Latest FoG feedback

[Blathergut]

I like the random anarchy...middle of turn...end of turn. Adds to the chaos!!

[76mm]

The beauty of the system is that its simply to use and play, no big manuals or tutorials needed (forget I said tutorials I don't want anyone to suggest those) just straight into the game and leaqrn as you lose or win.

?? This from someone very familiar with the TT rules. I think a better manual would be very helpful and appropriate.

[76mm]

Isnt the whole point of anarchy charges is that individual units or segements of your line basically go beserko and charge without orders, regardless of what you , the CnC wants or desires?

Yeah, but still you would think that a unit holding a favorable hilltop position, etc. would be less likely to anarchy charge, because they'd be smugly waiting for the enemy to trudge up. Not to say that it couldn't happen, but should happen less. I've had a lot of anarchy changes in my ongoing games since the patch.

[pantherboy]

To be honest I find the anarchy charges to be far too frequent and ultimately an unrealistic representation of the battlefield. I agree such charges do occur in history but not as the norm. The battles I'm fighting see units constantly anarchy charging as if the norm in history was a third of your army was always uncontrolled whether drilled or not. I don't know where people find such foundations for replicating this in the game. Someone mentioned Hastings 1066 and I don't see where they even remotely reflects anarchy. Historically they deployed on the hill and didn't budge until after routing the initial onslaught. Then many of the Fyrdmen chased the routing normans off their hill but the housecarls stayed put (which can't occur in the PC game). What occured was a lack of control on the victorious troops which already occurs with them following fleeing troops. I posted elsewhere a response to someone mentioning how awesome the polish hussars were in the 16th century being able to charge pike blocks and route them. Firstly they operated in a combined arms role waiting for firepower to effectively disorder enemy forces before charging in with the coup de grace. I question how did Hannibal control his line so effectively at Cannae to have created such a decisive victory if a third of his guys kept charging forward? How did Alexander fight with a pike army that was unable to control itself when presented with enemies? If anarchies occured maybe 1 in 36 then I think you'd get a better representation of the field. Being ex-military and having seen action I think alot of people miss the human factor involved and get bogged down in creating rules to represent every possible occurence on the field when in all reality they were not suchg an impacting factor. Why have professionally drilled troops? How could Romans have maintained such cohesion? How many people really want to charge suicidally at someone?

[Paisley]

I rather agree with Pantherboy. Most of all that anarchy is too frequent (especially for drilled troops). I'm not adverse to having problems of control, far from it. But I think the mechanism at the moment is a bit broken unless the thinking is that shock troops really should be just advancing to contact as soon as the enemy are close enough regardless of terrain. In which case you will end up with the silly situation where it is better to remain 2 hexes back from a hillside and advance to contact when the enemy are at the bottom rather than to just line the top of the slope. This becomes even sillier if it's a one hex deep ridge and your troops end up behaving like Wellington's rather than Harold's.

Is it still true that MF will not anarchy out of terrain? If so why will heavies anarchy into terrain? Inconsistent. And makes defending a river line with heavies another case of 'hanging back' rather than just lining the bank.

[rbodleyscott]

Is it still true that MF will not anarchy out of terrain? If so why will heavies anarchy into terrain? And makes defending a river line with heavies another case of 'hanging back' rather than just lining the bank.

They shouldn't.

Just so that we all know, here is what the TT rules say:

However, shock troops will not charge without orders (and are therefore not required to take a CMT to prevent charging) in the following circumstances:
 If their move could end even partly in terrain that would disorder or severely disorder them.
 If they are medium foot starting wholly in uneven, rough or difficult terrain and the move could end even partly in open terrain.
 If they are foot defending fortifications or a riverbank.
 If they are foot whose move could contact or be intercepted by mounted.
 If their move could end in contact with a fortification, elephants or a riverbank.
 If they are fragmented (they cannot charge).

[SRW1962]

The beauty of the system is that its simply to use and play, no big manuals or tutorials needed (forget I said tutorials I don't want anyone to suggest those) just straight into the game and leaqrn as you lose or win.

?? This from someone very familiar with the TT rules. I think a better manual would be very helpful and appropriate.

I think you totally missed the point of what I said, you don't need to read or learn anything at all to get a game going and have some fun unlike some games where you have to read pages of closely written text or go through a mind numbing tutorial just to get the hang of the UI.

