Latest FoG feedback

[Scutarii]

If all people (at least all i ask) dont like the new rate of anarchy charges (special with pike units) is possible that in 1.2.2 was right and now in 1.2.5 is wrong, sorry but i dont find the new rate historical at least for roman and hellenistic armies the "professional" armies in ancient

[batesmotel]

If all people (at least all i ask) dont like the new rate of anarchy charges (special with pike units) is possible that in 1.2.2 was right and now in 1.2.5 is wrong, sorry but i dont find the new rate historical at least for roman and hellenistic armies the "professional" armies in ancient

Just to invalidate your anecdotal poll, I like the new anarchy implementation for 1.2.5. Some fine tweaking still needs to be done but the new version feels much closer to the TT rules. (And yes, I've been bitten by pike and cavalry lancer anarchy charges but that feels like the way it should be working.)

Chris

[Paisley]

Well I'd say it was too high by a factor of 3... which coincidently is pretty much the same increase in formations fielded going from tabletop to pc.

On the table a formation of 2 bases (rare I should think) is represented by one counter on the pc. A 1:1 ratio.
But a formation of 4 bases (typically legion units) is represented by two counters a 2:1 ratio.
The most common formations seem to be 6-8 bases, or 3-4 pc counters. A 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of fromation to counter (obviously the base ratio remains the same at 2:1 but bases do not test individually for anarchy, formations do).
Pikes are fielded in 8s or 12 but are represented by 3-4 pc counters (the base ratio being 3:1 for pikes), so again the formation ration is 3:1 or 4:1
Occasionally non-pikes might be fielded in 10s or 12s but we can say that cancels out the very small 2 base table units.

So on the pc your formations are represented by (most often) between 2 and 4 pc counters. So unsurprisingly anarchy is much more frequent.

[batesmotel]

Well I'd say it was too high by a factor of 3... which coincidently is pretty much the same increase in formations fielded going from tabletop to pc.

On the table a formation of 2 bases (rare I should think) is represented by one counter on the pc. A 1:1 ratio.
But a formation of 4 bases (typically legion units) is represented by two counters a 2:1 ratio.
The most common formations seem to be 6-8 bases, or 3-4 pc counters. A 3:1 or 4:1 ratio of fromation to counter (obviously the base ratio remains the same at 2:1 but bases do not test individually for anarchy, formations do).
Pikes are fielded in 8s or 12 but are represented by 3-4 pc counters (the base ratio being 3:1 for pikes), so again the formation ration is 3:1 or 4:1
Occasionally non-pikes might be fielded in 10s or 12s but we can say that cancels out the very small 2 base table units.

So on the pc your formations are represented by (most often) between 2 and 4 pc counters. So unsurprisingly anarchy is much more frequent.

A BG on the PC normally represents 4 bases in general. It represents 8 bases for pikes (but they die too quickly compared to TT) and it represents 2 bases in the case of models, e.g. for elephants, chariots, artillery and battle wagons. PC games tend to be far more points than TT ones when converted using this formula which corresponds with the number of attacks and the POAs used in FoG PC compared with FoG TT.

Chris

[Paisley]

A BG on the pc can't represent that, surely? I'm sure you're right but I'm also sure I've seen Ian or someone say it is 2 bases per pc counter, 3 for pikes.

But even representing 4 bases, anarchy is still just under twice as frequent as it should be given the standard BG sie is 6-8.

[batesmotel]

A BG on the pc can't represent that, surely? I'm sure you're right but I'm also sure I've seen Ian or someone say it is 2 bases per pc counter, 3 for pikes.

But even representing 4 bases, anarchy is still just under twice as frequent as it should be given the standard BG sie is 6-8.

Of course, passing anarchy checks is twice as common as well So the relative frequency is the same as TT.

Chris

[Paisley]

Groan...

[arsan]

Hi!

So if the current 1.2.5 game is the "correct" anarchy system, i can say that certainly i preferred the "bugged" old gameplay by far.

