Latest FoG feedback

[Scutarii]

I think that anarchy charges need a change because see pike units charging and breaking your line because they try hunt a jabelin unit or even worst a LH unit is so........ for me the anarchy charges need a scale system, for example, unit type+unit weapon means x % of anarchy charge, drilled troops are more "disciplinated", on command (under commander they obey) and of course enemy, i dont understand why charge against light troops that allways evade... well, here a change like anarchy charges against LF take then by surprise and cant evade is interesting

[SRW1962]

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

Cheers,

Steve

Totally agree with this request as I too have asked for this feature.

[TheGrayMouser]

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

Cheers,

Steve

Totally agree with this request as I too have asked for this feature.

This would be great to have, was a thread about such a thing:
viewtopic.php?t=16266

If enough people request such features, maybe some day it will happen

[Holien]

Just to refresh what has been said already about Anarchy in the beta forum: -

viewtopic.php?t=16263

This is an issue and happens too often IMO. If at all possible can it be toned down in some way to stop suicidal charges?

This issue will not go away and I am sure will continue to be a hot topic....

[TheGrayMouser]

I checked out that thread and one thing mentioned was apart from Crecy how often did knights impetuously charge into situations that got them manhandled and or ran over their own men.. what i can think of at work now:
Ramleh 1100?? crusader cavalry charges mass of Saracens without waiting for infantry to support: defeat*

Crecy 1346 Knights eager to enter the fray ride down own bowmen: defeat*

Coutras 1302?? Flemish infantry attempts to pull back out of range of French x-bows, french kights see this and charge over own xbows , then charge across a swamp and into the flemish Heavy infantry: defeat*

Varna 1444 Knights charge superior Ottoman forces w/o waiting for infanrty support, are destroyed, defeat*
(although they made it right up to the Sultans tent)

Arsuf 1191 although a victory for the Crusaders, it was the Military Order Knights that broke ranks and went after the arab light horse, Richard, at this point had no choice to support w the rest of his knights, victory*

Mohacs 1526 Hungarian knights charge Ottoman cavalry screen, follow into the teeth of jannisary infantry , cannons , obsticles with out waitng for infantry support defeat*

there's likly more...



Of course contempory enemies of Western knights often , and completely contrary to the above often state the Franks were incredibly diclined and cautious! i think the Tactica mentions this, although it proceeds SOA timeline by 300-400 years ....


In the end I havent played enough with the new Anarchy rules to really get a feel for it... i tend to think i personally wont mind but i undertsand others feel it is too much

It still seems that leaders anarchy with greater frequency than the guys adjacent to them, It almost seems that the game code doesnt give the unit conataining the leader the benefit of the leader...

[deeter]

It does. It makes them more agressive. I think the chance of anarchic charges is determined by how powerful shock troops are, not just on them being shcok troops. This might explain why Alexander and his companion cav unit nearly always go berzerk. That's just silly.

Deeter

[76mm]

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.

No, I didn't misunderstand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Sure, for someone very familiar with the TT rules this game's mechanics might be generally familiar and you might have to refer to the TT or PC rules. For somone completely unfamiliar with the the TT rules, I think some kind of comprensive manual is completely appropriate, if not necessary for this game because many of the mechanics and results are not particularly intuitive. Did you read the rulebook when you started playing the TT game?

[SRW1962]

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.

No, I didn't misunderstand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Sure, for someone very familiar with the TT rules this game's mechanics might be generally familiar and you might have to refer to the TT or PC rules. For somone completely unfamiliar with the the TT rules, I think some kind of comprensive manual is completely appropriate, if not necessary for this game because many of the mechanics and results are not particularly intuitive. Did you read the rulebook when you started playing the TT game?

The whole process of playing a PC game is totally different to playing a TT game as anyone who has played both will be able to tell you. In a TT game you simply must read the rules, if you don't you cannot play at all unless you invent them as you go along in which case why buy the rules. In a PC game (any PC game) you can simply jump straight into the game without reading the rules/manual and for most games it is generally very easy to figure out what is going on or how to play etc. and this game is no exception there, in fact it is one of the easiest games to get into playing.

As a case in point, a friend of mine who does not or ever has played the TT version wanted to have a go at this game, he does play PC wargames etc. and has a good grasp of history from ancients to modern, with no guidance from me he started his first game and won it. The game was a 600pt ROR DAG game of Armenians vs Parthians so he was literally thrown in at the deep end, he found it incredibly easy to play and since then he has enjoyed regular weekly games of FOG, to the point whereby he is going to buy the game himself.

He never read the manual, and he didn't need to to get the hang of the game, and THAT is my point! My 13 year old son also plays FOG PC now, and he never plays any historical wargames at all, he doesn't even know a manual exists, but he knows computer games and therefore he can have a game without needing to know anything about the game or the history behind it.

