Anarchy Poll

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft

Do you like the Anarchy system as it stands now?

Yes, it reflects troop behavior in ancient armies well
10
15%
Maybe it needs a little tweak
25
38%
Maybe it needs a major tweak!
16
24%
This is ruining my gaming experience :(
15
23%
 
Total votes: 66

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1198
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Anarchy Poll

Post by ianiow »

There has been a heated debate in the forums recently about the implementation of Anarchy (where certain units can charge without orders due to lack of discipline). Some are saying that it is ruining their gaming experience. They argue that the cases of anarchy are far too frequent and often illogical. Others argue that this was exactly how ancient armies behaved, and players should alter their tactics to account for these random charges.

Should something be done? Do we need a rethink? Or is everything fine as it is.
arsan
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010 12:22 am
Location: Madrid (Spain)

Post by arsan »

Good idea! :D
Bet what option i voted for :wink: :)

EDIT: if anybody want to check the discussions about this topic iannow refers to, you can find them here
viewtopic.php?t=16635
and here
viewtopic.php?t=16443
Last edited by arsan on Wed May 05, 2010 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3594
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel »

I think that the new anarchy rules are much better for using shock cavalry than they were previously. It is now possible to make a coordinated attack with shock mounted, especially undrilled, than it was before since you can choose who you want to charge within charge reach rather than just moving them withing range of the enemy and watching them randomly charge off in any direction available, often bursting through friends who they then disrupt when there a was a clear alternative charge path available.

With foot I think it is more of a mixed bag now although I have not found my games being substantially altered by anarchy charges for foot despite running lots of shock infantry. The fact that MF were temporarily not anarchy charging for a while due to the bug introduced when the initial fix was made to prevent them charging out of bad terrain has also made it look like anarchy levels now are substantially higher than they were. I do think that the suggestions that Richard Bodley Scott made to implement the remaining TT restrictions that would prevent anarchy changes in some situations would certainly improve things, possibly with the introduction of a -1 modifier to move the center of the bell curve down a notch for failing CMT tests for charges. Also need a way to force a non-moving BG to test before the end of the turn to avoid the end of the turn chaos issue.

One fix that really is needed is a better way to handle controlling when troops evade. If the rope a dope behavior for skirmishers was fixed it would make it much easier to use them in a more historical manner and to use your skirmishers to keep opposing skirmishers as a distance to avoid them provoking unreasonable anarchy charges.

I voted in the poll for this sort of change as a minor tweak although it may be debatable as minor vs major. If the choice was the current anarchy rules without tweaks or the previous version, I prefer the new one hands down.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser »

Hmm, I dont necesarily mind anrchy as it is now, hasnt seemed to have it ruined any of my games to date, howver perhaps it could be tweaked
I am actually more concerned by the point Pantherboy made in one of those threads re lights: the example he gave was 2 battle lines of heavies facing off w 3-4 hexes in between, one side has lights screening.. The player who wants to attack can never do so because moving fwrd causes the light to evade and the heavy will then move an additional hex to follow and hit a battle line unsupported.. To me, this is much more gamey than the anarchy.

That being said i dont think we will ever get a consensu on the % of anarchy checks , however if all the rulles (as possible) were allowed from the TT that could work, or simply have anrchy be tested for all units at the beginning of your turn and that is it....
jamespcrowley
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Arundel, U.K.

Post by jamespcrowley »

Perhaps anarchy charging could be more closely linked to a BGs proximity, or otherwise, to other friendly BGs.

This could involve a modifier, in the CMT, of, say, +1 for being adjacent to a friendly BG and +2 for being adjacent to two or more friendly BGs (but only if said BGs were no worse than disrupted/disordered).

This may have the effect of reducing failures on the CMT, leading to less anarchy charging.

