Latest FoG feedback

[deeter]

So far, I'm impressed at all the tweaks to make this a better game with less weird unit behavior. Thanks to the developers for their outstanding commitment to FoG PC.

There is however one change that I'm thinking should have been unchanged and that is Anarchy charges. On the TT, charges are declared during the very first phase of the game and then impact combat is resolved. This is when uncontrolled charges happen and it often comes down to, when seeing one or two of your shock units rushing forward, you have to decide whether to write them off or go whole hog and send everything in to support them. Same thing with the old FoG PC mechanic.

With the change, these charges often happen at the end of the turn when it's too late to do anything about it. I'm stilling getting used to this, but think it's a step in the wrong direction.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

I think the new systems solves more isues than it adds so I think if we change it we should look to address this minor issue. I've never had it as a problem personally but I can see what you are saying.

One way round this really would be to add a "hold" command. Then you would know if the units you were trying to hold had failed or not. We could calculate that instantly so you had teh chance to react to the outcome.

If you chose to hold, it woudl do a CMT immediately. The unit woudl still be abel to move. If you later decided to move it without moving to contact it woudl have to do another CMT. This would be necessary to avoid you telling them all to hold, seeing who passed their CMT and trying somethign risky with them, which you woudl nto have done if the CMT result was still unknown.

[deeter]

I like the hold idea and think it could also apply to evasions. One hold button to rule them all.

Deeter

[jamespcrowley]

I really like the overall effect that the changes have resulted in; much more realistic.

I tend to agree with deeter's reservation and think that the 'hold' idea is a good one, both for anarchy charges and evasions.

[andersm73]

I haven't played much with the new updates yet but was pretty startled when two of my pike units in command range anarchy charged in the same turn, at least one against LF which then followed up into my opponents pike phalanx, left me in a pretty bad situation!! Is this the norm from now on or just bad rolls?

[76mm]

I've had the same experience with anarchy charges, much more common. Too common, IMO.

[TheGrayMouser]

I dont know if i like this idea but maybe i dont really undertsnd A what the issue is, and B dont undertsnd the suggestion on how to fix

Are you saying on your turn, for example, if you have a force of high anarchy prone troops, like knights and say a center of infantry, you want to assault the enemy infantry w yours and want to see how that plays out before doing anything w your knights??...
So my understanding is, I should , to be certain that I can use my knights to full effect or use them differntly dependant on how my infantry assault goes, i now need to click on all the knights, right click (I presume) and set them to hold. The game will then tell me that they will or will not anarchy??, but i have the luxery of then doing other things and later going back to actually let them anarchry move? It sounds like iain indciated they would have to check a cmt the second time as well
Sounds very gamey to me....feels it would distort reality even further that is already inherant in all turn based games, the prescience of determing the order of moves/ attacks based on the success failure of previous ones

I completely undertsnd that in the tabletop charges are declared, then movement and than all melees resolved as oppose to the way it happnes now on the pc where 1 unit goes and resolves at a time... The tt way s of course more "realistic" but I doudt the pc version would incorporate such a major change

If any kind of "hold orders" are implemented i think it should be at a formation level, not at unit, and since the game doesnt feature formations then, well......

[batesmotel]

Giving the unit hold order would end it's move for the turn so you couldn't decide to do something with it later in your turn. The new anarchy charge rules will let you charge in with your infantry and see the results before you try to do something with your knights. But when you then go to move your knights, if you are not moving them into contact, then there will be a chance that they will anarachy charge. Giving them a hold order would be one of the times when they would have to check and may anarchy charge.

Chris

[Paisley]

I agree with deeter. A 'hold' command would work fine if the anarchy happened as soon as the 'hold move' was applied to the counter, just as if it were an actual move (if you see what I mean)

[TheGrayMouser]

Giving the unit hold order would end it's move for the turn so you couldn't decide to do something with it later in your turn. The new anarchy charge rules will let you charge in with your infantry and see the results before you try to do something with your knights. But when you then go to move your knights, if you are not moving them into contact, then there will be a chance that they will anarachy charge. Giving them a hold order would be one of the times when they would have to check and may anarchy charge.

Chris

Wouldnt that just be an extra step then? (also the new anarchy charge rule doesnt change how the player gets to chose the order in which he conducts his moves/combat)

Would the hold orders need to be placed right at the start of your turn then, ie an xtra phase?
If not then i dont see the purpose I simply just dont touch any of my cavalry and conduct my infantry assault, if i dont need my cavalry i hit end turn, whether they anarchy or not at that point is really a moot point because I can simply wait to play out other things and at that time i can place on hold or move at my discetion...

I guess the point i am trying to make is that any turn based game allows so much control of how you sequentially do things, and anything that adds to this I feel decreases the realism...

