Refuse Orders in Anarchy Mod

[Schweetness101]

Once engaged all bets are off, but I am not sure there is scripting for that - but it would be very realistic. Rampage after breaking would be wonderful, but not easy to execute.

would be a cool mod idea to put on the backburner (currently their greater ct check radius on routing is meant to account for this, but it would be neat to see them randomly charge whatever unit, enemy or not, on rampaging)

I think Pict Spearmen and some Levy's and Mobs have 4 rows as well.

are those impact foot?

[stockwellpete]

I am in the RBS camp that Elephants are a very "controlled" unit. Controlled vs disciplined, because they are not humans. I am not aware of Commanders losing control of Elephants prior to combat, plenty of reports of elephants rampaging after they were engaged though.

I think they should be in the low category.

Once engaged all bets are off, but I am not sure there is scripting for that - but it would be very realistic. Rampage after breaking would be wonderful, but not easy to execute.

OK thanks. I will change it. I remember Richard saying that now.

[TheGrayMouser]

this mod would be unlikely to affect that tactic because units held in reserve tend to be outside of charge range of the enemy and thus not subject to anarchy

I was just stating that I already like Warband units, and I am looking forward to seeing how they interact with the Anarchy Mod. I think the extra uniqueness will be great, either for or against.

cool, perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss warband and/or warband in the context of this mod. What if warband were changed to:

1) have very high anarchy, such that defending with them was not that realistic
2) have a higher deep impact poa (maybe try +25, instead of current +10 which doesn't really seem enough to matter)
3) have some even greater impact poa when anarchy charging specifically? that might not be called for with number 2 above, but could be an interesting way to balance anarchy

so they are an army that can smash through opponents in a massive initial, chaotic charge if it succeeds, but are very vulnerable if it doesn't. Could also add some command and control differences.

I think my post at the end of page 2 got lost in flurry of posts right after, but is what I proposed even doable? I think it could generate interest as it allows player to mitigate anarchy as it represented /proposed in this thread but you can’t just switch off and on rapid changes in maneuvering or defending ( again assuming it is even possible to code). So in theory having a plan will mitigate anarchy , trying to to play on the fly increases it.

[Schweetness101]

Not sure if this is within the bounds of possibility to mod, but is there any way on could assign an attribute to a general that could be toggled on a per turn basis. What I’m getting at is a command “stance” for a general and troops in his command and in command range.
At the start of the turn one could change the generals stance, which would apply the next turn.
This would be used in conjunction with the anarchy rules.

So perhaps 3 simple stances: defend, advance, assault.

Defend would allow shooting, changing face. It could also invoke a 1 grid command movement forward (ie group movement ). No charging allowed. Chances to anarchy would to zero except if triggered by missle fire.

Advance: units can shoot and move up to 66.7 of their ap’s. They can charge. Anarchy chance moderate/low.

Assault: full move Ap’s, charge and shoot anarchy chance would be high.
( to prevent players alway using this as a default perhaps have a minimum 1 grid movement for units and if they don’t then very high anarchy toward closest enemy, even if outside charge range)

So the only other things would be what about units out of command, and what about generals killed or in cc....

To keep it simple units out of command highest chance to anarchy/ refuse to charge.

Death of a general: default orders next turn to assault.

General in cc. : can change stance but two turn delay.

Again in case not clear this would be used in conjunction with the anarchy rules as per this thread. It likely would not be something that could be activated for the Ai.

sorry I had meant to read this one but got caught up in all the other posts. It would be an interesting mod, but an absolutely enormous amount of work with lots of UI changes as well that I don't really know anything about.

[Athos1660]

Not sure what stereotypes have to do with it. I don't think warbands preferred the boars head or other full on charge tactics as a stereotype only, but also in reality. At least the 'Warband' unit in game is a charge/impact oriented unit certainly. Anarchy would just be a continuation in that same direction.

Maybe the vanilla game is wrong to fill out Gallic armies with 'warbands,' and in reality charging armored swordsmen were a small elite of Gallic tribes, and really most of their armies should be defensive spearmen and slingers. Could be. But, vanilla has them as all charge/impact oriented warbands, and so if it is a stereotype to say that Gallic armies consisted primarily of charging impact foot, then Vanilla FOG2 is also indulging in the stereotype.

Vanilla FoG2 gets it right. With Impact foot, it describes a positive tactic/capability that warbands, Romans, French Renaissance troops, etc actually used, not a negative undocumented bias.

If you give any troop with Impact foot the same Anarchy rate, then as you put it : "Anarchy would just be a continuation in that same direction ».

