the role of luck?

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 3:35 pm

i find the impact/melee combat results totally unpredictable. Sometimes, in the same situatione one gets wildly disparate results (e.g. attacker loses 150 defender 10 and then between similar units nearby attacker loses 10 and crushes defender). is combat so heavily dependent on luck?

JayRaider · Post by **JayRaider** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:07 pm

Hi, i find it is a factor.
But you can say that about any game.
I do not believe its the biggest factor though.
There are other things like support, position of impact, ground type, cohesion that increase the odds heavily in your favour.

One example, try soften up the intended charge victim first with Skirmishers. Hopefully they'll drop a cohesion level due to the fire first. This is will greatly increase your chances of Impact attacks success.

CharlesRobinson · Post by **CharlesRobinson** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:18 pm

Luck does come into play - that is part of table top style playing. The queen will almost always take the pawn, but not always (insert evil laugh here - whaaa-ha, ha!). If you read a lot of military history, you will be surprised how much luck and individual Soldiers won battle compaired to actual Generalship.

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 4:57 pm

well, i was meaning exactly the same combat; to get such different results is disconcerting.

Eques · Post by **Eques** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:11 pm

I think its important to have luck added to tabletop wargaming to avoid it becoming an abstract game like chess or go.

historical generals of course didn't have to deal with literal luck in the form of dice rolls but they can rarely have been confident of a result before 2 units actually met depending on such things as the troops' mood on the day, superstition, officer casualties, level of desperation, micro geographical factors, weather and freak occurences.

great generals like caesar, marius and alexander were noted for their ability to absorb and reverse unexpected surprises.

Eques · Post by **Eques** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 9:25 pm

and their ability to capitalise on good fortune for that matter

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:30 pm

better get used to it, seems to be how the game goes. My table top pikes rule their battlefields unlike the virtual pikes in this game that get their posteriors handed to them regularly. even if you go in with all the POA's in your favour your can still lose badly. Just the way the game is.

grumblefish · Post by **grumblefish** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:59 am

deadtorius wrote:better get used to it, seems to be how the game goes. My table top pikes rule their battlefields unlike the virtual pikes in this game that get their posteriors handed to them regularly. even if you go in with all the POA's in your favour your can still lose badly. Just the way the game is.

Really? I've been finding pikes to be an amazing force so long as you keep them on even terrain, and perhaps have a general behind to rally any disorder/fragmentation

jomni · Post by **jomni** » Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:41 am

If you play a lot of games you will notice that the best troops do win most of the time... except for relatviely rare and extaordinary events. These rare events make the game more fun and make it worthwile to put your light troops against the enemie's pikes once in a while (to delay and hope for some damage to be done if lucky).

deadtorius · Post by **deadtorius** » Tue Dec 15, 2009 3:30 am

Really? I've been finding pikes to be an amazing force so long as you keep them on even terrain, and perhaps have a general behind to rally any disorder/fragmentation

I keep them in the clear, Blathergut is always trying to junk up our TT games with crap terrain to disrupt my pikes. I just find from personal experience in both the PC and TT games that my own pikes do better on the TT. One of my last games of pikes versus Romans, my pike line routed off completely in about 2 turns while the armoured spears stood their ground and felt very very lonely. It was nice clear ground and generals behind the ranks, the game just didn't like me that time.

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:12 pm

having played numerous games by now, both solitaire and multiplayer, i still find that impact and melee are too dependent on luck. this detracts from fully enjoying a good game and i think it should be corrected (moderated). also, to fight a defensive battle is impossible, the first to attack wins 99% of the times.

Zonso · Post by **Zonso** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 6:29 pm

At first I also thought luck played too large a role but now I'm not so sure anymore. Since getting the game last week, I have probably played a handful of games to completion against the AI and around 30 multi-player(aren't holidays grand!

