Impetuosity Check

[General Shapur]

Would there be any merit in an impetuosity type check.?

The idea being your units failing that check would charge without orders (perhaps not against light or cav units).

This may be an uncommon event triggered at a 2 square range. It could thus negate a lot of the drama about terrain advantage and add character to some hot head bloodthirsty units.

If a few units charge the owning player may feel it better to go all in rather than stay on a hilltop for example.

[rbodleyscott]

This is a marmite thing. It was in FOG1 and some people liked it and some people hated it.

While it is realistic for this sort of thing to happen occasionally, it isn't realistic for it to happen too often.

Taking your example of troops on a hilltop, that would essentially make it impossible for an army ever to effectively defend a hill top. Part of the Saxon fyrd did come off Senlac hill, but not until they thought the Normans were fleeing.

Anyway, on balance we decided to leave the mechanism out of FOG2. We have to strike a balance between realism and player preferences. Some players already struggle with accepting the existing pursuit rules without making things even more unpredictable. And as I say, it is easy to over-represent aspects of troop behaviour and end up achieving neither realism nor what the majority of players want.

[MVP7]

Personally I would like to see a bit more unpredictable behaviors in the game. Impetuous charge could be an attribute reserved for few select units like Zealots, French knights and other fitting units.

[MikeC_81]

I didn't know what marmite was so I googled it.....that was definitely a mistake.

British cuisine leaves much to be desired

[stockwellpete]

I didn't know what marmite was so I googled it.....that was definitely a mistake.

British cuisine leaves much to be desired

Marmite is lovely and it is a by-product of beer-making. Beans on marmite toast. Beautiful!

[cromlechi]

Personally I would like to see a bit more unpredictable behaviors in the game. Impetuous charge could be an attribute reserved for few select units like Zealots, French knights and other fitting units.

I'd agree with this, could add a bit of spice to some select units which have particularly high impact strength. I loved this part of FoG 1. Seeing Gallic heavy foot break rank. Could a rule that it only happens on the flat and open ground overcome the defending problem.

[General Shapur]

Always enjoyed that bit in Gods and Generals where some of the Virginians got their dander up and charged - they pulled the rest of the line with them. I kind of imagine this happened a lot when you are talking about hand to hand melee, the blood lust has to be up to fever pitch just to be there. And of course - Pullo might be in the ranks of your smart legions.

[Rodia]

I too miss that aspect from FoG 1, to be honest. It made me shout "@#$%&!" so many times (but in a good sense).

But I think that the chance was too high. If I recall correctly it happened on every battle so you could always count on it.

[AlexDetrojan]

This is a marmite thing. It was in FOG1 and some people liked it and some people hated it.

While it is realistic for this sort of thing to happen occasionally, it isn't realistic for it to happen too often.

Taking your example of troops on a hilltop, that would essentially make it impossible for an army ever to effectively defend a hill top. Part of the Saxon fyrd did come off Senlac hill, but not until they thought the Normans were fleeing.

Anyway, on balance we decided to leave the mechanism out of FOG2. We have to strike a balance between realism and player preferences. Some players already struggle with accepting the existing pursuit rules without making things even more unpredictable. And as I say, it is easy to over-represent aspects of troop behaviour and end up achieving neither realism nor what the majority of players want.

Spot on. Originally in FOG1, I hated when this happened, but eventually thought that it was ok and rather enjoyed it. Though on one occasion my French Knights charged the English line to their doom...I swear, if I could have I would have ordered my French crossbowmen to shoot down my own French Knights for wrecking my plans. Hey, there's an option for future DLC's...the option of firing on your own units when they overtly disobey to their doom!

[melm]

It's kind of dilemma. If impetuous charge happens too often, for both sides, the game seems balanced but ahistorical. If it seldom happens, the side who unfortunately has the impetuous charge may lose the whole battle.

I'd rather see impetuous charge in SP game than MP game.

[Mord]

Why not make it an alternate rule that can be toggled on or off? For quick battle type games you could have On, Off, and Random. At least having the choice of using it or not using it gives everybody what they want.

Mord.

[Morbio]

I too miss that aspect from FoG 1, to be honest. It made me shout "@#$%&!" so many times (but in a good sense).

But I think that the chance was too high. If I recall correctly it happened on every battle so you could always count on it.

I remember the ahistorical reaction to impetuosity: The positioning of units facing away from the enemy so they wouldn't impetuously charge the LF skirmishers that were sent to goad them. Only when non-light units came within charging range did the units rotate to face the enemy.

Whilst arguably realistic it's not something I miss.

[MVP7]

It could be toned down to something small like a chance that impetuous unit charges a non-light unit in its ZOC during rallying/routing phase and only if the odds on impact are heavily in their favor.

[stockwellpete]

I remember the ahistorical reaction to impetuosity: The positioning of units facing away from the enemy so they wouldn't impetuously charge the LF skirmishers that were sent to goad them. Only when non-light units came within charging range did the units rotate to face the enemy.

Whilst arguably realistic it's not something I miss.

Yes, I remember all that. I suppose the only way to deal with it is for "anarchy charges" not be triggered by skirmishers at all. I suppose that could be programmed OK.

The other thing that might be worth thinking about here is that impetuosity could be linked to the number of generals still active on the battlefield. So, if we said that in skirmish mode all armies start off with 4 generals and a discipline rating of 10 and an impetuosity rating of 0 - the C-in-C is worth 4, the secondary generals are worth 2 each [4+(3x2) = 10]. For example, if an army lost its C-in-C, its discipline rating would drop to 6 and its impetuosity rating would rise to 4 meaning that "anarchy charges" would be more likely, representing a partial break down in "command and control" (or a "desperation factor", if you prefer). And, in addition, you would still have certain types of troops that were more inclined to "anarchy charges" anyway e.g. beserkers, medieval mounted knights, warbands and so on. I reckon Richard would be able to knock something up to cover all that in the time it takes me to consume a Marmite sandwich!!

