Slitherine

Try move 2 pike units (average, superior) one hex to the front to support role (3º pike unit engage a MF scutarii unit who inflitcs to superior pike 170 casualtes and suffer 25 casualties.. great casualty system yes, another great feature of FoG ) ends in 2 anarchy charges, my line break and my left flank more compromised.... CHANGE THIS ****

PD: less army packs and more fix the game

I voted for minor tweak.

An idea:
I think the eagerness to charge could be a function of distance also.
3 hex anarchy charges should propably happen less often than 2 hex charges.

That would not matter with heavy infantry because they move only 2.

There are a couple of options here. One Make spears either offensive or defensive, you just have to specify before a battle. There for if you are on a hill, then you could specify them as defensive at the beginning of the game (Certain troop types that would not work for). The problem with that is certain troops types did not play defense well. Another option, is depending on the quality of the general you purchase, you have a better chance of having the troops perform like you want them to if they are in command range. So that 60 point general will really be worth it. There still has too be a chance of troops doing dumb things. There are hundreds of examples of this. Crusader knights charging to there death, the mongol feigned rout that worked even though at least some of their victims knew they did this and it still worked. etc.

I think the system needs a tweak, but this is just another random element like the failed moral roll where a flank collapses. I get as frustrated as the next person. (1 LF holds out for 4 turns blocking 6 unit)

I voted for minor tweeks
1) Shock mounted should ignore LF, heck all should ignore LF unless moving it will put it into contact with a real unit.
2) Should be a lot harder to berserk if in a good defensive position.

voted for "little" tweakening, meaning with this the full implementation of TT rules (where, from my limited experience, are giving a good balance between playability and historical flavour) into FOG digital as explained by rbodleyscott.

small consideration: I would consider also to link anarchy likelihood also to army lists (or,even better, to each battle group,modifiable trough editor) instead to only troop types: I have some difficulty to accept the fact that a Roman impact foot unit, considered as a unit, has and will have the same possibility to anarchy charge of a German impact foot unit (think of what has happened at Aquae Sextiae to have an historical example: an entire Ambrones army has charged uphill against prepared Roman positions...).

Cheers

GaiusMarius wrote:I have some difficulty to accept the fact that a Roman impact foot unit, considered as a unit, has and will have the same possibility to anarchy charge of a German impact foot unit (think of what has happened at Aquae Sextiae to have an historical example: an entire Ambrones army has charged uphill against prepared Roman positions...).

Cheers

You don't have to accept that. A roman impact foot unit as long as its drilled already has an advantage over undrilled gallic warriors - they don't have the same possibility to anarchy at all.

RyanDG wrote:

GaiusMarius wrote:I have some difficulty to accept the fact that a Roman impact foot unit, considered as a unit, has and will have the same possibility to anarchy charge of a German impact foot unit (think of what has happened at Aquae Sextiae to have an historical example: an entire Ambrones army has charged uphill against prepared Roman positions...).

Cheers

You don't have to accept that. A roman impact foot unit as long as its drilled already has an advantage over undrilled gallic warriors - they don't have the same possibility to anarchy at all.

IMHO, the little difference between drilled and undrilled is one of the problems. Drilled units have a +1 bonus to not going anarchy, but the difference is not so big... drilled BG still go rampaging too much frequently!
I also have some doubts about how only shock troops can go anarchy.
It does not make sense than legionaries or pikes, trained and disciplined can go anarchy on regular basis as they are "shock", but barbarian spear armed cavalry or Thracians will never lose control because they are not "shock" troops.
All i've read about ancient history says it was the other way around
Anarchy should be more tied to being drilled or undrilled and less to weapon type.

Its one of the things i've never understood form the FoG games design

Cheers

There is merely a one point difference on the CMT between drilled & undrilled - not much of an advantage.

arsan wrote:

RyanDG wrote:

GaiusMarius wrote:I have some difficulty to accept the fact that a Roman impact foot unit, considered as a unit, has and will have the same possibility to anarchy charge of a German impact foot unit (think of what has happened at Aquae Sextiae to have an historical example: an entire Ambrones army has charged uphill against prepared Roman positions...).

Cheers

You don't have to accept that. A roman impact foot unit as long as its drilled already has an advantage over undrilled gallic warriors - they don't have the same possibility to anarchy at all.

IMHO, the little difference between drilled and undrilled is one of the problems.
I also have some doubts about how only shock troops can go anarchy.
It does not make sense than legionaries or pikes, trained and disciplined can go anarchy on regular basis as they are "shock", but barbarian spear armed cavalry or Thracians will never lose control because they are not "shock" troops.
All i've read about ancient history says it was the other way around
Anarchy should be more tied to being drilled or undrilled and less to weapon type.

