Increased Anarchy

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Morbio., please dont quit the game because of a couple bad experiences
What I say next is with reservation as I dont wish to offend or discount your opinion, but if i look at your description of your battle with Hidde, i dont think anarchy was really the issue...
As you said multiple times both armies were in bad going terrain and it easiliy could have been a game of who blinks first... However by your description it appears you tried to decoy your opponent out by slowly initiating a series of skirmeshes, which appear to have gone against you. (did you blink ist?) next you advise your apoaching cavalry wanted to withdraw: why?, cleary hidde was able to mass more cavalry to counter your advance and it wasnt a good option for you so you attempted to retreat them.
Then things hit the fan as your units began to anarchy...
It doesnt sound like it was necesarily the anarchy that did you in but just maybe that last straw in a situation that due to the terrain etc that you started to play to reactionary instead of proactivley?

Anyways , I wasnt there and am going on your descrition but in all my battles i have lost, and there has been many, anrachy itself isnt the cause even w 1.26 After a battle I can always look and say, on turn 2 or 3 or in deploy I really should have forseen x and done y instead...

As for toning down the amount of anarchy, well how much?? Can anyone say what the apropriate amt is??
My guessimate is knights anarchy maybe 15-25% of the time. To me thats not luck if i know that the probobility is at that hig a % and I need to keep that consideration when I deploy.
But what if its lowered to 5%?? Wouldnt making that bad die role ironically increase the role of luck in the game??


For what its worth , if things are again changed i do like the idea of just having all units that need to check for A do so in the beginning and get it over with...

BTw really like your LW map and hope itis utilzied by PG

Cheers

[Xiggy]

From what I am reading here, Anarchy seems a bit excessive. Pike blocks in particular. Even though when the romans beat the Seleucids, they manage to catch them in rough terrain.

From a different period. The Mongols constantly used feigned rout, against whoever they fought (Eastern and western armies) and drew units off chasing them and then attacked from all sides killing them.

Knights in the crusades were slaughtered by the Islamic armies they fought, using similar tactics to the above. I just find it hard to believe Drilled pike blocks would anarchy charge. Maybe the better your moral if drilled, the less likely you are to anarchy charge? I hope they come up with something.

[Morbio]

It wasn't the skirmishers that went badly, Hidde managed to force on to evade then attacked it, that was fine. I gave that unit up. Other than that attack by Hidde there was no melee contact whatsoever by either side. Hidde didn't want to give up his defensive position and I didn't want to attack uphill without some support from the flank or the rear.

He brought stronger Cavalry than I was threatening with, I decided to withdraw, and one of the units went into anarchy. In isolation can accept that.

I then have Cats charge pikes when they have a leader with them. In isolation I can accept that, even though it is really dumb.

But pikes charging pikes, some superior, uphill I'm struggling to understand.

Then MF charging walls of pikes, MF, Superior Argyraspides, etc, again uphill, seems really dumb.

Any one of these, while dumb, I can put down to vagaries of ancient warfare.

But, in 3 or 4 turns that I've had units in melee range to have 6 different units go into anarchy, all with odds against them, is beyond credible belief and it just isn't fun.

That's not to mention the 1 unit that Hidde had go into anarchy too, giving up a good defensible position - and another that follows a routing unit out of a good defensive line into certain death.

I suppose some may say it's the same for everyone, but it's taking the skill out of the game and making it frustrating!

[batesmotel]

I think it gives you another variable that you need to take into account when planning where to position your units. It is something that you need to plan for and take into account that some units may well decide to charge into combat once they are deployed within charge range of the enemy. Maybe you need to consider deploying them a bit further back until you are ready for them to go into combat.

Chris

[Toby42]

But, didn't the "Mob" mentality drive some of the units? One goes and more start to go over the top!!!

[Morbio]

I think it gives you another variable that you need to take into account when planning where to position your units. It is something that you need to plan for and take into account that some units may well decide to charge into combat once they are deployed within charge range of the enemy. Maybe you need to consider deploying them a bit further back until you are ready for them to go into combat.

Chris

If I set them too far back there is little threat value.

In a way it's like the suggestion (I forget who posted it) of keeping them facing away from the enemy until you are ready to attack.

With the Cats I was trying to get round behind his units, or at least be able to flank attack from uphill.

