical notions or whatever. BTW this is not addressed at anyone in particular even though I am quoting and hopefully no one takes offense. If the mod goes the direction that anarchy is "sub commanders/a general attacking without orders" then we MUST accept that the game engine likley will only support individual units rushing off with all the inherent abstractions therein... I prefer the latter ( or nothing at all) despite the issues.

Ok, that doesn't realy contradict what I said though? Where are we disagreeing? I said that "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," which seemed like what RBS said here

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:03 am 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.

but maybe you find those to be too different of suggestions? Anyway, as per the rest of your comment perhaps we should think about:

Troops who charge without orders because they are impetuous and arrogant (elite cavalry and other highly superior nobles)
Troops who charge without orders because they are barbaric and ill disciplined (warriors and warband)
Troops who charge without orders because they are low quality and difficult to control (mobs, undrilled and raw units)
Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances throwing them into disarray, like the death of a general
Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances providing them with overwhelming advantage that they cannot give up (like superior offensive spears on a hill with irregular foot looking up at them, just waiting to get crushed)

If it is tied to sub commanders, it would actually not be that hard to, in the event a Sub General goes off the reservation and fails some test, force all of his units, or all of his units of a certain type or types, that are within charge range of an enemy to perform that charge if it is valid.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 7:22 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 6:36 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:35 pm 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.

I not sure RBS gave any suggestions on what troops should or should not anarchy, he appears to have suggested to not ADD any new ones from the TT/FOG1 types and then weed out ones as needed...

It appears the interest here is to leaning towards the concept of a more literal definition of "anarchy" which I suppose is being imagined as individual soldiers getting too excited and charging despite their unit officers, NCO's, chieftains etc trying to curb it, and thus pulling the entire unit into the fray?.. If that is what the the person(s) actually making the mod prefer then have at it! I'm sure this could happen to any troop type but likely is not something thats quantifiable..

I would not be too interested if that is the case, as in the end it will be warbands knights and maybe lancers will be treated in this matter, whether its for "flavour" or stereotypical notions or whatever. BTW this is not addressed at anyone in particular even though I am quoting and hopefully no one takes offense. If the mod goes the direction that anarchy is "sub commanders/a general attacking without orders" then we MUST accept that the game engine likley will only support individual units rushing off with all the inherent abstractions therein... I prefer the latter ( or nothing at all) despite the issues.

Ok, that doesn't realy contradict what I said though? Where are we disagreeing? I said that "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," which seemed like what RBS said here

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 8:03 am 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.

but maybe you find those to be too different of suggestions? Anyway, as per the rest of your comment perhaps we should think about:

Troops who charge without orders because they are impetuous and arrogant (elite cavalry and other highly superior nobles)
Troops who charge without orders because they are barbaric and ill disciplined (warriors and warband)
Troops who charge without orders because they are low quality and difficult to control (mobs, undrilled and raw units)
Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances throwing them into disarray, like the death of a general
Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances providing them with overwhelming advantage that they cannot give up (like superior offensive spears on a hill with irregular foot looking up at them, just waiting to get crushed)

If it is tied to sub commanders, it would actually not be that hard to, in the event a Sub General goes off the reservation and fails some test, force all of his units, or all of his units of a certain type or types, that are within charge range of an enemy to perform that charge if it is valid.

I will say this, your 5 categories are not without logic. However the logic is possibly based on a modern person thinking about what might be true. Where is the historical testimony? Even more problematic is how are you going to figure this out on a troop by troop, nation per nation basis? Here are some deflections: 1) Most certainly Alexanders companions were high ranking and arrogant but they would have followed Alexanders orders to the hilt as they attached their careers and lives to his rising star. 2) The Persians were considered barbaric by the greeks, should they be included in that tier? What about the later German Goths etc, many of whom had served AS and under Roman Generals. Do they revert to their "barbaric" ways when fighting against Rome and why?
3) Drill.... I have given examples of hoplite contigents apparently (whom are drilled) defying the CnC, and the swiss most certainly ( I bring it up as they are pikes and swiss pikes will come into play when we get to late medieval) CHOSE almost every battle whether or not to fought regardless of what their employer wanted them to do. They were barbaric relative to the rest of Europe but highly drilled...
4) and 5) Interesting and possibly a mod in its own right! Of course players that want to "defend a hill" wont like it, and sneaky players might send low odds units to deek units away from their position ( never enough rules to stop the snealy players)

Anyhow its good news that it possibly can be modded more on a "command based level". I dont know if this is the right thread to go down that path and dont want to gunk up this thread with my own opinions any more.. Cheers man!