Currently i see several important problems about how anarchy works in the current patch:

- Drilled units goes anarchic too much. The rules say they have a +1 bonus to not going anarchic, but from my play experience it seems is not enough at all. Sorry, but i don't buy your theory of professionally trained soldiers like legionaries or phalangites, drilled to fight together as a whole will go anarchy charging in different directions after the first enemy they see in individual maniples or phalanx companies They behave like bersekers barbarians, not like drilled troops.

A funny thing about this: i've been checking on the DAG how to tweak my Ptolemaic army so it becomes a little more playable instead of having a drilled phalanx and drilled cavalry charging around like crazies... The solutions i find on the DAG are dropping some of my drilled units and changing them with... a barbarian tribal noble cavalry (Galatian cav) or by semi barabarian falx armed warriors (thracians)
I'm i the only one that finds ludicrous that barbarian and semibarbarian warriors are perfectly dependable troops that won't move unless ordered and drilled legionaries, phalangites and companions behave like anarchic bersekers?? We must have read different ancient history books...

- Another problem is how the anarchic charges are done. I don't play FoG TT, which everybody seems to look for to judge if the PC FoG works ok or not. But for what i read, the problem is that on FoG PC we use the same CMT and modifiers that in the TT on a pretty different game system, with different unst sizes and different turn structure.
On FoG TT anarchy happens to big blocks of troops and at the start of the turn. So if half your phalanx line goes forward and engage the enemy, they do it as a whole, and as it happens before you move, you can choose to support them or not.
On the PC game you can find how two or more tiny sections of your phalanx or legion, each one maybe a 1/12th or 1/15th of the whole go anarchic in two opposite directions. And the worst of all, supposing you want to keep your line holding a position and don't move them, they will go anarchic on the last section of the turn, just before its sent to the enemy player, so you cannot support or reaction to that crazy charging around.
Add to this the easiness of bunching on a single BG with multiple units to pound on them and you better say bye bye to those anarchic battlegroups.

Some "easily doable" solutions i can think of woudl be..

- Put the Anarchy charges back at the start of the turn so at least one can chose how to support or react to your own troops crazy charges.

- Increase the drilled vs undrilled bonus to resist anarchy charges, so drilled legionaries or phalangites don't behave like crazy charging naked barbarians and armies have a more historical feel.

- Like with LF evasion, include in the anarchy charging system some checking at the ensuing battle chance of success. A BG should not anarchy charge an enemy BG that blatantly outclass him. Now they behave like stupid anarchist. Lets make them reasonable anarchist that will only go berserk on enemy BG with equal or better success chances. This could stop the stupid cav charging pikes on the front several turns in a row or MF off. spears charging elite legionaries in the open.

- Put gentle and steep hills in the equation so units will not blindly leave or assault advantageous positions like this. I don't use fortifications but i bet units defending behind them will also go happy anarchy charging leaving their fortifications behind... probably worth checking too.

Cheers

[Paisley]

On FoG TT anarchy happens to big blocks of troops and at the start of the turn. So if half your phalanx line goes forward and engage the enemy, they do it as a whole, and as it happens before you move, you can choose to support them or not.

Thankyou. I was eginning to think i was the only person who realised this is a huge part of the problem.

While I agree with most of your suggestions, I do think that cavalry should have a chance of charging pikes/spears head on becaus ethere are numerous historical instances of that behaviour. Also, basing anarchy on a calculation of odds is dubious as in reality troops would be unlikely to make even a rough estimate of the quality of the trops facing them. If the rate of anarchy is simply reduced 2 or 3 fold (see numerous my postings above) and drilled have less of a chance than undrilled and hills become part of the terrain equation then all will be as well as can be hoped for, I think.

[Morbio]

Hi!

So if the current 1.2.5 game is the "correct" anarchy system, i can say that certainly i preferred the "bugged" old gameplay by far.

