Freaking Anarchy

[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.

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.

Since the rules penalize foot for charging shock mounted in terms of not getting most POAs (pike get the POA for over 75% strength), there has to be some chance that shock cavalry will charge things like steady pikes and spears. Given that mounted will break off if they don't cause the pikes to lose cohesion, it often isn't completely suicidal for armoured cavalry or cataphracts or knights to charge steady pikes or spears. The basic moral of the story is to keep your shock mounted out of charge range of pikes and spears until you are ready to have them charge in and finish off the enemy with the pointy things after they have been suitably softened up .

Chris

[omarquatar]

This is how I interpret the current mechanism, although they don't charge through friendly units, which is a major fix.

are you sure? i think i've still seen anarchy charges through friendly units, which is most irritating

[deeter]

They shouldn't charge through other shock troops, but I think they still do.

Deeter

[76mm]

Since the rules penalize foot for charging shock mounted in terms of not getting most POAs (pike get the POA for over 75% strength), there has to be some chance that shock cavalry will charge things like steady pikes and spears.

There is a big difference between "some chance" and "near certainty" as now. While this might be an unusual situation, I am in a game now with a Sarmatian army vs pikes--the cav is charging headlong into pikes all over the map. And I'm not sure that this is the best mechanism by which to redress the fact that foot charges cav at a disadvantage.

Given that mounted will break off if they don't cause the pikes to lose cohesion, it often isn't completely suicidal for armoured cavalry or cataphracts or knights to charge steady pikes or spears.

First I was speaking about "in real life" rather than game terms--you don't often read about cavalry charges into massed pikes. Second, you're almost guaranteed to lose about 15% and be disrupted every time you charge into a pike/spear unit, and that's if you're not attacked by multiple pikes during their turn. "Crippling" rather than "suicidal" if you prefer.

Also, maybe I'm mistaken about anarchying through friendly troops--while I have definitely not seen it for a long time, maybe that's because I don't usually have my cav deployed behind other troops, dunno...

[ericdoman1]

It is rare but shock troops still burst through other troops to charge into NME. You would think FOW would prevent it. Even through elephants. Is there a chance they could implement something whereby a shock troop would only charge another unit it is equal to or better on impact. Similarish to troops evading from better troops. Although prot, average, bow/sword cav will stand vs prot, superior, lts spr/sword. Found that out recently. Of course you can still use light troops to initiate these charges.

Not sure if otehr people have noticed this but I have had some games where a unit will rout through another unit in combat. I know not relevant to this link but as the new patch is being beta tested...

[Igorputski]

I think this is one of those instances where the wish of a game-player for total control over his troops differs a little from the real-world.

Lars

I agree and it's all too common on game forums for whinners to whine when they lose and blame it on something that is working as it should. There wasn't complete control of units in those times they didn't have radios or cell phones so anything is possible and anarchy would be very common in the heat of a fight. I do get tired of so many games being mechanical and gamey. I rather like the anarchy rules and the randomness of events that can happen. That's realistic.

[Scutarii]

Radios... no of course but orders exist and profesional soldiers can follow then and if general says "dont charge, leave enemy attack us in our marvellous defensive position" they dont charge and see roman units charging as barbarians... not all shock troops are equal and here the best option is add an anarchy value PER unit, bigger for barbarians

[76mm]

I think this is one of those instances where the wish of a game-player for total control over his troops differs a little from the real-world.

Lars

I agree and it's all too common on game forums for whinners to whine when they lose and blame it on something that is working as it should. There wasn't complete control of units in those times they didn't have radios or cell phones so anything is possible and anarchy would be very common in the heat of a fight. I do get tired of so many games being mechanical and gamey. I rather like the anarchy rules and the randomness of events that can happen. That's realistic.

haha...you are mischaracterizing this thread, namely:

1) I'm not sure if you are calling me a whiner, I guess you are, but I've never said that I lost a game because of anarchy, although I probably have. I've probably also won games because of anarchy on the other side. But that's not the point, and no one in this thread has said it is.

2) You say that anarchy would be very common in the heat of the fight. That's true, particularly for some troop types, but much less so for others, particularly IMO hoplites and phalanxes, whose effectiveness basically depended on maintaining orderly lines.

3) I don't think that the anarchy rules or randomness of events as implemented in the game are remotely realistic.

[ericdoman1]

In those games where I had more A charges than I can remember and that was with superior knights, MF superior and drilled HF. I lost both. So the curse has worked. Looking at the game, though I think it was more bad luck to have those many A charges and in particular the dreaded A charge from superior troops where they are disordered (you hope they don't A because they will steady, again you hope, at end of turn). However on 3 maybe 4 examples (yep that many A charges) it was bad generalship on my behalf. That is moving into the wrong position and having to face troops you do not want to face.

So 7.6cm being honest is it bad generalship, bad luck, good play from your opponent or a combination of these.

Finally do you have a remove curse spell please, pretty please LOL

[deeter]

Too bad we played our league games already.

Deeter

[Igorputski]

3) I don't think that the anarchy rules or randomness of events as implemented in the game are remotely realistic.

I do so that pretty much makes all things moot. ~

[76mm]

So 7.6cm being honest is it bad generalship, bad luck, good play from your opponent or a combination of these.

So, putting troops on a hill, and expecting them to stay there instead of charging piecemeal to their death (and leading to the death of their comrades) is bad generalship? You can say that is it not behavior which the game allows for, but that is not the same as bad generalship.

Also, it is not bad luck, Keith has already said that the game was designed precisely so that you could not count on troops staying put.

