Latest FoG feedback

[batesmotel]

I'd agree with that. While one headlong charge into spears/pikes is probably fair enough, doing it repeatedly is pretty dim. Even the most arrogant knight tended to get the message (if he survived) after one frontal charge.

I think with regard to the second point, if anarchy was restored to its rightful position at the start of each turn and every nit marked with an A (but did not move), then let the player move each anarchy unit to contact as he sees fit and then proceed with his move as normal. I've seen anarchists declining to charge easy targets (rear of pikes etc) and going after light infantry instead. Or just make the anarchy AI smarter.

Again, if in the table top you have (say) a dozen units on the tabletop, you're likely to have 36+ units on the PC, so 3x the chance of anarchy and much, much worse results as things stand with end of turn anarchy...

For instance this tabletop army:

1 X FC (CiC)
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 8 drilled, retinue archers
1 X 4 currours
1 X 4 Northern Border LH

1 X Allied FC
1 X 6 Militia billmen
1 X 8 Militia archers
1 X 4 Northern Border billmen
1 X 8 Northern Border spearmen
1 X 4 Northern Border archers

1 X Allied TC
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 6 militia billmen
1 X 8 militia archers

Total 795 points

has 14 units. But on the pc it would be represented by 38 counters. so over 2.5x as much anarchy.

How do you interpret this as being 38 BGs on the PC?? Each BG of 4 should be the equivalent of 1 BG on the PC. Each BG of 8 should be 2 BGs. If you assume that BG of 6 count as 1.5 BGs, this gives a total of 18 BGs for an equivalent army on the PC. This would probably be an army of about 200 points for FoG PC
(assuming the 4 to 1 ratio of stands to PC BGs and that PC BGs are priced the same as TT stands for simplicity). So a 400 point army would be the equivalent of a 1600 point TT army. Anarchy is a bit more prevalent in the PC version since all BGs are by definition small, but overall the effect is proportional.

Chris

[Paisley]

Is it not 2:1 the ratio, then? In that a counter on the pc is equivalent to 2 figures on the table.

Even so, it makes no odds.

On the tabletop you typically seem to have about a dozen units for an 800 pt game (looking at people's lists). In a 400pt game on the pc you have at least twice that many counters, and often more.

So anachy is AT LEAST twice as prevelant, I'd argue nearer 2.5-3.5x as much. And the effects are much worse because it affects in a 'bitty' manner as we've discussed above.

[deeter]

I recall Keith saying they converted the army lists as one PC BG per two BASES from the TT, except for pikes where the conversion is three BG per two bases or something like tthat.

Deeter

[Paisley]

But they're much cheaper then, surely? So you get more for equivalent points.

[Scottbot]

Here are my thoughts on how Anarchy charges should work:

At the beginning of the turn make a check for all units that have a chance to anarchy charge. Any units that fail the check should be marked with the 'A' symbol (or some other symbol is the A is already used too much), but they do not yet move.

During the player's turn he moves/charges with his units as normal. Now, he knows that his units marked with 'A' have to charge, so he can charge them himself, thus being able to choose the target.

If, when the player clicks his turn done, he has not charged with any/all of his 'A' marked units, those units auto charge whichever target the AI chooses. If the AI chooses a bad target, well, it's the players fault for not doing it himself.

No extra steps, no extra clicks. Thoughts?

[Paisley]

I agree except I think he should have to move the anarching units before doing anything else.

[batesmotel]

Here are my thoughts on how Anarchy charges should work:

At the beginning of the turn make a check for all units that have a chance to anarchy charge. Any units that fail the check should be marked with the 'A' symbol (or some other symbol is the A is already used too much), but they do not yet move.

During the player's turn he moves/charges with his units as normal. Now, he knows that his units marked with 'A' have to charge, so he can charge them himself, thus being able to choose the target.

If, when the player clicks his turn done, he has not charged with any/all of his 'A' marked units, those units auto charge whichever target the AI chooses. If the AI chooses a bad target, well, it's the players fault for not doing it himself.

No extra steps, no extra clicks. Thoughts?