This would need to be balanced, so that if a BG still failed a CMT it would cause adjacent friendly BGs to take a test as well with similar, but negative, modifiers. In that way there would be a greater chance of a larger number of Bgs anarchy charging at the same time which would put it closer to the TT and, possibly, historical reality as well.
ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1198
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow »

Im sorry for this mini rant, but my match against Hidde (Ptolemaics against Jewish) is turning into a farce. In the past five turns I have had at least one unit go anarchy in every turn. Lancers have charged uphill against spears, pike have charged LF and were jumped by 3 legions and routed, MF have left their hill to hit a wall of spears. I have used a LF screen to no effect, I have tried to keep my lancers 5 hexes away, I've even tried to cheezily face the other way. And poor old Hidde is suffering even worse than me with his MF charging out of forests to attack my legions!

Im sure if we just line our armies up within charge distance and wait, the computer would finish the battle for us!

Maybe Im being over dramatic here, but one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me is the jostling for position before the the final clash. But the anarchy rules as they stand are making a mockery of tactical manuevering and taking the fun out of the game for me.

Put it back the way it was please.

Pretty please :(
RyanDG
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:25 pm

Post by RyanDG »

ianiow wrote:Maybe Im being over dramatic here, but one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me is the jostling for position before the the final clash. But the anarchy rules as they stand are making a mockery of tactical manuevering and taking the fun out of the game for me.
Comments like this really have me scratching my head. I play armies that usually have a high rate of anarchy (ie, Gallic warriors/Scots Isles & Highlanders), but this sort of claim that the anarchy rules as they currently stand are making a mockery out of tactical manuevering is a bit shocking ot me. Despite my anarchy prone armies, I still have plenty of opportunity to manuever and jostle for positions prior to opening into anarchy charge range. With a proper skirmish screen, I'm able to essentially move around at ease behind my screen while reinforcing and commiting to other flanks. I really wish I could understand people's issues with the current system... I know it's not necessarily fair to say I just don't get it - but I really just don't get it.

Now are there aspects of the anarchy system that need addressing? Absolutely! MF in terrain and HF charging into terrain that would disorder them for example are the primary things that need to be addressed. I also think that there needs to be something done with evaders being given the possibility of being caught by a pursuit.

But the system as a whole doesn't seem to be as broken as a lot of people are saying which is surprising to me considering that I would think that with my army choice I would be complaining about this above a lot of other people... I really wish I could see where everyone else is coming from here. :(
Toby42
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:45 am
Location: Florida

Post by Toby42 »

I believe that Anarchy just needs a "Minor" tweak. There are plenty of instances of units charging off into the enemy when they shouldn't have. Witness the Western Knights and many of their battles. By the same token, the drilled and disciplined Roman Legions and the same with the Greek's should not Anarchy as often as they do!!!

It is definatley a Catch "22"......
Tony
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28015
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

Tombstone wrote:I believe that Anarchy just needs a "Minor" tweak.
And the correction of current bugs. MF should not be charging out of terrain, but it seems they have started doing it again. (Bodes ill for my current campaign game :cry: - coincidentally, against the author of the poll - oh well, at least I can get my excuses in early).
ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1198
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow »

rbodleyscott wrote:
Tombstone wrote:I believe that Anarchy just needs a "Minor" tweak.
And the correction of current bugs. MF should not be charging out of terrain, but it seems they have started doing it again. (Bodes ill for my current campaign game :cry: - coincidentally, against the author of the poll - oh well, at least I can get my excuses in early).
Lets see how many of my lancers and pike end up deep in the boggy marsh with your MF (assuming your MF dont charge out of the marsh first) lol
Nihil
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:03 pm

Post by Nihil »

I really think there is something wrong with anarchy and it needs a major tweak, it happens way to often, and many times troops leave good positions to charge against superior enemies, or to fight in a terrain totally disadvantageous for them.