A manual is useful and appropriate/necessary to have as a backup to the game, but there are no hidden secrets in it, just a great deal of info which most people will flit through and take what they need when they need it, one day I may get around to reading some of it myself. You may of course totally disagree with all of this as is your right, but did you or in fact anyone here read the manual from start to finish before playing their first game or in fact has anyone actualy read the manual from start to finish since playing the game at all?

[Gunjin]

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.

No, I didn't misunderstand what you are trying to say, I just disagree. Sure, for someone very familiar with the TT rules this game's mechanics might be generally familiar and you might have to refer to the TT or PC rules. For somone completely unfamiliar with the the TT rules, I think some kind of comprensive manual is completely appropriate, if not necessary for this game because many of the mechanics and results are not particularly intuitive. Did you read the rulebook when you started playing the TT game?

The whole process of playing a PC game is totally different to playing a TT game as anyone who has played both will be able to tell you. In a TT game you simply must read the rules, if you don't you cannot play at all unless you invent them as you go along in which case why buy the rules. In a PC game (any PC game) you can simply jump straight into the game without reading the rules/manual and for most games it is generally very easy to figure out what is going on or how to play etc. and this game is no exception there, in fact it is one of the easiest games to get into playing.

As a case in point, a friend of mine who does not or ever has played the TT version wanted to have a go at this game, he does play PC wargames etc. and has a good grasp of history from ancients to modern, with no guidance from me he started his first game and won it. The game was a 600pt ROR DAG game of Armenians vs Parthians so he was literally thrown in at the deep end, he found it incredibly easy to play and since then he has enjoyed regular weekly games of FOG, to the point whereby he is going to buy the game himself.

He never read the manual, and he didn't need to to get the hang of the game, and THAT is my point! My 13 year old son also plays FOG PC now, and he never plays any historical wargames at all, he doesn't even know a manual exists, but he knows computer games and therefore he can have a game without needing to know anything about the game or the history behind it.

A manual is useful and appropriate/necessary to have as a backup to the game, but there are no hidden secrets in it, just a great deal of info which most people will flit through and take what they need when they need it, one day I may get around to reading some of it myself. You may of course totally disagree with all of this as is your right, but did you or in fact anyone here read the manual from start to finish before playing their first game or in fact has anyone actualy read the manual from start to finish since playing the game at all?

I can see both of your points of view.

I think what most people tend to do with PC gaming is get stuck in and start playing the game as quick as possable then refer back to the rule book for a better understanding of the game.

I like what Slitherine has done for this game with the online manuel which can be viewed easily in game. Unfortunatly they have to prioritise between fixing gameplay or updating the manuel. As Ian has said in a previous post it is something they would like to do on there list of all things that players are requesting when they get the time.

[pantherboy]

I checked out that thread and one thing mentioned was apart from Crecy how often did knights impetuously charge into situations that got them manhandled and or ran over their own men.. what i can think of at work now:

Crecy 1346 Knights eager to enter the fray ride down own bowmen: defeat*

Sorry if it seems I keep attacking your position but please take it in the sense of friendly debate. For ease I'd like to address some of these examples you cited one at a time to try and illustrate my point.

From what I know of Crecy the bowmen were Geneose mercenary Xbows who initially went in and in the ensuing firefight with english archers were routed. To the disgust of the French knights behind they began slaughtering any bowmen who retreated towards them. Soon after the english archers began firing upon the knights and they decided to charge rather than become pin cushions (remember this period the horses are still unarmoured and the armour protectingthe knights was still vulnerable to arrows). In my opinion this is not an example of anarchy. To me they seemed to in control though lacking morals since they attacked their own troops.

[TheGrayMouser]

I checked out that thread and one thing mentioned was apart from Crecy how often did knights impetuously charge into situations that got them manhandled and or ran over their own men.. what i can think of at work now:

Crecy 1346 Knights eager to enter the fray ride down own bowmen: defeat*

Sorry if it seems I keep attacking your position but please take it in the sense of friendly debate. For ease I'd like to address some of these examples you cited one at a time to try and illustrate my point.

From what I know of Crecy the bowmen were Geneose mercenary Xbows who initially went in and in the ensuing firefight with english archers were routed. To the disgust of the French knights behind they began slaughtering any bowmen who retreated towards them. Soon after the english archers began firing upon the knights and they decided to charge rather than become pin cushions (remember this period the horses are still unarmoured and the armour protectingthe knights was still vulnerable to arrows). In my opinion this is not an example of anarchy. To me they seemed to in control though lacking morals since they attacked their own troops.

