Freaking Anarchy

[TheGrayMouser]

I wonder if in the Digital version of the game they could move anarchy to before movement. Just like the table top instead of doing it when you touch a unit. Then you would know what you were dealing with. Currently I see anarchy checks after all movement. That is out of sequence.

I am not sure what problems that would introduce, but S&S is in beta now, so it might be the time to look at that.

That wouldnt work because the premise behind the TT and PC games is that A its your turn and you have impact troops that are in range of enemies YOU get to decide to charge them at targets of your choice. B If you dont (ie just ignore them or attempt to move them without impacting another troop) THEN they test to charge by themselves. If the game tested all your impact at the beginning you would lose that choice on how , what order and what targets you want to charge into....
Think how mad you would be if you have a Knight that can charge the rear of an enemy winning the game for you but is also in range of a elite pike unit, the game tests at the beginng of your turn and charges the knight cause it fails its test (even though you were going to charge with it anyways!) Based on Murphies law, which random target do you think the knight will go after


Having it happen at the end of the turn is the same thing really...
I really cant think of a way around it without a dedicated "phases" in the game

[76mm]

I actually wouldn't want anarchy turned off completely, as the concept is certainly realistic, but its just that certain types of troops should anarchy less, or as graymouser suggests be able to "lock" a line of phalanxes together into a battleline, which could, on rare occcasions, anarchy charge. Right now it just happens too often, and in a goofy manner (ie, penny-packet troops anarchying on their own...).

People keep citing this or that historical examples of anarchy, but I think the reason that we've even heard about many of those instances is that is was not a common occcurence. Historians are probably less likely to report "and so the troops just stood there on the hill, like they were supposed to..."

[76mm]

Re defending hills. We can argue history all we want and realism, but considering the ancient hoplites main opponent was other hoplites, and the fact that other troop types were non existant or neglible in #'s, means no side has a superior arm to bear against the other.
What do you think would happen if army A saw B camped on a hill?
Well, the advantage would be so great A would never attack at all, they would just march away.
Greece was small enough and wars were really very limited in scope that A could march the 8 hours back to their own polis. I guess the point i am making , is noone would bother attacking somone on a hill and thus noone would bother parking on a hill in the very small, local and limited wars where battles were by mutual consent.

Um, yeah, but many of these battles are not the greek polis vs greek polis battles that you are referring to...greek hoplites are part of many many armies in FoG, and we should not assume the same ritualistic aspect should apply to all of our FoG battles. I admit that this means that in some FoG battles a defender would simply sit tight in a strong position on a hill, and you might end up in a stalemate, but so what? In my experience, this kind of camping happens now in about 1% of battles, maybe it would go to 3% (?) if anarchy were fixed...

[TheGrayMouser]

He he, of course you are correct 76MM, most DAG battles wont be historical lines ups anyways and of course there is no operational/strategic concerns either
I too have never met many (maybe not even any) campers
I think the problem is any game system that covers 2500 years of warfare is bound to run into oddities. I completely understand the TT game cant have rules for every conceivable troop type and interaction , especially when ahistorical armies fight, but this is the PC game where you COULD
This is why I do feel some way should be built into the game to mitigate the anarchying of certain troops in a historical era that wouldnt , but having others need to test despite the fact that they in game terms are the exact same units.

Maybe even make it it simpler. Keep the game as is for testing BUT troops that could/would gain a POA if they fought a combat where they are (ie uphill behind a river) test with a big bonus to pass IF they would LOSE the poa/advantage by anarchying into impact. (hope that makes sense) So if your Hoplite needs to test for anarchying off a nice hilltop onto the flats would cost the POA then you get a bonus for the test .....

[ericdoman1]

Pikes will clear light foot out of the way but that might make them liable to being charged by the hoplite who would have an uphill advantage.

Just pull out, run away. Played a game a long while back whree I was winning convincingly. Had taken out enemy flanks and was moving into the centre. I had pikemen facing Roman Legions, elite and superior. Chances are slim. I decided to pull one of the pike men out but he A and so I then charged all of them in. I lost the game. I was winning by a very big margin

Sometimes you need to make sacrifices with some troops in order to win elsewhere on the battlefield.

Agreed about Deeter's good point with TT version of anarchy charges and they are much larger units.

As had been mentioned the main foe of the hoplite, was the hoplite, maybe pikemen and EAps. These rules cover over 3000 years of ancient warfare! You can have a New Kingdom Egptian army of 2000Bc facing a HYW army of 1300 AD. Not historical opponents. I suppose it would be possible to inc specific game mechanics for historical battles but I don't think we have computers taht could handle that size of game, if that makes sense.

Also Xiggy's idea maybe after all movement is done, there is a brief pause in the game to see if there are any A charges. If so you can continue moving troops.

On the other hand I would like it when I order a bowman to charge and yet he fails his test, stands there does nothing not even fires.

In this game "This" Happens.

