Freaking Anarchy

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!
76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:45 am

ianiow wrote:
76mm wrote:2) IMO a game mechanic which makes it impossible to defend a hill (like anarchy in this game) is broken.
This sound like a bad thing until you come up against an opponent that lines all his troops up against a river or on a hill and refuses to come down and fight. At least with the current system you can tempt a unit to anarchy and rush off the hill, then it is up to the 'hill sitter' if he wants to support that unit or keep the rest of his troops on the hill. No anarchy would mean that one player has no choice but to charge across the river or up the hill at a big disadvantage.

In short, anarchy penalises boring defensive players! :lol:
Sorry, I completely disagree with this response. In reality, armies would be stalemated for days, weeks, exactly like this precisely because one of them refused to leave a favorable position. So let's toss reality to the winds just so the game is slightly more fun? I've played many many games and probably encountered hard-core campers in only 2-3 of them, so don't see it as a major problem. Not being able to defend a hill is a problem at least for a wargame. I guess I just need to accept that fact that this is not a wargame, just something a bit less abstracted than chess or Risk.

ericdoman1
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm

Anarchy

Post by ericdoman1 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 7:02 am

Lots of good points brought up. Harold's troops charging from their hill is one f prob many historical accounts of A. I have lost my Welsh CIC (FG) numerous ocassions due to A. I just keep him well back. If you have an army with lots of A troops it will happen. In TT people would position troops in a way so that A troops would charge. You would have to test to see if you can stand.

However it does seem to happen more with MF OffSpr than any other troop type. Very rare you will see superior troops A charge in particular Roman legions.

Having an Inspired Gen is the best way of holding yur troops in check but he can not be everywhere at once. I agree that the A rule is nearly spot on. It may be down to the fact (I believe) that in TT you roll 2 six sided dice (2D6) a seven is OK, can not remember if being drilled or not helps. Having a TC/FC will give you a +1, not sure but being superior you reroll 1s?, an IC is +2 on dice rolls. The PC game uses % so you will have more randomness?

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Anarchy

Post by 76mm » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:07 am

ericdoman1 wrote: I agree that the A rule is nearly spot on.
The help notes says that "The only good way to avoid lots of uncontrolled charges is to avoid moving your shock troops within charge range of the enemy until you are ready to charge the enemy," which of course is completely useless advice if you are on the defensive. It later notes that units out of command are "especially prone" to anarchy.

There is no indication in the help notes that there is any difference between the "anarchiness" of hoplites vs barbarian hordes, which seems a bit ridiculous. I'm reading an interesting book now called Soldiers and Ghosts in which the author describes the incredible important that greek hoplite attached to not leaving their place in the line. They attached such importance in fact, that sometimes they refused to withdraw from their assigned spot, even when ordered to. In FoG hoplites do not seem to attach any more importance to maintaining a line than completely undrilled barbarians.

In addition, the help files seem to indicate that hvy troops will charge whatever terrain they are in, while medium troops only charge if they are in open terrain. Since there is already apparently some kind of terrain check, I think that the terrain check should also include not anarchy charging from higher ground, or into stream hexes, etc. (at least for drilled troops).

ericdoman1
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm

Anarchy in the pc game - hummed to the Sex Pstols song

Post by ericdoman1 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:17 am

I now know that MF who are in rough/difficult going will not charge troops who are in clear BUT will charge troops (A charges) who are also in rough/difficult.

I have palyed a lot of games sice I bought this and have used armies with shock troops > There have been those ocassions where you think, Oh ruddy hell here we go again. However if 76mm this is happening to you regularly then you have been very unlucky. Or is it the normal case when we only remember those A charges and bad dice rolls but ignore or have forgotten that none of my troops A charged that game and I completely out diced my opponent?

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Anarchy in the pc game - hummed to the Sex Pstols song

Post by 76mm » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:35 am

ericdoman1 wrote: However if 76mm this is happening to you regularly then you have been very unlucky.
In this particular instance I was certainly unlikely, because 3 of five hoplites deployed in a single hill went anarchy on me in a single turn. However, I can say that pretty much every time I try to defend a hill at least one or two out of five units will go anarchy. This is almost always either hoplites or medium spears.

Scutarii
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 559
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:28 am

Post by Scutarii » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:19 am

I allways say that add an "anarchy charge" value per unit (or army but units is much better, you can have troops with no anarchy problems with opposite in the same army) is necesary, see professional armies charging as barbarians is a little :roll: for example in trained armies if units are in the range of a commander (all levels) they dont charge, in barbarian armies they need be in the range of a superior commander to prevent charges and in mixed armies need be in the range of a medium commanders... when are in the range of a non correct commander here quality and training (drilled) are factors to prevent or not charges

For me this is a simple and elegant way to prevent this problem and at least try to play with terrain and HF, say "dont use terrain to prevent anarchy charges" is like say "dont play to prevent anarchy charges" :wink:

ericdoman1
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm

AOK

Post by ericdoman1 » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:24 am

It might be that A affects off spear troops more than any other troop type?