[SRW1962]

Wouldnt that just be an extra step then? (also the new anarchy charge rule doesnt change how the player gets to chose the order in which he conducts his moves/combat)

Would the hold orders need to be placed right at the start of your turn then, ie an xtra phase?
If not then i dont see the purpose I simply just dont touch any of my cavalry and conduct my infantry assault, if i dont need my cavalry i hit end turn, whether they anarchy or not at that point is really a moot point because I can simply wait to play out other things and at that time i can place on hold or move at my discetion...

I guess the point i am trying to make is that any turn based game allows so much control of how you sequentially do things, and anything that adds to this I feel decreases the realism...

I totally agree with you on this one, it could become tedious to have to keep clicking on units that you simply don't want to move anyway, if they break ranks then you already know its because of anarchy. The beauty of the system is that its simply to use and play, no big manuals or tutorials needed (forget I said tutorials I don't want anyone to suggest those) just straight into the game and leaqrn as you lose or win.

[zumHeuriger]

This is one where I think the new rules are fine, and mirror the TT game and the intent. To paraphrase from the rules:
"If your shock troops are in a position where their failing the CMT and charging is upsetting your plans, your shock troops are in the wrong place". So once you leave any shockers in charge range without them charging, you are taking your chances.
Knowing that they are going to obey or disobey orders to stay gives too much information IMHO. At least with the new rules you get to charge who you want first before they hare off on their own.

Cheers

Tom

[deeter]

Paisley made a good point during a game earlier. These BGs are actually only part of larger formations. In my 800 pt. TT Seleucid army, I have only three pike blocks and these are the bulk of my center. If one of them charges off it's a big deal. One the PC, I would have 12 or more pike BGs any one of whom might charge off.

Not sure what my point is, but I think have the anarchy charges happen first is better.

Deeter

[Paisley]

I think my point was that in the PC game anarchy disrupts your line in a way unlike on the tabletop - it's far more fractured and actually more serious because you end up with one or two of your line in contact and almost certain to be disrupted, likely fragmented before you can support because of ganging up. We know individual counters are much weaker in the pc than blocks on the tabletop. So I think it's actually a much bigger problem on the pc. Now you can argue whether that's desireable or not but it's undeniably different. Your line becomes far les cohesive.

Let say deeter has 3 pike blocks on the table but 9 units in his front line on the pc. If 33% of the table anarch charge then a) it happens at the stat of his turn so he can move the other two to support and b) the third of his line affected is a cohesive whole. On the pc if 3 of the units anarchy, they're very unlikely to be three adjacent. His line will be disjointed, with no chance to support and the three units concerned are easy pickings.

[deeter]

Much like happened to your Macedonians in our last game.

Deeter

[Paisley]

Yes, quite. If three units had charged as a 'chunk', I still wouldn't have been best pleased (given they were on higher ground) but they'd have had a reasonable chance of survival. But as it was they were effectively suicide charges. In essence the only sensible play now is to advance to contact. Holding a line on higher ground is too risky, even with superior drilled troops and an inspired leader (again, I can see that it could be argued that pikes should advance and not hold a defensive position).

[TheGrayMouser]

Isnt the whole point of anarchy charges is that individual units or segements of your line basically go beserko and charge without orders, regardless of what you , the CnC wants or desires? If they do charge off and make your position untenable, it is YOUR choice as a commander to try and salvage the situation, whether its supporting those silly guys that charged of, or letting them be destroyed. Harold at Hastings could have order his entire shield wall to charge to rescue the few hundred men who went chasing after the retreating Norman cavalry, instead he chose not to risk it and let them get cut off and cut down....

Instead of having more control i would rather see a cascading effect of anarchy, ie one unit goes off, any units adjacent have to pass a cmt immedietly at a negative and so on and so forth.... That is of course extreme and i doudt it would add to gameplay except for frustration, but at least all your troops will be together in a wild death ride

[deeter]

But the thing that disturbes me is not the anarchy but the inability to react to their suicidal charge.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I hear you, I think the SOA lists will require a rethinking of how one plays and deploys to account for the fact that a lot of your best troopies will be ticking timebombs that will wreck the best of ones plans..
I guess you could deploy you knights as a reserve far enough way to avoid anarchy altogether, or make them the front line and attempt to sweep everything in front of you, with infantry etc trying to follow up as best as they can (which appears to have been the "tactic" of choice or necessity of many medieval commanders.
Likley wont be to many battle plans that count on oblique attacks, refused lines or sneaky flank attacks, at least not on the fly

[deadtorius]

So far I would say knights are worse than cats for anarchy, which sound about right, especially in French armies. I actually like the I want to move you here which is not in contact but you anarchy on me and charge anyway feature better than the start of turn run off and get killed move from before. Yes I doubt medieval battles will be much on going for position although I have managed several rear charges already in my games. Not a huge fan of end of turn anarchy but.... guess its the best way to handle a rabid beast. Overall excellent work Slitherine, keep it up.