Slitherine

Not sure if anyone else is experiencing this but am finding troops going into Anarchy and charging into hopeless situations more readily since the new patch. One quirk I find is that in the middle of the turn if I am moving troops say backwards away from the enemy is that after clicking to execute the move the troops ignore that & go into Anarchy and charge the nearest unit. This even happens with my drilled spearmen. I was sure this did not happen before. Is this a bug or is this the norm now?

Going to guess this is the new norm. I have had some units go anarchy charging since I did not move them into contact with the enemy and they want to go kill something now.

Hi!

We have a loooong discussion about the new anarchy rules here
viewtopic.php?t=16443

Now anarchy is checked every time you move a shock BG in attack range of the enemy and do not order them to charge the enemy. If they fail the roll they will do an anarchic charges.
Besides any non moved shock troops will test for anarchy at end turn if in charge range of the enemy, and charge if they fail the roll. The worst part is that they will do in just before the turn is sent to your enemy, depriving you of the possibility to react or support his anarchic charge, leaving them totally exposed to the enemy
This is no small thing, as there are a lot of shock troops around (any impact foot, any offensive spears, any pikes, lance cavalry...)

The official answer is that before the anarchy charges were bugged and bow they work OK.
But myself and most of the people seems to liked better the "bugged" behavior than the new one.

To me the main problems are
- Anarchy way too frequent now, spoiling any plan or strategy and leaving battle resolution much more in the hands of chance and pure luck than before.
- Anarchy happening at the end of the turn for not moved troops is a terrible idea, IMHO. Before it happened at turn start and you can react to the situation.
- Charge situations are not coded right: BG can leave excellent defensive positions (over a hill, or across a stream to stupidly charge the enemy, or charge much more powerful enemy BG in suicide charges.
- Drilled troops (legionaries, phalangites...) behave like crazy barbarians instead of disciplined professional soldiers, breaking formation frequently to charge after anything in range... even skirmishers than will evade them

IMHO this is spoiling much of the FoG gameplay i used to love. Playing most of the armies is now frustrating and ahistorical
I really hope developers give a thought about this issue and tweak it somehow...

Cheers

I have to agree here. Not only do the anarchy charges seem too frequent during movement, but they also start popping off when all movement is completed. I just finished a scenario where a line of 5-6 impact foot legions were waiting for a line of pike to close. I made my moves on another part of the field, of which 2 legions charged out on anarchy charges while being moved, but then when I completed the moves, 2 more units from the unmoved line charged out at skirmishers. This really does make much of the battle into a game of chance, and while I like a little of the anarchy, its too much the way it is now.

I agree. In a game I'm playing versus Hidde at the moment our Pike lines are closing and he had one of his pike units charge downhill to engage (which pleased me ) and then 2 of my pike units charged uphill (which didn't please me ). The disappointing thing is that both of us had nice lines and now it's breaking down into... well, anarchy.

I really struggle with the concept of 'drilled' units going into anarchy so often and also the stupidity of some of the charges (leaving favourable positions, or into very unfavourable positions). It annoys me intensely when cavalry charge solid lines of pikes repeatedly until they ultimately die. Once may be impetuous, twice is stupid and 3 times is Darwinism in action!

Some will argue that this is realistic, and may quote an example or two to prove their point, no one knows for sure, and no one knows what percentage of all the potential situations encountered that this occurred in history. I'd bet a small fortune that it is nowhere near as common as it is in this game, simply because it would be a hard lesson to those that did it and those that saw it done. It would be fairly self-limiting when all the stupid/impetuous troops were killed or incapacitated.

Ultimately, whether realistic or not, playability should win the day. This is a game that many play for enjoyment and once it becomes more frustrating than enjoyable it soon won't be played.

As I've said, because the table rule is applied directly to the pc without consideration of the difference in how units are portrayed, you get more anarchy than you expect because a typical 6-8 base formation on the table is 3 or 4 pc units. Thus they in effect check 3 or 4 times and each failure sees only part of what would be that table formation charge. The overall effect is to make anarchy far 'bittier' and to seem far more unreasonable (because it is).

I don't agree that it's a game-breaker. But it is, I think, an issue that should be addressed.

Simply making anarchy happen at the start of a turn rather than being triggered by movement or at the end of a turn would help mitigate the undesireable consequences of the greater number of units compared to table formations.

But the only sensible long term fix is to do that and to reduce the chances of anarchy approximately 3-fold.

Anarchy did ruin the day for the Saxons at Hastings!!!

Nope. Pursuit did.

And the fyrd pursued en masse. Not in penny packets.

Paisley wrote:Nope. Pursuit did.

And the fyrd pursued en masse. Not in penny packets.

Well, what is pursuit without orders or without considering the ramifications of leaving a defensive position if not a type of anarchy?
Also , i dont know if their is enough evidence to support that the fyrd charged en masse or in penny packets.., just like no -one will ever know for sure if the Normans, at certain times were routing and being chased, merley retreating to reform up or feigning retreat in order to draw out the Saxons...
This was a long battle, and it was the combined arms of the Normans that slowly attrited and finally broke the the shield wall. It was tough real close battle...

