The power of dices

[batesmotel]

I think the requirement is actually that the other friendly unit adjacent to the enemy unit being attacked must not already be in melee (indicated by a red or gray arrow) with another enemy BG. I don't think it has to actually attack the same BG, just not already be actively in combat with a different one. (This is my impression from the game and the on line help so it may not be completely correct.) So it could attack a different BG later in the turn but not have already done so before you are getting the support. One more subtlety to the sequence of moving BGs which often makes FoG PC feel much like DBx in that respect.

Chris

[Blathergut]

Why do we have to struggle with understanding these points? Can this be something added/clarified in help/rules?

a) Combat Support
b) Rear Support
c) Break Offs

[Lysimachos]

The debate is open and very interesting because everyone likes this superb game and just try to give hints in order to make it always better.
So let me make some short statement.

1. A problem about an excessive dependance on the luck of dices really exists
2. It has nothing to do with an insufficient knowledge of the rules becuase it doesn’t concern situation where a player suddenly discover that, for a tactical mistake, his unit will fight with unfavourable odds against the enemy but instead when one of his unit credited with greatly positive odds is beaten by a much weaker enemy
3. It cannot be solved just with a feedback about the dice rolls, firstly because it is already possible to see them on the post combat information display and secondly because this would only show the problem but wouldn’t solve it
4. The problem maybe arises (though I’m not really sure of it) from the fact that the original FOG rules were designed for little armies of about 14-20 units in order to equalize the different composition of them, giving a decent chance to win also to armies mainly made up of weaker units
5. This isn’t the case of the PC game, where the composition of the armies isn’t strictly affected by the need of having quite the same number of battlegroups and where the DAG system tool is just designed to equalize the army’s strenght (armies with better units will have less units then armies with less effective battlegroups)
6. The problem is the much wider range that actually exist between the possibilities of victory and defeat in the single combat: if I have an attack unit with 4 dices against a defender unit with 2 dices and even chances per attack the result can vary from a result of 4-0 hits in favour of the attacker to a result of 0-2 hits in favour of the defender, wich in this last option could be able to disorder or even fragment the attacher,
7. That seems clearly excessive if we think that in this conditions we could find an average protected cavalry disrupted or fragmented against an average unprotected light cavalry (and everybody has already seen how many times the better unit rolls 4 rotten dices without any hits and the lesser ones 2 good dices)
8. The problem is then amplified by the actual range of the manpower losses classes that overlap each other so much that, though having taken 1 hit in melee combat, a unit may suffer more casualties than having taken 2 hits or the same than having taken 3, wich is totally unrealistic and devoid of any meaning
9. A possible solution (but this is only a little tip without any claim of thoroughness) maybe lies in the fact that the system already gives in the pre combat information display the real probability of getting a hit against the enemy, that everyone can find under the line “E(hits)=2” or “E(hits)=1” or “E(hits)=1,333”: why not using this as a limitation for the unrealistic results of the combat, ruling that the weaker units cannot score more hits than the enemy if the difference between the pre combat previsions exceed 0,5 (with this option, in the example made under 6) the result wouldn’t vary from 4-0 to 0-2 but from 4-0 to 2-2 or 1-1)

[76mm]

Well, to be fair, I have not actually read the manual right through.

didn't mean anything against you at all, but I don't feel as bad for not understanding many of the rules...

[Paisley]

A problem about an excessive dependance on the luck of dices really exists

In the perception of some people, yes. In the perception of others, no.

If you boost the performance of better troops by reducing the randomness, they will be overpowered. I think a lote of the perception of 'too much randomness' comes from a (in my view) mistaken belief in just how good superior troops were compared to the average and also from a wish to have good troops win the battle for you (which I confess I suffer from too).

It is my experience that in battles that are decided by 15% or more of available break points, the better player wins (generally not me) - unless one players army was wholly unsuited to its opposition and/or the terrain. The closer battles tend to be decided by a host of factors, including sometimes one or two lucky dice rolls. I'm fine with that.

[76mm]

It is my experience that in battles that are decided by 15% or more of available break points, the better player wins (generally not me) - unless one players army was wholly unsuited to its opposition and/or the terrain. The closer battles tend to be decided by a host of factors, including sometimes one or two lucky dice rolls. I'm fine with that.

clearly some players are better at this game than others, so the game is not pure luck. But that doesn't mean that there is not too much luck involved in combat resolution.

