The New Field of Glory

[Brigz]

Yes, thanks for that. Keep 'em coming.

[stockwellpete]

That looks reassuringly familiar... Elite, drilled Sacred Band with a general... anarchy charging poor LF!

Looks like they have charged through their own cavalry too . . . I have never quite worked out how they would be able to see the enemy in this situation, let alone decide to charge them.

[cothyso]

well, it's the rules from FoG(RB). there are many wrong things with the rules as they are right now. did you knew, for example, that the CMT needing to be failed in order to perform an anarchy charge is the same for all applied CMTs? which means that, for example, a shock unit will be more anarchy-charge inclined if it's actually fragmented, or disordered? there's no way in hell a messed up shock unit would anarchy charge anything, those guys would even think twice if you would actually command them to do it.

anyway, we can talk about rules modification later on (more probably for FoG 2.0).

as for more scraps.. you won't get any other.

because a full beta will follow soon (enough)

[FedeM]

Hail to that!!!

[batesmotel]

well, it's the rules from FoG(RB). there are many wrong things with the rules as they are right now. did you knew, for example, that the CMT needing to be failed in order to perform an anarchy charge is the same for all applied CMTs? which means that, for example, a shock unit will be more anarchy-charge inclined if it's actually fragmented, or disordered? there's no way in hell a messed up shock unit would anarchy charge anything, those guys would even think twice if you would actually command them to do it.

anyway, we can talk about rules modification later on (more probably for FoG 2.0).

as for more scraps.. you won't get any other.

because a full beta will follow soon (enough)

Fragmented BGs are not allowed to charge so do not have anarchy charge checks. Disrupted BGs being more likely to anarchy charge is consistent with the TT rules.
The design assumption is that shock BGs are naturally inclined to want to close to combat and it's a matter of keeping them under control to prevent them from doing so at their first opportunity. A disrupted unit is generally harder to control and hence the increased chance for them to anarchy charge in an uncontrolled manner.

Chris

[Turk1964]

Disrupted Cav/lancers charging into steady spear or pike is in my opinion ridiculous they would be more prone to run or watch in awe rather than a headlong charge into well formed spearmen. Just my opiniom mind

[cothyso]

Fragmented BGs are not allowed to charge so do not have anarchy charge checks. Disrupted BGs being more likely to anarchy charge is consistent with the TT rules.
The design assumption is that shock BGs are naturally inclined to want to close to combat and it's a matter of keeping them under control to prevent them from doing so at their first opportunity. A disrupted unit is generally harder to control and hence the increased chance for them to anarchy charge in an uncontrolled manner.

Chris

well, another design assumption is that BGs are only anarchy charging when they are "sensing" they have an advantage over the charged BG (which makes total sense), and according with this, Disrupted BGs should be less anarchy charge inclined, not more. Being harder to control hardly means they should also charge un-forced to their deaths.

[batesmotel]

For your understanding of command control, I think it would make more sense to require a CMT for troop to charge when commanded to do so rather than the current anarchy charge mechanism. A CMT is already required for missile foot and skirmishers to charge non-skirmishers and could easily be extended to other troops with modifiers for shock troops, etc, to make it easier to charge in favorable circumstances. The CMT for anarchy charges in the TT and PC game is intended to reflect that shock troops are difficult to control at times rather than that they will seize the initiative in especially favorable circumstances. You should look at the TT rules and the TT forums before deciding that a particular mechanism in the game is a bug because it conflicts with your view of how ancient combat occurred. From there you can make considered decisions about future changes but this shouldn't be done as merely being bug fixes for incorrect code.

Chris

[cothyso]

Don't worry, we're not altering the rules at this point, but implement them exactly as they are in the FoG(RB) version + manual + FoG wiki, minus fixing obvious existing rule implementation bugs. In this case, as the anarchy charges + CMT is implemented in both FoG(RB) and FoG(U) as they are in the sources I've told you about. The points I've risen up are barely academic discussion at this time. We'll get to and extended analysis of them when we'll get to FoG 2.0, don't have time for this right now.

There are some questions about some things though I would like to have cleared out, as checking them by myself would take a too long time I do not have atm:
1) the Skirmishers definition says it's a generic name for LF and LH, yet the Charging With Skirmishers rule also talks about non-shock MF with the first rank having ranged weapons.

are these non-shock MF with a first rank having a ranged weapon (the Median Bowmen from Marathon scenario for example) considered skirmishers, and should they be treated as so in each rule talking about skirmishers, or just in the CWS one?

[Lysimachos]

For your understanding of command control, I think it would make more sense to require a CMT for troop to charge when commanded to do so rather than the current anarchy charge mechanism. A CMT is already required for missile foot and skirmishers to charge non-skirmishers and could easily be extended to other troops with modifiers for shock troops, etc, to make it easier to charge in favorable circumstances. The CMT for anarchy charges in the TT and PC game is intended to reflect that shock troops are difficult to control at times rather than that they will seize the initiative in especially favorable circumstances. You should look at the TT rules and the TT forums before deciding that a particular mechanism in the game is a bug because it conflicts with your view of how ancient combat occurred. From there you can make considered decisions about future changes but this shouldn't be done as merely being bug fixes for incorrect code.

