mceochaidh wrote:Regarding phalanx and anarchy, I would like to put into perspective what this means. If we assume that a BG is equal to 300 men, then a phalanx BG is probably a syntagma of 16 ranks by 16 files. A rank of 16 men in close order, assuming about 30" per man, takes up 14 or 15 feet. It is difficult to imagine a single syntagma in a long line suddenly bolting out and charging skirmishers that they cannot possibly catch. Depending on the source and timeframe, there would be 4 to 6 such units in a larger unit. Asklepiodotos uses a chiliarchia of 1024 or equal to 4 syntagmas of 256 men each.
I would venture to say that a commander of a syntagma allowing his entire unit to create a 15 foot gap in a line would be skinned. The commander of the chiliarchia would probably be only yards away as the whole frontage of a 4 syntagma unit is only 60 feet! It would not happen very often. The TT version, as I understand it, does not require individual bases to leave the formation to charge after skirmishers due to anarchy, so why should the PC version allow this? The TT version targets a base size of 250, very close to the 300 for the PC BG size. In the TT, multiple bases form a "Battle Group." I do believe that a larger formation could anarchy charge. Hastings is used as an example, but even in this battle, the shield wall broke to charge what they thought were large forces of routing enemy heavy cavalry and infantry, not skirmishers.
At the very least, I think that, barring an enhancement which would allow multiple BGs to form a "unit" in the PC version, the Complex Move Test should be changed only as regards testing for anarchy charges. I would add an additional +1 for heavy or medium foot shock troops who are not fragmented or disordered and whose nearest enemy battle group is foot skirmishers. I would also add an additional +1 for heavy or medium shock troops who are not fragmented or disordered and whose nearest battle group is foot skirmishers, if they are supported, simulating to some extent the idea of the individual BG being part of a larger formation.
These changes would still allow anarchy but would mitigate the frequency of it regarding heavy and medium foot. If adopted, the changes would probably reduce the "gamey" tactics of turning sideways or backwards to avoid anarchy. I do not think the change should be applied to cavalry as , typically, shock cavalry were more difficult to control than especially, close order foot.
The tabletop game does not do anything at all with individual bases except when they die. They are merely strength indicators. The units in the digital game are self-contained battlegroups, not individual bases from the tabletop game. They may approximate it in number of troops they represent, but not in the function for the game.
I like this game, but the level of control the player has over every sub-unit is ludicrous. And that's in the table top game, the digital game is even sillier. I suppose it's what makes the game fun, but very few commanders of even the most disciplined armies could hope for this much control of any unit, much less every single unit in the army. That said, I do think a self contained unit could be lured into charging out of bad terrain, but it would take a fairly substantial amount of encouragement. . . casualties, disordering effects, or whatever, shock or no shock. The Romans did it many times, and obviously the anglo-saxons did it at hastings, but this wasn't because of a few light troops lobbing a few projectiles at them, this was following up after they had beaten off an attack, were exhausted, etc. Seems to me it should be pretty rare. The idea of a sub-portion of a phalanx doing it while the remaining men in the phalanx stay stationary, and solely based on a few light foot at the bottom of the hill is over the top.
.