I havent played enough w the new anarchy rules to really know if I like dislike...
I agree that having units test for anarchy if you "touch" them and then after you hit end turn seems excessive...

I like the suggestion that all your shock units check for anarchy at the beginning of your turn and that is it... I have said before that i felt that gives too much control, but this issue is clearly bothering a lot of players and some good arguments are being made for playability over control/realism...

What I mean is in game terms they did not anarchy charge, they were pulled from position because they chased routing units that had been in contact with them. Quite different.

Indeed! Pursuing of routed units is already in the game!
I bet one can find historical evidence to support anything one wants to prove. So it woudl be better to look at the big picture, to what generally happned so the game has an adequate historical feeling.
But as some has posted before, this is a fun a game, not an ultra realistic historical simulation (not by far).
And to not spoil the gameplay, developers should be very cautious in removing decisions from the hands of the players to give them to a completely random system. Specially when it don't improve historical feeling at all (IMHO it makes its the other way around)

Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors.

Cheers

Indeed! Pursuing of routed units is already in the game!

And so it should. No problems with that.

...to not spoil the gameplay, developers should be very cautious in removing decisions from the hands of the players to give them to a completely random system. Specially when it don't improve historical feeling at all (IMHO it makes its the other way around)

Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors

Very well said. Many tend to lose focus on one thing while talking about what's realistic or not and what happened where and when, and that is :
Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors
Arsan, you said it best and everybody should listen

""Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors """

Although I agree with the above in some applications , no so much as an absolute.

I like chess (which has no pure chance) , but I like wargames better....(a great variety of chance)
When I lose its a combo of chance (die roles) and skill (or lack of it)

Whether anarchy is subdued or not I will continue to enjoy this game and keep playng, Cheers!

hidde wrote:

Indeed! Pursuing of routed units is already in the game!

And so it should. No problems with that.

...to not spoil the gameplay, developers should be very cautious in removing decisions from the hands of the players to give them to a completely random system. Specially when it don't improve historical feeling at all (IMHO it makes its the other way around)

Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors

Very well said. Many tend to lose focus on one thing while talking about what's realistic or not and what happened where and when, and that is :
Its not fun to lose or win a battle because of pure chance. What's fun and make people want to play is to win or lose because of its own merits and errors
Arsan, you said it best and everybody should listen

If you are not willing to to include the vagaries of luck in determining whether you win or lose, you really ought to consider taking up Chess as your game of choice.

So far with 1.2.5 and the new anarchy rules, my experience has been that anarchy has had an effect but certainly not a decisive one. I did experience anarchy with a couple of my pike BGs when I was attempting to hold them in position to force Paisley's Swiss to fight in the position of my choice, but my trouncing was far more due to the fact that the whole center of my line of pikemen pretty much disintegrated on the first turn (mine and Pasiley's) that we really engaged in combat due to the way the dice went for the combat which left the center of my line routing and one of my commanders dead. (The commander died after things has disintegrated so wasn't the primary cause.)

Chris

Well, the bolded says: "pure chance". To be clear I don't mind a combination of chance and player input.
It comes down to personal taste I suppose how to balance it.
I was not happy with odds and result earlier but I've has since decided that the amount of luck in impact and melee is fine.
Maybe I will find the same when it comes to anarchy but I doubt it.

Here's an update on my game with Hidde and it'll explain my GROWING frustration with the game and why, for the 1st time, I'm thinking of giving up on it

A bit of background...
This is the 2nd of our league matches in Pantherboy's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. So, a game I take seriously, as I'm sure Hidde does. It's not the end of the world if I lose, it's only a game, but I want to do the best I can.

The game started with a totally unsuitable battleground for both Later Seleucid armies (heavily pike). It was a valley scenario with a large lake, some marsh and a large ploughed field between the 2 armies. There is some good ground between the 2 armies, but it's a bottleneck. There's also a way round the lake and another round the ploughed field, but it's a long hike. Oh, and there's some broken ground immediately in front of where Hidde's army deployed... and there's a stream dividing my side of the valley into two.

Both of us laughed at the battleground provided, but decided to continue. Sometimes the challenge is to make the best of what is provided. I also liked the challenge it gave me to overcome. I knew if I could beat Hidde, who I know is a good player, with the his defensive position then I would've done really well and I'd be proud of the result.

Neither side wanted to give up their hill advantage.