The solution is easy--I can just pick pike armies every time, in which case I am always on the attack and don't need to worry about troops staying put on hills. But I'm tired of games like this and was hoping that the game might allow for more interesting matchups that allow people with weaker armies to take advantage of favorable terrain rather than marching straight ahead into the meatgrinder. Oh well...

[76mm]

[quote="IgorputskiI do so that pretty much makes all things moot. ~[/quote]

Agreed, and we should recognize that at the end of the day it is a little ridiculous for people to argue about what is "realistic" in battles that no one alive has ever seen....

[ericdoman1]

As Igor puts it we do not really know what actually happeend in these ancient battles. The shieldwall was a big thing in Early Saxon times and you had to maintain the line. I think at Hasting the Normans feinted a retreat and the general fyrd went A. Again this was close to a 1000 years ago.

I think those points about bad luck etc are valid. Not sayingthat you 76mm are a bad general (I admitted the fact it was I) but I know I have had some games in the past where not one single unit has gone A, hence a bit of bad luck or good luck in that instance.

Personally I like the rules and will like them more with the new patch, I hope.

I was wondering if anybody out there knows, when HF are on a hill do they receive a bonus in not going A. The fact that the pikes didn't charge A into you, was there a reason for that? Had they just advanced to within 2 hexes, well I guess that's it.

Fianlly do the powers that be take note of these links?

[76mm]

...but I know I have had some games in the past where not one single unit has gone A, hence a bit of bad luck or good luck in that instance.

Yeah, I've had plenty of those games too, or at least where the anarchy didn't really matter because my line was advancing anyway. The issue mainly arises if you are trying to defend, especially along some kind of terrain feature. I also don't usually have anarchy problems with cav, except in the recent game where I had a Sarmatian all-cav army vs a pike army, and they were charging headlong into pikes. My cav couldn't avoid the pikes because they were pretty much everywhere...every time I tried to maneuver the cav toward gaps in the line, they would instead anarchy straight into the pikes. If they were going to anarchy anywhere, you'd think that they'd anarchy toward the gaps...

...I was wondering if anybody out there knows, when HF are on a hill do they receive a bonus in not going A. The fact that the pikes didn't charge A into you, was there a reason for that? Had they just advanced to within 2 hexes, well I guess that's it.

I don't think there is such a bonus, or at least no one has mentioned it. The pikes didn't anarchy into me because they had just advanced within range, and I think only part of their line was within two hexes.

[Igorputski]

[quote="IgorputskiI do so that pretty much makes all things moot. ~

Agreed, and we should recognize that at the end of the day it is a little ridiculous for people to argue about what is "realistic" in battles that no one alive has ever seen....[/quote]

I guess you never heard or read about Audy Murphy? Events happen that are not "organized" that doesn't make them any the less "UNrealistic". History has taught us what happened in those times without me having to SEE it. Common sense says the same. READ some history and then you might learn something instead of whinning about a game feature that is historical that annoys you because YOU don't think it's "realistic".

[IainMcNeil]

This is getting a bit heated. We have no problem discussing the merits of anarchy but we will not tolerate any personal attacks by anyone so lets keep it all civil guys!

[Scutarii]

History shows that usually disclipe wins and are more examples of disciplined armies winning (even suffering high loses) because follow orders (usually to exploit a terrain advantage) is the difference between victory and defeat, battle plans uses all features of own tropps, enemy troops and terrain but not all troops can follow orders... here is the same have barbarians or soldiers, the A charges are to random.

Not compare soldiers with warriors, remember that warfare change when roman army types reappear and true professional armies return to battlefields, the evolution is from a warband to a regular unit, from attack attack attack to attack when we can do it better and defend when terrain is our allied.

Here we dont say quit all A charges, here we say do it more complex where with x unit type + army you have more or less problems and of course, made then in the start of the turn not in the end where you cant do nothing to save a stupid unit that break your battle line IN OPEN TERRAIN WHEN TRY TO CHASE A UNIT THAT NEVER CAN BE CHASEN

[76mm]

I guess you never heard or read about Audy Murphy? Events happen that are not "organized" that doesn't make them any the less "UNrealistic". History has taught us what happened in those times without me having to SEE it. Common sense says the same. READ some history and then you might learn something instead of whinning about a game feature that is historical that annoys you because YOU don't think it's "realistic".

You are getting unbearable. So you want games designed around Audie Murphy-type exploits? We've only heard about him because his feats were so remarkable, so improbable, so unusual--and yet such feats apparently happen umpteen times a game in FoG. OK, if you consider an army of Audie Murphies "realistic"...

And please stop patronizing me--for the record I am airing my views on aspects of the game--not "whining"--and you have no idea how much history I have read, so I wouldn't go there...

[magobarca]

Many times troops have done the unexpected, rash, etc. with or without orders in the RW, including disobeying orders on a large scale. For examples: 1) in 1863 during the ACW, veteran Union troops charged up the steep slopes of Missionary Ridge without orders and drove the Confedrate army from its defensive positions on the ridge securing a victory for the USA; 2) there are a large number of documented instances in the Punic Wars of troops taking matters into their own hands with both beneficial and harmful results occurring: many times Romans, Roman allies, and various Carthaginian troops attacked succesfully, and not successfully without orders etc. 3) there are countless other examples throughout history.

Not only is this anarchy but it is mass anarchy. Maybe even mass hysteria. I like the anarchy in the game because it is realistic and doesn't occur all the time but it does occur, just as in the RW. IOTW, sometimes things just get out of hand, especially in extreme situations like wars, even if the troops are highly disciplined.

BTW, at the time of Punic Wars 1 and 2, the Roman army was not a standing professional army, but always had large numbers of experienced and veteran troops in its ranks due to the levy/conscription system.