Big differences in results of combat

[moet]

I noticed that the same combat (impact or melee) between the same units can lead to very different results.
For example, I reload three times a saved game to repeat exactly the same melee between two units and here are the results :

- trial 1 : 2 % lost for the attaquer / 1 % for the defender
- trial 2 : 1 % lost for the attaquer / 18 % for the defender
- trial 3 : 2 % lost for the attaquer / 2 % for the defender

This 1 to 36 ratio (difference between trial 1 and 2) is representative of most impact or melee combat of the game.

I find it a bit too large, compared to other games I play that use dice rolls, which offer more a 1 to 6 ratio.

I suppose that this extreme variability of combat results is a center part of the game concept and not a bug. From my part, I find a bit disturbing that the player can not relay minimaly on the prediction of the combat results.

[Paisley]

Fortune, which has a great deal of power in other matters but especially in war, can bring about great changes in a situation through very slight forces. - Julius Caesar

to which I might add

I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one - Bonaparte

I think not being able to rely on the outcome of combats is a good thing. It's true, one loses some games because of a few atrocious rolls, but mostly these things even out and it is possible (though I don't usually manage) to play in a way that allows for mishaps.

[moet]

True.

But I would have appreciated a lower level of hasard, not because it is frustrating to loose a "normally winning" combat, but because it forces the player to take distance from the game because of its arbitrary level of abstraction.

For example, I attacked an isolated ennemy unit with four of my units and that ennemy unit defended to the last attack (the fourth one) with a lot greater energy than the three first ones, wich is a non-sense.

[Paisley]

Well I think you're looking at it more as a simulation than as an abstraction. If you say what happened was that the unit commander saw he was being surrounded and so pulled a significant part of his force into a local reserve (ie within the hex), and absorbed the first three charges with smaller fractions of his force, then counter attacked with his reserve, you could explain it. If you think of each unit on the grid as a single entity then the results seem a little strange. But if you regard them as 'brigades' (which the scale in fact supposes), it makes more sense, I think. And especially for the Roman, 1500 men is about three cohorts, or 18 centuries. Lots of flexibility for the commander there. Not so much with a pike phalanx - but even there you have 3 x 512 man units, and there were necessary gaps between those units (otherwise manouuvre is impossible, so you're still looking at three possible 'combats', and of course the final combat might be the rear rank 'about facing'. So explainable again, really.

But in fact I thin it's better just to look at the overall result of the battle and not worry too much about the slightly bizarre ability of units to manoeuvre across the front of their enemies, combat vagaries etc. The 'feel' is the thing. It's fast to play, furious fun, and while the actual results aren't realistic in terms of winner's casualties/number of units routed in most cases, the actual 'feel' is often right. you can see you crushed your enemy's flanks while your centre crumbled, or rolled him up from the left, or whatever. The actual detail isn't too important for that feel, I find.

And, in general, the better player wins. I've lost count of the number of times grumblefish has beaten me, regardless of which side he plays in a given scenario. That, to me, suggests that chance is not too significant a factor (though it may decide the outcome between evenly matched players).

[keyth]

I don't see a problem with a unit having a 'last stand' and suddenly picking up its performance. Without variability, I think the game would be chess-like (and the worse for it). History has shown again and again that military certainties are anything but

Cheers,

Keyth

[IainMcNeil]

The variation is required to avoid one troop type always winning and it becoming dull, or chess like as mentioned above. The idea is that once things start to go wrong they go badly wrong.

[dsvitak]

The variation is required to avoid one troop type always winning and it becoming dull, or chess like as mentioned above. The idea is that once things start to go wrong they go badly wrong.

I watched the first scenario played out between the Romans and the Gallic army perhaps a half-dozen times.

I saw the infantry standing rock solid one game, and then crumbling in the next.

I LIKE the variability...and this enhances the replayability of the game. Having absolute knowledge of the outcome would necessarily result in a "min-maxing" of the way combat is approached, and how you deployed and used your units.

You would save your slingers, that ALWAYS did one percent damage, for when an enemy unit was one percent from auto-routing, things like that.

This lack of variability utterly killed Shattered Union, Lost Admiral Deluxe, and similar tactical combat games for me.

[IainMcNeil]

One of the biggest things about playing well is planning for the worst. If you compare average and great players you'll find little difference when things are going their way. When a great player starts to shine is how they deal with the many setbacks. Much like in real life.

[moet]

Thanks for all these answers and commentaries. I don't disagree indeed.

High variability of combat results is certainly something to keep in mind in FoG game. It is puzzling though for the newbie, like me, who try to master the use of each unit type, and observe that the result of certain combat is not at all the one he expected.

[dsvitak]

Thanks for all these answers and commentaries. I don't disagree indeed.

High variability of combat results is certainly something to keep in mind in FoG game. It is puzzling though for the newbie, like me, who try to master the use of each unit type, and observe that the result of certain combat is not at all the one he expected.

This is absolutely my experience. It isn't rock-paper-scissors. What does not work one game, spectacularly, may well work the next.

I shall use my basic knowledge of tactics, and hope for the best.

[neil123]

High variability of combat results is certainly something to keep in mind in FoG game. It is puzzling though for the newbie, like me, who try to master the use of each unit type, and observe that the result of certain combat is not at all the one he expected.

when I first started I felt the same, but after many games (and many losses) I know know how my units tend to behave and what is a big risk and what "should" work.

I believe most games I give my opponents a run for their money. And this is without knowing all the pluses and minuses that are there to learn if you want - instead I have learnt by trying things out and historical knowledge "dont do that with your pikes....unless you....". So for me this is a really good balance between fun and historical. There are (very few ) things that I don't agree with, but I now know that is "the way the devs want it" and so accept it and play accordingly. And find it refreshing to get better at a game by experience/playing rather than reading/learning the rules inside out.

[jamespcrowley]

I agree that variabilty in combat results is essential for any tactical game, including FoG, for much the same reasons that previous posters have stated.

Also, without such variabilty, playing against the AI would be utterly redundant.

[batesmotel]

For what it's worth, the TT game has the same variability. So FoG PC is true to the original in this respect.

Chris

[petergarnett]

It's taken me a while to get part that initial 'good much depends on luck' feeling. However once I'd read the help section on Impact & Melee combat & understood that I've changed my mind (for now - but wait until I lose the next game!).