Its one of the things i've never understood form the FoG TT&PD design philosophy

Cheers

The apparently small difference between passing a CMT on an adjusted 8 vs 7 on 2D6 is more significant than it appears. For a steady BG out of command, it means a drilled BG has a 5/12 (15/36) chance of failing while an undrilled BG has a 7/12 (21/36) chance or more than a third higher. For a BG in command (FC or TC), the drilled BG has a 10/36 chance of failing while the undrilled has a 15/36 or 50% higher. With an IC within range or a TC or FC adjacent to the BG testing, this goes down to 1/6 (6/36) for the drilled and to 10/36 for the undrilled so 2/3 higher chance. So drilled troops under command are substantially more reliable than undrilled.

Chris

Sorry I was not clear in my previous statement: what I meant is that, considered as a unit type (impact foot) the two units have the same possibilities to anarchy charge: the drilled/not drilled status counts for sure and normally is different between the two examples I made. It counts anyway for one point out of twelve (score more than 6 to pass cmt for drilled, score more than 7 for undrilled: please correct me if I'm wrong). what I was considering is to have a sort of cmt modifier linked to
battle groups in order to capture cases in which the tendency to anarchy charge is higher than the difference linked to the drilled/undrilled status.

[/quote]

We're thinking of giving drilled foot a +1 when testing anarchy on the tabletop due to the increased number of battlegroups and hence more likely chance of a failure.

If you want to bring things in line with that table then really you need to grant a universal +2 to anarchy checks.

The biggest problem for me is less how often it occurs but when. I still think it should be moved back to the beginning of the turn.

Deeter

It does not work at the beginning of the turn - it is much better like this. You take away all player control if it is at the beginning and this is not going to change back. Knights become unusable.

The reason you think you prefer it is because there used to be a bug stopping heavy foot from anarchy charging so it did not happen at all.

Paisley wrote:If you want to bring things in line with that table then really you need to grant a universal +2 to anarchy checks.

You underestimate the effect of +1 on the bell curve.

That's a shame. As discussed, it is nearly impossible to react to a suicide attack that takes place at the end of the turn. And while I've got you attention, are the penalties for losing your camp ever going to be increased?

Deeter

iainmcneil wrote:We're thinking of giving drilled foot a +1 when testing anarchy on the tabletop due to the increased number of battleg roups and hence more likely chance of a failure.

I think it would make more sense to give it to all troops rather than just drilled foot if you want to go that route. Drilled foot are still much better than the equivalent undrilled so do not deserve to be singled out for special treatment this way. After all, you wouldn't want to be accused of discriminating against Illyrians .

There should be a way to force an anarchy test on a BG that the player does not intend to move in order to avoid the end of turn lemming charges after the owning player has any chance to react to them.

Chris

iainmcneil wrote:It does not work at the beginning of the turn - it is much better like this. You take away all player control if it is at the beginning and this is not going to change back. Knights become unusable.

The reason you think you prefer it is because there used to be a bug stopping heavy foot from anarchy charging so it did not happen at all.

If you think knights are unusable with the old anarchy charge rules, try running undrilled lancer cavalry which has an even better sphere of brownian motion charging than knights do!

Chris

I do not underestimate the effect of +1 o the bell curve. In fact you underestimate the difference incurred by the representation of bases from table to pc!

Typically units on the table will number 4-12 bases. The full range being 2-12 of course.

In fact, looking at the various army designs in the table forum, most often table formations are 6-8 bases, except legions which are often in 4s and pikes which are 8-12s.

Now on the pc bases are represented 2/counter, except pikes which are at 3:1.

Thus the difference in formations is at least 2:1 for legions and 3 or 4:1 for most other units.

So the average seems to be 3:1. Thus anarchy should be 3x less common.

If you give a +1 to anarchy checks, a unit that is is both drilled (7 to pass) and in command (+1) will pass on a 5 rather than a 6 or 10/36 rather than 15/36. That's about 2/3 as often. But a +2 gives 6/36 which is between 2 and 3 times less often.

You take away all player control if it is at the beginning

Not if they are flagged anarchic and must be moved first and into contact.

Paisley wrote:

You take away all player control if it is at the beginning

Not if they are flagged anarchic and must be moved first and into contact.

Interesting idea!

How about if anarchy test were done at the start of the turn for all units and the ones that didn't pass it would be flagged with the A to mark them as "this unit will charge on its own if you don't charge with it voluntarily"??
This way the player will know which units will get out of control at turns end and act accordingly during his turn, choosing the best possible target for them and reacting to the situation maybe ordering general advance to support the units that has the A.
It will force him to charge with the A units or see them charge on their own accord, as things work currently, but give him the possibility to choose who to charge, and more important, will not be surprised by "last minute" charges at turns end.

Now that i think of it, this system will even allow you to "scare off" LF and LH during your turn with other BG so an A marked BG don't finally go anarchy charging at turns end if it don't have any suitable targets around anymore.


Regarding bonuses for passing Anarchy, they are the way to go IMHO. But i doubt just +1 for drilled foot will be enough to get the same A effect you have on the TT game, as Paisley explains.
Maybe a general +1 to everybody and a +2 to drilled foot will do the trick

Oh, and don't forgot about adding all that reasonable Anarchy restriction rules that the TT game has but the PC only partially use.

Cheers