In other words, better players are certainly better at creating the "unwinnable situations" described by Richard, in which it almost doesn't matter if combat is resolved by some sophisticated odds calcuation, a coin flip, or picking a number out of a hat. But that doesn't mean that it is satisfying to play a game in which, for instance, your center could crumble into dust within a couple of turns because of some bad die rolls. The quickness and severity of the combat results means that often there is no chance to retrieve a situation once it starts to go south. THe classic problem in this game is making sure that your center survives long enough to allow your power move on the flank to succeed. While this seems realistic enough, my reading of history is that generally the center would hold until a flank gave way, but in this game more often than not my center crumbles so quickly that my "masterstroke" on the flank becomes irrelevant. (and sometimes my flank move is completely stymied by the enemy, or his succeeds faster than mine).

Perhaps my perspective is influenced by the fact that I generally play phalanx armies, and once one or two phalanx BGs are disrupted, your line can disintegrate very quickly depending on how the die rolls go. If you have a couple of bad rolls on impact, your entire center can vanish during the time it takes for one of your heavy cav units on the flank to dispose of some artfully placed light horse, archers, etc.

[rbodleyscott]

Perhaps my perspective is influenced by the fact that I generally play phalanx armies, and once one or two phalanx BGs are disrupted, your line can disintegrate very quickly depending on how the die rolls go. If you have a couple of bad rolls on impact, your entire center can vanish during the time it takes for one of your heavy cav units on the flank to dispose of some artfully placed light horse, archers, etc.

Playing the devils advocate here, and not saying you are wrong, but a tactician (or epitomiser such as Vegetius in his De Re Militari written in the late 4th/early 5th century AD) would suggest that your plan would work better if you "refused" your centre - i.e. held it back to delay contact.

If you steam forward equally fast with your centre as your "power flank move", you are asking to have your centre beaten as presumably the enemy has more points invested there. (Otherwise your power flank move cannot be very powerful).

It isn't good tactics in FOGPC and it wasn't good tactics "back in the day".

I strongly recommend reading the tactical sections of Vegetius, btw. It is available on-line and it was used as something of a bible by Medieval and Renaissance generals. The section on battle formations is the one to which I am referring.

As in FOGTT, winning FOGPC is a lot about timing, and taking that aspect out by guaranteeing that your centre will last long enough for your "power flank attack" to succeed would not (necessarily) be more realistic.

[76mm]

...a tactician (or epitomiser such as Vegetius in his De Re Militari written in the late 4th/early 5th century AD) would suggest that your plan would work better if you "refused" your centre - i.e. held it back to delay contact.

I have read Vegetius and indeed most of the other Roman military historians and some more recent authors. While it might not be obvious from my postings or play, I am actually pretty widely read on ancient military matters (at least Alexander through the Roman Republic).

I routinely refuse my center in almost every battle but need a little space from the back of the map board so that routing units don't go off map in one turn, and as a result there is only so much space between the enemy's center and my own. The typical game for me goes like this: I send my flank foward, refuse my center. My flank gets caught up in interminable melees with the enemies light troops, cavaly, etc., while his center marches resolutely forward and crushes my center. Often my favored flank is victorious, but by the time they double back toward the center, my line there has been completely crushed, and the battle is over.

In a recent battle, I was fighting another all elite legion army, and accordingly kept my phalanx at the back map edge. My flank had a lot of heavy cav and generally had no problem with his opposing flank, but chewing through all of the stuff he threw at me took more time than it took for his legions to march across the map and crush my phalanx in two turns. As he crushed my line my heavy cav was literally rushing toward the rear of his line but alas it was too late. I am sure that a better player would have done better in this battle but this has become kind of a recurring pattern for me...

[76mm]

As in FOGTT, winning FOGPC is a lot about timing, and taking that aspect out by guaranteeing that your centre will last long enough for your "power flank attack" to succeed would not (necessarily) be more realistic.

I just saw this sentence and wanted to respond. Clearly timing is, and should be, important. But in my opinion given map sizes and the speed with which one center can crush another, luck plays too large a part in determining whether my timing works or not.

I contend that most ancient battles were determined by whose flank attack succeeded first (thus leading to a collapse in the center), rather than than by whether the center collapsed all on its own before the struggles on the flanks were concluded, as frequently happens in the game.