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 7:22 pm Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances providing them with overwhelming advantage that they cannot give up (like superior offensive spears on a hill with irregular foot looking up at them, just waiting to get crushed)

Don't like this one, because it is very situational--is it one irregular foot unit, or are there others off to the side that will flank the attacker within a turn or two? "Acting without orders" should not mean the same thing as "stupid". In other words, we've seen a couple of instances where Roman officers took the initiative to successfully take advantage of a favorable opportunity without orders--but that doesn't mean that they would seek to unsuccessfully take advantage of an unfavorable opportunity, as would happen over and over and over with this rule.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 4:28 pm I have been going through the army lists this afternoon and have got these troop types as definitely anarchy prone at the moment (I may be wrong about some of them) - light chariots with spear, all types of warbands, beserkers, falxmen, Thracians with Rhomphaia and Thracian spearmen. In my query list I have Spanish Scutari, Imitation Legionaries, Zealots, Samnite Foot, Well-armed Slaves, Lusitanian Heavy Caetrati, Scots-Irish Foot and Irish Foot.

I have finished going through the army lists now. I think the following troop types have a good shout for being a bit more anarchy prone than average . . .

Light chariots with light spear
Warbands of any description
Beserkers
Falxmen
Thracians with romphaia
Thracian spearmen
Picked Irish foot
Irish foot
Picked Scots-Irish foot
Scots-Irish foot
Well-armed slaves
Poorly-armed slaves
---------------------------------
Veteran Samnite foot?
Samnite foot?
Spanish scutari?
Zealots?
Lusitanian heavy caetrati?

And then these armies might have a higher collective anarchy rating than average . . .

Ancient British
Caledonian
3x Dacian lists
2x early Frankish lists
2x Galatian lists
3x Gallic lists
2x Germanic Foot Tribes lists
Irish
Pictish
Early Scots-Irish
Slave Revolt
4x Early Spanish lists
9x Thracian lists
Early Visigoth
---------------------------------
2x early Jewish lists?
Jewish Revolt?
Samnite?

I am not sure about the Samnites or the Zealots in the various Jewish lists. One anomaly is that the Germanic Horse Tribes are not included at the moment.

76mm wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 8:45 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 7:22 pm Troops who charge without orders due to circumstances providing them with overwhelming advantage that they cannot give up (like superior offensive spears on a hill with irregular foot looking up at them, just waiting to get crushed)

Don't like this one, because it is very situational--is it one irregular foot unit, or are there others off to the side that will flank the attacker within a turn or two? "Acting without orders" should not mean the same thing as "stupid". In other words, we've seen a couple of instances where Roman officers took the initiative to successfully take advantage of a favorable opportunity without orders--but that doesn't mean that they would seek to unsuccessfully take advantage of an unfavorable opportunity, as would happen over and over and over with this rule.

this is a good point, but there is a way to check for flank threat in the code and not charge if there is one, although that would only be avoiding threats from 1 turn ahead. I'm not recommending that list of reasons to charge without orders, just presenting it as a point for discussion. We should just ask ourselves which of those reasons is the reason(s) we want to simulate with anarchy charges, and that in turn would help us pick the unit types

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 8:45 pm I have finished going through the army lists now. I think the following troop types have a good shout for being a bit more anarchy prone than average . . .

Good list, Lusitanian heavy caetrati but not scutarii?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 9:32 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 8:45 pm I have finished going through the army lists now. I think the following troop types have a good shout for being a bit more anarchy prone than average . . .

Good list, Lusitanian heavy caetrati but not scutarii?

Actually I think the Scutarii are fine as they were the reliable solid backbone of several armies. I think the Heavy Caetrati should join them and NOT be on the Anarchy list.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 9:32 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 8:45 pm I have finished going through the army lists now. I think the following troop types have a good shout for being a bit more anarchy prone than average . . .

Good list, Lusitanian heavy caetrati but not scutarii?

Yes, I have missed them off by mistake. They are on my list on my writing pad. I will add them now.