Proposal for more restrained changes of facing

[Paisley]

I've never played the tabletop game but I agree with those who suggest that perhaps the pc game should mirror some aspect of the tabletop more closely. And of course I have no problem with the combat probabilities now I'm accustomed to them.

It's my personal belief that the ease of facing change is just as big a problem as the other factors mentioned, but even were it not I can't see the harm in asking for changes to be considered. Slitherene are unusually receptive to ideas I have found.

[omarquatar]

I've never played the tabletop game but I agree with those who suggest that perhaps the pc game should mirror some aspect of the tabletop more closely. And of course I have no problem with the combat probabilities now I'm accustomed to them.

It's my personal belief that the ease of facing change is just as big a problem as the other factors mentioned, but even were it not I can't see the harm in asking for changes to be considered. Slitherene are unusually receptive to ideas I have found.

I have a problem with combat results, you say no, they are right
You have a problem with facing rules, i say no they are right
the purpose of forums is to express opinions and this is what happens

[SRW1962]

well, it certainly attracted in the first place FoG TT users, but now the PC game lives its own life, doesn't it?
So, if the designers, with testers' and players' support, can find a better way to simulate what happened on the ancient battlefield in the critical areas of the game, i hope it will be implemented, even if it differs from the TT rules.

Totally agree that the game does have a life of its own and I for one now question whether I will continue to use TT wargames as much if this system evovles in the right way as it does have a lot of potential, not only for ancients but for other periods such as pike & shot too. Even now having played this so much I have plans to make hex terrain and emulate the PC version with the TT rules to see how well it translates.

All the improvements as they come along will make the game even better, and from the outset it does necessarily differ in many ways from the TT version with smaller units, hexes, commanders fixed to units, evades etc. But the underlying game mechanics are still very recognisably there and the army lists are more or less the TT army lists but with units/elements divided by 2.

[Paisley]

the purpose of forums is to express opinions and this is what happens

Yes. And I was expressing mine.

Fortunately, from my perspective, Slitherene seem happy with the current combat mechanism, but as far as I'm concerned you are free to lobby for what you want. Personally I think what you want would be entirely to the game's detriment, but we can agree to differ, I hope.

If poor troops were always inflicting more casualties than average or superior then I'd see a problem. If they were inflicting more casualties half the time, I'd see a problem. but some people seem to think they never should...

Also be aware, as people have said many times now, that it is the % that is important, not the actual numbers. I think this is the root cause of much disquiet.

[omarquatar]

but as far as I'm concerned you are free to lobby for what you want. Personally I think what you want would be entirely to the game's detriment, but we can agree to differ, I hope.

If poor troops were always inflicting more casualties than average or superior then I'd see a problem. If they were inflicting more casualties half the time, I'd see a problem. but some people seem to think they never should...

Also be aware, as people have said many times now, that it is the % that is important, not the actual numbers. I think this is the root cause of much disquiet.

as i don't master english perfectly, unfortunately, i think i don't understand the real meaning of "lobbying" in this context.
As for combats, look, some time ago i had 3 veteran steady legions against 1 LI bosporan unit cornered against a rock hexside; all 3 sequential attacks failed to even disorder the enemy. Such episodes tend too happen too frequently for my taste and ruin a part of the fun i have playing FoG

[SRW1962]

An easy enough experiment is to set up a small testgame simply make it 10 by 10 and have 9 skirmishers on one side and 9 spear units on the other plus a general each so that you can play it. Put the spears in one line and the skirmishers at max range for the weapon they carry, I used 3 javs, 3 slings, 3 bows, if each one of the different types of skirmisher is poor, 3 are average and 3 are superior you will get a good idea of the different spread of casualties from each type. The spearmen were simply average HF. For the game I simply played as both sides and kept the spearmen stationary and the skirmishers kept still too. After 25 shots (I did this in one game of 10 shots and one game of 15 shots, because I forgot to set the game length to 25 shots) the total casulaties for each type were as follows:

poor = 1411

average = 1652

superior = 1829

The spread of casualties was pretty extreme from 0-73 I got, which at first glance might seem too varied, but spread over a number of shots this does average out. I know that most skirmishers will be lucky to shoot off 25 rounds in a game but obviously take into account the fact that there may be more skirmishers in an army and also spread this out over the course of many games and the more you do this the more it averages out. Another thing is that it was surprising to see how resilient the spearmen were, after 15 rounds of firing only 3 had reached 25% casualties and that was from the superior troops firing, also they weren't disordered, and when they did become so they rallied immediately because of the proximity of the general.

Okay I know I am a sad anorak for doing this, but I wanted to see for myself if the fears of some players were real or not. Now, I know that some people will still state examples of what has happened to them, but you have to take it into the context of a whole game or many games worth of firing. From experience the worst or best things always stand out from the norm and can obviously colour how we see things.