Sure a manual to explain the various aspects of the game is useful, but not essential and to be totally honest I don't ever refer to the TT rules for guidance on how to play as they are of limited use for many aspects of the PC game and I don't even refer to the PC manual either as I am not interested in how the game works just that it does. To me its like a car, you buy one drive it and then learn what the extra little buttons do, but apart from that I dont need to know exactly how the fuel management system works etc. to be able to have fun with it, so long as I can drive it its enough for me, thats my take on it anyway.

Also you must consider that any manual will only be able to tell what things are in the game etc. it won't necessarily tell you the best way to use them, and with all the rule updates there could be some lag before the manuals are updated, having said that the slitherine and hexwar team are doing a great job trying to address everyones queries etc.

[hidde]

Leaving a save(save as can be) position to make a suicidal charge isn't anarchy, it's madness. Charging after a routing enemy, that's anarchy.
Why not make it simple, like BG:s out of command could anarchy charge like it is now(or, frankly a bit less).
BG:s within command radius will not charge or run a very,very small risk of doing so. All talk about what's realistic or not aside, I think something like that would be better gameplaywise.

[TheGrayMouser]

To be honest I find the anarchy charges to be far too frequent and ultimately an unrealistic representation of the battlefield. I agree such charges do occur in history but not as the norm. The battles I'm fighting see units constantly anarchy charging as if the norm in history was a third of your army was always uncontrolled whether drilled or not. I don't know where people find such foundations for replicating this in the game. Someone mentioned Hastings 1066 and I don't see where they even remotely reflects anarchy. Historically they deployed on the hill and didn't budge until after routing the initial onslaught. Then many of the Fyrdmen chased the routing normans off their hill but the housecarls stayed put (which can't occur in the PC game). What occured was a lack of control on the victorious troops which already occurs with them following fleeing troops. I posted elsewhere a response to someone mentioning how awesome the polish hussars were in the 16th century being able to charge pike blocks and route them. Firstly they operated in a combined arms role waiting for firepower to effectively disorder enemy forces before charging in with the coup de grace. I question how did Hannibal control his line so effectively at Cannae to have created such a decisive victory if a third of his guys kept charging forward? How did Alexander fight with a pike army that was unable to control itself when presented with enemies? If anarchies occured maybe 1 in 36 then I think you'd get a better representation of the field. Being ex-military and having seen action I think alot of people miss the human factor involved and get bogged down in creating rules to represent every possible occurence on the field when in all reality they were not suchg an impacting factor. Why have professionally drilled troops? How could Romans have maintained such cohesion? How many people really want to charge suicidally at someone?

Geez Pantherboy, your making me sound like I'm 10 years old with the "how awesome the Hussars are" comment. I have know doudt that the Poles used combined arms tactics to be most effective
However my mention of Hussars was was to illustrate a point that I believe cavalry often, not always and certanly not with guaranteed success, could charge home against a formed body of infantry, that is it. Hasting example? Merley to illustrate that you never have complete control over your troops. (troops chasing a retreating enemy despite orderse seems like it fits the definition of anarchy to me)
You might as well mentioned my name using those two examples I made in differnt threads but out of context here.

[Morbio]

I'm not an historian, and so can't quote lots of supporting examples (which shouldn't be a major factor, because it seems everyone can find at least one example of whatever case they want to make), but I do agree with Pantherboy. It does seem to me that Anarchy charges seem to happen far too often from what I'd expect, particularly for drilled and superior and better troops (yes, I know the quality of troops isn't directly related to obedience, but I can't help feeling that the effectiveness quality does relate to the ability to follow orders precisely).

On a related subject.... I'm also surprised how often units will follow a routing unit out of a favourable position into trouble. I'm sure it did happen in history (e.g. Harold's example), but I still struggle to believe that a line of Pikes defending a hill or riverbank, having routed the unit would follow the unit down the hill or into the river and into contact with active enemy. I do sometimes feel that a 'hold' command is needed for those units that are performing a holding action, e.g. riverbank defence, so that it is unlikely, unless true anarchy occurs, that the unit will follow a routed unit. The current logic that always has a unit following a routed unit does make defence difficult and does enable 'gamey play' to break a good defensive line. e.g. Line of pikes in good order defending a riverbank... Simply send one weak unit to attack - it routs, pike enters river and gets mobbed by MF waiting nearby, the pike line probably suffers cohesion drops (seriously dropping its effectiveness), and may get further cohesion loss through the routing unit passing through units.

