Latest FoG feedback

[Holien]

As I said to Iain today at Salute I am not unhappy with the game, I am just looking for some tweaks on the way Anarchy works. Nice to see how busy you were and should mean plenty more players for the community...

[arsan]

Hi!

So, besides anarchy charges being now tested each time you move a BG instead of juts at the beginning of the turn (which sounds OK to me)... what more has been changed in the way the rolls are made??
Because on 1.2.5 anarchy charges happen much more than previously... i woudl say 2 or 3 times more frequently.

Besides, it seems the system has some bugs... supposedly MF woudl not anarchy change out of favorable terrain, but my MF off spear have just charged down an steep hill into plains to attack (of all things... ) an Elite late roman legionary unit... you can figure how this has ended...
Maybe the POA of the ensuing combat should be added to the anarchy charge calculations.
I mean, its OK to anarchy charge against somebody you have some chance of wining, but doing banzai attacks on -- POA seems plain dumb.
Are they anarchic or suicide??
Cheers

[SRW1962]

I've been thinking about the problem with anarchy charges and read all the arguments for and against, and to be honest there have been some really good arguments on both sides and I although I like anarchy charges, I do think there is a problem with how they work in the PC version of the game.

The crux of the problem is the move sequence, which is totally different to the move sequence of the TT rules from which they are based. Now I know that this has been done for various reasons of playability on the PC (multiplayer games especially) and I know this cannot be changed, so the only way forward is to make them work better within the game as it is now played.

In the TT rules these anarchy charges are done in the Impact phase BEFORE any other movement is even considered, so if a unit (which compared to PC version is like 2-6 units) does anarchy charge then the units around it can later move normally (if desired) to give it some sort of support to stop it from getting isolated and attacked in the flank etc. In the PC version the anarchy charges are done AFTER all movement is done so therefore the player does not get the chance to support the units that charge forward, and THAT is a BIG problem with how the anarchy works in the PC game.

The solution would be to allow the player to 'finish' the move off by moving supporting units up with the anarchy units after all anarchy takes place, in other words the move plays out as normal, then anarchy happens and some units charge forward, then the player is given the choice to move units that haven't already moved in support etc. and then the turn ends.

Also anarchy charges in the PC game MUST adhere to the same rules as the TT game in terms of who they charge and under what circumstances they will charge, anything else is less than desirable and will result in really silly situations as already attested to by some players in this thread. Other than that I fully understand why they happen and have no problem with them at all.

This should be a simple enough fix and result in something that gives the player similar options to the problem of anarchy charges that the TT gamer gets.

[Holien]

Also anarchy charges in the PC game MUST adhere to the same rules as the TT game in terms of who they charge and under what circumstances they will charge, anything else is less than desirable and will result in really silly situations as already attested to by some players in this thread. Other than that I fully understand why they happen and have no problem with them at all.

If we could get that implemented then I think it would reduce the number of cases where it happens.

I am awaiting my TT rulebook to understand how it occurs on the TT. I hope it will arrive this week so I can get a better understanding of where the rules are coming from...

[batesmotel]

I've been thinking about the problem with anarchy charges and read all the arguments for and against, and to be honest there have been some really good arguments on both sides and I although I like anarchy charges, I do think there is a problem with how they work in the PC version of the game.

The crux of the problem is the move sequence, which is totally different to the move sequence of the TT rules from which they are based. Now I know that this has been done for various reasons of playability on the PC (multiplayer games especially) and I know this cannot be changed, so the only way forward is to make them work better within the game as it is now played.

In the TT rules these anarchy charges are done in the Impact phase BEFORE any other movement is even considered, so if a unit (which compared to PC version is like 2-6 units) does anarchy charge then the units around it can later move normally (if desired) to give it some sort of support to stop it from getting isolated and attacked in the flank etc. In the PC version the anarchy charges are done AFTER all movement is done so therefore the player does not get the chance to support the units that charge forward, and THAT is a BIG problem with how the anarchy works in the PC game.

Your description of anarchy charge timing for the PC is only partially accurate. Anarchy charge determination is done at the time that the player is moving a shock BG and only if the player is not moving the BG into contact with the enemy. So as long as the player is using their shock troops that are within charge range of the enemy aggressively, anarachy charges are not likely to be an issue. It is only shock troops that have not moved at all that have anarchy checks performed at the end of the turn that have the problem you describe. The proposed solution of having a hold order that could be used for the shock troops that th e player wished to remain in position would allow the anarchy check to be resolved during the turn and would seem to be the best way to educe the end of turn lack of support.

