Freaking Anarchy

[Xiggy]

Grey, you dont play horde armies as a rule. I have tried to play Numidians with my mediocre skills and have lost, though not as badly as I thought. Only having javelins is a drawback.

I think the moral upgrade costs are worth the points. I am not sure armor greater than armored is in most cases. I think an example is in order.

One of the English Longbow armies has the option of dismounted armored knights or heavily armored knights. In most cases you should not upgrade. The extra 4 points per BG is better spent else where. The English Longbows that are longbow, plus sword are very expensive. I am not sure the sword is worth it. There are a lot of troops types with similar attributes. Most of the Horde armies commanded by a good general (NOT ME) are very effective because they do not have wasted points and since are only 1 point down due to armor can beat a stronger unit by attrition given reasonable dice and terrain.

[76mm]

It couldn't be done if they were on a hill since that is elevation dependent.

Why not? If the computer can tell that the unit has an elevation advantage for combat purposes, it should be able to tell for anarchy purposes?

[batesmotel]

I agree Xiggy that the game is well balanced to avoid a specific unit type from being a "super Trooper". , although not necesarily with the sentimant that expensive troops should be toned down for balance alone. (not that they are, although elite units can be a real bear to deal with)

Hmm Numidians.... i have fielded them once in MP and beat a Late Roman army , howver much of my thunder was stolen on the last turn where my opponent admitted that the game was only his second or third in MP

I'd probly try them more but I dont really think that they are too fun too play , at least for my play style (win or lose)

The Numidians should be better to play after S&S is out with the better ability to control when your troops will evade or not.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

I agree Xiggy that the game is well balanced to avoid a specific unit type from being a "super Trooper". , although not necesarily with the sentimant that expensive troops should be toned down for balance alone. (not that they are, although elite units can be a real bear to deal with)

Hmm Numidians.... i have fielded them once in MP and beat a Late Roman army , howver much of my thunder was stolen on the last turn where my opponent admitted that the game was only his second or third in MP

I'd probly try them more but I dont really think that they are too fun too play , at least for my play style (win or lose)

The Numidians should be better to play after S&S is out with the better ability to control when your troops will evade or not.

Chris

Not so sure about that, the forces Numidians field mean you WILL always want to evade (and the game does this for you automatically now since average lf or lh javelineers are usually inferior to anything that bumps into them)

As the premier light horse of that age, you would think the list would have an option to at least buy SOME superior light horse....

[TheGrayMouser]

It couldn't be done if they were on a hill since that is elevation dependent.

Why not? If the computer can tell that the unit has an elevation advantage for combat purposes, it should be able to tell for anarchy purposes?

Actually, that might be hard to program... What if you had a hoplite on a hill, then there are two hexes flat and then an enemy unit is on a hill(same "elevation" as the hoplite) Should the Hoplite test to anrchy or get a bonus or no? I guess the benefit of not anarching is highly conditional .....


edit: just had a minor thought, likly would have some issue but what if a player could set his offensive spears at the beginning of the battle to be defensive spears (much the way you can mount/dismount certain troops)? As in dimounting, you do this after you get to see what map you pulled and you could decide off hand what kind of battle you want to fight , ie defensive or agressive and set accordingly ...

Hmm probobly a bad idea as i can see all kinds of goofy set ups /exploits .... maybe if it was an all or nothing deal for all your troops ... oh well maybe there is no solution at all except to accept the game for what it is(not so bad a thing after all )

[76mm]

Actually, that might be hard to program... What if you had a hoplite on a hill, then there are two hexes flat and then an enemy unit is on a hill(same "elevation" as the hoplite) Should the Hoplite test to anrchy or get a bonus or no? I guess the benefit of not anarching is highly conditional .....

A general rule seems pretty easy to me--if you're on a hill, whatever other circumstances apply, you are less likely to anarchy. A simple rule like this isn't perfect, but is better than hoplites skittering off hills willy-nilly, and would address the situation that you raise as well as more common situations.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ah, but what if the unit is facing uphill? or facing linearly down hexes that are "hills" (ie facing down at a right angle to the slope)? In the one the unit actually isnt losing any benefit by anarching(and might actually be better off), in the second there is no change at all....
I think the issue is terraign(as in most games) is a hex and not a hex side.