Regarding the comments about the manual. I agree with SRW1962. A good manual or help guide is desirable, but I just play and learn and only refer to the manual when I want to know something specific.

[Talizh2]

I have no problem with impact foot, cav, and undrilled foot doing anarchy charges all over the place. I could even stomach offensive spears doing it once in awhile. Lots of battles were lost by one group of over-eager barbarians or knights charging off on their own--lots of battles were won that way, too.

However, I have a real problem with drilled pikemen doing it. It really bothers me when a single BG of pikes gets up and leaves the security of its fellows and goes charging forth into the face of an enemy army. At least in the ancient period pikes didn't do that very much (at least not that I'm aware of). I'd rather see them refusing to move more often to reflect how unwieldy they were.

How about this fix for pikes and defensive spears? If they fail the CMT at the end of their turn they just refuse to move the next turn (instead of the anarchy charge). This seems more historical.

Of course, I imagine this would be a departure from the tabletop rules but like one of the people on the board mentioned earlier the TT units are much larger. A pike unit anarchy charging on the TT is a considerable block of fighting power and will not be wiped out in a single turn. In the computer version it is a little piece of your battle line running out at the end of your turn to get chewed up during your opponent's turn. Gauls and Germans did this all the time, but not drilled pikemen.

Or, if you want to keep anarchy charges, have drilled pikes and defensive spears enjoy a bonus to the CMT if they are adjacent to another pike or defensive spear unit. This will decrease the odds of your pikes running off for no reason and encourage players to keep their spearmen in battlelines. But if you send off one pike or spear BG on its own it will be more prone to anarchy charges.

That said, I'm really enjoying the changes to the game. It is better than before. And I appreciate how much time the developers are putting into improving the system. And I understand how you'll never be able to please everyone. But spearmen and pikemen were simply not as impetuous as impact foot and cav.

[Morbio]

I agree with Historian. Not only about the pikes, but also about the game is improving and the appreciation of all the effort that goes into improving the game from the developers... and also the keen contributors to the discussions.

So, please accept my thanks and apologies for forgetting to tell you as often as I should.

THANK YOU!

[jamespcrowley]

Perhaps whether BGs are drilled or undrilled, elite or superior, should be factored into the equation for Anarchy charges. Maybe even for CMT as a whole.

I'm really surprised that neither are added as test modifiers; IMO both are at least as influential as being in command range and state of cohesion.

In that way anarchy charges still have a chance of happening but much less so for more disciplined troops.

[IainMcNeil]

They already are - quality re-rolls apply to these die rolls to.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think one issue is what truly does drilled/undrilled represent?
I dont think you could say that the Swiss were undrilled, on the contrary they were so drilled they could do what infantry hadnt really been able to do since the Roman Empire, maneuver on the battlefied. However, they were completely impetuous as well and had no problems charging entrenchements etc despite their orders.
Maybe the game needs another unit attribute, Impetuousity

[batesmotel]

They already are - quality re-rolls apply to these die rolls to.

In the TT rules, re-rolls specifically do not apply to CMTs to avoid impetuous charges. This should probably be true for the PC as well.

Chris

[Paisley]

I really like Historian's idea for an alternative form of anarchy being refusal to move (and that would well simulate the need for pikemen to frequently 'dress ranks'). That said, I can see the need for Swiss pikes to perhaps anarchy charge (while no move anarchy seems much better to me for Successor pikes) so ultimately a solution by nation type and unit type rather than just by unit type might be best.

[pantherboy]

Geez Pantherboy, your making me sound like I'm 10 years old with the "how awesome the Hussars are" comment. I have know doudt that the Poles used combined arms tactics to be most effective
However my mention of Hussars was was to illustrate a point that I believe cavalry often, not always and certanly not with guaranteed success, could charge home against a formed body of infantry, that is it. Hasting example? Merley to illustrate that you never have complete control over your troops. (troops chasing a retreating enemy despite orderse seems like it fits the definition of anarchy to me)
You might as well mentioned my name using those two examples I made in differnt threads but out of context here.

