Argh. MF anarchy charging out of terrain again.

[rbodleyscott]

I just had my MF thureophoroi anarchy charge out of terrain again. Has this bug been reintroduced in V 1.2.6?

[jamespcrowley]

Also should MF be anarchy charging into /over streams? If so, it is impossible to hold a defensive line behind a stream. Presumably the same for HF?

[deeter]

The V 1.2.6 notes say MF charging into the open is fixed! Charging over streams isn't mentioned and I bet isn't prohibited.

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

The V 1.2.6 notes say MF charging into the open is fixed! Charging over streams isn't mentioned and I bet isn't prohibited.

But it should be.

[rbodleyscott]

The V 1.2.6 notes say MF charging into the open is fixed!

Apparently not. My MF charged out of a marsh into the open.

[Ironclad]

1.2.6 stops medium infantry anarchy charging out of steep hills but thats all.

[dazzam]

I'm all for a bit of Anarchy but when it's repetitive suicidal anarchy it's just plain annoying. Why a bunch of chaps on horses are being order back would decide to repeatedly throw themselves into a bunch of pikes repeatedly is beyond me. Even more annoyingly why a small bunch of drilled troops would leave a hill steep or not and rush into a bunch of more guys with bigger sticks and more armour is beyond me. Yes this is going to happen sometimes but not with the frequency we are getting in this release is just a little silly. Any fixes for this can't come soon enough.

[arsan]

Any fixes for this can't come soon enough.

+1!
If i were not compromised on a FoG tournament i would have stopped playing the game altogether.
Instead of being a joy to play it has became an aggravating experience!

Most of your strategies and plans are systematically sabotaged by stupid suicide anarchy charges all around, and battles became just an exercise of:

a) Take advantage on the easy shots you get at enemy's BG when their units anarchy charge to some stupid place.
b) get pissed off and try to minimize damages when it's your units the ones that put themselves in stupid position by anarchy charging away.

Thats not fun, nor historic nor involves any strategy. Its juts plain bad gameplay

Slitherine/Hexwar, please:

- Reduce the crazy frequency of anarchy charges!
According to Paisley's test its 20-30% drilled and around 40% of undrilled BG getting out of control EVERY TURN! Thats crazy! and completely off with FoG TT!

- Stop suicide charges by using the "don't fight stronger opponents" system you use for evades.

- Move Anarchy charges at the start of the turn like it was before. Why changing something that worked OK??

-

[rbodleyscott]

- Reduce the crazy frequency of anarchy charges!

I must be playing a different game, as I get very few anarchy charges except by lancers. (It has a lot to do with how you use your troops).

However, there are still bugs in the implementation, which do lead to some silly situations.

[rbodleyscott]

1.2.6 stops medium infantry anarchy charging out of steep hills but thats all.

Previously the bug of MF charging out of terrain was corrected, except for steep hills. Now it seems the steep hill issue has been corrected, but either the other bug is back or marsh was not included.

[arsan]

- Reduce the crazy frequency of anarchy charges!

I must be playing a different game, as I get very few anarchy charges except by lancers. (It has a lot to do with how you use your troops).

However, there are still bugs in the implementation, which do lead to some silly situations.

Surely it also has to do with what army you use... if you play with and 80% longbow archers army you will not see it much, thats for sure.
Try some Hellenistic army or any roman flavor and you will see...
You pike phalanx or legionary roman battle line throws training, discipline and history out the window and "explodes" in different directions as soon as any enemy gets near.
As if it wasn't bad enough, 3 out of 4 times they will...
a- Anarchy at end of turn getting stranded 2 or 3 hexes in front of you line on a perfect setup for the enemy to destroy them before you can react
b- charge against a target much more powerful than them so they get 20% damage, drop to D or F and then apply to case "a" above
c- Do some lovely "wild goose chase" charge parallel to the enemy battle line against a skirmisher and ends up perfectly set up for a rear attack.

All this is in plain terrain. If you add some river or gentle hills to the equation, surely the anarchy system will find some creative way to use it to makes things worse.
And don't get me started about lancers... they should cost half the current price as they only know how to charge pikes frontally, break off and charge again until rout.
Lancers are worthless now compared to spear cav, that (god bless them) don't charge aroudn like crazies (even if it looks completely ahistorical to see Gaulish, roman or galatian cavalry showing such a restraint... )

Sometimes I feel like i'm just helping the Ai play itself I just move the army forward for the computer to take control of my game as soon as armies draw near and things start to get interesting

rbodleyscott,
You designed the TT game. Please, enlighten me, as i'm not a TT player.
Do TT FoG roman or Hellenistic armies see how their drilled men battle lines break up and anarchy 100% of the times?? on every battle that's played??
Because thats what happens now on FoG TT. A standard HF battle-line, made of lets say 12 pike or legionary units, will see, by mere statistical probability how at least 1 or 2 units go anarchy every turn they have enemies near charging away, randomly choosing targets on their own and throwing your battle plans out the window.