As another minor point, a BG in the TT rules is generally the equivalent of 1-2 BGs (and occasionally 3) in the PC version.

The solution would be to allow the player to 'finish' the move off by moving supporting units up with the anarchy units after all anarchy takes place, in other words the move plays out as normal, then anarchy happens and some units charge forward, then the player is given the choice to move units that haven't already moved in support etc. and then the turn ends.

Also anarchy charges in the PC game MUST adhere to the same rules as the TT game in terms of who they charge and under what circumstances they will charge, anything else is less than desirable and will result in really silly situations as already attested to by some players in this thread. Other than that I fully understand why they happen and have no problem with them at all.

This should be a simple enough fix and result in something that gives the player similar options to the problem of anarchy charges that the TT gamer gets.

I also think that there is still some fine tuning to be done in the PC anarchy charge rules to more closely parallel the cases where shock troops should not have to test for anarchy charges especially for skirmishers.

Chris

[SRW1962]

Your description of anarchy charge timing for the PC is only partially accurate. Anarchy charge determination is done at the time that the player is moving a shock BG and only if the player is not moving the BG into contact with the enemy. So as long as the player is using their shock troops that are within charge range of the enemy aggressively, anarachy charges are not likely to be an issue. It is only shock troops that have not moved at all that have anarchy checks performed at the end of the turn that have the problem you describe. The proposed solution of having a hold order that could be used for the shock troops that th e player wished to remain in position would allow the anarchy check to be resolved during the turn and would seem to be the best way to educe the end of turn lack of support.

As another minor point, a BG in the TT rules is generally the equivalent of 1-2 BGs (and occasionally 3) in the PC version.

I also think that there is still some fine tuning to be done in the PC anarchy charge rules to more closely parallel the cases where shock troops should not have to test for anarchy charges especially for skirmishers.

Chris

Chris, you are quite right about the anarchy charges also happening when you want to do something other than charge with a shock unit when it is in charge reach, as this happened to me only yesterday when using a medieaval Fench army, in fact it was the only anarchy charge from my troops in the battle as I do tend anyway to get stuck in when within charge range so anarchy charges very rarely happen to me.

The hold order is another solution but not overly convinced that it is the best solution as it involves another step within the move sequence of having to go to every single unit that you wish to remain still and probably rightclick on it and then choose the option of hold, this could become very tedious at times (although only if you really wish to have battlegroups that should get into combat refrain from it, which probably isn't wise anyway, although maybe sometimes necessary). Having said that I wouldn't be affected greatly with the tactics I employ, so I guess its as good an idea as any.

I don't agree with the equivalent values of battlegroups in the TT and PC versions. In the TT version you get double the amount of 'elements' as you get 'battlegroups in the PC version, but in the TT version your 'elements' are grouped into 'battlegroups' of usually between 4-12 'elements' whereas in the PC version there is no grouping at all.This means in a Lowland Gallic Army for instance you get 48 individual 'battlegroups' in the PC version and only 8-12 'battlegroups' in the TT version (depending upon how how many 'elements' are in your 'battlegroups').

If a 'battlegroup' of Gallic Warriors anarchy charges in the TT rules it is the equivalent of 4-6 'battlegroups' in the PC version all adjacent to each oother all charging simultaneously, currently however in the PC version there may be 4-6 (or more even) individual 'battlegroups' anrachy charge from totally different parts of a line that are not supported by adjacent units and as it stands are in a situation whereby they get cut off, surrounded and destroyed. This is a major differnce and cannot be ignored as it does have an impact upon how the game plays.

I am in total agreement with you that the anarchy rules need fine tuning to more closely parallel the TT rules as anarchy works fine in those rules.

[Paisley]

Again, I think a level of command control might be a partial answer (as above).

Or indeed just go back to doing anarchy at the start of a player's turn, allowing the rest of the 'tabletop battlegroup equivalent' to support their fellows. Simple solution I think.

More cumbersome would be: move all units wished, end turn, anarchy, game then goes back to you so you can move all previously unmoved troops.

But on the whole I think anarchy at the start of a turn is the most elegant solution.

[SRW1962]

Again, I think a level of command control might be a partial answer (as above).