Thank god rivers, lakes and such are just impassable, otherwise many of my troops would just die drown trying to charge someone on the other shore.
TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser »

I am just not seeing the issues people are having in my games...
Ianiow, you mention your lancers charged up hill into spears... why were they that close in the ist place if you didnt want to use them as shock troops? I think the ease of movement that is allowed in the game, ie move a unit at a time aka panzer general makes it easy to assume yu can dance around with units and do all kinds of intricate maneuvers.

I just completed a game w Hidde, he had his mediums in the woods , i dont recall any of them anarchying out into my legions.... however some of my legions did anarcrhy into the woods to get those same mediums
overall though in a tough close battle only 3 of my legions anarchied
Also of note he had 4 cats in charge range of my triarri for at least 5 turns... they never anarchied, much to my annoyance :)

I do agree the use of lights that cause heavies to charge and then advance an aditional hex into a line of pikes, unsupported is an issue but i guess is off topic...

I voted for a minor tweak for the record...
ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1198
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow »

TheGrayMouser wrote:I am just not seeing the issues people are having in my games...
Ianiow, you mention your lancers charged up hill into spears... why were they that close in the ist place if you didnt want to use them as shock troops?
My lancers were 5 hexes away (placed there deliberately). Hidde placed a LF directly infront of his line of spears who were defending a hill. In my turn the lancer turned sideways and charged the LF, which evaded forcing the lancers to plough straight into the spearwall up the hill.

Why was i not using them as shock troops? Their job in this battle was to menace the open ground between it and the spears, preventing them from leaving their position to join the main battle.

Sure, this was good tactics on Hidde's part and it broke the stand off between the lancer and the spears who were glaring at each other across the distance while the main fight was happening elsewhere. And if this was an isolated incident I wouldn't mind. But this was the fifth anarchy charge in five turns (on my side). Elsewhere my defence of a hill by MF was ruined, my advance with a line of pike was ruined, Hiddes defence of the woods was ruined and his defence of a hill had gone pear shaped too. We may as well have not bothered using the terrain at all.
Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio »

ianiow wrote:Im sorry for this mini rant, but my match against Hidde (Ptolemaics against Jewish) is turning into a farce. In the past five turns I have had at least one unit go anarchy in every turn. Lancers have charged uphill against spears, pike have charged LF and were jumped by 3 legions and routed, MF have left their hill to hit a wall of spears. I have used a LF screen to no effect, I have tried to keep my lancers 5 hexes away, I've even tried to cheezily face the other way. And poor old Hidde is suffering even worse than me with his MF charging out of forests to attack my legions!

Im sure if we just line our armies up within charge distance and wait, the computer would finish the battle for us!

Maybe Im being over dramatic here, but one of the most enjoyable parts of the game for me is the jostling for position before the the final clash. But the anarchy rules as they stand are making a mockery of tactical manuevering and taking the fun out of the game for me.

Put it back the way it was please.

Pretty please :(
I think this is pretty much what I said in a previous post. With anarchy as it is then the player is a bit part.... just line them up and let them go! The current system makes tactical movement almost impossible!
ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1198
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow »

Maybe someone could do a small test?

Line up 10 MF Off Spear in a wood three hexes away from a line of 10 Lancers in the open and see what happens over the course of 20 turns.

Also 10 HF pike or spearmen on a hill facing 10 LF over 20 turns could be interesting too.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28015
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

ianiow wrote:Maybe someone could do a small test?

Line up 10 MF Off Spear in a wood three hexes away from a line of 10 Lancers in the open and see what happens over the course of 20 turns.
If anything at all happens it is a bug. MF foot should not anarchy charge out of a wood, and lancers should not anarchy charge in. This clearly needs to be corrected, because it is not WAD, but is a separate issue from the issue of the frequency of anarchy charges in general.
Also 10 HF pike or spearmen on a hill facing 10 LF over 20 turns could be interesting too.
These should be subject to anarchy charges according to the rules, the question is whether the test should be tweaked to make it happen less often.
Paisley
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:57 pm

Post by Paisley »

