Slitherine

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:17 pm I didn't know what marmite was so I googled it.....that was definitely a mistake.

British cuisine leaves much to be desired

MVP7 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:27 pm 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.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:49 am 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.

Rodia wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 3:00 am 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.

Morbio wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:25 pm
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.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:04 pm

Morbio wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:25 pm
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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:24 pm
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 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:46 pm

MVP7 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:24 pm
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.

vakarr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:23 am 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 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:12 am

vakarr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:23 am 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?