I think not testing to A just for being on a hill hex is to extreme , there would need to be some conditionals, like would it lose a poa if it fought by leaving the hex its in, of course I really dont know how that could be easily programmed. A unit anarchying has mult random paths to reach its target or MULTIPLE potential targets.... Could get real weird....

[76mm]

Ah, but what if the unit is facing uphill? or facing linearly down hexes that are "hills" (ie facing down at a right angle to the slope)? In the one the unit actually isnt losing any benefit by anarching(and might actually be better off), in the second there is no change at all....
... Could get real weird....

As I said, it is a simplistic rule and not perfect, but better than the current situtaion. I don't think we need to worry about when a unit is "better off" anarchying, becuase the player can take care of that. If the unit is facing uphill, is is presumably attacking (who defends facing uphill?), so it shouldn't have to anarchy because the player will move it into contact soon enough.

[Archie]

As somebody who has never played TT version, I still have a trouble understanding some rules, could be talking rubbish.

I have enjoyed this discussion, and I would like to added my thoughts. The question is how to get force to defend on a hill, and less A. I thought a hold point could be added to non moving or stationery troops over a set period of time, say 3 moves, as by then it would have been drilled into them to hold position, not that they would every time though.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ah, but what if the unit is facing uphill? or facing linearly down hexes that are "hills" (ie facing down at a right angle to the slope)? In the one the unit actually isnt losing any benefit by anarching(and might actually be better off), in the second there is no change at all....
... Could get real weird....

As I said, it is a simplistic rule and not perfect, but better than the current situtaion. I don't think we need to worry about when a unit is "better off" anarchying, becuase the player can take care of that. If the unit is facing uphill, is is presumably attacking (who defends facing uphill?), so it shouldn't have to anarchy because the player will move it into contact soon enough.

I guess that is where I disagree, to have troops not anarchy simply because they are on a slope with no other conditionals will make game play worse not better.
Do we really want gamey tactics where players start deploying in reverse slope positions to negate anarchy tests? This is ancient warefare not Waterloo

[TheGrayMouser]

As somebody who has never played TT version, I still have a trouble understanding some rules, could be talking rubbish.

I have enjoyed this discussion, and I would like to added my thoughts. The question is how to get force to defend on a hill, and less A. I thought a hold point could be added to non moving or stationery troops over a set period of time, say 3 moves, as by then it would have been drilled into them to hold position, not that they would every time though.

Not a bad concept, however I would argue that gaining such a benefit should have a negative consequence if the player suddenly changes his mind and wants to be agressive with his formally defensive minded troopies.... Cant really think offhand of something within the basic mechanics of the game though...

[Xiggy]

The easiest way to prevent anarchy is

1 have drilled close order troops,
2 Have a general or generals in contact and
3 pray to not have bad dice.


There is a trend with horde armies to have as few generals as possible. If you are planing to play defensively, make sure you have enough generals to have your troops due what they are suppose to. That usually is at least 2 and more likely 3 or 4. I have problems with undrilled foot and all kinds of mounted troops. (Mounted is more the issue. Just wind them up and point them in the right direction and hang for dear life)

[Igorputski]

And again! - another mounted leader charges through his own ranks in an anarchy charge. This seems to be becoming monotonously commonplace for me now.

I can accept anarchy for non-leader BGs, on an occasional basis, but as a regular event for leader-led BGs, it just seems plain wrong. In effect, I must keep my mounted leaders back from supporting front line troops, in the very likely event that it will just crash through them to get to the enemy.

IMO leaders should be almost immune to anarchy charges.

You never read about Achilles or Hector did you? Even Mark Anthony? Why should leaders be immune from the insanity of battle?

[76mm]

I guess that is where I disagree, to have troops not anarchy simply because they are on a slope with no other conditionals will make game play worse not better.
Do we really want gamey tactics where players start deploying in reverse slope positions to negate anarchy tests? This is ancient warefare not Waterloo

Sorry, I don't follow at all--as I said, who would defend in this game on a reverse slope? You would be worse off than if your troops anarchied because your opponent, rather than you, would get the advantage of being uphill.

[TheGrayMouser]

I guess that is where I disagree, to have troops not anarchy simply because they are on a slope with no other conditionals will make game play worse not better.
Do we really want gamey tactics where players start deploying in reverse slope positions to negate anarchy tests? This is ancient warefare not Waterloo

Sorry, I don't follow at all--as I said, who would defend in this game on a reverse slope? You would be worse off than if your troops anarchied because your opponent, rather than you, would get the advantage of being uphill.