Chris

Well Chris, but at this point we should assume that a rule that has shock units charging to their death is flawed as unhistorical and illogic.
If some units charged without orders, it occured when these soldiers were quite sure of gaining an easy victory or, at least, of fighting with equal odds.

[batesmotel]

For your understanding of command control, I think it would make more sense to require a CMT for troop to charge when commanded to do so rather than the current anarchy charge mechanism. A CMT is already required for missile foot and skirmishers to charge non-skirmishers and could easily be extended to other troops with modifiers for shock troops, etc, to make it easier to charge in favorable circumstances. The CMT for anarchy charges in the TT and PC game is intended to reflect that shock troops are difficult to control at times rather than that they will seize the initiative in especially favorable circumstances. You should look at the TT rules and the TT forums before deciding that a particular mechanism in the game is a bug because it conflicts with your view of how ancient combat occurred. From there you can make considered decisions about future changes but this shouldn't be done as merely being bug fixes for incorrect code.

Chris

Well Chris, but at this point we should assume that a rule that has shock units charging to their death is flawed as unhistorical and illogic.
If some units charged without orders, it occured when these soldiers were quite sure of gaining an easy victory or, at least, of fighting with equal odds.

Tell that to the French knights at Crecy who impetuously charged though their mercenary crossbowmen to charge the English longbowmen behind their stakes (PD). That is the sort of situation that the anarchy charge rules are intended to recreate. If Cothyso feels that testing to charge without orders is unrealistic then the rule should just be removed from the game. Right now shock troops have the advantage that they do not need to take a CMT to charge when they are already disrupted, unlike other troops. They get the corresponding disadvantage that they may decide to charge without orders in situations where their commander wouldn't want them to.

Chris

[batesmotel]

Don't worry, we're not altering the rules at this point, but implement them exactly as they are in the FoG(RB) version + manual + FoG wiki, minus fixing obvious existing rule implementation bugs. In this case, as the anarchy charges + CMT is implemented in both FoG(RB) and FoG(U) as they are in the sources I've told you about. The points I've risen up are barely academic discussion at this time. We'll get to and extended analysis of them when we'll get to FoG 2.0, don't have time for this right now.

There are some questions about some things though I would like to have cleared out, as checking them by myself would take a too long time I do not have atm:
1) the Skirmishers definition says it's a generic name for LF and LH, yet the Charging With Skirmishers rule also talks about non-shock MF with the first rank having ranged weapons.

are these non-shock MF with a first rank having a ranged weapon (the Median Bowmen from Marathon scenario for example) considered skirmishers, and should they be treated as so in each rule talking about skirmishers, or just in the CWS one?

MF with missile weapons (except javelins) in the frist rank must test to charge un-broken "battle troops" (non-skirmishers, e.g. not LF or LH) unless it is a rear charge. MF are never considered to be skirmishers, only LF and LH are. The MF CMT to charge case is handled separately in the TT rules and should have been described separately in the FoG PC help. I think there is a bug in the PC implementation currently in that I beleive it does a CMT is required for MF with ranged weapons in the first rank even if making a rear charge or charging broken troops.

Chris

[Lysimachos]

Tell that to the French knights at Crecy who impetuously charged though their mercenary crossbowmen to charge the English longbowmen behind their stakes (PD). That is the sort of situation that the anarchy charge rules are intended to recreate. If Cothyso feels that testing to charge without orders is unrealistic then the rule should just be removed from the game. Right now shock troops have the advantage that they do not need to take a CMT to charge when they are already disrupted, unlike other troops. They get the corresponding disadvantage that they may decide to charge without orders in situations where their commander wouldn't want them to.
Chris

But they were sure of winning the encounter and didn't feel it could end in defeat.
And also in the game the odds between these two kind of troops are not so unequal.
Quite different is seeing a disrupted knight unit charging a steady wall of pike, something that dind't happen in reality, except in some rare cases when those knights thought to be confronted by more than poor peasants, maybe only afterwards realising they were tough enough to resist their onslaught!

[stockwellpete]

But they were sure of winning the encounter and didn't feel it could end in defeat.

Yes, that's right - and there was a real desire among the French nobility to be first to get to grips with the English. You can see a similar thing with the Scottish highlander contingents. But in both these examples the French and Scottish soldiers would start out as "steady" and not "disrupted".