The alternative was to sit at distance firing arrows until the game ended in a draw, which would be good from a league perspective, but hardly fun for me or Hidde.

[TheGrayMouser]

I hear ya Morbio, its sounds like you had a whole lot of randomness concentrated in one battle

I find as a humanoid, I tend to remember bad luck more than good luck, and more importantly, forget when my opponent has bad luck

My experiance in 15 or so battle in SOA with knights is I have had wide range of Anarchy, from some battles with none, to most w 3-6 occurances to one battle where 6 knights in a row succesufully went anrchy...(of course I remember that one most vividly)

I think if you consider anarchy occurances over muliple games as opposed to in one single game, i dont think its too excessive but your milege may vary.

I posted this somewhere else but perhaps their should be a new unit attribute called impetuousity, that way pike units that people feel would not anarchy like Macedon etc dont have that ticked off, but knights, Swiss pikemen, Celtic warrirors etc might....

[Morbio]

You may be right in that. I too have said it to other people who complain about dice rolls, and leaders getting killed on 1st impact etc.

However, although I wrote about my current active example, which may be a particularly bad example, it is something that I have noticed over the last few weeks. There's another whole thread from lots of other players complaining (or is that giving feedback) about it.

I know I'm not alone in this, and I know it is too frequent.

[Brigz]

I posted this somewhere else but perhaps their should be a new unit attribute called impetuousity, that way pike units that people feel would not anarchy like Macedon etc dont have that ticked off, but knights, Swiss pikemen, Celtic warrirors etc might....

This is exactly what I was thinking as I read through this thread. An impetuousity attribute would be an excellent idea. It would certainly help fine-tune Anarchy and scenario design. Probably be a pain-in-the-A to write into the program though.

[ianiow]

Im with Morbio 100% Im fed up of the computer doing 1/4 of my troop's moves with lancer, pike and MF.

[Xiggy]

Currently I am playing a 650 point game against TheGreyMouser. We are about 8 turns in and I think I have had maybe 1 Anarchy charge. We have a lot of units on the board. We both have 58 or 59 break points. I am not seeing the problem. Maybe I just don't try to be that ornate with my tactics. Or maybe I have been lucky.

[Paisley]

What armies? Some are worse affected than others. For instance my Lancastrians are largely bowmen who won't anarchy charge whereas Grumbly's Seleucids are almost all shock troops who will.

Also bear in mind that as you have 2-4 times as many pc units as you would have table formations, anarchy is in fact observed more often on the pc and has, as I keep saying, a much worse affect because a single pc unit has much less staying power than a single tabletop unit. I love anarchy as a concept, I'd just like it to work in a way that seems proportionate.

[TheGrayMouser]

What armies? Some are worse affected than others. For instance my Lancastrians are largely bowmen who won't anarchy charge whereas Grumbly's Seleucids are almost all shock troops who will.

Also bear in mind that as you have 2-4 times as many pc units as you would have table formations, anarchy is in fact observed more often on the pc and has, as I keep saying, a much worse affect because a single pc unit has much less staying power than a single tabletop unit. I love anarchy as a concept, I'd just like it to work in a way that seems proportionate.

I have Early Medieval German, Ziggy's, your fav's late Swiss ( I think their late)

I dont know how many knights I have but likley near the cap (maybe 12+_), also some of my own Swiss and some mediums spears etc

You could argue we have some of the more heavily prone armies

The only anarchies i have seen so far: 1 or two of Ziggy's pike who were being stung by arquebus fire and i think a few of my medium spear did as well...

However my Knights are (or were as I think i commited a battle group) safely on the flanks and to the rear , waiting to be unleashed at the right time
If you view them as a one shot weapon, it really helps in initial placement , the crux is making the decision and making opportunity to be able to send them in...

[Paisley]

I set up 50 pikemen 2 hexes away from another 50 pikemen. All were in command. I hit end turn.

10 anarchy charged. 20%

I did it again.

14 anarchy charged. 28%

Again.

11 anarchists. 22%

One more time!

15 anarchists. 30%

You cannot rely on shock troops, including pikemen, to hold ground. The typical Hellenistic pike line at 600 pts is probably 12 long (6 supporting behind). So you're going to get 2-3 charging if targets are presented. If that's how the designers intend things to be then I can work around that. But I don't think it's actually very player friendly, and I'm unconvinced as to its realism, especially as it happens after units have moved UNLESS terrain specific exceptions can be built in, mainly hillside hexes.

