Increased Anarchy

[arsan]

Maybe the easiest solution would be able to just turn it off and on like LOS. i doudt their will ever be a consensus on what is the right amount..
Only problem if it became an option to turn off/on its really going to divide people up on accepting challnges in dag battles , much more so than LOS... i have no problem accepting a no LOS challenge but might hesitate on a "no anarchy" challenge, otherse vice versa...

Personally, i don't like the idea of Anarchy being an on/off thing.
I like the concept and think it adds a nice pinch of uncertainty. But whats cool in small dosis, can be a game killer when it happens to 30% of your BG per turn.

IMHO it should be:

- Toned down in frequency (maybe like 1/3 of the current chances or so)
- Moved back to the start of the turn, so you can support you anarchic units or at least react and plug the holes they have opened on your lines.
- Give some bigger bonus for resisting anarchy to drilled and disciplined units, so Gallic armies and legionary or Hellenistic armies didn't have the same "felling"
- Take in account the combat success chances in the anarchy charges (like its already done with evasions) so units would not make suicidal attacks every other turn. This will help with uphill charges, but i'm not sure how to make units defending hill not to charge down of it

[Morbio]

Oh, guess what. Next move I try to withdraw out of melee range and 2 more pikes anarchy charge uphill into the line of pikes!

I'm averaging about 20% of my units per turn going into anarchy, and it's probably nearer 1 in 3 if you just count those in melee range. It's ridiculous!

[TheGrayMouser]

Maybe the easiest solution would be able to just turn it off and on like LOS. i doudt their will ever be a consensus on what is the right amount..
Only problem if it became an option to turn off/on its really going to divide people up on accepting challnges in dag battles , much more so than LOS... i have no problem accepting a no LOS challenge but might hesitate on a "no anarchy" challenge, otherse vice versa...

Personally, i don't like the idea of Anarchy being an on/off thing.
I like the concept and think it adds a nice pinch of uncertainty. But whats cool in small dosis, can be a game killer when it happens to 30% of your BG per turn.

IMHO it should be:

- Toned down in frequency (maybe like 1/3 of the current chances or so)
- Moved back to the start of the turn, so you can support you anarchic units or at least react and plug the holes they have opened on your lines.
- Give some bigger bonus for resisting anarchy to drilled and disciplined units, so Gallic armies and legionary or Hellenistic armies didn't have the same "felling"
- Take in account the combat success chances in the anarchy charges (like its already done with evasions) so units would not make suicidal attacks every other turn. This will help with uphill charges, but i'm not sure how to make units defending hill not to charge down of it

Yeah I dont like the on off thing really , it was suggested as maybe the only way of satisfying everyone

The main problem I have with anarchy being tied to drilled is the historical and realistic paradoxes between those terms Can anyone argue that the Swiss wernt highly drilled? No, but they were also very impetuious.. You can argue that about the legions as well, especially since some of the fiercest durng the principaite were recuited from lands of fierce and highly independent minded warriors Batavians come to mind...and yes I know the counter that the swiss etc didnt anrachy in penny packets , they also didnt enter battle in 30 plus independent units but instead in 2-3 blocks... would it be fun to play an army with only 3 units?
Lets face it the game system represents (once all the expansions come out) 2000 years of warefare, not everything is going to be perfect in every situation based on such a systmem

[mschund]

In general, I like the concept of Anarchy and pursuit...but I think that units should only charge targets that they have a favorable chance of winning (or catching)...in addition drilled troops should charge far less frequently than undrilled units...

[arsan]

The main problem I have with anarchy being tied to drilled is the historical and realistic paradoxes between those terms Can anyone argue that the Swiss wernt highly drilled? No, but they were also very impetuious.. You can argue that about the legions as well, especially since some of the fiercest durng the principaite were recuited from lands of fierce and highly independent minded warriors Batavians come to mind...and yes I know the counter that the swiss etc didnt anrachy in penny packets , they also didnt enter battle in 30 plus independent units but instead in 2-3 blocks... would it be fun to play an army with only 3 units?

I don't know much about the middle ages swiss exploits, but talking about roman legionaries: they were fierce, that for sure, but also highly disciplined. Impetuous, yes, but usually under orders.
Something like professional killing machines, able to rotate lines to insert fresh men into the battle front.
That training and discipline and their better equipment was what gave them the advantage against usually more numerous barbarian armies which were, men by men, as brave as them and probably physically stronger, but many times lacked the discipline and drill to fight in a controlled and "intelligent" way.

Something similar can be said about the Hellenistic pikes: trained to fight as a whole, holding a line or relentlessly advancing upon the enemy line.

I don't picture Caesar or Scipio or Alexander o Phyrrus seeing how 1 out of 3 of his forces goes nuts after enemy skirmishers breaking their lines even before the battle is joined.
I would not mind much if 20% of my Celts or Iberian warriors going anarchist after the enemy (specially if they would not leave advantageous terrain and would charge something they can tackle with).
But if drilled now has a 20-30% go nuts, i bet barbarians undrilled impact foot will go nuts 40-50% of the times.