[76mm]

Pikes will clear light foot out of the way but that might make them liable to being charged by the hoplite who would have an uphill advantage.

Huh? You don't have any idea of the situation, so please stop trying to rationalize that LF would have helped me somehow. Yes, if I could have had LF one hex in front of every one of my hoplite units, it might have helped by drawing the phalanxes into anarchy charging my hoplites. And why should the key to holding a defensive position be to cause the other side to anarchy?

As had been mentioned the main foe of the hoplite, was the hoplite, maybe pikemen and EAps. These rules cover over 3000 years of ancient warfare! You can have a New Kingdom Egptian army of 2000Bc facing a HYW army of 1300 AD. Not historical opponents. I suppose it would be possible to inc specific game mechanics for historical battles but I don't think we have computers taht could handle that size of game, if that makes sense.

The main foe of the hoplite was the hoplite, in greek polis vs greek polis warfare. As I've pointed out, many many armies in FoG use hoplites, very often against non-hoplites. Moreover, regardless of who hoplites are fighting against, the whole point of hoplite warfare was to maintain a line, it doesn't matter if they are fighting Egyptians, Romans, Aragonians, or Martians.

[ericdoman1]

We are all only trying to help.

I am playing a game where I have had more A charges in the first few turns than I can remembered.

You haven't cursed me have you:)

[76mm]

Didn't mean to curse you!

I'm playing several games right now, with plenty of anarchy in all of them, although often by Gauls so maybe OK. I just had some superior cavalry anarchy head on into a pike unit with predictable results...don't think that should happen, ever--they're over-enthusiastic, not suicidal.

[TheGrayMouser]

Didn't mean to curse you!

I'm playing several games right now, with plenty of anarchy in all of them, although often by Gauls so maybe OK. I just had some superior cavalry anarchy head on into a pike unit with predictable results...don't think that should happen, ever--they're over-enthusiastic, not suicidal.

Hmmm knights vs pikes... I actually have (somewhat rarly) had knights anarchy into a bad situation (one that I would never do on purpose) actually end up being a boon, ie they get lucky and win the combat disordering the pikes so sometimes not so bad a thing. What generally screws me more are breakoffs where you actually have a combat advantage and now your break off is leaving another unit linedup to get hit in the rear....
This just happened in a Leaugue game and I am with much aprehension awaitng my opponents returned turn to see what horrible things he has done because of said breakoff.

[ericdoman1]

Yep I am cursed. I am having quite a lot of A charges now.

You mention a superior cav going A into pikes and youa re using Gauls? Only lance armed cav will go A. I guess you ,must be using a Pontic or pike army.

TGM Yep I have had that with A charges, predominantly they are not good. Although it depends on where you had placed units. My recent boon was protected hops going A int pike and disrupting them (not like cothyso's who fragments you on contact, yes still bitter about that LOL).

Break off I believe will be sorted in next patch. Most of the bizarre break off are genrally a boon for yourself or your opponent.

[76mm]

You mention a superior cav going A into pikes and youa re using Gauls? Only lance armed cav will go A. I guess you ,must be using a Pontic or pike army.

Actually, I think it was different games, although I've got several going on at once so not sure.

Just now 3 of 7 Spanish Scutarii (trying to defend on a hill) anarchied on a single turn, another anarchied the next turn. These are all situations where there are no light troops involved, just one line of MF/HF advancing on another.

I guess this is one of the reasons armies like the Carthags do so poorly in this game--their troops are generally weaker than their opponents, and the game was designed to neutralize any advantage that they might have hoped to gain from terrain. Oh well...

[ericdoman1]

Yes it is happening now even superiors but it does seem to be MF more than HF

[CheerfullyInsane]

I wonder if in the Digital version of the game they could move anarchy to before movement. Just like the table top instead of doing it when you touch a unit. Then you would know what you were dealing with. Currently I see anarchy checks after all movement. That is out of sequence.

I am not sure what problems that would introduce, but S&S is in beta now, so it might be the time to look at that.

That wouldnt work because the premise behind the TT and PC games is that A its your turn and you have impact troops that are in range of enemies YOU get to decide to charge them at targets of your choice. B If you dont (ie just ignore them or attempt to move them without impacting another troop) THEN they test to charge by themselves. If the game tested all your impact at the beginning you would lose that choice on how , what order and what targets you want to charge into....
Think how mad you would be if you have a Knight that can charge the rear of an enemy winning the game for you but is also in range of a elite pike unit, the game tests at the beginng of your turn and charges the knight cause it fails its test (even though you were going to charge with it anyways!) Based on Murphies law, which random target do you think the knight will go after


Having it happen at the end of the turn is the same thing really...
I really cant think of a way around it without a dedicated "phases" in the game

Okay, this is a little weird. Done a thorough read-through of the......*ahem*....manual.......looking for assorted things, and I stumble over this:

Under FoG Turns and Phases:
"Before movement
Before a player can select any battle groups to move in a player turn all the compulsory actions need to take place. Typically these are battle group anarchy and attacks on baggage camps."