Some units I can see charging piecemeal - undrilled knights for instance.

[Xiggy]

I have generals in proximity to all of them. All within a few hexes. I also have rear support. Not sure what that does to anarchy charges.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm your scientific aproach lines up with my guestimate of 15-25%

I see no fault with your logic, nor asking people to LIKE how anarchy plays out as it stands now...
I doudt that having the program base anarchy vs terrain is feasable from programming constraints, way too many variables in having the AI determine your intents as the commander. Just because your on a hill how does the Ai know you want to defend... Also, wouldnt Swiss pikes have LOVED to charge impetuously down hill into the enemy

Maybe the easiest solution would be able to just turn it off and on like LOS. i doudt their will ever be a consensus on what is the right amount..
Only problem if it became an option to turn off/on its really going to divide people up on accepting challnges in dag battles , much more so than LOS... i have no problem accepting a no LOS challenge but might hesitate on a "no anarchy" challenge, otherse vice versa...

[TheGrayMouser]

I have generals in proximity to all of them. All within a few hexes. I also have rear support. Not sure what that does to anarchy charges.

The ist helps, the second does not
(makes note to send commandos to take out his leaders)

[Paisley]

Thing is a downhill anarchy charge doesn't work because you don't get the benefit of the slope unless you started back from the slope (like Wellington...). If YOU want to charge, you order your troops to do so. Anarchy isn't about at though. Sure your boys might well fancy their chances downhill, so they charge down and then along 100yds or so of flat ground...

Also, how does the computer know that you want your MF not to charge out of woods? The assumption has been made that they will not ever charge out of terrain without orders. I think that's actually rather unlikely and there should be a slim chance they should do so. but I can live with an absolute.

Anarchy chances for IN COMMAND pikes running at 20% plus are way out of kilter. Fine on the table where you have maybe 4 Hellenistic pike blocks of 12 bases each. Not so fine when you have instead 18 counters and 12 in the front line (a rough equivalent).

Swiss should charge anyway so it doesn't bother me about them. And I can see an argument that says the Alexandrian/Hellenistic phalanx was purely offensive (wait! Chaeronea...). But even so, the bittiness of anarchy is a massive issue for infantry.

[arsan]

Interesting test Paisley! Thanks!
The results are terribly worrying IMHO.
Between 20-30% of the troops (drilled and in command, no crazy naked barbarians, berserker or haughty Knights left to their own devices) break formation and charge wildly around... EACH TURN!!!
Really, between Chess and this there is a HUGE difference.
I'm not asking about a perfect controlled battle at all. Luck has to have an important factor in any wargame (and it already does in combat resolutions, which are pretty random) but not deprive the player of 30% on the decisions in the most important turns, when both armies finally draw near after several dull turns of approaching.
I wanna play my battles not see how they are being played for me, specially when they are played so badly

I just thought about a way to avoid your pikes or legionary battle line going nuts with anarchy
Before the enemy get near you, put every unit in your battle line looking back wards or their sides. Hopefully then they will follow orders and keep defending than piece of high ground or what ever.
Yes i know, its a pathetic gamey trick that i really hope we are not going to be forced to use
It makes me sad just to think about my phalanx or legion doing that

Cheers

[Paisley]

I'd assume these percentages are the same as on the table.

But, and I think this really, really is the key to the problem, because you have around 3x as many formations on the pc for a given number of table bases you are running more anarchy tests. Okay... their proportionate. But that's not the issue. the issue is he fact that you then have lots of individual counters breaking from your line and the enemy has then a full turn to whack them at his leisure.

The best fix for this is to reduce anarchy chances by 50% or more. If anarchy happened 5-10% of the time rather than 20-30%, it's then fairly comparable to the table. But only if it happens at turns start so you can move other units up alongside it (in exactly the manner a whole formation not just a base or two anarchies on the table). Yes, this gives the player some more control. But presumably his plan has been somewhat thrown off by the anarchy. An din countless historical battles anarchy was followed by the general immediately throwing his main line forward (eg Arsuf). He didn't bwait to see how the anarching units got on, he supported them straight away. Yes this diverts from the table, but the table formations are far more resilient than the pc counters.