[cothyso]

Another ones, just checking out to be sure:

1) shock-able disrupted BGs can charge, or they must still pass a CMT in order to charge? (seems so)

2) shock-able fragmented BGs can not charge at all, or they can charge if they pass a CMT? (seems so)

3) are disrupted/disordered and fragmented/severely fragmented treated the same everywhere (charge rules/CMTs/everywhere)? (seems so)

4) non-shock medium foot whose front rank has missile weapons must pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers they could otherwise shoot at, unless it is a rear charge - is the they could otherwise shoot at a requirement for this rule, or not (batesmotel hasn't mentioned it in the above reply)? (seems not, even if the manual states that is is so in the Charge With Skirmishers section - so, which behavior is correct?)

5) anarchy charge BGs needs to pass first the charge requirements too, before checking for the anarchy charge ones? (seems so)

[IainMcNeil]

We are not going to change any of the base rules - Dan is just looking for help interpreting them. Please keep the discussions based on that. Any discussions about changes/improvements to the game system should be handled in another thread.

Shock troops wont be changed though - the idea is they are uncontrollable and don't realise they are going to lose and charge in. This is realistic and works in game!

[Lysimachos]

We are not going to change any of the base rules - Dan is just looking for help interpreting them. Please keep the discussions based on that. Any discussions about changes/improvements to the game system should be handled in another thread.

Shock troops wont be changed though - the idea is they are uncontrollable and don't realise they are going to lose and charge in. This is realistic and works in game!

Well, I don't really know if saying that is realistic that Alexander Macedonian pikemen, the Argyraspids of the Successor Diadochi and the Roman Legionaries of Scipio, Marius, Ceasar, Trajan were uncontrollable and didn't realize what they were going to do, sounds more ridiculous or grotesque !?!?!?!

I understand that the rules have been made having some good ideas in mind but a flawed rule (at least partially flawed because I recognize that it could simulate some situation involving knights and barbarians hordes for example) must not be preserved only because it came to existence.
Luckily enough it's past the time when kings and governors pretended that their laws came from the upper skies and couldn't be challenged by their subjects!

[cothyso]

for the shock anarchy charge, the logic tells that drilled shock troops should not be able to anarchy charge at all, or with a very small probability, and that cohesion status should affect the probability by lowering it (beside the current in area of command and adjacent to a commander ones). but this is another discussion altogether, please. let's cross that bridge when we'll get there.

in the mean time, I would like to receive some confirmations of the above 5 points. if anyone have some spare time to double check them into the FoG(RB), that would be awesome, as it would spare me losing time doing it by myself.

[batesmotel]

Another ones, just checking out to be sure:

1) shock-able disrupted BGs can charge, or they must still pass a CMT in order to charge? (seems so)

Disrupted shock Battle Groups may charge without a CMT.

2) shock-able fragmented BGs can not charge at all, or they can charge if they pass a CMT? (seems so)

No fragmented Battle Groups may charge.

3) are disrupted/disordered and fragmented/severely fragmented treated the same everywhere (charge rules/CMTs/everywhere)? (seems so)

Disruption and disorder are the same for their effect on combat (lose 1 attack per 3 attacks) and for CMTs (-1 modifier).
Fragmentation and severe disorder are the same for their effect on combat (lose 1 attack per 2 attacks) and for CMTs (-2 modifier).
Disruption and Severe Disorder are the same in their effect for Cohesion Tests (-1 modifier)
Only fragmentation prevents a BG from charging.

4) non-shock medium foot whose front rank has missile weapons must pass a CMT to charge unbroken non-skirmishers they could otherwise shoot at, unless it is a rear charge - is the they could otherwise shoot at a requirement for this rule, or not (batesmotel hasn't mentioned it in the above reply)? (seems not, even if the manual states that is is so in the Charge With Skirmishers section - so, which behavior is correct?)

MF with missile armed front rank (except javelins) must pass a CMT to charge non-broken, non-skirmishers unless a rear charge. Ability to shoot at the target or not has no effect.

5) anarchy charge BGs needs to pass first the charge requirements too, before checking for the anarchy charge ones? (seems so)

Yes, a shock BG will only anarchy charge if it could legally charge. The one exception allowed for an anarachy charge is that the charging BG may charge through a friendly BG it could not normally interpenetrate if it cannot charge legally without interpenetrating. e.g. lancer cavalry could not normally charge through a friendly HF BG but may do so in an anarchy charge if there is no legal charge path that does not require an illegal interpenetration. I think this not correctly implemented currently and an anarchy charge will sometimes make an illegal interpenetration even if there is another charge path that would not require the illegal interpenetration.

Dan, feel free to PM me if you need more details or if anything isn't clear in my answers.

Chris

[cothyso]

Evade rules questions:

1) does Evade follow the same rules as movement (without double moves and with minus/extra movement points), ie steep hills have an additional movement cost to hex terrain type's one, undrilled non light (LF/LH) BG's suffer a movement penalty when moving out of their front arc, can not pass through enemy ZOC, etc) or are the movement points considered as hexes regardles of the terrain cost (ie 1 movement point per hex)?
2) evade troops can burst-through any not-interpenetrable other unit type?
3) the minus extra 1-2 movement roll are treated as movement points, or extra-hexes, regardless of the cost to move through that hexes?