Slitherine

While I like the change for how anarchy charges are done in 1.2.2, it now seems that virtually every time I go to move my Burgundian pikes in a pre-1.2.2 game, they will make an anarchy charge if one is available. This is with drilled troops within command range of an inspired commander, so they should have to have a 4 on 2 D6 or less to fail the CMT and make the anarchy charge. I may just have been very unlucky so far but I am wondering if in making the change something has broken in the way the actual chance that the troops will make the anarchy impetuous charge is determined. Have others seen a similarly unexpected increase in the frequency of anarchy charges?

Chris

I've not noticed a problem - check the die rolls they are making and see what is happening.

iainmcneil wrote:I've not noticed a problem - check the die rolls they are making and see what is happening.

I haven't found a way to see the die rolls for anarchy moves yet. I don't think they are showing up in the summary display when I have it up. I replayed the turn where I last noticed the issue and didn't see anarchy rolls.

Chris

I have been hit again and again with Cavalry making charges that I have not asked for or expected, with pretty poor odds / suicidal. I have just had a leader do it in Tewkesbury and he died in the charge throwing the whole wing out of command. This seems to happen way too often, even when in command and I would like to know how it is being assessed? I will have a search but this is the first thread I have found on it. This feature can turn a game into a lottery and is not something that players will enjoy... Well unless you are the one having your swords and pikes used to commit suicide upon.... A game of semi skill is turning more into a game of chance IMO... My leader charged through his own ranks and rode over his own men causing disruption and this can not be right!!!

Follow up on my leader charging through his own foot ranks, I could not have made the charge under my own control so this should IMO not be possible under the control of the computer. It is broken IMO and needs attention....

If they are in charge reach of the enemy they must pass a complex move test not to charge. Basically do not move knights close to enemy you do not want them to charge as thats what they do!

So they will charge through their own ranks? Trample their own men to get at the enemy? So the computer can do something that you as a player have no option to do. I.e. Move through your own ranks. That IMO is a bug not a feature. The code should be the same for the player and the Computer. I.e. I should have the same option as the computer in charging through my own ranks.

At Crecy, the French knights rode down their own crossbowmen to charge the English at the king's command and I can't see the harm in allowing heavy cavalry to charge through like an anarchy charge but player commanded so long as anarchy remains a feature too.

I can acept Anarchy as long as it is the same for computer and player alike. So give me the choice to ride down my own men, or if I don't have the choice then the computer should not have the choice. I think it is over modelled and happens too frequently (but that is just an opinion and not based on careful study of either the computer model or historical accounts). If this was a regular thing in history and happened every battle then fair enough but my gut feel is that it was rare and it happens too often in the game.. Just my 2p...

If you move the men in front first they will not be trampled. You have complete control - or at least as much as we're going to allow!

iainmcneil wrote:If you move the men in front first they will not be trampled. You have complete control - or at least as much as we're going to allow!

Shock troops should not anarchy charge through shock troops if you wish the PC game to use the same rules as the TT game. Although we could find historical evidence of shock troops anarchy charging through non-shock troops (e.g. Crecy), we could not find any historical cases of shock troops anarchy charging through other shock troops.

It should not be too hard to implement this in the program. It just requires the Anarchy charge path to be calculated before the test instead of after.

Holien wrote:If this was a regular thing in history and happened every battle then fair enough but my gut feel is that it was rare and it happens too often in the game.. Just my 2p...

Hard to say. If shock troops charged a bit prematurely it might not be mentioned in historical accounts if they did not charge through their own men. It was, after all, their job to charge the enemy once in range.

Shock troops would not normally historically be deployed behind non-shock troops (other than lights) except when in reserve, in which case they should be far enough back not to be in charge reach of the enemy.

However, they should not anarchy charge through their own shock troops. Deep formations of shock troops were sometimes used historically, and they certainly did not have a problem with the rear ranks bursting through the front ranks to get at the enemy.