[MVP7]

I remember the ahistorical reaction to impetuosity: The positioning of units facing away from the enemy so they wouldn't impetuously charge the LF skirmishers that were sent to goad them. Only when non-light units came within charging range did the units rotate to face the enemy.

Whilst arguably realistic it's not something I miss.

Yes, I remember all that. I suppose the only way to deal with it is for "anarchy charges" not be triggered by skirmishers at all. I suppose that could be programmed OK.

The other thing that might be worth thinking about here is that impetuosity could be linked to the number of generals still active on the battlefield. So, if we said that in skirmish mode all armies start off with 4 generals and a discipline rating of 10 and an impetuosity rating of 0 - the C-in-C is worth 4, the secondary generals are worth 2 each [4+(3x2) = 10]. For example, if an army lost its C-in-C, its discipline rating would drop to 6 and its impetuosity rating would rise to 4 meaning that "anarchy charges" would be more likely, representing a partial break down in "command and control" (or a "desperation factor", if you prefer). And, in addition, you would still have certain types of troops that were more inclined to "anarchy charges" anyway e.g. beserkers, medieval mounted knights, warbands and so on. I reckon Richard would be able to knock something up to cover all that in the time it takes me to consume a Marmite sandwich!!

I don't think the individual soldiers would be deeply aware of the well-being and number of generals during battle. Even if they were I don't think having lost most of the army's leadership would make them particularly eager to charge the enemy.

I think it would make more sense if impetuous charges could be prevented by having general in the unit or within the cohesion bonus range (1/4 of command range if I remember correctly) of the unit.

[stockwellpete]

I don't think the individual soldiers would be deeply aware of the well-being and number of generals during battle. Even if they were I don't think having lost most of the army's leadership would make them particularly eager to charge the enemy.

I think it would make more sense if impetuous charges could be prevented by having general in the unit or within the cohesion bonus range (1/4 of command range if I remember correctly) of the unit.

My idea is obviously an abstraction of a gradual deterioration of the command and control functions in an army. Sometimes this could lead to panic and rout, on other occasions it might result in desperate charges. Experienced soldiers would be aware of things were going well or not, most obviously by the number of casualties around them.

[MVP7]

I don't think the individual soldiers would be deeply aware of the well-being and number of generals during battle. Even if they were I don't think having lost most of the army's leadership would make them particularly eager to charge the enemy.

I think it would make more sense if impetuous charges could be prevented by having general in the unit or within the cohesion bonus range (1/4 of command range if I remember correctly) of the unit.

My idea is obviously an abstraction of a gradual deterioration of the command and control functions in an army. Sometimes this could lead to panic and rout, on other occasions it might result in desperate charges. Experienced soldiers would be aware of things were going well or not, most obviously by the number of casualties around them.

Both suggestions are of course abstractions but I think local effect of general would still be more realistic than global and would also allow for impetuous charges before friendly generals start dying. Both systems would probably require roughly similar amount of work to implement since local system could reuse existing code or maybe even methods.

[vakarr]

I think it very strange that an impetuous charge should not be triggered by light troops, as that is what tended to happen - troops got sick of being shot at by lighter troops and charged out to get them, defying their orders, one of the most famous examples being the Battle of Arsuf, but the Battle of Carrhae was similar. Once again we get the "everything must be predictable and light troops mustn't be allowed to do anything, you should only be allowed to fight with (Roman) heavy infantry" lobby predominating.

[stockwellpete]

I think it very strange that an impetuous charge should not be triggered by light troops, as that is what tended to happen - troops got sick of being shot at by lighter troops and charged out to get them, defying their orders, one of the most famous examples being the Battle of Arsuf, but the Battle of Carrhae was similar. Once again we get the "everything must be predictable and light troops mustn't be allowed to do anything, you should only be allowed to fight with (Roman) heavy infantry" lobby predominating.

Excuse me, but some of us are supporting the idea of "anarchy charges", so we are not part of this so-called "everything must be predictable lobby" you are referring to. If you want to retain the possibility that skirmishers can provoke anarchy charges then maybe it can be linked to the number of casualties inflicted by those skirmishers? So skirmishers who still have ammunition might have more chance to induce a charge than those who have run out. However, the point was raised that in FOG1 players used to change the facing of their units so that they wouldn't charge off after the skirmishers. So how do we stop that from happening if skirmishers can cause impetuosity?

[General Shapur]

I think it very strange that an impetuous charge should not be triggered by light troops, as that is what tended to happen - troops got sick of being shot at by lighter troops and charged out to get them, defying their orders, one of the most famous examples being the Battle of Arsuf, but the Battle of Carrhae was similar. Once again we get the "everything must be predictable and light troops mustn't be allowed to do anything, you should only be allowed to fight with (Roman) heavy infantry" lobby predominating.

Excuse me, but some of us are supporting the idea of "anarchy charges", so we are not part of this so-called "everything must be predictable lobby" you are referring to. If you want to retain the possibility that skirmishers can provoke anarchy charges then maybe it can be linked to the number of casualties inflicted by those skirmishers? So skirmishers who still have ammunition might have more chance to induce a charge than those who have run out. However, the point was raised that in FOG1 players used to change the facing of their units so that they wouldn't charge off after the skirmishers. So how do we stop that from happening if skirmishers can cause impetuosity?

Just make the charge directly at the trigger unit regardless of facing. Ie: if impetuous the unit becomes a 'mob' and charges - it has no facing.