Cheers

[Paisley]

I'll test undrilled later.

Another possible part solution would be to say that drilled anarch as now but test only if the enemy is one hex away (foot) or two (mounted). I'm not saying that's ideal but it's a possibility.

[hidde]

Anarchy charges is not a problem for everyone but I belive it is. I think I maybe have found a cause for this..er..problem.
There are two kind of anarchy. One were the BG refuse to obey orders i.e. stay put and one kind were the affected BG makes a charge.
Now, if I give an order to a BG that's not within charge range and it goes anarchy it just do nothing. However, all I have to do is give the order again and this time it will be followed. That indicate to me that this kind of anarchy is broken.
Can it be that if I give the same order (not attack but move or change face) to a BG within charge range and the anarchy for not obeying orders kicks in but doesn't work, somehow it transform into the anarchy where the BG charge instead?
That would mean, I suppose, that anarchy charges are roughly twice as common as intended. It wouldn't affect the end of turn anarchy but from memory I think there are less of them.
If also the most stupid charges could be prevented I'd be a happy camper.

[Paisley]

I have tested end of turn anarchy for average drilled pikes (in command) and it runs at 20-30%. See above.

Repeating the test for average undrilled impact foot (again, all in command) gives:

First test 18/50 units anarchy charged. 36%.

2nd test 19/50 or 38%

3rd test 23/50 0r 46%.

[Morbio]

Next turn, only 1 anarchy, but that, I believe is due to the fact that I'm now committing most of my forces into a battle I didn't want to fight, I've been given the choice of writing off a big chunk of my army or throwing the rest in and hoping for some luck - I've chosen the latter.

Ironically the one anarchy charge I had I would say is a result of a bug.

Here's what happened.

I move a cavalry unit.
I move a Companion unit.
I realise that I could have a better tactical position with a minor change. I undo both moves.
I move the cavalry unit
I move the Companion unit to the same position - anarchy! It goes off and attacks something else.

This means that if you use the undo function with impact foot then you increase the chance of anarchy by virtue of the fact that you test on each potential move.

The anarchy test should be made once per turn for a unit and not remade if you undo the move.

[pantherboy]

I don't really want to rehash what I've said in other posts dealing with this topic but I also would like to once again voice my disproval of the anarchy system. I don't think that every battle in history nor the majority saw anarchy to the degree that it is replicated here. Also so many other factors are involved in said examples of the past that it doesn't translate smoothly into a rule. I understand about keeping elements of luck in the game but I feel it already exists to a large degree through the combat system.

Anarchy totally disrupts the maneouver aspect of the game and forces gamey tricks. I try to angle units rather than face to the front so that if contacted they are hit in the flank which has no bearing in impact combat but then I swivel to go face to face at the end of the turn. You may say well they must be able to charge my rear if I'm angled such but if you form a contiguous line with elements to your rear you can avoid being hit in the rear unless the enemy has angled his guys into your line or attempts to do so in which case you execute a face change in your turn without risk of anarchy and wait to see which of theirs go in.

Defensive play has largely come to an end due to the lack of control as has coordinated attack. I'm not saying that it isn't possible but to replicate so many fine commanders in history or the triumphs of many armies anarchy has to be mitigated to a minor role. If you see 2 or 3 anarchies in the entire battle then I feel that would allow greater playability and allow people to explore true tactics. Remember that those 2 or 3 anarchies could still have game losing or winning consequences.

Also I feel that evades are broken still. We have poor LF costed from 2 to 3 points that reign supreme and that now can draw medium/heavy troops from their lines regardless of the situation. How do you screen against poor LF if all you can do is chase them off and sit 2 from HF and then hn his turn he charges back pinning you and brings up the heavies? I'd like to see all LF caught by LF. All LH caught by LH and all cavalry caught by cavalry. To me this is a truer representation of the balefield. The lights go out and duel with their opponents counterparts then scatter as the main lines advance to contact. Maybe all lights attempt to break contact unless winning after the first melee. The fact they go into contact doesn't mean that they are actually in HTH but that they are at a sufficient range to begin disrupting or inflicting casualties on their enemy to unnerve them and see them off the field.

I don't know. Maybe I'm rambling but in truth I'd like to see anarchy shelved in its current form to be replacedby something more practical or modeling all the conditions set-out in the TT version.

[Paisley]

I think light foot lacking javelins should not be able to charge any unit frontally. And poor light foot should not be able to do so even if they have javelins. that, I think, would solve their game superiority at a stroke. As would pantherboys suggestion that light foot stand and fight ther lights but break off like cavalry if they lose.

[petergarnett]

I have tested end of turn anarchy for average drilled pikes (in command) and it runs at 20-30%. See above.

Repeating the test for average undrilled impact foot (again, all in command) gives:

First test 18/50 units anarchy charged. 36%.

2nd test 19/50 or 38%

3rd test 23/50 0r 46%.

