Slitherine

desicat wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 11:46 pm 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.

OK, I have moved them to the "queries" group for now and we'll see if anyone else has a view. I don't really know too much about them myself.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:49 pm

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.

I prefer "impetuous charge" personally, or "spontaneous charge" as a second option. "Impetuous" has a bit more fun factor than "unauthorized", but without the connotations associated with "anarchy". "Charge" seems preferable to "advance" if this will only happen when units attempt to close with the enemy.

travling_canuck wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:32 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:49 pm

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

FOG1 called it "anarchy".

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

I prefer "impetuous charge" personally, or "spontaneous charge" as a second option. "Impetuous" has a bit more fun factor than "unauthorized", but without the connotations associated with "anarchy". "Charge" seems preferable to "advance" if this will only happen when units attempt to close with the enemy.

Unauthorized does have an odd, and too modern connotation
If the mod is going to incorporate troops not charging when you want, perhaps a catch all "refuses/defies orders" ( in Latin of course!)

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:59 pm

travling_canuck wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:32 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:49 pm

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

I prefer "impetuous charge" personally, or "spontaneous charge" as a second option. "Impetuous" has a bit more fun factor than "unauthorized", but without the connotations associated with "anarchy". "Charge" seems preferable to "advance" if this will only happen when units attempt to close with the enemy.

Unauthorized does have an odd, and too modern connotation
If the mod is going to incorporate troops not charging when you want, perhaps a catch all "refuses/defies orders" ( in Latin of course!)

Celtic may be better, because in Latin the catch all for "refuses/defies orders" would either be "Decimated" or "Crucified".

Pete I apologise if I have missed something but why have Lancers disappeared off the list of impetuous troop types?

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 10:50 am Pete I apologise if I have missed something but why have Lancers disappeared off the list of impetuous troop types?

It is difficult to hold this sort of discussion on an open forum where people come at a subject from all different directions. it would be easier if a much smaller group thrashed out a provisional position and then put that forward for consideration.

My thoughts are now that the simple FOG1 "formula" of shock troops = a greater propensity to "anarchy" is very crude. Were Roman legionaries just as likely to "anarchy" as Frankish warbands? I think the answer is no. Were mounted lancers more likely to "anarchy" than light spear/sword cavalry. I think it is doubtful myself. So what I did the other day was sit down for a few hours and work through all the army lists to provisionally identify troop types that might be put into a category called "most anarchy prone" and I came up with this list . . .

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?

So this is not a finished list by any means and there may be a number of errors in it. For example, I need to contact vakarr about the Thracians in due course (FOG2DL is keeping me busy at the moment). And then there are all those troop types below the dotted line which I don't know about at all.

I also need to talk to Schweetness101, who is designing the mod, about how our ideas around "anarchy" can make best use of the space there is available in the squads files to give some nuance to the idea of indiscipline in an army. My extremely provisional thoughts about this are that each troop type should have an entry in a squads file that indicates a propensity to "anarchy". The troops on the list above would have the highest rating, say 60 out of a possible 100, where 100 is the tipping point for an "anarchy" test in the game. You might then put all lancer and spear cavalry in the game at 40 along with some infantry types as well. Other infantry types might be at 20 and all missile types (mounted and foot) would be at 0. Something like that anyway.

Then there is the question of modifiers. That is why I also listed armies that I thought might have a greater likelihood of "anarchy". Again it is a provisional list . . .

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?

But once this is firmed up then maybe all units belonging to these armies should have, say, a +20 modifier for "anarchy". In that way you tie in "anarchy" with the military culture of a particular army.

Then, units that are out of command radius at the start of a turn might have a +20 modifier for "anarchy" too - this will be a key factor in the game. In the mod sub-generals are like allied generals now in that they only give command to the units in their contingent at the start of the battle.

Finally there could also be a +20 modifier for a unit adjacent to a friendly unit that has gone into "anarchy" in order to create situations where a greater part of a contingent becomes indisciplined.

These are the thoughts in my head at the moment about it all. Something along these lines anyway and it would need rigorous testing (before someone starts forensically dismantling it all before we have had time to do this). And probably the best way to do it, once we have got the basic anarchy sequencing working properly in the game, is to build it up layer by layer using just a very small test group of armies. What I am very clear about though is that we don't want the mod to become dominated by "anarchy". Good players should be able to prevent it most of the time, but the loss of leaders, particularly a sub-general and the C-in-C together, should then see it become a real issue, particularly if it is an anarchy prone army from my list that has suffered those leadership losses.

