Slitherine

arsan wrote:

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 fixing all that reasonable Anarchy restriction rules that the TT game has but the PC only partially use.

Cheers

Yes, I think so too.
Now, I can already see arguments how this isn't realistic and anarchy should be just that, actions beyond the players controll. From a gameplay perspective though, I think it has merit. The anarchy staus in itself is a big wrench in the players plan and allowing him (or her ) a chance to avoid the most stupid charges can actually be called realism of sorts. At least I think so
And toning down the frequency goes without saying...

arsan wrote: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"??

But the player already knows which units can go into anarchy by just taking a look at their positions. And with the current system, the anarchy tests can also (depending on when the player tries to move the unit) take into account changes in positions produced by enemy evasions/routs and the player own units moves. This is gives the player more control over the battle, not less.

Am I missing something?

Examinondas wrote:

arsan wrote: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"??

But the player already knows which units can go into anarchy by just taking a look at their positions. And with the current system, the anarchy tests can also (depending on when you try to move the unit) take into account changes in positions produced by enemy evasions/routs and your own units moves. This is of course gives you more control over the battle, not less.

Am I missing something?

Hi!
I'll try to explain it more clearly (not always easy when you re not a native English speaker )

My idea is that the anarchy rolls are made at your turn start for all your units that should test because of nearby enemy units.
Let's say you have 10 BG in that situation. All test for anarchy and 2 don't pass the rolls and are marked with the A that would mean "i will charge on my own if you don't order me to charge against something your self".
They are marked with the A at turn start, BUT DON'T CHARGE RIGHT AWAY! They will only auto charge if you don't make them attack somebody yourself during the turn.
Knowing who will go A (and who will not), you can choose who they should go charging on and also how to better support them with your other BG.

This will permit the player:
- Some measure of control about what to charge with your A BG. If you can charge an elite enemy BG over a hill and another Poor BG down hill, you can choose the downhill option and not get royally pi***d off as with the current system selects a random option no matter how suicide it can be. If all your charging options are bad for you... well, bad luck, but at least you can choose the less terrible option... or choose you own poison...

- As you know what BG's will go out of control at turn start, you can plan your moves to support them in their charge if you think its a good idea, ordering a general charge with your line. Or reordering you line to close any dangerous gaps the A unit may left after charging. Instead, in the current system if you don't move part of your BGs you will never know if someone will go Anarchic until the turns ends, charging alone and puting themselves in a deadly position and at your rival mercy while you can only look helplessly.

I don't think this woudl be more ahistorical than the current system or woudl allow the player more control over Anrchy situations than a real life commander woudl have.
Translated to "real" battle continuous time situation (instead of the game turn system), an anarchy charge by part of your battle line will be noticed as soon as it started, and the surrounding units could respond to it either advancing with them in support or redressing their lines to fill the gap the anarchy charge created.
Instead, in the current system, when a unit anarchy charges at turns end its like if all your other units got "frozen", not allowed to support or react to the last minute charge, and give all the initiative to the enemy.

The only problem i can think of regarding my idea is what to do if during your turn you remove the enemy units that cause one of the A flagged BG to test for anarchy. For example if you force the offending LF unit to evade by moving another BG adjacent to them.
I guess in that case, if the A flagged anarchy BG don't have anybody to charge against to, it should be able to move normally.

Cheers

An example of the "great" anarchy charge system, in one turn 4 pike units+1 MF unit in anarchy charge, 2 when i try move units to support role and rest in the end of the turn (one average pike unit break the line and do an suicide attack vs 2 HF superior).

See the image, when i see this i because i find it so... well, i dont have words.




EDIT: even with friendly units in the front and with no direct view to enemy units the unit charge!!! well, if this isnt a bug what is it??? sorry but this need more than a small coding change need a FULL new implementation with more complex features.

And see a drilled army full of anarchy charges when they dont have NOTHING behind then is ... is... well, i dont know how workd anarchy in TT but in PC i can say that not only dont work, is a niche of frustration and find it as a bug that break play experience and anarchy isnt the only problem with the game... as i say before, less army packs and more fix the game because needs some hard work

Just had my inspired cavalry leader charge through his own line of superior HF, naturally disrupting them, to charge an enemy BG on the other side of a stream. "Feck off lads! I can do a better job of fightin' than youse"

So much for using leaders to support their troops

jimcrowley wrote:Just had my inspired cavalry leader charge through his own line of superior HF, naturally disrupting them, to charge an enemy BG on the other side of a stream. "Feck off lads! I can do a better job of fightin' than youse"

So much for using leaders to support their troops

What kind of troops were the HF? If they were shock troops, e.g. Impact foot or pikes or offensive spearmen, then that is definitely a bug and needs to be fixed.

Chris

They were Irish Nobles I believe. However, his charging CnC killed my CnC...so not a bad deal.

Deeter

deeter is correct, they were Galloglaich Nobles and I was indeed very lucky to K.O. his general as a result. (in the same turn a cavalry unit of mine broke off.....right up to deeters camp and immediately captured it - a bit cheeky, that)

But lucky as the charge proved to be, an inspired leader ought not to be charging through his own superior HF to charge the enemy.

Although those nobles are armed with heavy weapons so they're technically not shock troops.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Although those nobles are armed with heavy weapons so they're technically not shock troops.

It may not be a bug, but the "impact foot" rule makes no sense IMHO
Is not like riding over you own "two handed sword armed" noble heavy infantry is more easy or historical or reasonable than riding over them if they were impact foot.
I mean... they are HF... they are your own guys... it shouldn't make much difference if they are impact or heavy weapons or whatever
Riding over peasant levies or skirmishers... well, i know it happened some times back then but i don't think it was a generalized practice.

I think it's telling that nearly 90% of responders think this needs adjusting and nearly 50% think it is seriously flawed or ruining their gaming experience. However, the developers seem to have entrenched their stand that it is not flawed. At least that's the response I've seen so far.

I personally think this anarchy routine in the game is way over done. It should be a very minor factor and reduced significantly so that players can quit worrying about who jumps the gun and instead concentrate on tactics and strategy. Sure, out of control troops were an historical part of ancient battles, but they shouldn't be as dominating as they appear to be in this game.

I still hold that creating a unit characteristic for anarchy would be the best way to implement this instead of a blanket rule with broad modifiers. Leadership could still be a factor. Then certain troops would almost never anarchy and the ones that are historically prone to would be more likely to do so. Wouldn't that please everyone?

Please, just make it stop. It IS ruining the game as currently implemented!

Deeter

I will vote for a real change too, it really ruins the game experience.

Not sure if it is ruining the game, but it certainly makes it almost impossible for inferior foot to hold off better foot by occupying favorable terrain, such as a hill, which I find very frustrating.

At least on the TT you have an entire BG (4 to 12 bases) going anarchy. Plus, you then have the option of moving other BG in response to at least somewhat control the situation or set up intercept charges. In the PC version it is more like single bases suddenly charging out, often far beyond their normal move (In the TT, a HF BG may only move 1MU instead of it's normal 3. In PC, you kove at least your full move and then some.). Coupled with now being at the end after you finish everything, it is just silly. One or two units charge out, completely unsupported, to be ganged up on in the next player's turn. At least when it's at the beginning you have a chance to help your situation. At the end, it can ruin the game in one instant if it is a key spot.

Well, they dont say nothing about this??? no opinions??? or is this the last word in the anarchy charges???

I think dont buy Inmortal fire because is an army pack where many of the armies are based on pikes and with the anarchy system could be the a non funny festival