[rbodleyscott]

In a recent battle, I was fighting another all elite legion army, and accordingly kept my phalanx at the back map edge. My flank had a lot of heavy cav and generally had no problem with his opposing flank, but chewing through all of the stuff he threw at me took more time than it took for his legions to march across the map and crush my phalanx in two turns. As he crushed my line my heavy cav was literally rushing toward the rear of his line but alas it was too late. I am sure that a better player would have done better in this battle but this has become kind of a recurring pattern for me...

Well I think that Elite legions are pretty much invincible against a phalanx, so it isn't surprising that your centre did not last long. This, of course, has nothing to do with luck - rather the reverse.

Not sure what you can realistically do about this except to refuse to play armies with large numbers of elite legions when using a phalanx. Or hide the phalanx behind some terrain or on a hill or something. With their massive advantage the Elite legions may be daft enough to attack you at a disadvantage, and then your centre may last long enough for your flank manoeuvre to come in on their rear.

Historically, most phalanx armies never had to face legions that we would classify as Elite. Most historical phalanx vs Roman battles fall into the Mid Republican period.

Personally, I would try to persuade regular opponents to use an army which is (let us say) a bit more "sporting".

[76mm]

Well I think that Elite legions are pretty much invincible against a phalanx, so it isn't surprising that your centre did not last long. This, of course, has nothing to do with luck - rather the reverse.

Not sure what you can realistically do about this except to refuse to play armies with large numbers of elite legions when using a phalanx.

I agree with your point about legion vs phalanx and am not saying that the center's defeat was due to luck--I clearly expected my center to be crushed. The problem is that it happens so quickly that there is little that one can do with any victory achieved on the flanks, where luck plays a larger role (will this light horse or javelin unit hold up my heavy cav for one turn or three??)...

And while I would prefer not to play against elite legions, my opponents often fail to cooperate. I understand that the latest patch makes them less available in the DAG, which I am very, very, very, happy about.

[76mm]

Or hide the phalanx behind some terrain or on a hill or something. With their massive advantage the Elite legions may be daft enough to attack you at a disadvantage, and then your centre may last long enough for your flank manouvre to come in on their rear.

ooops, just saw this too. I've tried putting my phalanx on a hill, against average and superior legions rather than elite, and it seemed to make no difference--my phalanx was crushed within two turns. This was one of those moments when I made up my mind that luck plays too large a part in this game.

[Scutarii]

Well, in the last battle i play i was defeated in my left flank (heavy elite late macedonian cavalry OWNED by average scutariis) but restore the situation after destroy enemy center (4 superior legion units in rout + celtiberian mercenaries using superior phalanx... well, i do a change in the line in the aproximation phase to have superior units against enemy superior units and work fine) and move a few troops, then, when i start to move troops to my right flank (where average phalanx and medium infantry do a great job against many enemy troops) dices kill me when troops start to rout and enemy recover a few R units... final result was 44/44 VS 53/59 so close and frustrating recover a disaster in the left, destroy enemy´s center and when i try to win the battle (i have a 15 points advantage over enemy after destroy enemy center) dices start to kill me in a pair of turns

The problem is when you fight against a better army and dices help this army (cartago troops destroyed by late romans) and when with a better army your tactic was defeated by dices and when you start to restore ZASCA!!! dices strike again when the good situations turns in 1% cualties VS 14% casualties where the first are D and shock troops and attacker is a shock cavalry unit with lance, armored, superior, ready and taking enemy flank

[petergarnett]

Surely the purpose of DAG & the TT equivalent is that you do not face better armies as they are equal in points. Richard's answer reads to me like elites cost too little.

Sadly there is nothing you can do about facing a better opponent other than learn from the experience.

[76mm]

Surely the purpose of DAG & the TT equivalent is that you do not face better armies as they are equal in points. Richard's answer reads to me like elites cost too little.

I certainly agree, and the problem is compounded (or was compounded, supposedly fixed in latest patch) by the number of elite legions that could be purchased--basically an entire army.

Sadly there is nothing you can do about facing a better opponent other than learn from the experience.

Not true--I just hope for favorable die rolls. Sometimes it works, but usually not...

[rbodleyscott]

Not true--I just hope for favorable die rolls. Sometimes it works, but usually not...

Which of course means.....

[76mm]

Which of course means.....

...that my opponents are luckier than I am? Actually I was being tongue-in-cheek in my previous post--as explained in a previous post, I don't argue that some people are better at this game than others, but that doesn't mean that luck's role in ombat resolution is not exaggerated.