Perhaps the chance for a unit to anarchy charge should be tied to the Impact win %, or if the unit is taking casualties from missile fire?

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:44 pm Perhaps the chance for a unit to anarchy charge should be tied to the Impact win %, or if the unit is taking casualties from missile fire?

Yes, this could be the basis for another modifier, particularly if you are being shot at (and provided the game can track that sort of thing).

I don't know anything about the Zealots, but from my readings the rest should not be included in the Anarchy group.
-------------------------------------
Veteran Samnite foot? - Samnites were a tough foe for the Romans to finish off. Supposedly very disciplined, fighting both from mountain ambush and open field battles. No reason to add them to the list.
Samnite foot? - see above.
Spanish scutari? - The backbone of several Ancient armies, Iberian, Carthaginian, Mercenary, and Sertorian. A discipline and lethal group.
Zealots? - no idea
Lusitanian heavy caetrati? - Cut from the same cloth as the Scutarii. Very difficult foe for Rome, including Caesar, and one of the last areas of Iberia to be subjugated. Another group that fought from both ambush and set piece battles.

desicat wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:58 pm I don't know anything about the Zealots, but from my readings the rest should not be included in the Anarchy group.
-------------------------------------
Veteran Samnite foot? - Samnites were a tough foe for the Romans to finish off. Supposedly very disciplined, fighting both from mountain ambush and open field battles. No reason to add them to the list.
Samnite foot? - see above.
Spanish scutari? - The backbone of several Ancient armies, Iberian, Carthaginian, Mercenary, and Sertorian. A discipline and lethal group.
Zealots? - no idea
Lusitanian heavy caetrati? - Cut from the same cloth as the Scutarii. Very difficult foe for Rome, including Caesar, and one of the last areas of Iberia to be subjugated. Another group that fought from both ambush and set piece battles.

OK thanks very much for that. I'll leave it for 24 hours to see if anyone comments differently, but if not then they can come off that list.

Richard, any thoughts about the Jewish Zealots and their propensity to "anarchy" on the battlefield? I know nothing about them at all.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:50 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:44 pm Perhaps the chance for a unit to anarchy charge should be tied to the Impact win %, or if the unit is taking casualties from missile fire?

Yes, this could be the basis for another modifier, particularly if you are being shot at (and provided the game can track that sort of thing).

there is existing code for ai charges where their chance to charge, even at somewhat disadvantage, is greatly increased if they are within shooting range of the enemy and are not shooting troops themselves, so this would be a straightforward check fro me to include.

and an interesting related question from the flank angle mod thread is:

should pikes be exempt from the changes to flank attacks, ie should they still, like in vanilla, suffer 200 poa disparity and autodrop when 90 degree flanked?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:13 pm and an interesting related question from the flank angle mod thread is:

should pikes be exempt from the changes to flank attacks, ie should they still, like in vanilla, suffer 200 poa disparity and autodrop when 90 degree flanked?

I think we need to measure the difference between vanilla and the alternatives of no automatic cohesion drop with +100POA or no automatic cohesion drop with +200POA. I can start to do that tomorrow if you like. 50 sets will be enough. I will need a +200POA variation of the mod. If you can tell me what line to change then that is all I will need.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:27 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:13 pm and an interesting related question from the flank angle mod thread is:

should pikes be exempt from the changes to flank attacks, ie should they still, like in vanilla, suffer 200 poa disparity and autodrop when 90 degree flanked?

I think we need to measure the difference between vanilla and the alternatives of no automatic cohesion drop with +100POA or no automatic cohesion drop with +200POA. I can start to do that tomorrow if you like. 50 sets will be enough. I will need a +200POA variation of the mod. If you can tell me what line to change then that is all I will need.