But if you make exemptions for some « nations » such as Rome, then you'll create a bias that can not documented enough in the case of Ancient times.

Beside that historical issue, there is an issue related to the Gameplay I've already mentioned several times (the troop quality).

However It is just a mod. I am not the warbands’ advocate. I don't care.
But once upon a time I just wanted to raise that issues to improve your mod.
Now "tant pis..." (see below)

Do you have some specific gameplay or stat change you would like to see included with the anarchy charge mod? Some specific chance to anarchy charge?

Nothing new :
- Non-light cav refusal to charge infantry etc. (see the other thread)
- Any Impact foot should have the same chance of anarchy charge, whatever its 'nation'. Likewise for any unit from a given troop type.

You don't want to understand that ? Tant pis.

Tant pis (pronounced ta(n) pee), is an everyday French idiomatic expression that literally means "so much worse." The phrase is often used as an exclamation that ranges from the mild "oh well" to the rude "tough," depending on how you articulate it in conversation.

Ok...whatever.

Also, from the same kind of webpage :

"Tant pis" can express a disappointed resignation (…) But most commonly, you'll see it said with a casual shrug and a smile to mean 'oh well' or never mind'.

Examples :
1) Il n'y a plus de lait. Tant pis, je boirai mon café noir!
There is no more milk. Oh well! I'll drink my coffee black.

2) Si ça ne t'intéresse pas, tant pis pour toi, je le proposerai à quelqu'un d'autre.
If it doesn't interest you, too bad for you, I'll suggest it to someone else.

PS : guys, please stop extracting only one single word from my posts (such as "99%" or "stereotype") and focusing on it, while overlooking all my arguments.

[Schweetness101]

Do you have some specific gameplay or stat change you would like to see included with the anarchy charge mod? Some specific chance to anarchy charge?

Nothing new :
- Non-light cav refusal to charge infantry etc. (see the other thread)
- Any Impact foot should have the same chance of anarchy charge, whatever its 'nation'. Likewise for any unit from a given troop type.

-I've put in the first one just for mounted vs spear and pike non-light infantry, but I might expand it to all non light infantry, and I might change it to only being for frontal charges (chance to refuse is already reduced for flank/rear attacks, and no one will refuse a charge if it would get an autodrop)
-no accounting for quality? And you see no difference in historical anarchy likelihood between warbands and legions of a given in-game quality? What do you think of balancing the increased anarchy of warbands with improved deep impact foot poa and/or extra impact poa for anarchy charges?

[76mm]

with a skirmisher screen you can help prevent warbands from anarchy charging

Yeah, but I'm not sure how much this will help, since many warband-heavy armies don't have many skirmishers available.

[76mm]

you could use a skirmisher screen, and they will only anarchy attack enemies in charge range, so the enemy would have to walk right up to your defensive position anyway.

But again, many warband-heavy armies have few skirmishers, and at any rate once the lines are so close together often the skirmishers will have cleared out. And even when the enemy has walked "right up to" your line, an anarchy charge could easily make a two-turn difference in how soon your troops engage, which can make a huge difference when you are planning to beat up on the enemy with your other wing, your cavalry, etc. before your warbands engage--now your warband-wing might well collapse before your other wing has a chance to do its thing.

Maybe I'm just a terrible player, but I'm not convinced that this behavior won't have a significant effect on play.

[Athos1660]

- Any Impact foot should have the same chance of anarchy charge, whatever its 'nation'. Likewise for any unit from a given troop type.

-no accounting for quality? And you see no difference in historical anarchy likelihood between warbands and legions of a given in-game quality?

If I understand it correctly, Vanilla FoG2 already takes into account discipline, training, etc. via Troop Qualities in the Army lists :

a) 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

Of course quality would matter in Anarchy charges (and thus… ’nations’ would via Army list). For example, if :
- any Superior Impact Foot = low Anarchy
- any Average Impact foot = medium Anarchy
- any Raw/Untrained Impact troops = high Anarchy

with the Army lists above, you would have...

1) for Rome :
Low Anarchy : 10 units
Medium Anarchy : 11 units
High Anarchy : 3

2) for Gallic :
Low Anarchy : 2 units
Medium Anarchy : 23 units
High Anarchy : 2

But it could also be :
- any Superior Impact Foot = medium Anarchy
- any Average/Raw/Untrained Impact troops = high Anarchy

so you would have...