Again looking through and remebering last few games where I have off spears in them and not very often if at all they have gone A.

As davouthojo pinted out you might need to screen them with lights. Possibly being drilled is better than undrilled, aagin the Battle of Hastings example.

I think if you have bgs behind them of the same or better quality you will receive bonuses on tests. Thing is when I have used MF off spr, I try and place them in difficult or rough. When using HF off spr, protected move them to face off mounted troops or to at least take on something they can beat or equal to.

keithmartinsmith
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:26 pm

Post by keithmartinsmith » Fri Nov 05, 2010 10:26 am

Defending a hill does not prevent anarchy charges. Undrilled offensive spears need an 8 on 2D6 to prevent an anarchy charge. Drilled 7. You get one back for a general in range, 2 if he is inspired and an extra 1 if with or adjacent to the BG. These are not good odds to keep a line of offensive spears in order. The way the rules are deliberately designed is that if you use shock troops you have to expect them to attack and you need a plan to support this. trying to defend with shock troops is usually a doomed strategy. If you want to defend then don't use shock troops. Keith p.s. My favourite army is Hellenistic Greek!

ianiow
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1129
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow » Fri Nov 05, 2010 11:11 am

keithmartinsmith wrote:If you want to defend then don't use shock troops. Keith
Thanks for the clarification Keith.

Just out of curiosity, if you were a defensively minded player, which army would suit you best? For Ancient (RoR, IF) armies Romans, Macedonians, Greeks and Barbarians all have shock troops as their main fighting arm, so even with an inspired leader and drilled troops you would fail on a 2, 3 or 4 (on 2d6). Shooty cavalry aren't so good at defending a corner, hill or river, neither are skirmisher.

As strange as it may seem, the best defensive armies are probably MF barbarians, as they can be placed on steep hills and difficult terrain and behave themselves nicely!

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: AOK

Post by 76mm » Fri Nov 05, 2010 12:59 pm

ericdoman1 wrote:As davouthojo pinted out you might need to screen them with lights.
This would have been completely useless in my situation...my hoplites were waiting on the hill for an advancing phalanx and decided to rush down the hill to meet them. Incredibly ill-advised. If I would have had lights, they would have evaded and not been of any help.

76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1247
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:05 pm

ianiow wrote:
keithmartinsmith wrote:As strange as it may seem, the best defensive armies are probably MF barbarians, as they can be placed on steep hills and difficult terrain and behave themselves nicely!
I think this speaks volumes...something is not right. Same as for Keith's comment that "trying to defend with shock troops is usually a doomed strategy." So I guess historical tactics are basically out the window?

In a wargame, I would expect a game in which I could use historical tactics, but in which occasionally a game would end in a draw because one player refused to advance from favorable terrain (and there are other ways to solve such a problem).

FoG is fun enough, I just need to stop thinking of it as a wargame.

little
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 11:29 am
Location: London

Post by little » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:27 pm

Just want to chip in here. I also hate Anarchy (cept when it happens to the other guy), but as they say, no plan survives contact with the Enemy and the risk is something that needs to be factored in when playing.

As ericdomain mentions there are plenty of historical examples of people leaving nice comfy defensive positions for suicidal charges unsupported (being Scottish I think it is in our tactical manual when facing the English!). Also of idiot / hothead commanders (normally distant relations to the monarch or mistress of the ruler) getting overenthusiastic and out for glory.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4885
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Nov 05, 2010 1:47 pm

I think the problem is the fundamental classifications of troops types.
Ie what is considered to be a shock troop.
Not sure how Hexwar made the final decisions but in the end hoplites were made offensive spears and are thus shock troops, although i think you could make a pretty good argumanet that they could well be classified as defensive spears and then you need not worry about anarchy...

In the end though this doesnt satisfy either, certainly you could argue the Athenains "anarchied" themselves out of position at Charonea (of couse not in penny packets , rather the whole battle line , but of course this isnt reflected in game)

Plus, defensive spear isnt good attacking and just isnt right for hoplites....

Re defending hills. We can argue history all we want and realism, but considering the ancient hoplites main opponent was other hoplites, and the fact that other troop types were non existant or neglible in #'s, means no side has a superior arm to bear against the other.
What do you think would happen if army A saw B camped on a hill?
Well, the advantage would be so great A would never attack at all, they would just march away.
Greece was small enough and wars were really very limited in scope that A could march the 8 hours back to their own polis. I guess the point i am making , is noone would bother attacking somone on a hill and thus noone would bother parking on a hill in the very small, local and limited wars where battles were by mutual consent.