No shock troops do nto charge through other shock troops - if they do it is a bug

iainmcneil wrote:No shock troops do nto charge through other shock troops - if they do it is a bug

Is that a change in the beta version? In the current production version, my cataphracts regularly anarchy charge through each other.

Yes it is new - anarchy charges are completely different in the beta to try and address the reported issues

Paisley wrote:At Crecy, the French knights rode down their own crossbowmen to charge the English at the king's command and I can't see the harm in allowing heavy cavalry to charge through like an anarchy charge but player commanded so long as anarchy remains a feature too.

From what I have been told tonight they were not their Crossbow men. They were allies but not from same force and they happened to start the charge when it was clear but the Crossbow men moved into the way and could not get out of the way fast enough.

I really do think this Anarchy thing is over modelled and happens too often. (The charging element, not failure to charge) Apart from Crecy what other examples do people have of troops riding through their own men?

I agree with troops not always wanting to charge but troops charging when not instructed to should be pretty rare as men don't tend to want to die. Yes you get an odd group that want to but then it should be against targets that are good to charge at. The way it stands at the moment you get charges happening against targets that are suicidal to charge!! This is wrong IMO and should be coded out. Only Anarchy Charge if you have better percentage odds or a clear chance of success. Not suicide.

Holien wrote:

Paisley wrote:At Crecy, the French knights rode down their own crossbowmen to charge the English at the king's command and I can't see the harm in allowing heavy cavalry to charge through like an anarchy charge but player commanded so long as anarchy remains a feature too.

From what I have been told tonight they were not their Crossbow men. They were allies but not from same force and they happened to start the charge when it was clear but the Crossbow men moved into the way and could not get out of the way fast enough.

I really do think this Anarchy thing is over modelled and happens too often. (The charging element, not failure to charge) Apart from Crecy what other examples do people have of troops riding through their own men?

I agree with troops not always wanting to charge but troops charging when not instructed to should be pretty rare as men don't tend to want to die. Yes you get an odd group that want to but then it should be against targets that are good to charge at. The way it stands at the moment you get charges happening against targets that are suicidal to charge!! This is wrong IMO and should be coded out. Only Anarchy Charge if you have better percentage odds or a clear chance of success. Not suicide.

Check the history of western knights charging eastern opponents when the outcome was very much not in their favour

The point is people knew what knights would do and did not stand in front of them!

I agree with Holien. I think the game overplays the role of anarchy charges. In rare situations it has occured but in general it is not an impacting factor on the field otherwise you would of seen different tactics evolved. It is common knowledge that cavalry won't charge formed pikes and spears as the psychology of a horse prevents it (simply read any book on tactics especially from the napoleonic period). Charging formed ranks relies upon the opponent losing their nerve and breaking ranks so that the mounted forces can break into their formation. Also someone mentioned about charging middle eastern horse archers with knights. This fits in with the idea proposed by Holien that units should only charge when it is in their favor. If the horse archers are in range raining arrows upon them they would break ranks and charge but lacked the speed to catch their evade. Also when foot is presented in front of mounted troops the commanders wait for the enemy to make a mistake before charging home, e.g. when the formation loses cohesion, presents a flank etc. which once again will be modelled by charging when the advantage is presented.

Steve

One potential flaw with the anarchy model is the fact that both aspects, charging w/o orders and refusing a charge order, are based on the same Complex Move Test.

In the case of refusing a charge order, the modifiers in the CMT make perfect sense; proximity to a commander will help, disruption/fragmentation will hinder.

However, with charging w/o orders, the diruption/fragmentation modifiers have, IMO, a counter-intuitive effect, such that BGs in those states are more likely to anarchy charge than if in good order (because they are more likely to fail the test)

I can understand good order (steady) BGs, with their 'blood up', charging off by themselves but, by definition, that should be more difficult for non-steady BGs

I aslo agree that the player should have the option to order charges through his own units in the same manner as the AI and with the same consequences.