Slitherine

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.

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.

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.

Yes, I noticed defending from higher ground doesn't give an advantage, but that has nothing to do with the anarchy. The rate of anarchy in the game is actually perhaps rather low. There are many instances of troops attacking into near suicidal conditions in ancient times and many times successfully, and of course more instances where they either failed or didn't attack to begin with and also fled or retreated.

I'll cite and quote what I want to if it is relevant, and what I stated is relevant. We all know that successful instances of troops acting on their own for various reasons occur a bit less frequently than if they have orders, but even with orders many attacks & defenses fail. Fact is, that troops are trained to act on their own if necessary, to show initiative if practicle & necessary as well as to rigidly follow orders, IOTW, to make on the spot individual & group/unit decsions as necessary, but this of course would occur less in an ancient pitched battle due to the large scale of close quarter fighting and slower battlefield communications, but it did occur and it occurred more than most people think it did throughout all periods of history. Orders frequently allow some degree of flexibility to the lower leaders and troops themselves and orders are not always precise and rigid.

magobarca wrote:Yes, I noticed defending from higher ground doesn't give an advantage, but that has nothing to do with the anarchy.

Yes, it does, because they don't stay on the high ground...

76mm wrote:

magobarca wrote:Yes, I noticed defending from higher ground doesn't give an advantage, but that has nothing to do with the anarchy.

Yes, it does, because they don't stay on the high ground...

Usually they do stay on the high ground, but sometimes they go anarchistic, which is realistic as long as the greater majority don't go bannanas. Maybe if troops are on high ground the AI & behavior can be modified by 'the producers' to lessen the chance of those defending units on high ground going anarchistic. Maybe it does happen too much in FoG, especially when staying in a defensive mode is necessary to play & win a game. It's happened to me & I just live with it since in all my readings I have found that it happened frequently.

And again! - another mounted leader charges through his own ranks in an anarchy charge. This seems to be becoming monotonously commonplace for me now.

I can accept anarchy for non-leader BGs, on an occasional basis, but as a regular event for leader-led BGs, it just seems plain wrong. In effect, I must keep my mounted leaders back from supporting front line troops, in the very likely event that it will just crash through them to get to the enemy.

IMO leaders should be almost immune to anarchy charges.

It happens ... a lot. An undrilled lancer needs an 8 not to charge on 2D6 reduced to 6 if a leader is with the unit or 5 if he is also an inspired leader. Thats still poor odds, particularly if trying to prevent charge for more than one turn!! Keith

keithmartinsmith wrote:It happens ... a lot. An undrilled lancer needs an 8 not to charge on 2D6 reduced to 6 if a leader is with the unit or 5 if he is also an inspired leader. Thats still poor odds, particularly if trying to prevent charge for more than one turn!! Keith

Whoopsy daisy, I have missed yet another thing if this means what I think it does
Is there a difference between drilled and undrilled BG:s when it comes to how likely they are to anarchy?
Also, are you happy with the poor odds for generals that you describe? I'm not. I agree with jimcrowley that leaders should anarchy much less than other BG:s.

Yup. Drilled troops test at 7, undrilled at 8. However, it's interesting that in the Macedonian/Indian started army scenario, Alexander (inspired leader with drilled elite agema unit) routinely goes berzerk and charges through the nearest pike unit to attack elephants uphill.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Yup. Drilled troops test at 7, undrilled at 8. However, it's interesting that in the Macedonian/Indian started army scenario, Alexander (inspired leader with drilled elite agema unit) routinely goes berzerk and charges through the nearest pike unit to attack elephants uphill.

Deeter

Well, that is still a 27% to anarchy! Not the greatest of odds....

Dont know about charging into pacs though , should be forbidden , after all mediums dont even need to test to LEAVE rough terrain that benefits them , so why should lancers charge an enemy that auto disorders them

This is a good question. But Alex seems especially prone to going berzerk despite needing to roll less than 5. I tend to put my leaders in non-shock units for that reason.

Deeter

In the TT rules elephants are an ancarchy exception, units do not have to test for anarchy if the unit that would cause the test is elephants or in severely disordering terrain, if the testing unit is in terrain, defending field fortifications or a river. Guess it will take a bit more programing to keep old Al in place.

The Boy King might have been charging nearby foot troops come to think of it, but he was contacting elephants in most cases.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Yup. Drilled troops test at 7, undrilled at 8. However, it's interesting that in the Macedonian/Indian started army scenario, Alexander (inspired leader with drilled elite agema unit) routinely goes berzerk and charges through the nearest pike unit to attack elephants uphill.

Deeter

No one should anarchy charge into contact with elephants to be consistent with the TT rules. If they are still doing so, this bug should be fixed.

Chris

batesmotel wrote: No one should anarchy charge into contact with elephants to be consistent with the TT rules. If they are still doing so, this bug should be fixed.