+200 but no autodrop for all 90 degree flanks on occupied units for all unit matchups? If so, I think the only thing you need to change is

CloseCombatLogic.bsf -> ResolveCloseCombat() and scroll all the way down to line 326 about and you will see:

if ((flank_rear_severity == 1) && (IsInCloseCombat(enemy) == 1) || (GetAttrib(enemy, "Evaded") == 1))
{
//100 for flanks on occupied
mePOA = Max(100, mePOA);//CHANGE ME FROM 100 to 200
mePOA = Min(200, mePOA);
}
else
{
//original values
mePOA = Max(50, mePOA);
mePOA = Min(200, mePOA);
}

and on that line where I added the comment:
//CHANGE ME FROM 100 to 200
change it from
mePOA = Max(100, mePOA);
to
mePOA = Max(200, mePOA);

so the whole thing looks like:

if ((flank_rear_severity == 1) && (IsInCloseCombat(enemy) == 1) || (GetAttrib(enemy, "Evaded") == 1))
{
//100 for flanks on occupied
mePOA = Max(200, mePOA);
mePOA = Min(200, mePOA);
}
else
{
//original values
mePOA = Max(50, mePOA);
mePOA = Min(200, mePOA);
}

I think that will do it but I don't want to bother testing right now, working on the anarchy mod and making very nice progress. Now have anarchy charges on move attempts working. On that note, should it also test for anarchy if all you are doing is turning a unit without any movement?

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 5:17 pm
+200 but no autodrop for all 90 degree flanks on occupied units for all unit matchups?

I'll just test pikes as you think they might be worth an extra penalty.

I think that will do it but I don't want to bother testing right now, working on the anarchy mod and making very nice progress. Now have anarchy charges on move attempts working. On that note, should it also test for anarchy if all you are doing is turning a unit without any movement?

Probably, yes. It's OK, I will do some testing tomorrow.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:10 pm

desicat wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 1:58 pm I don't know anything about the Zealots, but from my readings the rest should not be included in the Anarchy group.
-------------------------------------
Veteran Samnite foot? - Samnites were a tough foe for the Romans to finish off. Supposedly very disciplined, fighting both from mountain ambush and open field battles. No reason to add them to the list.
Samnite foot? - see above.
Spanish scutari? - The backbone of several Ancient armies, Iberian, Carthaginian, Mercenary, and Sertorian. A discipline and lethal group.
Zealots? - no idea
Lusitanian heavy caetrati? - Cut from the same cloth as the Scutarii. Very difficult foe for Rome, including Caesar, and one of the last areas of Iberia to be subjugated. Another group that fought from both ambush and set piece battles.

OK thanks very much for that. I'll leave it for 24 hours to see if anyone comments differently, but if not then they can come off that list.

Richard, any thoughts about the Jewish Zealots and their propensity to "anarchy" on the battlefield? I know nothing about them at all.

As fanatics it would seem odd if they didn't.

They are almost certainly over-rated in the game. Perhaps an over-compensation for the old pre-DBM WRG army lists in which Jewish Revolt was legendary as the worst army of all.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 8:18 amAs fanatics it would seem odd if they didn't.

Well, I was wondering if the term "zealot" was more of a political category than a military one. They had assassins among them that attacked both Romans and Jewish collaborators with the Empire. I found this account of one battle they fought successfully against the Romans . . .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beth_Horon_(66)

I have actually got a DVD set in my collection called "Masada" with Peter O'Toole playing the Roman commander in Judea. He is a bit disparaging about the Zealots and just gives them one of his withering looks when he encounters them in the story!

They are almost certainly over-rated in the game. Perhaps an over-compensation for the old pre-DBM WRG army lists in which Jewish Revolt was legendary as the worst army of all.

So you think they should probably be "average, impact foot" in the earliest two Jewish lists and the Jewish Revolt list?

About anarchy charges, just a thought I had today :
Could it be possible to make apply anarchy charges to all « shock » type units (aka FOG1 anarchy prone units, including Roman legionaries) plus a few others (Falxmen, zealots, etc...), but in a « two way » system ?

Let me explain : currently, you guys are classifying the units in different categories depending on their propensity to « anarchy charge », some units are excluded entirely (as I understood it, Roman Legionaries, etc...) and some are prone to « anarchy » (warbands in particular) at all times. The commanders (C-in-C and sub generals) are very important to help the player diminish greatly the risk of anarchy charges and refused move orders.