Currently i see several important problems about how anarchy works in the current patch:

- Drilled units goes anarchic too much. The rules say they have a +1 bonus to not going anarchic, but from my play experience it seems is not enough at all. Sorry, but i don't buy your theory of professionally trained soldiers like legionaries or phalangites, drilled to fight together as a whole will go anarchy charging in different directions after the first enemy they see in individual maniples or phalanx companies They behave like bersekers barbarians, not like drilled troops.

A funny thing about this: i've been checking on the DAG how to tweak my Ptolemaic army so it becomes a little more playable instead of having a drilled phalanx and drilled cavalry charging around like crazies... The solutions i find on the DAG are dropping some of my drilled units and changing them with... a barbarian tribal noble cavalry (Galatian cav) or by semi barabarian falx armed warriors (thracians)
I'm i the only one that finds ludicrous that barbarian and semibarbarian warriors are perfectly dependable troops that won't move unless ordered and drilled legionaries, phalangites and companions behave like anarchic bersekers?? We must have read different ancient history books...

- Another problem is how the anarchic charges are done. I don't play FoG TT, which everybody seems to look for to judge if the PC FoG works ok or not. But for what i read, the problem is that on FoG PC we use the same CMT and modifiers that in the TT on a pretty different game system, with different unst sizes and different turn structure.
On FoG TT anarchy happens to big blocks of troops and at the start of the turn. So if half your phalanx line goes forward and engage the enemy, they do it as a whole, and as it happens before you move, you can choose to support them or not.
On the PC game you can find how two or more tiny sections of your phalanx or legion, each one maybe a 1/12th or 1/15th of the whole go anarchic in two opposite directions. And the worst of all, supposing you want to keep your line holding a position and don't move them, they will go anarchic on the last section of the turn, just before its sent to the enemy player, so you cannot support or reaction to that crazy charging around.
Add to this the easiness of bunching on a single BG with multiple units to pound on them and you better say bye bye to those anarchic battlegroups.

Some "easily doable" solutions i can think of woudl be..

- Put the Anarchy charges back at the start of the turn so at least one can chose how to support or react to your own troops crazy charges.

- Increase the drilled vs undrilled bonus to resist anarchy charges, so drilled legionaries or phalangites don't behave like crazy charging naked barbarians and armies have a more historical feel.

- Like with LF evasion, include in the anarchy charging system some checking at the ensuing battle chance of success. A BG should not anarchy charge an enemy BG that blatantly outclass him. Now they behave like stupid anarchist. Lets make them reasonable anarchist that will only go berserk on enemy BG with equal or better success chances. This could stop the stupid cav charging pikes on the front several turns in a row or MF off. spears charging elite legionaries in the open.

- Put gentle and steep hills in the equation so units will not blindly leave or assault advantageous positions like this. I don't use fortifications but i bet units defending behind them will also go happy anarchy charging leaving their fortifications behind... probably worth checking too.

Cheers

I think there's a lot of thought and some good suggestions in this. I'd add another condition to the test, i.e. can you catch the enemy. Let's not have HF chasing LF or LH.

[Amaz_Ed]

Sorry, but i don't buy your theory of professionally trained soldiers like legionaries or phalangites, drilled to fight together as a whole will go anarchy charging in different directions after the first enemy they see in individual maniples or phalanx companies Confused They behave like bersekers barbarians, not like drilled troops.

Agreed. Lined my captured Seleucid phalanx up behind a stream and waited for the Gallic mob to turn up. As soon as they were within range 3 of my pike units charged. I'd call that a game breaker.

[Scutarii]

Only a little point, when FoG PC version suffer a change allways says "is more close now to TT game" ok, but when somebody ask for a missing feature of TT game you say that this is a PC game and is different to TT game... it sounds like you dont make a FULL port of TT game and dont want develop PC game, PC version is in the middle of nowhere.

Sorry but your PC version have many problems (no manual for example) you dont exploit the whole potential of PC (can do a more complex system of casualties or anarchy charges) and dont do a good conversion of TT game (flank march for example).