The point of anarchy tests is that the owner of the BG needs to make the decision about what to do with the group without knowing whether it will or will not obey the commander's choice. So marking troops that are going to fail the anarchy test ahead of time removes that element of uncertainty which was much of the point of the rule.

Chris

[petergarnett]

I have to say I agree with Chris here - anarchy moves are those where you have no control & IMO should also have no prior knowledge of their occurance.

[Paisley]

But it leads to quite implausible situations as it stands. Unlike on the tabletop where an anarching unit has quite a lot of staying power, a lone pc unit is very easy meat. So the effect is exaggerated.

[petergarnett]

I'm not saying it is working perfectly but just that a player should not, IMO, have control over anarchy moves

[deeter]

Once again, on the TT, you roll not to charge at the beginning of the turn. Those units that fail are oblidged to charge, but you get to pick the target and have a chance to support the charge. I think that well replicates the anarchy of battle. In the PC, more often than not anarchic chargers go after stupid LF when there's a real target available.

Deeter

[Paisley]

So the suggested fix of marking anarchs at the start of the turn would emulate the table? (As I say, I think they should have to be moved first too).

[76mm]

I'm not saying it is working perfectly but just that a player should not, IMO, have control over anarchy moves

I think we need one of the following solutions:

1) players choose their charge targets for anarchized units;
2) the AI gets much much better in choosing rational charge targets; or
3) we assume that we are commanding an army of dolts with absolutely no idea of what targets are more valuable or more vulnernable.

#2 is not particularly likely. #3 is neither realistic nor satisfying to play.

Players choosing the charge target does not necessarily give the unit too much control--if the only units within charge range are pike units, or in bad terrain, the charging unit is screwed, they have to charge anyway.

My biggest problem though is charging pike units. I am currently playing a game where several average pike units were in a line, trying to defend a hill against superior and elite Roman legions. You can guess what happened...two of the phalanxes charged the legions, with one disrupted in the valley and beset by legions, and the other routed. The game is ongoing, but I doubt I'll be able to hold the hill at this point...

[batesmotel]

So the suggested fix of marking anarchs at the start of the turn would emulate the table? (As I say, I think they should have to be moved first too).

The sequence of play for the TT:

Impact Phase.
Movement phase>
Fire phase.
Melee phase.

This is very different from the PC so comparisons between them are of very limited usefulness.

Within the TT impact phase, the player must first declare all charges. After this is done, any units not charging that must check for impetuous charges then test. The player does not get the option to declare additional charges after the impetuous charges are determined. Normally an impetuous charge must be toward the opposing enemy most easily reached but the owning player may have a choice if multiple targets are equally easily reached. An impetuously charging BG will only burst through friends if there is no legal charge target that can be reached without bursting through friends. (Normally legal interpenetrations are not allowed when charging in FoG TT, another difference from the PC.)

Chris

[Paisley]

Well yes, but on the tabletop you do not have 3% of the total force charging in isolation with each anarchy charge, it's more like 8% and you can rear-support them (which you cannot do on the pc). That's a big difference. Trying to hold a hill with pikemen is often an exercise in futility at the moment because one will charge and your whole line is ruined. Fine for aggressive armies like the Swiss. Not so good for Seleucids and the like. I'm not saying that no unit should ever not charge from a strong poition against orders. Just that with a bare minimum of twice the anarchy tests and the smaller (at least half) size of the units resulting in the anarching unit almost always being chewed up in the next player's turn, anarchy in the pc game is currently too much and does a very bad job of mimicing history where when one unit charged often the whole line would be ordered forward in support immediately. And from a pure gaming point of view is more frustrating than enjoyable because the incidence is too high.

[hidde]

And from a pure gaming point of view is more frustrating than enjoyable because the incidence is too high.

This.
I think we should concentrate on how to make gameplay fun and not frustrating. Remember the words of Sid Meier: Always gameplay first!
I have no solution only that it ought to happen less frequently and less stupid. Maybe some interference from the player after a BG has turned into anarchy state as mentioned earlier. Mearly the fact that it happen is a big negative and to give the player a chance to soften the consequenses might not be realistic but perhaps good for gameplay.