I started by sending some of cavalry and some archers round the lake to try and get a rear or flanking position on his pike lines. I send my pikemen the other way round the lake to do this they have to cross the stream, I'm worried that Hidde may rapidly advance with his MF and cavalry, and may catch me half across the stream, but he stays put. Probably the safest move not to get drawn out of a very defensible position. Hidde sends his cavalry and some LF to meet mine. We face each other for a while trading missiles, but neither of us wants to get drawn out of position. In the meantime I send my LF and Archer Cavalry to bombard his better quality skirmishers. I'm trying to draw them out so I can pin them with my poor LF and destroy them with the Cavalry (he knows this and isn't falling for it). So, I focus fire on a few units and keep rotating mine, hoping to get some points up by routing by missiles. Any that disrupt or get low Hidde simply moves away. In the meantime, my pikes have crossed the stream and reform lines opposite his lines, but on the other side of the valley. I send my MF to hold a strategic position in the fields and my Cataphracts round the fields to get a position above and to the side of his line. By doing this I'm hoping to force an error from Hidde (unlikely) or just be posed to respond well if he decides to attack (unlikely too). This game has got draw written all over it.

At this point I'm withdrawing my cavalry (Companions and Galatians) from opposite his cavalry, he's getting close and has more strength. The first Companion withdraws OK, but the second impetuously charges into greater number OK, it happens. I compound the misfortune by using Superior Galatians to support the attack in the hope I can disrupt his Companions and give my Companions a chance. It was a mistake (and I knew it). So now I'm losing 2 units (and 2 LF). Not wishing to make a bad position even worse I withdraw the remaining cavalry and skirmishers.

My Cataphracts have now got near the pikes so I advance my pikes down the valley and a little up Hidde's side ready to move up if he responds badly to my MF and Cataphract threat. I don't intend to attack because it's all uphill, but I'm hoping he think I will and thus make a mistake in his moves. Suddenly, one of his pikes decides to charge downhill after a LF (or Pike - I forget) and into my lines. No sense whatsoever in that (Hidde must be furious). I set about his pike, but then 2 of mine charge uphill into his lines! These both rout in 2 goes, Average vs Superior with hill advantage is a real disadvantage. The only good news is that when the 2nd pike dies his pike unit follows it downhill into my massed pikes. No sensible unit would ever do this (yes, quote Hastings to me - they weren't sensible either... and they died too). Meanwhile, I'm moving my Cats to better position and the 1st one anarchy charges pikes I then chose to commit the others in the hope that I can force through. I start to send the MF to get closer to help if an opening appears and the 1st MF anarchy charges into a line on hills. I write the unit off. I send the next MF to get closer to the Cats and it anarchy charges the same line too! What the hell, I send the 3rd MF to help them, just in case they get lucky.

The point of all this is that I want you to understand that I play this game because I want to stretch my mind by seeing if I can out-think and outplay a similar person... I also want fun. I don't play this because I want to relive, recreate or otherwise make the same mistakes of the dumb and stupid from history. I accept that to give it an element of realism not just to make it like Chess there has to be an element of luck in terms of battle results, and they way units react.

Frankly, the level of stupidity being introduced by units running out of position, charging very unfavourable positions and units, chasing routed units into certain death, etc. is really ruining the game for me. Yes, I'm sure it happened in history, but there's I'm sure it was NOT THIS MUCH!

I've spent the last 2 days trying to think of ways to help Peter G make his Lost World campaign even better (based on the feedback from the players), but now I'm thinking of giving this game up completely.

Please reduce the level of anarchy and apply some sanity tests for following routed units! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!

I am currently playing Grumblefish and the anarchy of his pikes has entirely spoilt what looked to be a very promising game. Normally I'd gloat and mock him but this was beyond a joke.

While I do comment on a number of the rules and apparent anomalies in the system, most of it is me thinking out loud rather than being something I definitely believe to be true. Anarchy is the only one that I now think is utterly broken. Please, please, at least put it back to the START of a turn even if you don't address the fact it's 3x as frequent as it should be compared to the table and some obvious terrain features that should at least reduce the chance of anarchy (like holding a hilltop hexside).

Note, some armies that are essentially purely aggressive (like the Swiss) and some that are almost entirely defensive (like longbow heavy English) will not see the effect of anarchy nearly as much as others. The Hellenistic armies in particular seem very prone because of their more manoeuvre based approach.

Well, as other says in Hastings was a pursuit not an anarchy charge in the game pursuit is present (and for me isnt perfect because see pike units "chasing" routed units ) and if we start to talk about historic... is historic see infinite shoots to units???

Returning to anarchy charges, even if you dont move a unit it can say "heeeey i see 2 HF units i am a MF unit in a step hill i can leave my position and charge!!!" and in the game anarchy charges break lines and in pike units LINE is all!!! in barbarians armies anarchy charges ok but in "professional" armies who win battles HOLDING the line is a little... for me in 1.2.5 anarchy charges were fine and now you can see a HF unit trying chase a LH unit only to find 3 attacks of HF units

PD: work in TT dont mean that work in PC they are 2 different games because dont have the same scale, features and movement system (hex system is more static).

I can see no earthly reason why pikes should not pursue... let's not go overboard.

They are in a defensive position on a hill and down below are lots of pikes 2 or 3 deep. Yet you can see no reason why, in isolation, they shouldn't follow the routed unit into oblivion