I agree with rbs. There is a difference between bugged anarchy and the incidence of anarchy. I've explained elsewhere why I think the incidence is approximately 3x too high compared to the tabletop due to the fact a pc counter represents 2-3 bases whereas a tabletop formation contains 2-12 bases. The current anarchy rules are equivalent to allowing testing every third of a table fprmation for anarchy and having it charge separately from its formation. There are related issues linked to the precise turn sequence. Simply reducing the number to pass an anarchy test from 7 for drilled and 8 for undrilled to 5 and 6 respectively would bring things more in line - though anarchy would still be 'bitty'. Thus anarchy should occur at the start of the turn (as previously) to allow anarching units to be supported.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
pantherboy
Tournament 3rd Place
Tournament 3rd Place
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post by pantherboy »

An example of why I dislike anarchy in its current form.

Imagine a scenario with 10 MF offensive spear versus 10 HF pike. To balance the match the MF occupy the edge of a gentle hill thus affording them a +1POA. Now the HF are placed 5 hexes distant from the MF. The MF has the first move. What do you do? The following is what I'd do.

1. About face my MF so that their rear presents to the HF. Why? To avoid anarchy after the HF advances 2 hexes closing the range to 3. If you don't about face then the MF risk charging off the slope and the HF can opt not to move and keep waiting for them to be drawn down.

2. The HF advance the 2 hexes and 3 hexes separate the lines so I choose to continue presenting the rear as an about face still allows the HF to stop and wait for the MF to charge off.

3. The HF advance either 1 or 2 hexes to put themselves within charge range.

4. Now I about face to present my front. Because I wasn't facing them there is no risk of anarchy this turn and I can catch the HF if they attempt to retire presenting their rear.

5. Crossing my fingers I hope the enemy charge in but if they don't I at least have a chance to force them to anarchy and go in. If they don't then expect 1/3 of my MF to charge and die.

Obviously this hypothetical doesn't work exactly as stated when we introduce units with longer ranges like cavalry or LF etc. or have combined arms but my problem is that the game system requires such play to achieve a defensive positon which I think is silly.
Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy »

Here is plan b for pantherboy. Deploy a LF screen and your spear will stay on the hill until the HF charge the lights and they evade through your lines. Just like LF were designed for. Or put a general in the back rank and your foot will stay put. (possibly have 1 unit charge out)

A lot of players are using LF like cavalry because the game has them able to take quite a pounding. LF bows last much longer when charged and caught by mounted in the rear. They appear to be tougher than they were historically. I have had them hold up cavalry for 3 or 4 turns before breaking. The game isnt perfect, but it is a lot of fun. The mechanics will be refined over time as the expansions come out. These always get integrated into the original game, even if you don't purchase the expansion pack.

The game is a lot of fun to play.
pantherboy
Tournament 3rd Place
Tournament 3rd Place
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post by pantherboy »

Xiggy wrote:Here is plan b for pantherboy. Deploy a LF screen and your spear will stay on the hill until the HF charge the lights and they evade through your lines. Just like LF were designed for. Or put a general in the back rank and your foot will stay put. (possibly have 1 unit charge out)

A lot of players are using LF like cavalry because the game has them able to take quite a pounding. LF bows last much longer when charged and caught by mounted in the rear. They appear to be tougher than they were historically. I have had them hold up cavalry for 3 or 4 turns before breaking. The game isnt perfect, but it is a lot of fun. The mechanics will be refined over time as the expansions come out. These always get integrated into the original game, even if you don't purchase the expansion pack.

The game is a lot of fun to play.
As i said in my post other factors can alter the example but what I'm trying to demonstrate is how 2 speed units have an advantage due to anarchy over 3 speed foot. Being deployed on the hill with orders to hold for as long as possible cannot be replicated unless you follow my tactics that I outlined. Whenever I play I always use my LF to screen the Illyrian host I've been playing with but the game should function logically in all situations if not then that means something needs to be addressed.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”