); I think I am just starting to learn some things about the game now. I am starting to see that the random factor in FoG is a good thing. Sure some games you will have some atrocious rolls but it prevents the game from becoming too deterministic, and to be honest after forty years of gaming I appreciate that design philosophy. Yes sometimes you will play *better* but still lose, that's the way the cookie crumbles - just like RL. In a recent game I joked to my opponent that Pompey fell off his horse when I lost him

Well the rest of the Army crumbled literally, kind of funny to see. What was an even match suddenly became a lopsided rout. I don't have a problem with that, in fact I welcome it.

Solaristics · Post by **Solaristics** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:04 pm

omarquatar wrote:i find the impact/melee combat results totally unpredictable. Sometimes, in the same situatione one gets wildly disparate results (e.g. attacker loses 150 defender 10 and then between similar units nearby attacker loses 10 and crushes defender). is combat so heavily dependent on luck?

From the rules:

Calculate manpower losses?
Depending upon the number of hits the losses inflicted will vary randomly:
0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
1 hit : 0.25% to 3%
2 hits : 0.5% to 5%
3 hits : 2% to 9%
4 hits : 5% to 14%
5 hits : 9% to 18%
6 hits : 12% to 24%

I'm assuming these values have been play tested and the devs are happy with them, but PERSONALLY I'd like to see narrower bands with less overlap, e.g. 1 hit: 0.75% to 2.5%, 2 hits: 2% to 4%, just as an illustration.

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:15 am

I find that the results vary wildly. What would make it more interesting is if the results were often closer...so that the fighting went more rounds...more of a "nail biter" than the hit-and-one-side-goes-down results that seem to be more common now.

pantherboy · Post by **pantherboy** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:12 am

I have seen combats were the casualty % has exceeded the possible range. Why is this? For example 4- vs 1+ and the 1+ inflicted 6% casualties. How is this possible with only 1 possible chance to hit? Personally the ranges are fine with me but too often I'm seeing casualties exceeding the possible range. I'd love to have an option where I could see 6-sided dice rolling for combat showing what you and your opponent achieved.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 2:51 am

pantherboy wrote:I have seen combats were the casualty % has exceeded the possible range. Why is this? For example 4- vs 1+ and the 1+ inflicted 6% casualties. How is this possible with only 1 possible chance to hit? Personally the ranges are fine with me but too often I'm seeing casualties exceeding the possible range. I'd love to have an option where I could see 6-sided dice rolling for combat showing what you and your opponent achieved.

Use the keyboard accelerator for combat details (P I think). That shows the die rolls and the number of hits.

Chris

pantherboy · Post by **pantherboy** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 5:16 pm

Cheers. I just tested it out but it doesn't show the casualty calculation. For example I charged a roman cavalry (at 100%) head on into barbarian mf (at 100%) and scored 3 hits with the impact combat which has a maximum range of 9% but I inflicted 17%. The conversion from number of hits to a % of losses must follow some other formula which includes an additional variable which isn't detailed in the rules. I actually conducted another cavalry charge after with the identical situation and scored 2 hits which ranges up to 5% but inflicted 11%. I would like to understand exactly how the calculations are done.

Solaristics · Post by **Solaristics** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 6:03 pm

pantherboy wrote:Cheers. I just tested it out but it doesn't show the casualty calculation. For example I charged a roman cavalry (at 100%) head on into barbarian mf (at 100%) and scored 3 hits with the impact combat which has a maximum range of 9% but I inflicted 17%. The conversion from number of hits to a % of losses must follow some other formula which includes an additional variable which isn't detailed in the rules. I actually conducted another cavalry charge after with the identical situation and scored 2 hits which ranges up to 5% but inflicted 11%. I would like to understand exactly how the calculations are done.

I've had similar experiences, and I would like to understand too.

keithmartinsmith · Post by **keithmartinsmith** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 5:58 pm

See help on Keyboard shortcuts and you will see you can turn on/off all the combat calculations for before and after a combat e.g. P, C< H & J. Keith

omarquatar · Post by **omarquatar** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:42 pm

i found that the actual results don't match the calculations; something seems to be wrong

the role of luck?

the role of luck?

Yes and No

the role of luck

Re: the role of luck?

re: luck