[batesmotel]

Well yes, but on the tabletop you do not have 3% of the total force charging in isolation with each anarchy charge, it's more like 8% and you can rear-support them (which you cannot do on the pc). That's a big difference. Trying to hold a hill with pikemen is often an exercise in futility at the moment because one will charge and your whole line is ruined. Fine for aggressive armies like the Swiss. Not so good for Seleucids and the like. I'm not saying that no unit should ever not charge from a strong poition against orders. Just that with a bare minimum of twice the anarchy tests and the smaller (at least half) size of the units resulting in the anarching unit almost always being chewed up in the next player's turn, anarchy in the pc game is currently too much and does a very bad job of mimicing history where when one unit charged often the whole line would be ordered forward in support immediately. And from a pure gaming point of view is more frustrating than enjoyable because the incidence is too high.

In a lot of ways, FoG PC pike BGs are the equivalent of 8s on the TT except they die a little too fast, which is why the number allowed in the FoG PC army lists is divded by 3 while other stuff is by 2. They have the factors and the number of attacks that a BG of 8 in 4 ranks would have. This is how I normally run my pikes for TT games so it really isn't any different. If you have enough commander sin your army, especially with an IC in range of the pikes, they are highly unlikely to make an impetuous charge in either version of FoG. (And even less so on the PC if they're not poor and quality re-rolls do apply.) If I were playing a 1600 point game on the TT, then I could indeed have 3% of my force make an impetuous charge. And there is no option to support them once they have charged during the impact phase.

Chris

[Paisley]

I can assure you if you have Macedonian pikes in command you will almost always see an anarchy charge if you're trying to hold a line (or even just advance in formation). It's happened to me every game since the new update. All in command and usually within command of an inspired general. My Swiss do too but i don't care so much about that because it's well known a Swiss pike counter can hold its own against any three enemy ones.

The point is that on the table you field less units than on the pc. Consistently. On the table if a unit of pikes charges it will most likely be 8-12 strong and it might be ganged up on by two enemy but it wil be robust enough to hold its own most often until help can arrive next turn. On the pc the unit is simply not robust enough for it to be in any way comparable.

If you field a Macedonian army on the tabletop, how many formations of pikes do you field (as a maximum) at 800 tabletop points?

[batesmotel]

I can assure you if you have Macedonian pikes in command you will almost always see an anarchy charge if you're trying to hold a line (or even just advance in formation). It's happened to me every game since the new update. All in command and usually within command of an inspired general. My Swiss do too but i don't care so much about that because it's well known a Swiss pike counter can hold its own against any three enemy ones.

The point is that on the table you field less units than on the pc. Consistently. On the table if a unit of pikes charges it will most likely be 8-12 strong and it might be ganged up on by two enemy but it wil be robust enough to hold its own most often until help can arrive next turn. On the pc the unit is simply not robust enough for it to be in any way comparable.

If you field a Macedonian army on the tabletop, how many formations of pikes do you field (as a maximum) at 800 tabletop points?

I normally run 4x8 of pikes (one superior) or 2x12 and 1x8 (superior) in 800 points for Alexandrian Macedonians. That would be out of 12 or so BGs. As long as you don't leave your pikes until last for anarchy, you can move to support them in FoG PC as well or better than in FoG TT. (The hold order is what is needed to give you some more control over pikes that you want to have remain stationary in a defensive position so you can check them before everything else moves.)

Chris

[Paisley]

Okay so on the table you have either 3 or 4 formations at 800pts. But the minimum that can be fielded on the pc is 7 as Late Macedonians (twice as many as yours, and from the Immortal Fire book, it looks like Alexandrian have the same minimums of 6 and 8 on the tabletop - so 3 and 4 on the pc) and I suspect you haven't taken the minimum available pikes. So playing on the pc anarchy is at least twice as likely to occur as you have twice the units.

Also, you're fielding 32 bases. Each pc counter represents 3 tabletop pike bases (as I understand from the above posts). So that is in fact 10 or 11 pc counters. Not 7. So if in 3 formations on the table, anarchy is over 3x as likely on the pc, if in four formations, at least 2.5x as likely.

Obviously if anarchy occurs on the table, it affects more bases - but because they are all one formation, it matter a lot less.