[keyth]

Over a long enough period involving enough games, one would expect to see the % chance 'offered' prior to attacking to be about right... in my experience it simply isn't the case - I don't even trust it as a guideline any more. I have gone down an engaged line of HF (vs. the AI) and all eight BGs were offered 70+%. All lost, and badly, in the 8 - 15% range. I try to attack where it feels right and where I think I have created an advantage... this still isn't always a good thing.

I guess I am trying to say that maybe there is a bit too much randomness going on at times.

[Blathergut]

As in FOGTT, winning FOGPC is a lot about timing, and taking that aspect out by guaranteeing that your centre will last long enough for your "power flank attack" to succeed would not (necessarily) be more realistic.

I just saw this sentence and wanted to respond. Clearly timing is, and should be, important. But in my opinion given map sizes and the speed with which one center can crush another, luck plays too large a part in determining whether my timing works or not.

I contend that most ancient battles were determined by whose flank attack succeeded first (thus leading to a collapse in the center), rather than than by whether the center collapsed all on its own before the struggles on the flanks were concluded, as frequently happens in the game.

The prob in part is that when you go over 400pts in DAG, it allows for enough elite type stuff in once place to be overwhelming. If you try to go all elites at 400pts, your army is very noticably smaller. People have been quite surprised to find the Later Jewish coming in at something like 46 break points at 400pts and the troops are decent...6 superior Romans as a strike core...7 imitation legionaries (pro av)(but just as good as Celtiberians or Gauls + drilled so not sooo bad), and other little goodies tucked into it.

I would suggest just keep trying different tactics...until you find one that gets your army closer to breaking the enemy...hang up the elite centre with something mobile but which can delay for a turn or two by dying.

In the end, any part of anyone's line when it hits, has to roll dice. Those superiors or elites are just way better at holding on until the other guy finally grinds down too much.

[SRW1962]

It amazes me how all this is happening and to some people it seems it is happening all of the time! Maybe I am just lucky or I have a special version of the game whereby these things don't happen but either way I haven't encountered such things yet. I have literally played hundreds of games of FOGPC usually against live opponents in 'hot seat' games and as with myself my opponents are ALL TT wargamers first and foremost, and we still have to find what is wrong with the system as we seem to think that it is brilliant to be frank. Maybe we are just used to the vagaries of luck interfering with things or maybe when we play we take into account the fact that fortune may play a part in our plan, so our plans are better thought out as a result, whatever it is we accept and enjoy that luck will play a part and good tactics will almost always be rewarded. The fact that good tactics are rewarded more often than not clearly states that luck is not the be all and end all in the game, it shows that luck has its place, but that place is behind such things as planning, tactics and troop quality. Even the lowliest of troops have a function if you care to look for it.

For the first few weeks of playing the game we literally took no notice of the percentage chances offered in the shield symbol before combat, in fact we didn't even realise thats what it was for until one day my brother asked what it was. We were in such a rush to play we simply got stuck in and used the armies like their TT counterparts and found they weren't bad facsimiles at all in both how they looked and in how they played. As far as I am concerned the percentages are a guide only and NOT a right to win a combat, I like that, its much more info than you get in the TT version (which is also brilliant by the way) but not at all necessary to assess whether or not to attempt a combat. The luck of this game is about right for me, it goes for you sometimes, it goes against you sometimes, but more often than not its fairly neutral, above all its fun!

The guys that developed the original TT version have done a brilliant job and are obviously no fools (despite one of them being involved with DBWTF system) and the guys who have developed the PC version have equally done a brilliant job from the gameplay to the graphics, to say they have basically buggered up the random factor is really silly to say the least. My suggestion is set up a few playtest scenarios with various troop types and play against yourself and you will see that the system does work, it may seem tedious but it will answer your questions. In a 'proper' battle anything can and will happen from time to time and as such cannot be looked at in a cold objective light as you would literally have to analyse every single move and combat and its impact upon the 'critical' point that may cause upset to one or other of the protagonists.

This is a unique and very good system and its based upon something that works extremely well for TT wargamers, I see it as an extension of TT wargaming myself and hope that it will continue to grow to the same extent as the TT version. If you guys have never played a TT wargame then you should in order to fully understand what the system is really about, if you do play TT wargames then you already know what I am talking about.