[Paisley]

Sorry, omarquatar. Lobbying just means asking for what one wants. I didn't mean to be obscure, just didn't think.

[omarquatar]

From experience the worst or best things always stand out from the norm and can obviously colour how we see things.

true...and i won't add anything more to this wisdom , but... my real pain is impact combat, ranged fire and melee seems more normal
are you ready to do the same test for impact?

[SRW1962]

I did one before for someone else as an example of veteran legions vs average legions, if you give me an example it would be easy enough to setup.

[batesmotel]

An easy enough experiment is to set up a small testgame simply make it 10 by 10 and have 9 skirmishers on one side and 9 spear units on the other plus a general each so that you can play it. Put the spears in one line and the skirmishers at max range for the weapon they carry, I used 3 javs, 3 slings, 3 bows, if each one of the different types of skirmisher is poor, 3 are average and 3 are superior you will get a good idea of the different spread of casualties from each type. The spearmen were simply average HF. For the game I simply played as both sides and kept the spearmen stationary and the skirmishers kept still too. After 25 shots (I did this in one game of 10 shots and one game of 15 shots, because I forgot to set the game length to 25 shots) the total casulaties for each type were as follows:

poor = 1411

average = 1652

superior = 1829

The spread of casualties was pretty extreme from 0-73 I got, which at first glance might seem too varied, but spread over a number of shots this does average out. I know that most skirmishers will be lucky to shoot off 25 rounds in a game but obviously take into account the fact that there may be more skirmishers in an army and also spread this out over the course of many games and the more you do this the more it averages out. Another thing is that it was surprising to see how resilient the spearmen were, after 15 rounds of firing only 3 had reached 25% casualties and that was from the superior troops firing, also they weren't disordered, and when they did become so they rallied immediately because of the proximity of the general.

Okay I know I am a sad anorak for doing this, but I wanted to see for myself if the fears of some players were real or not. Now, I know that some people will still state examples of what has happened to them, but you have to take it into the context of a whole game or many games worth of firing. From experience the worst or best things always stand out from the norm and can obviously colour how we see things.

An interesting follow up to this experiment would be to do the same thing again but have all 9 skirmishers fire at one HF until that one auto-breaks and then go onto the next. How many HF will be broken at the end of the 25 turns. The trivial ability to mass 9 BGs firing at one target BG in a turn (more difficult with javelins but very easy with longer ranged weapons) is one of the reasons that massive amounts of missile fire is far too effective in FOG PC both for a good simulation and compared to FoG TT where massing more than 2 or maybe 3 BGs shooting at one is virtually impossible, and then only if the BG is pretty much isolated or at least partially surrounded, e.g. at the end of a line where it is getting out flanked by shooters.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Chris, not sure if you even need to experiment on this one, practical experiance in DAG battle leads me to think light bow fire(say from Armenian horse archers), even when massed is singularly inneffective. 6 or 7 HA blasting away for multiple (6 plus) turns will of course atrit ONE unit to maybe 80% or so but by that time the battle lines have closed... I am not sure if reducing their effectiveness further would be a good thing.
I think you mentioned in the TT that missle fire is way more important for disruptions/cohesion hits than causing casualties... As it stands now if you are lucking enouph to disrupt a heavy unit w missle fire, it more likly than not recovers before impact combat occurs.
Maybe one way to adress massed missle fire (if it needs to be addressed, not so sure at this stage)is to only allow a unit to be targeted once... However w that change missle fire would need to be way more effective to compensate.


edited for spelling and blatant grammatical errors

[petergarnett]

Number 4 on the first post from Chris was to leave other undrilled as they currently are but this is where I feel we have another issue. Undrilled foot (MF,HF)should not be able to turn 180 & move which is what they currently can do.

The thing that amuses me is that if you change the facing of the BG to turn 180 you cannot then move it, which matches the TT rules.

However if you just click on the BG you can select a hex 2-3 to the rear & move the BG which is beyond the capabilities of such BG's IMO and does not match the TT rules.

[batesmotel]

Number 4 on the first post from Chris was to leave other undrilled as they currently are but this is where I feel we have another issue. Undrilled foot (MF,HF)should not be able to turn 180 & move which is what they currently can do.

The thing that amuses me is that if you change the facing of the BG to turn 180 you cannot then move it, which matches the TT rules.

However if you just click on the BG you can select a hex 2-3 to the rear & move the BG which is beyond the capabilities of such BG's IMO and does not match the TT rules.

In the TT rules, no troops except skirmishers can about face and move. My proposal assumes that the original design testing indicated that some greater maneuverability was desirable to make the PC game playable compared to the TT. So I would not favor your suggested change for undrilled BGs unless maneuverability for drilled non-skirmishers was also significantly more restricted than I listed in my proposal. Any change like this would certainly need significant amounts of play testing to make sure that the balance between drilled and undrilled troops remains appropriate.