Chris

is it written in the Tables of Law that FOG PC must be faithful to FOG TT rules? what about players simply looking for a good, fun and possibly realistic (what FOG obviously isn't) computer wargame?

omarquatar wrote:

batesmotel wrote: No one should anarchy charge into contact with elephants to be consistent with the TT rules. If they are still doing so, this bug should be fixed.

Chris

is it written in the Tables of Law that FOG PC must be faithful to FOG TT rules? what about players simply looking for a good, fun and possibly realistic (what FOG obviously isn't) computer wargame?

Given that the digital version of FoG is marketed under the same name and trade mark as the TT rules, and by the same publisher, I think there is a good argument for keeping the digital version consistent with the TT version where there isn't a strong reason not to. There are certainly things from the TT rules that don't work well on the computer and vice versa, but this doesn't seem an area where a departure makes much sense or strongly effects playability or realism. Elephants are generally scary to other troops, especiall mounted, so it's unlikely that units are going to decide to charge them on their own initiative if not ordered to do so by higher command.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:

omarquatar wrote:

batesmotel wrote: No one should anarchy charge into contact with elephants to be consistent with the TT rules. If they are still doing so, this bug should be fixed.

Chris

is it written in the Tables of Law that FOG PC must be faithful to FOG TT rules? what about players simply looking for a good, fun and possibly realistic (what FOG obviously isn't) computer wargame?

Given that the digital version of FoG is marketed under the same name and trade mark as the TT rules, and by the same publisher, I think there is a good argument for keeping the digital version consistent with the TT version where there isn't a strong reason not to. There are certainly things from the TT rules that don't work well on the computer and vice versa, but this doesn't seem an area where a departure makes much sense or strongly effects playability or realism. Elephants are generally scary to other troops, especiall mounted, so it's unlikely that units are going to decide to charge them on their own initiative if not ordered to do so by higher command.

Chris

you're perfectly right regarding the specific example, it's the general attitude that makes me nervous, as i think it's not only FOG miniature gamers that buy and play FOG PC

If you are playing the latest version of the game mounted will not charge impetuously into any contact elephants. They will pursue into them though.

Keith

Hi, I am updated to v.1.33, so is this version fixed concerning the cavalry charging into elephants?

Ideas: 1) For drilled troops simply lower the odds of them going anarchistic, & give them even a lower chance when behind a ditch. It couldn't be done if they were on a hill since that is elevation dependent. If on/in a ditch then the chances for a unit to charge up & out of the ditch would be higher methinks. 2) Leader units would have a much lower chance for the troops to go banannas (sp? bannanas?), so lower the odds to maybe 5 to 10% with a bonus or deduction (however the variable numbers are dealt with) for a leader being with the unit; 5% chance for a CinC, 10% chance if 2nd inC sub/ally, & 15% for a 3rd rate sub/ally. Sumthin simple yet effective. However, some leaders were rather loose upstairs.

Overall, I don't seem to see that many anrachy charges when playing, maybe 5 or so per game per both sides with maybe 59 or so units/BG's per side.

I think 1.3.5 has all the latest changes pre SAS.

A note on casualties. FOG has gone out of it's way to avoid the super trooper syndrome. That is why the horde armies perform well. That is one of the reason's I like the game. In spite of the occasional odd evade or break off move that is 12 hexes and through a swamp or woods or to your rear through a zone of control with 3 turns and 2 dance moves, the generals skill make's the largest difference.

Here are some reasons for the lack of super trooper dominance. The biggest + you will get for armor is +1. Unprotected vs Heavily armored is still +1, not +3 or +4 for very heavily armored. This cuts down on the hits and casualties that the expensive troops can dish out.
This makes super troops progressively less cost effective. Another thing is that unless charged in the rear, or attrited, a unit can only drop 2 moral levels do to combat, so you can't blow thru an area and forces the units in question to last a turn or 2 longer. All of this limits the power of expensive troops. Moral is much more important than armor or weapons.

I think the authors point to force you to take a balanced force. This also means there is not a solution to the game. Many people complain about horde armies. But only the very best players win consistently with them. They would win anyway.

I would personally like to the generals who shall remain nameless (You know the ones who play horde armies) forced to play Numidians. Winning with that army will truelly prove their greatness.

I agree Xiggy that the game is well balanced to avoid a specific unit type from being a "super Trooper". , although not necesarily with the sentimant that expensive troops should be toned down for balance alone. (not that they are, although elite units can be a real bear to deal with)

Hmm Numidians.... i have fielded them once in MP and beat a Late Roman army , howver much of my thunder was stolen on the last turn where my opponent admitted that the game was only his second or third in MP

I'd probly try them more but I dont really think that they are too fun too play , at least for my play style (win or lose)