I hear ya, the reality of trying to make an analogy to anarchy in the in game mechanic vs realife is always going to have problems.... I am not making these examples to "prove" that anarchy as is in game is correct or ideal... it would be cool if anarchy could be initiated by the opposing player by "annoying" anrachy prone troops.... Ie stinging knights w bow fire might prompt anarchy charges as opposed to them simply anarchying whenever in range of the enemy for example.

However I am convinced that history illustrates contradictions.. Knights could be extremely discilined under certian circumstances, and completey not so in others to their own ruin...
If nothing else their impatience to "get it done" often meant they charged before their own troops were clear, into bad terrain or withouth bothering to wait for supporting troops. Does anrachy represent this ideally or under all situations? No of course not , especially since the game system spans (or will once all the expansions are out ) almost 2 thousand years..

[pantherboy]

Varna 1444 Knights charge superior Ottoman forces w/o waiting for infanrty support, are destroyed, defeat*
(although they made it right up to the Sultans tent)

At Varna the smaller christian forces were trapped and rather than take up defensive positions and await the christian fleet Hunyadi convinced them to take the battle to the Ottomans with "To escape is impossible, to surrender is unthinkable. Let us fight with bravery and honor our arms." So outnumbered between 2 or 3 to 1 they deployed to do battle. To get to my point without going through the entire engagement Władysław took 500 Polish knights and charged the ottoman center, though advised by Hunyadi to await his return from attacking the sipahis, and was surrounded and killed after overrunning the janissary foot. At this point of the battle the christians were close to victory routing large elements of ottomans on the wings where they only broke ranks to charge after routing ottoman attacks, though the christian right wing was destroyed when ambushed on the flanks after pursuing the routing ottomans and arabs. Now Władysław was a king and he chose to charge the center not heeding the advice of Hunyadi. Do we see this as anarchy or a concious choice by the commander? I don't feel it was out of anyones control and could easily be replicated by a player charging a unit into the enemy when the odds are low as they need just that one more success to break the enemies spine. Also the battle shows clearly how in control the leaders were of their units except when puruing routing forces.

[pantherboy]

[quote="TheGrayMouser]I hear ya, the reality of trying to make an analogy to anarchy in the in game mechanic vs realife is always going to have problems.... I am not making these examples to "prove" that anarchy as is in game is correct or ideal... it would be cool if anarchy could be initiated by the opposing player by "annoying" anrachy prone troops.... Ie stinging knights w bow fire might prompt anarchy charges as opposed to them simply anarchying whenever in range of the enemy for example.

However I am convinced that history illustrates contradictions.. Knights could be extremely discilined under certian circumstances, and completey not so in others to their own ruin...
If nothing else their impatience to "get it done" often meant they charged before their own troops were clear, into bad terrain or withouth bothering to wait for supporting troops. Does anrachy represent this ideally or under all situations? No of course not , especially since the game system spans (or will once all the expansions are out ) almost 2 thousand years..[/quote]

Yes but I feel that the odds presented in the game break the system. The number of battles you have mentioned are barely a trickle in time and also debatable whether they are representations of such actions. In a number of the battles above their are other factors which led to the charge and often by the will of the commander which is already represented by us sending our men in to the fray. Now I'm playing a battle with hidde where he has started turning units around 180 degrees to avoid being forced to anarchy charge my lights. A couple have done already to their demise. The psychology of standing shoulder to shoulder with pikes or spears in a defensive position should discourage them to leave their positions. He had lights screening them but his guys just burst through to go and die. Now it leads to unrealistic play to avoid such circumstances. To me this depiction of the battlefied is not historical.

[TheGrayMouser]

Varna 1444 Knights charge superior Ottoman forces w/o waiting for infanrty support, are destroyed, defeat*
(although they made it right up to the Sultans tent)

At Varna the smaller christian forces were trapped and rather than take up defensive positions and await the christian fleet Hunyadi convinced them to take the battle to the Ottomans with "To escape is impossible, to surrender is unthinkable. Let us fight with bravery and honor our arms." So outnumbered between 2 or 3 to 1 they deployed to do battle. To get to my point without going through the entire engagement Władysław took 500 Polish knights and charged the ottoman center, though advised by Hunyadi to await his return from attacking the sipahis, and was surrounded and killed after overrunning the janissary foot. At this point of the battle the christians were close to victory routing large elements of ottomans on the wings where they only broke ranks to charge after routing ottoman attacks, though the christian right wing was destroyed when ambushed on the flanks after pursuing the routing ottomans and arabs. Now Władysław was a king and he chose to charge the center not heeding the advice of Hunyadi. Do we see this as anarchy or a concious choice by the commander? I don't feel it was out of anyones control and could easily be replicated by a player charging a unit into the enemy when the odds are low as they need just that one more success to break the enemies spine. Also the battle shows clearly how in control the leaders were of their units except when puruing routing forces.

