Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft
Oh, I never thought so...I know we have the same opinion about the current anarchy.Blathergut wrote:I know. It's not a comment on you. I just wish they could improve some key weaknesses in the game. It could move from a good, fun game most of the time to a truly excellent one if they could just improve such things.
(Beware: Am bring extra long extendo-pikes next time!)
There's always the odd situation or even game. Trust me, in most if not all other games lately I've had maybe half a dozen anarchy charges or so.Why are you doing that? I dont recall any of your units anarchying at all during our battle, even your cats!
Why didn't you choose to have the knights charge the other targets then rather than leaving them to make an anarchy charge? That would be the obvious way to avoid having them anarchy charge the worst opponent.pantherboy wrote:I think this simply demonstrates how flawed the anarchy system is. As I outlined this identical strategy between MF and HF this eventuates because of the mechanism involved. They have to seriously rethink this issue as it devolves the game. I had my superior undrilled kights facing 2 HF spears (one uphill) and an enemy knight. They anarchied in and attacked the unit uphill which was the worst possible odds and presented their rear to the other HF for a rear charge. I don't mind anarchy existing but rather than it be a norm per turn it should be an event per game. Then I wouldn't care when it happens.
I am playing with mid rep Romans, everything I have is shock as well and I have just not seen any of these issue... At least not so bad as having to turn my units around...Blathergut wrote:Everything he has is shock. One way of ensuring a rear line a bit away from the enemy can't be sucked out by a LF or two.
All 3 targets had better odds with the hill one being +2POA over me plus I'd already sustained 25% casualties. I'd just broken off after his turn from chopping up a disrupted spear where I had support and got dumped in front of another part of his line. By the way this is Roosenbeke scenario. I wanted to move back to the wing rather than suicidally charge in so opted to risk anarchy in the hope of preserving 2 break points but instead he charged in to ultimately get reduced to under 45% and auto-rout in his following turn. If I'd chosen the target it would of resulted in the same scenario so the wisest course of action was withdrawal. Now going anarchy is fine but the logic used for targets can be flawed, it doesn't take into account the battlefield situation nor are the chances low enough I feel.batesmotel wrote:Why didn't you choose to have the knights charge the other targets then rather than leaving them to make an anarchy charge? That would be the obvious way to avoid having them anarchy charge the worst opponent.pantherboy wrote:I think this simply demonstrates how flawed the anarchy system is. As I outlined this identical strategy between MF and HF this eventuates because of the mechanism involved. They have to seriously rethink this issue as it devolves the game. I had my superior undrilled kights facing 2 HF spears (one uphill) and an enemy knight. They anarchied in and attacked the unit uphill which was the worst possible odds and presented their rear to the other HF for a rear charge. I don't mind anarchy existing but rather than it be a norm per turn it should be an event per game. Then I wouldn't care when it happens.
Chris
Your troops are impact and want to move forward and have a speed of 2. This greatly alters your persepctive especially if you aren't fielding MF.TheGrayMouser wrote:I am playing with mid rep Romans, everything I have is shock as well and I have just not seen any of these issue... At least not so bad as having to turn my units around...Blathergut wrote:Everything he has is shock. One way of ensuring a rear line a bit away from the enemy can't be sucked out by a LF or two.
You better not moon me with your battle line in our next battle Hidde, or you will regret it!
batesmotel wrote:Why didn't you choose to have the knights charge the other targets then rather than leaving them to make an anarchy charge? That would be the obvious way to avoid having them anarchy charge the worst opponent.pantherboy wrote:I think this simply demonstrates how flawed the anarchy system is. As I outlined this identical strategy between MF and HF this eventuates because of the mechanism involved. They have to seriously rethink this issue as it devolves the game. I had my superior undrilled kights facing 2 HF spears (one uphill) and an enemy knight. They anarchied in and attacked the unit uphill which was the worst possible odds and presented their rear to the other HF for a rear charge. I don't mind anarchy existing but rather than it be a norm per turn it should be an event per game. Then I wouldn't care when it happens.
