New idea! Orders...

[Somebody Else]

Random thought just came into my head - what if units required a certain amount of time between orders - say, based on discipline and/or distance from the general unit?

So, for instance, a barbarian army would be somewhat cumbersome, and difficult to co-ordinate, but a drilled Roman army would be able to execute more precise manouevres...

Also, perhaps make it so that the number of orders given also be related to the general's command level, as well as certain traits or whatever. A rookie general's not going to be as good at issuing orders as a veteran. Nor is a rabble likely to have the same sort of command infrastructure as a professional army.

Just a thought.

[Mikeus Caesar]

No, no, no, no, no!!! This would make the game even more unbalanced for the barbarian factions!!

[Count Belisarius]

No, no, no, no, no!!! This would make the game even more unbalanced for the barbarian factions!!

Yes, it would, but that was the way of the world in the time in which the game is set. It would make the game that much more realistic. Barbarian hordes had a much less sophisticated command hierarchy than civilized armies, especially the Romans. Therefore, civilized command and control is going to be better. Not that the barbarians didn't enjoy successes, and not that they didn't produce some great generals. I am referring to generalities. I think it's a great idea to adapt this concept into the game, or, if it is already present, to make it more pronounced.

[The Stranger]

i don't klnow if i would like it

[Productivity]

Add another factor that you can only see where your general is, and suddenly your general becomes far more important than just a heavy cav. unit.

Ie. you may have skirmishers out the front and suddenly they come under fire. But you don't have a clue from what. Are they under fire from other skirmishers, archers, ballistae, what? So you have to make a choice as to how you are going to get information.

[Lochar]

You know this could be a toggle like the camera on general only, each general has a Zone of control, as units stray past this they can have a tendancy to chase routing armies, run back to the zoc, or stand around picking their collective noses. Other than morale effects, I hadnt really noticed any difference to better generals, maybe a discipline type effect could be added. After all its easy to buy a unit of merceny and throw them away as cannon fodder here, but with a poor general they actually refuse to charge than line of pikes, it would add some spice.

I am not even sure how large scale battles were handled in this time period, were there bugles? flags? loud mouthed sargeants? But I think orders is a nice idea.

I was even thinking to go beyond this, and have messengers for ungoverned cities, so that nothing could be built unless the messenger got thru, or that un generalled units could be given a order, and until another general sent a messenger to them they would follow it out and not be able to be diverted. Even towns with governors would do their own thing depending on the type of governor there unless the heir or leader gives them a different directive. Sure we can turn on auto manage and sort of do the same thing, but if orders were all carried out by messengers, maybe sending assasns or a unit along a road to waylay one could cause some havoc, or maybe even not be able to deliver the message that your city is about to be sacked!

To be honest with diplomats, spys and whatnot, most players have ample time to see a enemy force approaching, it would make a little difference to have your 2 unit milita city now facing a full army that came out of nowhere.


I am sorry for diverting your idea somewhat but I got caught up too much one thing and it sorta branched into the other..:)

[Red Harvest]

Yes, it would, but that was the way of the world in the time in which the game is set. It would make the game that much more realistic. Barbarian hordes had a much less sophisticated command hierarchy than civilized armies, especially the Romans. Therefore, civilized command and control is going to be better. Not that the barbarians didn't enjoy successes, and not that they didn't produce some great generals. I am referring to generalities. I think it's a great idea to adapt this concept into the game, or, if it is already present, to make it more pronounced.

The barbarian armies were probably not as unsophisticated as some suggest. The "barbarians" used a war trumpet called the carnyx for issuing commands. They also tended to have standards. And they most certainly had tribal leaders and were fighting beside their relations and closely associated tribesmen. These weren't just large mobs. They formed up rather well at Telamon facing both ways to face two armies simultaneously--just the sort of situation in which many armies would instead falter, flee, or melt away. That's not a horde in action. Unfortunately the Celts/Gauls were not preserving their history in written form at the time, so we are forced to rely on cultures that did for our information about them.

And horse archer armies and light skirmisher types (some Iberians, Numidians, etc) might paradoxically prove to have some advantage since they tended to act as independent entities that would strike and withdraw without needing detailed control. It was a different fighting style. Where they would lack would be in full force coordination once their initial group orders were given.

[Byzantine Prince]

That's a great idea. It would add a whole new dimension to the game. They should add that to the expansion, it shouldn't be too hard.

[SpencerH]

I thought it was already present in the game. There is a pause between orders and execution that appears to be related to experience/command. I always assumed there was a radius of control somewhere in there too.

[Ginger]

I saw that once in an old microprose game Fields of Glory. The game cast you as an army commander commander at Waterloo and other 100 days battles.

Your corp and division commanders had different degrees of recklessness so youd give your orders and it was always a gamble whether they would be followed or not.

It was a frustrating mechanic at times, most notably once when at waterloo uxbridges corp refused to withdraw after routing a number of french columns. Instead they gloriously charged the rest of the french army........ and died. Horribly. Art imitates life or what :)

It was a nice additioon to the game, but might not work in TW battles as there is only one commander. Perhaps you could introduce a more developed chain of command with captains/generals commanding each wing of the army?

[Craterus]

It's a nice idea, but I bet it'd get really annoying.

[doc_bean]

I think

http://www.slitherine.co.uk/LegionArena/ArenaIndex.htm

is supposed to have something like that.

[Selway]

I would probably go nutz if there was even more chaos added to the battles!

[screwtype]

Random thought just came into my head - what if units required a certain amount of time between orders - say, based on discipline and/or distance from the general unit?

So, for instance, a barbarian army would be somewhat cumbersome, and difficult to co-ordinate, but a drilled Roman army would be able to execute more precise manouevres...

I think it's already in the game. If you look in the export_descr_unit.txt file, you find the following fields listed:

stat_mental The base morale level, followed by discipline and training
; discipline may be normal, low, disciplined or impetuous Impetuous units may charge without orders
; training determines how tidy the unit's formation is

While it doesn't say exactly what the level of training does, my guess is that it's to do with the speed (and neatness) with which units respond to orders. One of the reasons hastati suck, for example, is because their discipline and training are only "normal, trained", while principes are "disciplined, highly trained".

BTW I disagree with your proposal anyway, because in my view units already sod around too much before responding to orders in this game.

[Colovion]

This would only work if there was crazy Generals who, if they have an Impetuous trait, are known to just go attacking other armies - especially if there is another trait "Hates Gauls" or what have you.

But in all, it would be frusterating, and you'd need much larger armies to be able to do this. You'd need to have it connected with Loyalty to the General, and it would bring a whole RPG element to it that way as well.