"Virtus vs Discipline" Topic

I am trying to imagine a game mechanic that simulates the tension between virtus (agression) and discipline, in the Roman army of the Principate. I have, more or less, developed how it would work for barbarian bands: the player can "accumulate" agression, but at the price of risking losing control over his troops (I won't go into much detail, but the idea is that each time you accumulates agression in a unit, you roll 1D6, and if the unit rolls below its agression level, it will surge forward to engage, even if that's not what you want). Romans compesated agression with discipline, but it didn't work all the time (see Lendon Soldiers & Ghosts). I have been unable so far to think of a game mechanic that could simulate that contradiction in the Roman army. Any suggestion would be appreciated.

How about making it the responsibility of the leader unit. Roll a d6 against the leader's rating to see if he remains in control.

If the Roman leader can keep his unit under control, they can use this pent up agression to move faster or farther. Or, they could use it as some kind of bonus in combat. This could be a one time thing that once it is used it is lost, with the possibility of it accruing again depending on the scope of your game.

If the Roman leader cannot keep the unit under control, they lag behind (looting, pillaging, plundering) or suffer a combat penalty for being hard to control as a fighting unit. Again, once this is played out it would go away.

give the Romans a modifier of some sort, or maybe they don't accumulate agression at as fast a rate

As Kevin stated, perhaps Romans use the same mechanics for aggression, but build it more slowly. However, when a leader imposes his will on troops to perform a disciplined action, aggression resets to 0. If he fails, well soldiers act on the aggression.

Romans perform better on disciplined actions than 'barbarians' but build aggression more slowly. Aggression can help in close combat.

Look at the game Hordes, by Privateer Press. They have a Fury mechanic that might be useful with a little tweaking.

If the Discipline Rating (or Level) is variable such that discipline erodes over time due to casualties, retreats, etc. then why not use this Discipline Rating as a positive Die Roll Modifier to the Aggression Test? As Discipline falls, the likelihood of failing the Aggression Test increases. In this way, pent up Aggression can be somewhat offset by well disciplined troops.

I wonder if a discipline erodes then aggression takes over scenario is actually representative of what is happening.

Aggression is going to be heightened at particular times in a battle, overwhelming discipline [i.e. command control]. It isn't a thin layer projected over every aspect.

When would aggression really peak?
1. At the beginning of a battle just before the initial contact.
2. Some advantage gained in a particular area of the line
3. The enemy showing less that a firm posture.
4. Death of a leader, hero, or some other maddening event.

I would suggest given a army an 'aggression' rating, which comes into play:
1. At the initial charge of a unit
2. When an advance or serious loss is inflicted on an enemy
3. When the enemy routs or retreats
4. When leaders fall or specific events occur: The standard is threatened, etc.

If this was weighted against the unit's commander's abilities, you then would have the situation where there units could 'get out of control'.

At Missionary Ridge during the ACW, 1-3 were in play when the Union soldiers decided to take the ridge without orders.

Bill

I wonder if a discipline erodes then aggression takes over scenario is actually representative of what is happening.

Although we have a vaguely defined problem, I read "Aggression" more as "Impetuous" since we are given that as aggression accumulates, the risk of losing control over one's troops increases.

Of course, modifying Aggression for leadership is reasonable too.

Jon

Thanks for the tips. There are some good ideas, that I would like to test.

Ancient sources are vague about how aggression was built up in a group of warriors, so I have recurred to Anthropology observations of how the process worked in more modern societies, and tried to cross-reference the data with the information shown in Ancient world sources. Apparently, at least in formal combats, warriors show a certain reluctance to close with their opponents at first. There is a relatively well documented process of "building aggression": it starts with insults, boast, small advances, shouts, ecc. Then, once the warriors are motivated enough, the leaders -in tribal societies, they are usually the best armed- start to advance, making noise and shouting, followed by their close retainers and then the rest of the warriors in their bands. Some scholars think that when we read about formations like the cuneus (wedge) we are, actually, observing the process explained above.

Romans were more disciplined, but still they did, probably, follow a similar process, though more controlled. If I am reading the evidence correctly -and it is open to debate- the goal of the discipline in the Roman army was not as much as avoiding aggression from overwhelming the order of the unit, as channeling it into attacking with purpose. However, in many actions the aggression actually overwhelmed discipline, usually when the overall commander was unable, for one reason or another, to control the flow of the battle (for instance, in combats in cities, like at Gergovia and Jerusalem).

If you are thinking about Ancients, have you looked at Hoplomachia by The Perfect Captain at:

link

It's a free download.

It has a unique morale system. As the two opposing armies opproach each other, the players have methods for raising morale and aggressiveness through a variety of methods, from priests' blessing to banging shields. The trick is to time it well in the approach. Too much too soon or the wrong choices can be disasterous.

It is an interesting concept, has some history behind it, and lots of possible applications and varient rules. I've enjoyed it.

Great suggestion! I did download it some months ago, but never read it. Thanks for the tip.

Can I suggest that the role of discipline is to keep aggression in check until you want to release it. I would have aggression running on a scale from out of control – who will charge into contact regardless of the players intention down to panic and run away. As you intend the unit rolls against it's current aggression rating Discipline is used to modify the agression rating making it easier to manage when the release comes. So a leader would have a command or control rating that acts as a modifier to the unit roll either upwards or downwards allowing a good commander to keep his troops "on the simmer" but without slipping them off the leash before he is ready. This could be adjusted so that rash commanders always deduct their command adjustment making it more likely that the unit will attack. The level of adjustment could be lower for more inexperienced commanders who don't know how to read the temper of their men.