That being said it would be nice to have a phalanx that just stays put once in a while
Maybe this game needs a battleline mechanism. not sure how it would work in hex based system but maybe up to 10 -12 units adjacent with a commander , all facing the same diection could "form battle line"
The BL would roll once collectively for anarchy and it would be hard to fail but if it did, the whole kit and kaboodle would charge..

deeter
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:09 pm

There was a long thread about this a while ago in which it was pointed out that: 1. on the TT, armies rarely contain more than a dozen BGs, so when one goes anarchic, it is a significant force, not one hapless little unit rushing into a sea of opponents. 2. Tests for these charges occur in the charge phase before any movement so you have a chance to support the charge.

In most of my games, units goes anarchic after I've ended my turn, or they do stupid ittle things like refusing to face after movement. I'm mostly annoyed by anarchy in the PC game because it just seems to be there to jack the player around. Don't mind it on the TT though. It would be nice to have it as an option in multiplayer the we could turn OFF.

Deeter

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:11 pm

deeter wrote:In most of my games, ... they do stupid ittle things like refusing to face after movement.
Just simply move them again, they then face the way you want them to :wink: I don't believe that this anarchy in rotation is intended so I ignore it.

Brigz
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 273
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:42 am

Post by Brigz » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:17 pm

deeter wrote:It would be nice to have it as an option in multiplayer the we could turn OFF.

Deeter
I mentioned this before in a previous thread. Not just multiplayer but solitaire as well. Better yet it would be best if anarchy was a BG trait that could be set in the editor to make it variable or completly turned off.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:20 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:I think the problem is the fundamental classifications of troops types.
Ie what is considered to be a shock troop.
Not sure how Hexwar made the final decisions but in the end hoplites were made offensive spears and are thus shock troops, although i think you could make a pretty good argumanet that they could well be classified as defensive spears and then you need not worry about anarchy
...
Hexwar didn't make any decisions about the troop classifications. The troop types are defined in the TT rules and lists and the PC game pretty much uses those classifications. So you can argue about how anarchy works in the PC game but it doen't make sense to argue which troops are classed as shock troops versus non-shock. That sort of discussion would be better placed in the subforums of the FoG TT forum that deal with army lists.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4885
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:41 pm

batesmotel wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote:I think the problem is the fundamental classifications of troops types.
Ie what is considered to be a shock troop.
Not sure how Hexwar made the final decisions but in the end hoplites were made offensive spears and are thus shock troops, although i think you could make a pretty good argumanet that they could well be classified as defensive spears and then you need not worry about anarchy
...
Hexwar didn't make any decisions about the troop classifications. The troop types are defined in the TT rules and lists and the PC game pretty much uses those classifications. So you can argue about how anarchy works in the PC game but it doen't make sense to argue which troops are classed as shock troops versus non-shock. That sort of discussion would be better placed in the subforums of the FoG TT forum that deal with army lists.

Chris
Well, you only partially quoted me, although I stand corrected on Hexwar, you can substitute Slitherine then :D
But I disagree how units are classed "doesnt make sense when discussing anarchy" of course it makes sense as only certain troops types are categorised as shock troops and need to test!
I think the perceptions people have is that certain troops, noticibly pikes heavy spears etc should WANT to stay in place
I brought up Hoplites as they come up most often and I really think you could argue both ways on how they should be classed, in the end though i do feel offensive spears is the right choice (assuming we are locked into the game mehanic as is)

Any ways i dont have an issue w anrchy as it works now although I have my own opinions on how it could be improved.

I'll duck outta here now before i am chided again:)

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4885
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Fri Nov 05, 2010 4:49 pm

deeter wrote:There was a long thread about this a while ago in which it was pointed out that: 1. on the TT, armies rarely contain more than a dozen BGs, so when one goes anarchic, it is a significant force, not one hapless little unit rushing into a sea of opponents. 2. Tests for these charges occur in the charge phase before any movement so you have a chance to support the charge.

In most of my games, units goes anarchic after I've ended my turn, or they do stupid ittle things like refusing to face after movement. I'm mostly annoyed by anarchy in the PC game because it just seems to be there to jack the player around. Don't mind it on the TT though. It would be nice to have it as an option in multiplayer the we could turn OFF.

Deeter
That s a very good point Deeter, mulling i over in my head i cant think of a way to make it work in th PC game without an introduction of phases

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Fri Nov 05, 2010 5:20 pm

I wonder if in the Digital version of the game they could move anarchy to before movement. Just like the table top instead of doing it when you touch a unit. Then you would know what you were dealing with. Currently I see anarchy checks after all movement. That is out of sequence.

I am not sure what problems that would introduce, but S&S is in beta now, so it might be the time to look at that.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”