And i talk about disciplined and drilled "civilized" armies. I haven't tried barbarians armies still. I'm not so masochist. Playing a Gallic army must be like see the AI play himself...

I'm sure things are not like this on the TT game. But directly translating rules and die rolls modifiers to a PC game that has a completely different BG size and turn structure is not the way to go, as game play is changed completely for the worst.

Regards!

[hidde]

I just ended a turn where I had something like 10-12 Seleucid pike BG:s lined up in front of the other army. The main battlelines were separated by four hexes and his skirmisher in between. When I pressed the end turn I saw four anarchy symbols light up over my line. Superior and avarage mixed. Unless he move his skirmishers they will charge next turn, I guess. It's a mess and I can't see how I'm to prevent this other than maybe an inspired leader wich I don't have. (They are in command, though.)

[rbodleyscott]

rbodleyscott,
You designed the TT game. Please, enlighten me, as i'm not a TT player.
Do TT FoG roman or Hellenistic armies see how their drilled men battle lines break up and anarchy 100% of the times?? on every battle that's played??
Because thats what happens now on FoG TT. A standard HF battle-line, made of lets say 12 pike or legionary units, will see, by mere statistical probability how at least 1 or 2 units go anarchy every turn they have enemies near charging away, randomly choosing targets on their own and throwing your battle plans out the window.

They test if they are in charge reach and you decide not to charge. Your battle plans need to include charging as soon as the enemy are in reach.

They won't randomly choose targets if you charge with them - because they only test if you don't charge.

However, in the TT rules shock troops do not anarchy charge through skirmishers to get at skirmishers. I am not sure whether this is fully implemented in the PC game. It is very important in the TT game because you can prevent your troops haring off after enemy skirmishers by having a skirmish screen of your own.

And of course, the larger number of units in the PC game mean that formations will break up more when they anarchy charge, so it isn't identical.

[rbodleyscott]

Unless he move his skirmishers they will charge next turn, I guess. It's a mess and I can't see how I'm to prevent this

By declaring charges with them yourself.

[batesmotel]

rbodleyscott,
You designed the TT game. Please, enlighten me, as i'm not a TT player.
Do TT FoG roman or Hellenistic armies see how their drilled men battle lines break up and anarchy 100% of the times?? on every battle that's played??
Because thats what happens now on FoG TT. A standard HF battle-line, made of lets say 12 pike or legionary units, will see, by mere statistical probability how at least 1 or 2 units go anarchy every turn they have enemies near charging away, randomly choosing targets on their own and throwing your battle plans out the window.

They test if they are in charge reach and you decide not to charge. Your battle plans need to include charging as soon as the enemy are in reach.

They won't randomly choose targets if you charge with them - because they only test if you don't charge.

This is where the new anarchy implementation is much better than the old version checked at the start of the turn. Now I can move my lancers or other shock troops into position to charge on one turn and on the next I can have them charge what I want them to charge rather than just having them explode and randomly charge anything in range. The new anarchy rules make it much easier to plan an attack with shock troops rather than just moving them into charge range and then losing all control.

However, in the TT rules shock troops do not anarchy charge through skirmishers to get at skirmishers. I am not sure whether this is fully implemented in the PC game. It is very important in the TT game because you can prevent your troops haring off after enemy skirmishers by having a skirmish screen of your own.

And of course, the larger number of units in the PC game mean that formations will break up more when they anarchy charge, so it isn't identical.

As far as I have seen I do not think there is any restriction on checking anarchy charges through your skirmishers against enemy skirmishers. This should be fixed.

Chris

[Morbio]

Unless he move his skirmishers they will charge next turn, I guess. It's a mess and I can't see how I'm to prevent this

By declaring charges with them yourself.

So, if I read this correctly, we are a bit-part player in the battle. If we don't tell the units when to charge then they will do it for themselves So effectively you are saying that we need to play the game exactly as it was perceived to have been done historically or anarchy will ensure.

It may be historically accurate, but it isn't how I want to play a game. I want to be able to decide when to attack, what to attack, and refuse attacks so that I can get a better tactical position on my opponent.