Or indeed just go back to doing anarchy at the start of a player's turn, allowing the rest of the 'tabletop battlegroup equivalent' to support their fellows. Simple solution I think.

More cumbersome would be: move all units wished, end turn, anarchy, game then goes back to you so you can move all previously unmoved troops.

But on the whole I think anarchy at the start of a turn is the most elegant solution.

Actually the more you think about this the more of a headache it becomes (I don't envy the designers), however it is resolved it will mean an extra step. As it is, currently my idea of being allowed to go back and move unmoved units is an extra step although it fits in with how anarchy is currently being played, but I do agree that anarchy at the start of a players move is better as it more closely follows the TT rules which do work well on this subject. The hold order may realistically be the best solution given that it would better follow the TT game and no matter how you do it another step will be added anyway. Unless someone else can think of an easier solution.

On the subject of command and control were you refering to a group of battle groups as per the TT rules? This I would like to see happen even if only in a small way so that battlegroups more closely resemble larger units as per the TT version, or at least the option to organise into larger formations would be good. A sort of use it if you wish to option although obviously this would take a lot of time and effort by the already beleaguered designers to make it work. Maybe even combining it with leaders being in charge of their own designated command proper.

[Paisley]

however it is resolved it will mean an extra step

Why? If anarchy is restored to the start of a turn, no extra step is required. Simple, and given the fact we've established that PC units represent only a small fraction of a TT unit, there's no reason not to.

Well I'd see a simple (-ish) command/comtrol working thus (and this is just a rough model, I'm sure there are problems with it):

All units are assigned to a general at the game's beginning.

Each general is given an order (which, with possibel restrictions) can be changed at the END of each turn.

Orders would be (say) Attack, Defend, Hold.

Attack would require at least 50% of non lights to advance or already be in combat
Defend would allow no movement beyond the furthest unit of the formation, except a charge to contact
Hold ditto but no charges.

A problem would be whan battle-lines turn through up to 90 degree, as happens quiet frequently, but that might be workable around.

Units out of command would suffer anarchy tests (and a greater penalty to cohesion tests than currently). However anarchy could result in either charging or no movement at all.

Units in command would test anarchy, but with good bonuses to the CMT and if one charged, the entire division would be set to 'attack' (so anarchy in this circumstance would be rare but would have significant impact)

Generals would test anarchy at the start of each turn, anarchy resulting in a change of orders, not necessarily to more aggressive.

[Talizh2]

Except for pikes, which I tend to use defensively and cry when they go running out of formation, I have never really had much of a problem with anarchy. Maybe it is because I use my cav and shock troops extremely aggressively...as they were historically. If you don't want your knights or impact foot charging off into a bad situation you have to keep them out of range of the enemy. If you let them sit there within charge range of a bunch of spearmen they are going to be tempted to do it. But if you keep your knights or cats far enough back and don't get too fancy with them up close to the enemy then it isn't really that much of a problem (and here I'm speaking from my own personal experience).

That said, I agree that doing the tests for anarchy charges at the beginning of the turn would allow a player to decide to support his anarchy units or not. This would be much better than clicking on finished turn and seeing your battleline dissolve into chaos.

One question, though, do commanders have any influence on the CMT for anarchy? I usually load up with an inspired commander and a few other field commanders when I play digital armies. Does that have any bearing on anarchy?

[Paisley]

Aye, it's really pikes (except Swiss who are really shock troops) and spearmen where the anarchy now seems rather out of kilter. And the fact that, as you say, end of turn anarchy allows no support an dgives the enemy a whole turn to pick off the isolated units at leisure. Histrically when anarch did occur it tended to be supported immediately (either other troops following without orders or the commander ordering a general advance, which amount to the same thing).

[76mm]

If you don't want your knights or impact foot charging off into a bad situation you have to keep them out of range of the enemy. If you let them sit there within charge range of a bunch of spearmen they are going to be tempted to do it. But if you keep your knights or cats far enough back and don't get too fancy with them up close to the enemy then it isn't really that much of a problem (and here I'm speaking from my own personal experience).