Chris
Exactly. You are given the choice of charge yourself or let the AI do it. Shock troops should be unreliable to an extent but there should be a higher chance for the player to do someting other than charge or "charge". I say it again,it's not fun when the game plays me and not me playing the game.I wanted to move back to the wing rather than suicidally charge in so opted to risk anarchy in the hope of preserving 2 break points
LF were not deployed to trigger charges but disrupt the enemy line and cause casualties plus screen their own forces versus such an effect. Remember that most ancient armies LF are not professional skirmishers. If anything they wouldn't deploy in the open in front of mounted forces but in front of enemy foot. Also I strongly feel Henry didn't dismount his men due to anarchy but more for defensive reasons. In general a commander doesn't assume his men will charge without being signaled to. I've mostly assumed anarchy is where a lower ranked commander orders an assualt since he feels it is to his tactical advantage.Skanvak wrote:As far as I know Anarchy charge are frequent in real battle for undrill troop (especially knight). Light missile foot were used to trigger such charge to break the ennemy formation.
Personnaly I just wish it to be true to reality. I don't care the effect on gameplay as the game is more about initial plan so taking anarchy into account is just an aspect of the game ( at azincourt, the english dismounted their knight because they were too prone to anarchy charge, and the king know that and consider that they will anarchy charge so a high probability not an event in the game).
MF charging out of terrain seems to have broken again in 1.2.6 so it is a bug that definitely should be fixed in the next patch. In the TT rules, troops defending a riverbank will not anarchy change and this needs to be added in the PC rules as well. Both of those fixes should help with this type of situation.pantherboy wrote:LF were not deployed to trigger charges but disrupt the enemy line and cause casualties plus screen their own forces versus such an effect. Remember that most ancient armies LF are not professional skirmishers. If anything they wouldn't deploy in the open in front of mounted forces but in front of enemy foot. Also I strongly feel Henry didn't dismount his men due to anarchy but more for defensive reasons. In general a commander doesn't assume his men will charge without being signaled to. I've mostly assumed anarchy is where a lower ranked commander orders an assualt since he feels it is to his tactical advantage.Skanvak wrote:As far as I know Anarchy charge are frequent in real battle for undrill troop (especially knight). Light missile foot were used to trigger such charge to break the ennemy formation.
Personnaly I just wish it to be true to reality. I don't care the effect on gameplay as the game is more about initial plan so taking anarchy into account is just an aspect of the game ( at azincourt, the english dismounted their knight because they were too prone to anarchy charge, and the king know that and consider that they will anarchy charge so a high probability not an event in the game).
Anyway I'm playing in some swampy territory with the Illyrians versus Pontic and have deployed behind or on a river amongst scattered swamp hexes. Now like my Thermopylae example I have 2 swamp hexes with MF then 2 river hexes with MF and 2 then 2 more swamp hexes with MF awaiting his line. He reaches 3 hex range and the non-swamp guys immediately anarchy. This is stupid. In such a strong defnsive position and heavy foot coming they wouldn't break the line. From my own military experience even conscript equivalents wouldn't do it. I really can't understand where you guys see the evidence in history to support your positions. I began posting rebuttles to some battle claims to show how thy aren't examples of anarchy but something different. The rate of anarchy is too high and totally lacking in regard to the tactical situation at that moment.
Cavalry is at a disadvantage if recieving a charge stationary. That is the reason for dismounting. He wanted his men massed across a small frontage which you can't achieve either if mounted. By being four ranks deep you create an immovable wall for the opposing forces especially as the terrain was muddy and slowed down the french knights. Also they wanted their flanks anchored by the longbows behind stakes. By these rules I could move up a french crossbow and the english knights would charge out of their defensive line which is counter to Henry's thinking.Skanvak wrote:"Also I strongly feel Henry didn't dismount his men due to anarchy but more for defensive reasons."
No you are wrong on this one. He dismounted them because he wanted to fight a defensive battle and knows that if mounted they will charge wihout order. Noble fight for honor (French knights does that often) and are NOT drilled. Anarchy is that, Units charging without order that happen often, especially with knights. (Of course there should be some one ot lead the charge but that is rather the battle group officer not represented in the game, not the sub commander that we use).
And I garantee that you need nerves to not moved when under fire with casuality. So even if your use of LF / LH is correct provoking anarchy charge is just part of this strategy as it will break the line. Some soldiers will charge the LF just to make them run and get some relief from their fire or just to not be sitting Duck. It need nerves and drilling to stay still when you are under attack.