This is far too many IMO - how can you keep in line when you know about a 3rd of your BG's will charge. Are we supposed to say an Inspired leader like Alexander had best not be with the companions but rather with the phalanx in order to help it obey his orders. Otherwise they will ignore all their training & common sense & charge out of line. I don't feel this rule has translated well from the TT to the hex based version.

[Xiggy]

Put your generals in the front rank and those numbers drop considerably. We had no problem with the swiss with 30+ pikes/halberds, but I had 4 generals in the front ranks or 2nd rank the entire battle. That's what leadership is for IMHO.

[Blathergut]

What should be done is the number needed to pass be lowered so that only a roll of 2-3 or so causes anarchy...and in command range of inspired should make it impossible.

[Xiggy]

I see breakoffs as more of an issue, than anarchy. You can use generals and formation to mitigate anarchy. You have no control of when cavalry break off. It may have cost the germans their game against the swiss, since it let me lap the flanks of his pike formation on 2 ocations.

[deadtorius]

I agree the break offs are a problem. I have had quite a few games where enemy cav breaks off, ends up behind my lines pointing at the backside of several of my troops and there is nothing I can do about it. They are a lot less of a problem on the TT mainly because on the TT it is more linear and breaking off units are normally moving towards their own table edge. the PC game ends up with units all over the place facing any number of directions and the break offs end up with weird situations

[Paisley]

Put your generals in the front rank and those numbers drop considerably

They do not. Those figures are for front rank generals (a field general every 10th unit to ensure command).

What you tend to see with the Swiss (in my fairly extensive experience) is that they do not anarchy because they are advancing to combat pretty much all along the line. Where they do hold back, they seem just as prone to end of turn anarchy as anyone, ie 20-30% chance.

The argument seems to be that pikes were historically not used to hold a static line but were aggressive - they were in all Alexander's battles. And to be fair in most battles that's true. Chareonea seems the only battle where pikes held a line/retreated in the face of the enemy. Presumably theScots spearmen of the pre-Bruce era will be defensive spears and so not anarchy prone (else the historical schiltrom will be impossible to model. For SoA era, it does seem fair enough to have Scots as OffSp as the almost invariably advanced.

But there still remains the issue that more units anarchy on the pc than on the table because you have around 2-4 times as many units for a given representation of bases. And the fact that such anarchy is 'bitty' 2 (3 in the case of pike) base part-table equivalent. The only reasonable way to get a table like model is

1st: restore anarchy to the start of the turn

2nd: reduce the score needed to pass the test. For drilled in command, if they;'re currently anarching at 20-30%, we'd want to reduce that to around 10%. Failing on under 5 would be a 1 in 6 chance. Failing on under 4, a 1 in 12.

[Paisley]

Put your generals in the front rank and those numbers drop considerably

They do not. Those figures are for front rank generals (a field general every 10th unit to ensure command).

What you tend to see with the Swiss (in my fairly extensive experience) is that they do not anarchy because they are advancing to combat pretty much all along the line. Where they do hold back, they seem just as prone to end of turn anarchy as anyone, ie 20-30% chance.

The argument seems to be that pikes were historically not used to hold a static line but were aggressive - they were in all Alexander's battles. And to be fair in most battles that's true. Chareonea seems the only battle where pikes held a line/retreated in the face of the enemy. Presumably theScots spearmen of the pre-Bruce era will be defensive spears and so not anarchy prone (else the historical schiltrom will be impossible to model. For SoA era, it does seem fair enough to have Scots as OffSp as they almost invariably advanced.

But there still remains the issue that more units anarchy on the pc than on the table because you have around 2-4 times as many units for a given representation of bases. And the fact that such anarchy is 'bitty' 2 (3 in the case of pike) base part-table equivalent. The only reasonable way to get a table like model is

1st: restore anarchy to the start of the turn

2nd: reduce the score needed to pass the test. For drilled in command, if they;'re currently anarching at 20-30%, we'd want to reduce that to around 10%. Failing on under 5 would be a 1 in 6 chance. Failing on under 4, a 1 in 12.

[Xiggy]

Another thing you can do to prevent anarchy charges is put some LF/LH in front of the HF/MF then no anarchy untill the lights are driven off. At least I have not to this point seen anarchy charges through lights yet.

[Paisley]

I ran my 50 unit test for the Swiss... same as before, all in command, 5 front rank leaders.

Run three times, 8 anarchied each time or 16%, approximately 2/3 as much as average pikes did. I presume therefore that quality does apply to anarchy tests.

I notice from the Help document that drilled should pass CMT on 6 or more. You get +1 for being in command and +1 for adjacent a general.

So drilled should be passing a CMT on 5 or more if in command, 4 or more if adjacent the general.

That means we should see anarchy rates for drilled pikes of 1 in 6 or 1 in 12. or roughly 17% and 8% respectively. I'm getting substantially more than that consistently. In fact results consistent with the number needed to pass being 7 for drilled avarage and 6 for drilled superior.

Is there a fault in the coding? Or is the help file wrong?