Under Battlegroup Anarchy:
"At the start of every player turn, if any of these troops types are in charge range of an enemy battle group, they have to take a complex move test if any of the following apply"

In both cases, the emphasis is mine.
So apparently the anarchy-check is supposed to take place before movement, in ones player-turn.....
Just doesn't seem to have been implemented.


Lars

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Cheerful, that manual WAS accurate, at least up to about 3 patches ago when they changed the routines

Now I believe it goes
you start you turn and move units
*no test if you charge a shock bg into combat
*test if you attempt to do anything BUT charge a shock unit into combat (simply move, change facing etc) fail: anarchy into combat , pass: moves as you desired

when you end turn ALL your shock units that didnt do either of the above two test (if they are in range of an enemy of course)

[batesmotel]

I wonder if in the Digital version of the game they could move anarchy to before movement. Just like the table top instead of doing it when you touch a unit. Then you would know what you were dealing with. Currently I see anarchy checks after all movement. That is out of sequence.

I am not sure what problems that would introduce, but S&S is in beta now, so it might be the time to look at that.

That wouldnt work because the premise behind the TT and PC games is that A its your turn and you have impact troops that are in range of enemies YOU get to decide to charge them at targets of your choice. B If you dont (ie just ignore them or attempt to move them without impacting another troop) THEN they test to charge by themselves. If the game tested all your impact at the beginning you would lose that choice on how , what order and what targets you want to charge into....
Think how mad you would be if you have a Knight that can charge the rear of an enemy winning the game for you but is also in range of a elite pike unit, the game tests at the beginng of your turn and charges the knight cause it fails its test (even though you were going to charge with it anyways!) Based on Murphies law, which random target do you think the knight will go after


Having it happen at the end of the turn is the same thing really...
I really cant think of a way around it without a dedicated "phases" in the game

Okay, this is a little weird. Done a thorough read-through of the......*ahem*....manual.......looking for assorted things, and I stumble over this:

Under FoG Turns and Phases:
"Before movement
Before a player can select any battle groups to move in a player turn all the compulsory actions need to take place. Typically these are battle group anarchy and attacks on baggage camps."

Under Battlegroup Anarchy:
"At the start of every player turn, if any of these troops types are in charge range of an enemy battle group, they have to take a complex move test if any of the following apply"

In both cases, the emphasis is mine.
So apparently the anarchy-check is supposed to take place before movement, in ones player-turn.....
Just doesn't seem to have been implemented.


Lars

The original anarchy implementation did the test at the start of the turn. It made it almost impossible to use shock cavalry or shock MF because you had no control what soever about what they were likely to charge as soon as any enemy were in range. With movement speed sof 3 and especially 4, there were often a substantial number of targets available and it off ended up that your shock troops did far more damage to your side by charging through friends (hence dropping their cohesion) and charging into enemy that would make no logical sense like skirmishers they would have no chance whatever of catching or shock mounted charging into steady spears or pikes. The current implementation isn't perfect but is much much better than the original.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Ah those were the days, I think I am the only player that liked it that way better
Or at least was ok with it, Although as Chris points out the way it is now is a good solution/compromise of what is done per thr TT rules.

[deeter]

I prefered it the original way too, because then I could move other units to support my kamikazis if I so desired.

Deeter

[Xiggy]

I liked the original as well because I could support my troops. Now when you touch the bg and make any sort of move, there is an anarchy check. EVEN if you charge something, if you fail it may charge what you want, or something else. In the case in question if went off at a 60 degree angle to the right and charged a unit 3 hexes from it's original target. This was a knight unit or Cat unit I think. Totally screwed up the attack, but these things happen.

[batesmotel]

The intent of the anarchy charge rule is to reflect that shock troops are not going to reliably sit around and ignore enemy when they are within charge range. It is not intended to show that all shock troops are complete lunatics where they become uncontrollable and charge willy-nilly as soon as some enemy are near by. The original implementation of the anarchy charges caused the latter to be the case. After watching things like one heavy chariot charge through the one in front of it to chase skirmishers or watching Seleucid cataphracts charge through a friendly phalanx to charge opposing Romans (when there was another Roman unit they had broken off from last turn and could have charged again with interpenetrating any friends), it rapidly became clear that the original anarchy rules were very unhistorical and made shock troops with a movement rate of more than 2 pretty much a total liability.

Chris

[76mm]

The intent of the anarchy charge rule is to reflect that shock troops are not going to reliably sit around and ignore enemy when they are within charge range. It is not intended to show that all shock troops are complete lunatics where they become uncontrollable and charge willy-nilly as soon as some enemy are near by.

This is how I interpret the current mechanism, although they don't charge through friendly units, which is a major fix. I don't know what to call cav that charges head-on into pikes other than lunatics, two of my cav units did this in one turn just now.