Chris

[batesmotel]

Hey Chris, not sure if you even need to experiment on this one, practical experiance in DAG battle leads me to think light bow fire(say from Armenian horse archers), even when massed is singularly inneffective. 6 or 7 HA blasting away for multiple (6 plus) turns will of course atrit ONE unit to maybe 80% or so but by that time the battle lines have closed... I am not sure if reducing their effectiveness further would be a good thing.
I think you mentioned in the TT that missle fire is way more important for disruptions/cohesion hits than causing casualties... As it stands now if you are lucking enouph to disrupt a heavy unit w missle fire, it more likly than not recovers before impact combat occurs.
Maybe one way to adress massed missle fire (if it needs to be addressed, not so sure at this stage)is to only allow a unit to be targeted once... However w that change missle fire would need to be way more effective to compensate.


edited for spelling and blatant grammatical errors

I have certainly managed with some regularity to reduce troops to autobreak at a 0 POA (protected HF, cavalry, LF, LH) with shooting in actual FoG PC multi-player games using armies like Parthians and Bosporans. I'm not certain how many turns it has taken or how many units firing to do it. For comparison, I hadn't reduced any BGs to auto-break in the TT tournament I played in last Saturday while using a Skythian list similar with 7 BGs of LH, 3 BGs of bow, sword cavalry and 3 BGs of bow/sling LF as a comparison. (Ended up second in the tournament so my troops were being reasonably effective.)

Chris

[petergarnett]

I'm happy to see both drilled & undrilled MF/HF have tighter restricted on these rearward moves.

[jamespcrowley]

It is going to be interesting to see how English longbowmen fit into this discussion, in the context of the likes of Agincourt and Crecy, when the aptly named Storm of Arrows is available.

[TheGrayMouser]

It is going to be interesting to see how English longbowmen fit into this discussion, in the context of the likes of Agincourt and Crecy, when the aptly named Storm of Arrows is available.

I was actually thinking the same thing......
If you do the math a medium bow unit (I am pretty sure Longbows have range of 5 hexes) will only get 2 volleys if they are approached by either heavy foot or knights (2 and 3 hex movement respectivelly)... before they are in charge range(of course as medium foot they will get 6 dice for that ist impact combat) so 2 turns of shoot and 1 shoot/impact.... I wonder if tha would be enough to simulate the arrow storm these troops could produce and actually disrupt and break up the attack of heavy armoured knights?

[SRW1962]

true...and i won't add anything more to this wisdom , but... my real pain is impact combat, ranged fire and melee seems more normal
are you ready to do the same test for impact?

OKay, I set up a new testgame, this involved 50 superior parthian cats vs 50 average slingers so that the effects of impact could be measured. I used this example as in another thread someone else (sorry, forgot who it was) said they encountered an extreme example of the slingers winning, plus you said you wanted an example of impact. To set this up you need to make the slingers unable to run off and you need only one cat unit to impact each sling unit, so I made a wall of impassable terrain with an alcove for each slinger to stand in, so there was no way out. The cats were put 3 hex's away so they could charge immediately, here are the results:

None of the cats chose to charge off by themselves (not sure why, was expecting some to, but maybe it was because it was the first turn)

Cats won 47 impacts, 2 were draws and the slingers won one, plus there was one weird result, but more of that one later.

Total casualties:Cats 667 (avergae 13 per unit) - Slings 3526 (average 70 per unit)

In 32 of the impacts the slings were Disrupted, in 8 the slings were Fragmented, in 0 were the cats adversely affected.

In one of the impacts the cats drew with the slingers with 16 casualties each, but the slingers were Fragmented (thats the weird one I mentioned earlier)

The most casualties caused on a cat unit was 80 (in the one they lost), the most caused on a sling unit was 118.

In the two draws the casualties were very low 11 v 13 in favour of the cats and 9 v 10 in favour of the slingers

So on the impact were the cats charge the slings in the open and catch them, the average is 94% that the cats will cause significantly more damage than the slingers, 4 % that the impact will be tied, 2% that the slingers will do the cats significantly more damage. 64% of the time the slingers will become disrupted, 16% of the time the slingers will become fragmented, 14% of the time the slingers will just suffer more casualties.

I will continue to do some more tests as I actually enjoy doing them (yep sad but true) there are lots of other combo's I can try like the veteran legions vs the javs you mentioned in another post or pikes vs legions would be good.

As I said this was just impact only, so the eventual outcome is another matter and it was done purely to see how an extreme example of impact would pan out over a decent amount of impacts.

[petergarnett]

Thanks for doing this SRW - interest results & what I would have expected.

[Morbio]

Funnily enough, I was actually thinking of doing the same sort of experiment, in my mind I was thinking of an average pike vs an average legions. This was to prove or disprove a theory I have that pikes are weaker than I'd expect them to be. If I can find the time then I'll do this, you are shaming me into it