I think that in order to make it more immersive and represent better the difficulty to lead an army during this era, the propensity to anarchy for different units should be present for ALL units if the command structure disappears.
So, for example :
Warbands (loose, close, any quality) : Medium anarchy charge risk within commander radius, higher if out of command radius
Roman Legionaries : No risk within commander radius, Medium if out of command radius
Offensive spear : depends on the unit
- A drilled Veteran hoplite unit : No risk within commander radius, medium if out of command radius
- Citizen undrilled hoplite : No risk/low risk within command radius, higher if out of command radius

So we could keep a list for « inside command radius » anarchy charges (the one that is being worked on) :
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
Zealots
And perhaps others

But make another, more extended list, for units out of command radius (or perhaps only when the CinC/sub general dies ?) : All FOG-1 anarchy prone troops (offensive Spears, all impact foot) + some others such as Falxmen or other heavy weapon troops

Anarchy charges can be an immersive feature but also very frustrating. By tying anarchy strictly to the command chain, it can make it realistic (ALL « shock » units are prone to anarchy when the commander dies or isn’t present, including all Offensive Spears, drilled or not, and even Pikemen or legionaries), but controlable by the player (if the commander is alive, then things have a high chance of staying under control). If things are more controlable by the player then it’ll be far less frustrating than in FOG1

FrenchDude wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:25 am I think that in order to make it more immersive and represent better the difficulty to lead an army during this era, the propensity to anarchy for different units should be present for ALL units if the command structure disappears.
. . .
So, for example :
Warbands (loose, close, any quality) : Medium anarchy charge risk within commander radius, higher if out of command radius
Roman Legionaries : No risk within commander radius, Medium if out of command radius
. . .
Anarchy charges can be an immersive feature but also very frustrating. By tying anarchy strictly to the command chain, it can make it realistic (ALL « shock » units are prone to anarchy when the commander dies or isn’t present, including all Offensive Spears, drilled or not, and even Pikemen or legionaries), but controlable by the player (if the commander is alive, then things have a high chance of staying under control). If things are more controlable by the player then it’ll be far less frustrating than in FOG1

Yes, I am thinking along these lines too. I think we need to establish who the most anarchy prone troop types in the game are first and get them to work properly through testing. And then we can broaden it out a bit from from there. I would go something like . . .

High anarchy - those on my list like warbands and beserkers etc

Medium anarchy - lance and spear cavalry, other shock infantry (except Romans and other armies with reputations for high discipline)

Low anarchy - light spear infantry, pikes, Romans

Very low anarchy - all missile types

If I was to give a value to those different categories of anarchy I might go 60-40-20-0 from high to very low. And then the modifiers would impact on these categories to take them towards the threshold for an anarchy test - the loss of command being one of the key ones, battlefield situation is another important one - and other things like adjacent units making unauthorised charges acting as a "trigger" for a wider anarchy on occasions, or particular armies having a propensity for anarchy from the outset (e.g. warband armies) so you tie in "anarchy" to military culture.

Very low anarchy missile troops would probably never "anarchy" at all, but a Frankish warband contingent that had lost command and control almost certainly would. Roman troops could still anarchy with a combination of loss of command, a poor battlefield situation and other units in their contingent going into "anarchy" triggering them, but this would be very rare occurrence.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:27 pm

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 4:13 pm and an interesting related question from the flank angle mod thread is:

should pikes be exempt from the changes to flank attacks, ie should they still, like in vanilla, suffer 200 poa disparity and autodrop when 90 degree flanked?

I think we need to measure the difference between vanilla and the alternatives of no automatic cohesion drop with +100POA or no automatic cohesion drop with +200POA. I can start to do that tomorrow if you like. 50 sets will be enough. I will need a +200POA variation of the mod. If you can tell me what line to change then that is all I will need.

I have done the testing for this today . . .

Vanilla
automatic cohesion drop and then +200POA
28 out of 50 no further cohesion drop
15 out of 50 further drop to fragmented
7 out of 50 double drop to routed

Alternative 1
no automatic cohesion drop and just +100POA
41 out of 50 no cohesion drop
7 out of 50 cohesion drop to disrupted
2 out of 50 double drop to fragmented

Alternative 2
no automatic cohesion drop and +200POA
29 out of 50 no cohesion drop
15 out of 50 cohesion drop to disrupted
6 out of 50 double drop to fragmented

I think Alternative 2 might be hitting the sweet spot here. In vanilla, nearly half the sample are either fragged or routed after just one impact phase from an attack from the side, while in Alternative 2 only about 1 in 8 are. 40% are disrupted though.