Dont understand me bad, i like the game but not all the features and when you say things like that drilled units suffering more anarchy charges than undrilled is good because in TT game works BUT forgive say that in TT game you dont move single units, you move FORMATIONS comparison is incorrect.

[pcaravel]

I totally agree with arsan.
This new anarchy system has deteriorated my gaming fun because my armies don't "feel" historically accurate.
In my last battle, I had 4 non-adjacent BG of Late Macedonian phalanxes (of a total 16) anarchy charging at the same turn.
Of course, this ruined my battle plan and cost me the battle. I don't mind losing, not at all.
But I do mind choosing a civilized, battle hardened, professional army and see it act like a mob.
It just doesn't feel right.

[Paisley]

And as Arsan said, the solution is to

1- move anarchy back to the start of the turn so the player can move in support of anarching units if he needs to to simulate the mass formation movement on the table

2- fix some terrain issues

3- reduce the chances of anarchy occurring threefold to represent the fact that in the table lists a typical formation is 6-8 strong and that will typically be represented on the pc by 3-4 units (and the fact that the pc lists simply divide the table list mins and maxes by two show that the intent is for a 2 bases on the table = 1 counter on the pc conversion as 'standard').

There should still be some chance of pikes anarching undesireably, but it should be low. Ideally a bit higher for legions (which were notoriously aggressive). And there's no doubt in my mind that cavalry should have a reasonable chance of anarching into spears/pikes head on - because they did so historically on many occasions. Those would be my main caveats.

[hidde]

Arsan and pcaravel are spot on.

[jamespcrowley]

Only a little point, when FoG PC version suffer a change allways says "is more close now to TT game" ok, but when somebody ask for a missing feature of TT game you say that this is a PC game and is different to TT game... it sounds like you dont make a FULL port of TT game and dont want develop PC game, PC version is in the middle of nowhere.

Sorry but your PC version have many problems (no manual for example) you dont exploit the whole potential of PC (can do a more complex system of casualties or anarchy charges) and dont do a good conversion of TT game (flank march for example).

Dont understand me bad, i like the game but not all the features and when you say things like that drilled units suffering more anarchy charges than undrilled is good because in TT game works BUT forgive say that in TT game you dont move single units, you move FORMATIONS comparison is incorrect.

I tend to agree with Scutari's sentiments. Too often I see reference to the TT rule set as if it is the Bible. I have not bought the TT game. I have bought a PC game. It is an entirely separate and self contained entity and should work by itself, without constant reference to another separate and self contained entity. There are differences between the two and so what? The PC version should be able to do more complex calculations and rules inter-reactions without constant comparisons being made to a rule set that, by definition, should be more basic. Oddly enough, many of the TT rules that seem quite sophisticated are not in the PC version.

The objection to anarchy charging by small segments of what would be, in the TT, larger formations is IMO, well founded.

[IainMcNeil]

The point is the mechanics on TT have been tested in tens or hundreds of thousands of games and they work. You misunderstand the reasoning - we are using the TT system where we can because ot works, not for other reasons.

We are not going to make kneejerk reactiosn to any core mehcanics on the PC game. The game is so subtle and the interactions so complex that you cannot possibly come to terms with them all in a few days. It takes weeks or months of playing to understand the interactions. We don't fully know the balance yet either so unless it obvious to us that there is an issue before we implement the feature or we have strong and consistent feedback that a TT system is flawed on PC we'll stick to the TT.

If we find the system is flawed we'll make changes, but not until they've been digested so not within minutes of a patch releasing as was the case for many people in the latest patch

To be honest - because of the number of people playing FoG, whatever we do there will be a %, which even when small and applied to such a large player base, is a significant number of people who don't like it as it changes the way they have to play or reduces the effect of their favourite army so we have to deal with what works best in most cases. We also have to be careful that the vocal minority are representative of the slient majority.

In summary we are listening but we want you to give it some time to sink in before you make final decisions.

