No one has ever denied that sometimes troops don't do what they are told and there is really no need to cite further examples--should I cite the multitude of situations where troops did more or less what they were supposed to? Also, I would contend that "passive anarchy" in which troops do nothing even when ordered to do so, should be much more common than in this game. Lines don't advance, horses don't charge, etc. Currently this only happens with disrupted troops, I would say it should be much more common than "active anarchy" in which troops charge off into suicidal situations.magobarca wrote: 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.
But in any event I can't agree that a mechanism designed to make it impossible to defend from a hill--the devs have stated is the case in this game--is realistic. In my experience, in this game it is impossible to have troops defend a hill, because at least one of them, and usually more, can be counted on with a very high degree of probability, to anarchy. That does not seem right to me at all.