I'm also aligned with Arsan, if it wasn't because I am in the middle of a campaign I would've ceased playing FoG by now. The only reason I haven't is that I've made a commitment to my allies and to the game as a whole. If anarchy isn't improved soon I will stop playing FoG.

EDIT: Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there should be no anarchy, but it shouldn't be at the 20-30% that Paisley's analysis (I hope I remembered correctly who did this) showed. I'd like to think it is at about a 5% level. Playability should overrule history if the game is to be fun.

[batesmotel]

Unless he move his skirmishers they will charge next turn, I guess. It's a mess and I can't see how I'm to prevent this

By declaring charges with them yourself.

So, if I read this correctly, we are a bit-part player in the battle. If we don't tell the units when to charge then they will do it for themselves So effectively you are saying that we need to play the game exactly as it was perceived to have been done historically or anarchy will ensure.

It may be historically accurate, but it isn't how I want to play a game. I want to be able to decide when to attack, what to attack, and refuse attacks so that I can get a better tactical position on my opponent.

I'm also aligned with Arsan, if it wasn't because I am in the middle of a campaign I would've ceased playing FoG by now. The only reason I haven't is that I've made a commitment to my allies and to the game as a whole. If anarchy isn't improved soon I will stop playing FoG.

EDIT: Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying there should be no anarchy, but it shouldn't be at the 20-30% that Paisley's analysis (I hope I remembered correctly who did this) showed. I'd like to think it is at about a 5% level. Playability should overrule history if the game is to be fun.

Just to clarify, I have seen anarchy indicators appear at the end of my turn on BGs that are not performing anarchy charges. I have not figured out what these unexplained end of turn anarchy checks were for and they may be spurious. I have not seen any indication that those anarchy tests have any effect on the next turn. The previous anarchy implementation where tests were performed at the start of the turn for any shock troops within charge range gave you much less control when using shock troops. Essentially meant you moved them into charge range and just let them go where they would show no intelligence at all about what they would charge and even in choosing a charge path. Under the previous anarchy charge rules, shock mounted especially were virtually useless.

Chris

[hidde]

Morbio has answered for me
If indeed the a-symbols indicate what is about to happen the next turn or not, this might very wel lhappen:
My line of pikes is two hexes away from a line of skirmishers and two hexes further is the oppositions line of pikes.
Allthough there is still four hexes between the main battle lines they are really in contact. If I at this moment I decide to stand still or make a tactical retreat, four of my BG:s wouldn't obey orders but charge.
I'm no expert in ancient warfare but it doesn't feel right. Even if it is historically correct it's not good gameplay for reasons Morbio described above.

[Ironclad]

I have just had, not for the first time, a pike unit anarchy charge through its own light screen which seems crazy. I could understand it charging impertuously if it is under close fire from the enemy (particularly if that fire is persistent or inflicting heavy casualties) but not when its completely protected by cover and is in line with the rest of the phalanx. Indeed its difficult to see many circumstances where a pike unit would charge without orders given its vulnerability, well known to members of the unit, once it moves away from the shelter of its colleague pike formations.

A good suggestion was the greater likelihood of a pike unit refusing to move than launching an impetuous charge. I can see that happening, particularly if the enemy has a greater reputation (eg average troops charging superior or elites ones such as your bog standard pike man facing the Silver Shilelds) or if ordered to withdraw when near to enemy close order troops.

[arsan]

So, if I read this correctly, we are a bit-part player in the battle. If we don't tell the units when to charge then they will do it for themselves So effectively you are saying that we need to play the game exactly as it was perceived to have been done historically or anarchy will ensure.

It may be historically accurate, but it isn't how I want to play a game. I want to be able to decide when to attack, what to attack, and refuse attacks so that I can get a better tactical position on my opponent.

+1
So it seems from now on, all strategy involved in playing FoG will be to blindly advance and charge straight ahead, get some combat rolling done and that's it. You win or loss...
No battle plans, no maneuver, no cunning tactics, not trying to use terrain to your advantage, not defending a position or doing a holding action on one side of the battlefield and attacking at another, not trying the get aroudn the flanks... nothing of whats interesting.
Juts charge ahead like bulls.
Add a little more automation to the game system and you can get rid of the players all together... But i don't think it will be good for sales...
You are stealing your players of a big part of the gameplay options and tactics available before. Can't you see your are killing the game?

And whats ironic is that it not even more true to history than before. It's just another flavor of gameyness... but this is muuuch less interesting than the old one. Before, you at least could decide how to play with YOUR game