[Paisley]

I fully understand the reasoning for essentially sticking to the table rules. It makes sense. But in the specific instance of anarchy, the table top mechanism works imperfectly because of the multi pc counter:table formation representation. Hence anarchy is more widespread and 'bittier' than on the table and that frustrates people.

I would note that my favourite armies, Swiss and Lancastrians, couldn't give a hoot about the new anarchy system. But it seems to me to be badly out of kilter with what i understand the table workings to be.

[SRW1962]

Only a little point, when FoG PC version suffer a change allways says "is more close now to TT game" ok, but when somebody ask for a missing feature of TT game you say that this is a PC game and is different to TT game... it sounds like you dont make a FULL port of TT game and dont want develop PC game, PC version is in the middle of nowhere.

Sorry but your PC version have many problems (no manual for example) you dont exploit the whole potential of PC (can do a more complex system of casualties or anarchy charges) and dont do a good conversion of TT game (flank march for example).

Dont understand me bad, i like the game but not all the features and when you say things like that drilled units suffering more anarchy charges than undrilled is good because in TT game works BUT forgive say that in TT game you dont move single units, you move FORMATIONS comparison is incorrect.

I tend to agree with Scutari's sentiments. Too often I see reference to the TT rule set as if it is the Bible. I have not bought the TT game. I have bought a PC game. It is an entirely separate and self contained entity and should work by itself, without constant reference to another separate and self contained entity. There are differences between the two and so what? The PC version should be able to do more complex calculations and rules inter-reactions without constant comparisons being made to a rule set that, by definition, should be more basic. Oddly enough, many of the TT rules that seem quite sophisticated are not in the PC version.

The objection to anarchy charging by small segments of what would be, in the TT, larger formations is IMO, well founded.

I would also agree with the sentiments of scutarii and by and large the sentinments of jimcrowley too.

The TT rules are not a bible, but the problem is that the PC rules were originally made and marketed as a FOG TT but on the PC, so comparisons between the two are inevitable really. Further to this most of the underlying concepts were copied and used directly from the TT version which again causes comparison and problems. It would have probably been easier to start from scratch and make a good PC game of a similar nature but then the FOG TT rules were a phenomenal success so I guess already had a potiential customer base, which is a good thing when developing a new game. I for one certainly bougt the PC game thinking it was basically the same as the TT game, the lure being all those armies available that I would never ever be able to buy and paint etc.

The PC game does have some big differences compared to the TT game and not all of them are good differences to be honest, and it has from its conception been different enough to be able to pick and choose exactly which elements of the TT rules it decides to employ. Obviously purely from a TT players point of view it would have been great if the PC game had in every respect copied the TT rules with formations, free movement (no hex's), turn sequence etc. but this was not to be and I like many other TT gamers bought the game anyway and learned to live with (and enjoy) the differences. But when (as in the case of anarchy) you try to adopt an element of the TT rules and because the turn sequence and formation size is different it can cause some major problems (as in the case of anarchy).

Exactly which direction the game will evolve towards I don't know, that is for the designers to decide (with suitable pressure from the players) but essentially as others have said before 'it is an entirely seperate and self contained entity'. And finally I am in full agreement with the notion that the biggest problem with anarchy charges is small segments as opposed to large formations charging forward into oblivion.

[batesmotel]

Sorry, but i don't buy your theory of professionally trained soldiers like legionaries or phalangites, drilled to fight together as a whole will go anarchy charging in different directions after the first enemy they see in individual maniples or phalanx companies Confused They behave like bersekers barbarians, not like drilled troops.

Agreed. Lined my captured Seleucid phalanx up behind a stream and waited for the Gallic mob to turn up. As soon as they were within range 3 of my pike units charged. I'd call that a game breaker.

This should count as a bug. Troops in the TT rules will not anarchy charge if defending a river bank or fortifications. I think fortificatons work properly in 1.2.5 but it sounds like rivers should be fixed.

Chris