I agree that the biggest problem with currenty anarchy charges with with pikes and spearmen in a defensive stance, but disagree that there is no problem with anarchy charges with cavalry for two reasons:

1) currently cav will charge headlong, and repeatedly, into massed pikes/spears. I don't find this realistic; and
2) keeping cav out of charging range is fine, as long as you don't intend to use them at all. once you intend to commit them and get them within charge range, they start doing all sorts of irrational things, like making a frontal charge into pikes instead of a flank or rear attack on another nearby unit, chasing LF, etc. While I'm sure these things happened, they seem to happen much too often under the current rules.

[Paisley]

I'd agree with that. While one headlong charge into spears/pikes is probably fair enough, doing it repeatedly is pretty dim. Even the most arrogant knight tended to get the message (if he survived) after one frontal charge.

I think with regard to the second point, if anarchy was restored to its rightful position at the start of each turn and every nit marked with an A (but did not move), then let the player move each anarchy unit to contact as he sees fit and then proceed with his move as normal. I've seen anarchists declining to charge easy targets (rear of pikes etc) and going after light infantry instead. Or just make the anarchy AI smarter.

Again, if in the table top you have (say) a dozen units on the tabletop, you're likely to have 36+ units on the PC, so 3x the chance of anarchy and much, much worse results as things stand with end of turn anarchy...

For instance this tabletop army:

1 X FC (CiC)
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 8 drilled, retinue archers
1 X 4 currours
1 X 4 Northern Border LH

1 X Allied FC
1 X 6 Militia billmen
1 X 8 Militia archers
1 X 4 Northern Border billmen
1 X 8 Northern Border spearmen
1 X 4 Northern Border archers

1 X Allied TC
1 X 8 superior, armoured MAA
1 X 6 militia billmen
1 X 8 militia archers

Total 795 points

has 14 units. But on the pc it would be represented by 38 counters. so over 2.5x as much anarchy.

[zumHeuriger]

I'd agree with that. While one headlong charge into spears/pikes is probably fair enough, doing it repeatedly is pretty dim. Even the most arrogant knight tended to get the message (if he survived) after one frontal charge.

I think with regard to the second point, if anarchy was restored to its rightful position at the start of each turn and every nit marked with an A (but did not move), then let the player move each anarchy unit to contact as he sees fit and then proceed with his move as normal. I've seen anarchists declining to charge easy targets (rear of pikes etc) and going after light infantry instead. Or just make the anarchy AI smarter.

Again, if in the table top you have (say) a dozen units on the tabletop, you're likely to have 48+ units on the PC, so 4x the chance of anarchy and much, much worse results as things stand with end of turn anarchy...

I think Paisley's idea sounds right - if you don't move them into contact they will still charge a random target after everyone moves - and you can support an anarchy charge with what troops you want (and even do the prep shooting before they charge home to try for a disrupt).

[76mm]

I've seen anarchists declining to charge easy targets (rear of pikes etc) and going after light infantry instead. Or just make the anarchy AI smarter.

Exactly...maybe one solution would be to test for anarchy at the beginning of the turn, and have "anarchized" units flash red or something, so that the player can move them into contact as he sees fit (otherwise they will charge wherever). This would fix anarchy problems with cav, although anarchic pikemen/spearmen still need to be addressed. I think the easiest fix would be to make it much less likely for such units to charge if they have friendly units on each side of them.

[Paisley]

To be clear, I'd make the player move his anarchist before he can do anything else. So no shooting first.

Also the problem of anarch being about 3x more frequent in the pc than on the table should be addressed.

maybe one solution would be to test for anarchy at the beginning of the turn, and have "anarchized" units flash red or something

Snap!

[jamespcrowley]

My vote would be to have anarchy tested at the start of a turn. I don't think the player should have any control over the charges but at least the player would have the option to follow-up with other BGs or not.

I believe Ian stated that quality re-rolls apply for the CMT (is that documented? If not, it should be). That means that the only other major factor, that is not accounted for, is drilled/undrilled status, which should also be a modier IMO.

[Paisley]

I'm actually fairly happy to have no control over the charges but the AI needs to make some slightly better decisions (hmmm... should we charge those pikes head on, those lights who we won't catch or that unit of fragmented spearmen? I can see how that would be really a tough choice...)

I also think the fact that anarchy is 3x more likely should be addressed.

And I agree leaders (in all cases) and drill (in most cases, not for legions or Swiss pikes) should reduce the chance of anarchy.

[keyth]

And please no/very limited anarchy charging of routers!

[Paisley]

I actually think charging routers is okay, but not if there's a tempting unrouted target (at least not often).