Ok I see your point but, the issue is what does Anarchy then represent from the persctive of the player? There is no command and control present in the game, ie no formations.... Units anracrhy individually, in game.... In the Varna example, it appears there might have been a command decioson by the Polish king to charge, igoring the advise of the nominal commnder in chief. anarchy in terms of knights going bezerk and just impetuously charging on their own whim? No, however if viewed from the players persepctive as if you were Hunyadi, yes this would be considered a type of anarchy as your knights are doing what they want(under command of the Ladislwa) contrary to your orders....

[Paisley]

What perhaps is needed is 'layers' of leadership. So your c-in-c controls his own division, sub-generals control theirs. And each sub general is given ordes (akin to the old WRG system: attack, hold, defend, withdraw etc). Each order has specific requirements (eg attack might be 'at least 50% of units in command radius must advance or be fighting the enemy', defend might be 'no unit may charge to contact, 'hold' no unit may advance etc.) Then each general could be tested for anarchy to see if he obeys or hatches some scheme of his own. Of course coding all this might well be a herculean task but it would add a new dimension to play. And then you could say that any unit out of command would have to test for anarchy and then perform according to a 'random decision' by the unit commander, just like for a subordinate general.

The downside with that would be people would tend to always pick an inspired c-in-c for max radius. But in bigger points battles that wouldn't be foolproof. You'd have to have some henchmen...

[TheGrayMouser]

What perhaps is needed is 'layers' of leadership. So your c-in-c controls his own division, sub-generals control theirs. And each sub general is given ordes (akin to the old WRG system: attack, hold, defend, withdraw etc). Each order has specific requirements (eg attack might be 'at least 50% of units in command radius must advance or be fighting the enemy', defend might be 'no unit may charge to contact, 'hold' no unit may advance etc.) Then each general could be tested for anarchy to see if he obeys or hatches some scheme of his own. Of course coding all this might well be a herculean task but it would add a new dimension to play. And then you could say that any unit out of command would have to test for anarchy and then perform according to a 'random decision' by the unit commander, just like for a subordinate general.

The downside with that would be people would tend to always pick an inspired c-in-c for max radius. But in bigger points battles that wouldn't be foolproof. You'd have to have some henchmen...

Now that would be nice....

[Xiccarph]

I think overall the discussion is making valid points regarding anarchy charges. The anarchy refusal to charges seem to be about right to me. However I think some lists are more prone to anarchy than others, and some of that is basd on social customs at the time, some on personality of the leaders. Making all shock troops subject to anarchy is one way of handling that, but give we have the computer doing the work for us, other ways can be found to make it more in line with historical expectations. My Pontic medium infantry seem to be charing more often than my pikemen, that should be toned down a bit I think.

[deadtorius]

All depends on the virtual die rolls for anarchy. Things can go just as bad on the TT too. However there are more anarchy restrictions on the TT: Foot shock troops will not anarchy charge mounted, this includes elephants and no they wont go hog wild after LH either. LF can still tempt them into a charge though.
Shock troops will not burst through friendly troops if the only enemy in charge range are lights. So the knights need something worth while to go after, unfortunately that can mean a pike unit.
Shock troops don't test to charge routers. Thats my biggest gripe, I have had several different games where my cav or cats goes off to chase down some broken unit that happened to be about. Nothing like losing them for a few turns as they chase routers to death.

I think the problem is that most of us want 100% control over our troops at all times. I am sure every commander in the past would have liked to have had that control too, it just didnt happen that way and sometimes things get out of hand and you lose control of the situation.

[SRW1962]

I suppose its a case of small steps with regards to game improvements. You make a small step forward, learn a little more from playtesting with us players, listen to comments etc. and then another small step is made, until in the not too distant future the game is as near dammit as good as it can get. There are a lot of really good points being made about the anarchy situation, from the point of view of both how similar the PC version is to the TT version and also how different it is in respect to unit sizes etc.

[76mm]

I think the problem is that most of us want 100% control over our troops at all times. I am sure every commander in the past would have liked to have had that control too, it just didnt happen that way and sometimes things get out of hand and you lose control of the situation.

I don't think this is a fair characterization. I've played several SoA games now, and it is very frustrating to see:
1) knights charge repeatedly and headlong into massed, steady, pike formations;
2) knights with a commander charging from a hilltop position (yes, into massed pikes)
3) a line of advancing spearmen scatter as they start chasing various skirmishers all over the map
4) knights with a chance of charging into the rear of a unit instead anarchy charging some nearby LF.

Sorry this is not lack of player control, it is simply the imposition of random and non-sensical actions that no rational unit would do. While I'm sure someone can cite about how this or that happened in the siege of vienna or whatever, and I'm sure units will act irrationaly at times, it is way too often now--I often have 3-4 units anarchy charge per turn, which seems completely excessive to me.