I guess i didnt describe what I meant very well. You proposed a simple solution for units that are simply "in a hill hex" simply dont anarchy , with no other conditionals. I disagree that that would be a good solution because of some very (un) common situations that can happen in the game

Reverse slope example : dont imagine that the player on the reverse slope is going to actually fight there, just parks them there as an enemy aproaches with LF etc to be certain no troops ever anarchy... When the enemy heavies get in range he simply moves fwrd a hex (or two) onto flat ground. I know it seems like things like this wouldnt happen but they do.. Remeber when players were turning there troops AWAY from the enemy to prevent anarchy several patches ago?
anyway, there are plenty of DAG maps that have all kinds of bizzare hill setups where it would be relatively easy to "buck" the system if just being on a hillhex negated anrachy tests.

[76mm]

The easiest way to prevent anarchy is

1 have drilled close order troops,
2 Have a general or generals in contact and
3 pray to not have bad dice.

Sorry, but drilled close order troops anarchy too often. Having a general in contact seems to help, and I play with lots of leaders (usually 4 for an 800 pt army), but anarchy is still pretty common.

[76mm]

Reverse slope example : dont imagine that the player on the reverse slope is going to actually fight there, just parks them there as an enemy aproaches with LF etc to be certain no troops ever anarchy... When the enemy heavies get in range he simply moves fwrd a hex (or two) onto flat ground...anyway, there are plenty of DAG maps that have all kinds of bizzare hill setups where it would be relatively easy to "buck" the system if just being on a hillhex negated anrachy tests.

I'm still having a hard time imagining what you are saying...if troops are on the reverse slope, they almost by definition should not be able to see the enemy, and if they can't see the enemy they surely shouldn't anarchy..and why would someone move off of high ground when enemy heavy foot approaches?

Sure, it is always possible to think up quirky scenarios in which application of this or that rule would be gamey, but I would much rather have a game mechanic that would make defending a hill or a river a viable option.

[TheGrayMouser]

Reverse slope example : dont imagine that the player on the reverse slope is going to actually fight there, just parks them there as an enemy aproaches with LF etc to be certain no troops ever anarchy... When the enemy heavies get in range he simply moves fwrd a hex (or two) onto flat ground...anyway, there are plenty of DAG maps that have all kinds of bizzare hill setups where it would be relatively easy to "buck" the system if just being on a hillhex negated anrachy tests.

I'm still having a hard time imagining what you are saying...if troops are on the reverse slope, they almost by definition should not be able to see the enemy, and if they can't see the enemy they surely shouldn't anarchy..and why would someone move off of high ground when enemy heavy foot approaches?

Sure, it is always possible to think up quirky scenarios in which application of this or that rule would be gamey, but I would much rather have a game mechanic that would make defending a hill or a river a viable option.

I wish i could draw a picture but: imagine your troope are at level 2 elevation(on a hill/slope hex) facing north, the hexes directly ahead of them are level 3 (thus they are down hill) then there is a level 4 hill then a level 5 which an enemy bg is on facing south.... By your suggestion both BG's would be immune from anarchy simply because both occupy a hill hex..... It doesnt matter who is up or down hill relative, nore does "intent" matter.
I think intent is the bane of all turn based games, it hard to program viable rules that cover all situations in a realistic way that cover intent..... (although i liked Archies idea of setting units to a defensive stance)
As for LOS, many hill in the game have flat areas that might not block los simply because a unit is "down hill"
I think the quirkiness would be more prevelant than you imoagine.

Anyways I do tend to agree that there should be some game mechanic to enable defending a river line or hill more viable , just not in the manner you suggest.

[deeter]

One way to defend a hill or river is to present your rear to the enemy -- they can't charge something they're facing. I've seen players do this and it just looks goofy, but it works. I'm sure this was common practice in the ancient world.

On a more serious note, one could hang back (reverse slope ?) til you need to occupy the terrain and then move into it.

Deeter

[76mm]

One way to defend a hill or river is to present your rear to the enemy -- they can't charge something they're facing. I've seen players do this and it just looks goofy, but it works. I'm sure this was common practice in the ancient world.

On a more serious note, one could hang back (reverse slope ?) til you need to occupy the terrain and then move into it.

Both of these might work, but are the kind of gamey mechanisms I would not expect a wargame to force one to use...can't troops just sit tight on a hill every now and then?