Sorry Gray Mouser to seem like I was picking on you it was just those two facts stuck in my mind and I wasn't referencing a particular player. But you just mentioned above that Hussars could charge home effectively against formed bodies of troops but equally agree that they operated in a combined arms role. To me this is contradictory to what happens with anarchy charges. If we placed the polish hussars in situations represented by the game engine then they would consistently charge to their death before local forces were able to sufficiently disrupt the enemy formation for such a charge. Then the charge occured when the officer felt it was prudent rather than being swept away by the rank and file. Also Hastings perfectly illustrates anti-anarchy. Harolds forces maintained complete control on the high ground weathering missile fire then the charge of norman foot followed by cavalry (another example of combined arms operation without severe impact by anarchy - also this was Williams adopted combat style) to only break ranks in the pursuit. This is already reflected in the game partially as troops always give chase (except foot versus cavalry) even if this takes them out of their defensive positions. In truth you'd have some means of testing if they would pursue or not as in versus cavalry but I think it just adds another layer on detail that is unnecessary. But back to Hastings if it was goverened by the FOG game engine then Harolds troops could never have held the high ground so effectively as they would keep charging off it.

Ultimately I can play with whatever system is applied but I will adopt new tactics to fight around such a silly mechanic. This will lead to really stupid and gamey methods. I can already imagine how much better 2 speed units are as they won't charge until within range so they just park at 3 or 4 hexes and wait for the enemy to lose control.

[TheGrayMouser]

No problem Pantherboy, i think part of the problem is three seperate threads were going on about 3 seperate game mechanics and sometimes things get taken out of context, mixed around etc . I really shouldnt have brought up Husaria, I think thats like mentioning Tiger tanks in a WW2 tank discussion. Opens up a big can of worms
I actually agree with you on your points re combined arms and cavalry (except for Kircholm!)

It is likley now lost on why I even brought up Husaria but i think the notion or Axiom that "cavalry never charges formed infantry and actually makes contact" was mentioned and I dont really agree w that absolute. Now bear in mind I dont say it always happened or even when it did it was successful, I think my only point is that cavalry could and did charge home to actual impact, sometimes, regardless of whether the heavy infantry was broken or not prior to impact ... Otherwise 300 years of constant improvements in cavalry armour (especially leg armour), horse breeding, saddlery and lance weight/rests really had no purpose if they only needed to smite broken troops

Cheers, Steve

[pantherboy]

No problem Pantherboy, i think part of the problem is three seperate threads were going on about 3 seperate game mechanics and sometimes things get taken out of context, mixed around etc . I really shouldnt have brought up Husaria, I think thats like mentioning Tiger tanks in a WW2 tank discussion. Opens up a big can of worms
I actually agree with you on your points re combined arms and cavalry (except for Kircholm!)

It is likley now lost on why I even brought up Husaria but i think the notion or Axiom that "cavalry never charges formed infantry and actually makes contact" was mentioned and I dont really agree w that absolute. Now bear in mind I dont say it always happened or even when it did it was successful, I think my only point is that cavalry could and did charge home to actual impact, sometimes, regardless of whether the heavy infantry was broken or not prior to impact ... Otherwise 300 years of constant improvements in cavalry armour (especially leg armour), horse breeding, saddlery and lance weight/rests really had no purpose if they only needed to smite broken troops

Cheers, Steve

Thanks for understanding in what context I was talking about. It was no reflection upon you or your opinion. It was primarily used to highlight the fact that anarchy prevents very successful troops to operate as they historically did. I firmly believe we can find individual examples to support almost any opinion but in general I feel anarchy currently takes away from the true battlefield experience. If we take the battle of Kadesh for example we see chariots used in their thousands (can't see how it will be represented by groups in 20's) and chariot warfare would be impossible to conduct if constantly undergoing anarchy checks unless a new LH variant was created with some other distinction for heavier makes. I feel if you include a rule with an attempt to replicate the battlefield then it should hold true for most but not all siuations and that is where I differ from the creators of this game in the fact I think they are not representing a true battlefield trend. Yes impetuous troops do exist but lumping them all together under anarchy isn't the answer. I don't have a favorite army and always enjoy playing the sides percieved to be weak, I fielded Magyars in DBM and DBA, Spanish in Napoleonics, Italians in WWII and Illyrians here in FOG after reading negative comments about them initially. So when I ask for a re-examine of anarchy it is not to bolster my chances of winning with any particular army but as an attempt to allow players to have a better experience in such an exceptional game. I just don't want to reduced to gamey moves to win games and want to follow some degree of historical movement.

Quick plug once again to create a list that has no limits on numbers or types to allow full flexibility in campaigns

Cheers,

Steve