1) for Rome :
Medium Anarchy : 10 units
High Anarchy : 14

2) for Gallic :
Medium Anarchy : 2 units
High Anarchy : 25

With these two solutions, Gallic still stupid monkeys compared to the Romans, aren't they ?
(but Galatians smart)

What do you think of balancing the increased anarchy of warbands with improved deep impact foot poa and/or extra impact poa for anarchy charges?

Already in game (+10). It could be tweaked later (+15, 20 ?).

[Athos1660]

- Any Impact foot should have the same chance of anarchy charge, whatever its 'nation'. Likewise for any unit from a given troop type.

-no accounting for quality? And you see no difference in historical anarchy likelihood between warbands and legions of a given in-game quality?

btw as a first version of the mod, testing "no accounting for quality" ie the same anarchy for any Impact foot whatever its quality, etc. would be interesting... Often the simpler, the better.

[Schweetness101]

Maybe I'm just a terrible player, but I'm not convinced that this behavior won't have a significant effect on play.

that's the idea, with anarchy you probably wouldn't line up high anarchy units to passively sit there and defend half the map for most of the game. The army simply wouldn't work that way, and to compensate we're thinking about those other changes that have been discussed to deep impact foot.

[Schweetness101]

What do you think of balancing the increased anarchy of warbands with improved deep impact foot poa and/or extra impact poa for anarchy charges?

Already in game (+10). It could be tweaked later (+15, 20 ?).

yeah I know dude, that is literally what we are discussing. If I didn't know it was already in the game, why would I have referred to it by its in game name of 'deep impact foot'?

[stockwellpete]

But if you make exemptions for some « nations » such as Rome, then you'll create a bias that can not documented enough in the case of Ancient times.

. . .

PS : guys, please stop extracting only one single word from my posts (such as "99%" or "stereotype") and focusing on it, while overlooking all my arguments.

But we haven't made any exemptions for some nations, such as Rome.

Stop misrepresenting what we are trying to do then and you might find everyone gets along a bit better.

[Athos1660]

But if you make exemptions for some « nations » such as Rome, then you'll create a bias that can not documented enough in the case of Ancient times.

. . .

PS : guys, please stop extracting only one single word from my posts (such as "99%" or "stereotype") and focusing on it, while overlooking all my arguments.

But we haven't made any exemptions for some nations, such as Rome.

Stop misrepresenting what we are trying to do then and you might find everyone gets along a bit better.

It is amazing how it is impossible to share, exchange and discuss ideas with you as soon as one doesn't fully agree with you !
Always focusing on one word (this time "exemptions", a word you used so many times for this mod) to create false controversy and belittle, instead of speaking of the content of my suggestions.
I just can't understand that. It"s a hobby, a game.
However I wasted enough time.
Good luck with your mod.

[stockwellpete]

It is amazing how it is impossible to share, exchange and discuss ideas with you as soon as one doesn't fully agree with you !
Always focusing on one word (this time "exemptions", a word you used so many times for this mod) to create false controversy, instead of speaking of the content of my suggestions.
I just can't understand that. It"s a hobby, a game.
However I wasted enough time.
Good luck with your mod.

That's the funny thing about language - words (and repetition of the same words) actually mean specific things.

[Athos1660]

It is amazing how it is impossible to share, exchange and discuss ideas with you as soon as one doesn't fully agree with you !
Always focusing on one word (this time "exemptions", a word you used so many times for this mod) to create false controversy, instead of speaking of the content of my suggestions.
I just can't understand that. It"s a hobby, a game.
However I wasted enough time.
Good luck with your mod.

That's the funny thing about language - words (and repetition of the same words) actually mean specific things.

No, that's just cheap controversial rhetoric to avoid talking about the content.
PS : it is not because I disagree with you on a subject that I am against you. Don't take it personally. I like you.

[Schweetness101]

if there's not extra info to add to the refuse orders algorithm I think we can safely wrap this thread up.

*the numbers below are just made up, the important point is the categories, the numbers can be easily altered.

currently there is charge refuse chance if
1) you are light and the enemy is not (25%)
2) you are light foot and the enemy is non disordered light cav (25%)
3) you are at significant combat disadvantage (25%)
4) you are mounted and the enemy are non fragmented pikes or spears (25%)
5) you are disrupted (25%), and if the target is also steady while you are disrupted you get an additional 10%, for 35% total chance to refuse

currently it's automatically return 0 chance to refuse orders, regardless of above, if:
1) enemy is fragmented or worse
2) charge refuse chance reduced by 10% if it is a flank or rear attack (of any kind), and reduced to 0 if the attack would result in an autodrop flank
3) charger is light foot and enemy is severely disordered