Too much random!

[Aryaman]

I know this has been discussed before but with SOA I really feel the game too many times is about lucky dice
In my last game, in a one to one combat a medium infantry almugavar unit routed a heavy infantry heavily armoured dismounted English Knight in just 2 turns with massive onesided losses, on clear, level terrain. This kind of things really are starting to wear me, and I playing less and less the game...

[76mm]

Look out--you're about to get barraged with a bunch of posts about why this outcome is realistic...

The fact is that this is how the game was designed, and lots of people apparently like it like that. I don't, so like you, I play much less now than I used to, although its still fun to pick up a game now and then. Multiplayer and the DAG are the only reason I still play at all, and if the DAG lists are ever corrected so that we can actually use more than a couple large armies, I will probably start playing a bit more.

[pantherboy]

I know this has been discussed before but with SOA I really feel the game too many times is about lucky dice
In my last game, in a one to one combat a medium infantry almugavar unit routed a heavy infantry heavily armoured dismounted English Knight in just 2 turns with massive onesided losses, on clear, level terrain. This kind of things really are starting to wear me, and I playing less and less the game...

What were the stats of the other unit. For example if they are armed with a heavy weapon that negates the armor advantage of the knights and turns the combat to a net 0 POA. If they were swordsmen+ then it negates the knights heavy weapon and results in the same modifiers. What you do is buy 9pt superior protected heavy weapon heavy foot and they are the equal to a 13pt armoured heavy superior heavy knight. You can field 3 to 2 odds with little melee/impact change but significant changes in protection versus missile fire.

Cheers,

Steve

PS: I also find the ranges a little too wide and would prefer a narrower scale. It may result in more predictable results but you simply alter the AP costs to reflect this and allow a person to field more lower quality troops.

[Skanvak]

What bother me in this discussion is that it is about gameplay.

Which lead me to think that their are two side : one favor simulation the other favor a certain kind of game play.
As a simulationist, when someoe tell me that their is too much randomness, I like it to back it with statistic and fact, not simple feeling (even and especially when I might have the same feeling). If this is a gameplay argument (I don't like randomness) then they are game without randmoness on the same subject. I beleive taht their is place for both kind of game, so may try to adapt those to computer. I am sure we would play it too

[Aryaman]

I know this has been discussed before but with SOA I really feel the game too many times is about lucky dice
In my last game, in a one to one combat a medium infantry almugavar unit routed a heavy infantry heavily armoured dismounted English Knight in just 2 turns with massive onesided losses, on clear, level terrain. This kind of things really are starting to wear me, and I playing less and less the game...

What were the stats of the other unit. For example if they are armed with a heavy weapon that negates the armor advantage of the knights and turns the combat to a net 0 POA. If they were swordsmen+ then it negates the knights heavy weapon and results in the same modifiers. What you do is buy 9pt superior protected heavy weapon heavy foot and they are the equal to a 13pt armoured heavy superior heavy knight. You can field 3 to 2 odds with little melee/impact change but significant changes in protection versus missile fire.

Cheers,

Steve

PS: I also find the ranges a little too wide and would prefer a narrower scale. It may result in more predictable results but you simply alter the AP costs to reflect this and allow a person to field more lower quality troops.

Almugavars Superior/undrilled/protected/medium foot/swordmen
English Knights: /Superior/drilled/hvy Armoured/ Hvy foot/Hvy weapons

[batesmotel]

I know this has been discussed before but with SOA I really feel the game too many times is about lucky dice
In my last game, in a one to one combat a medium infantry almugavar unit routed a heavy infantry heavily armoured dismounted English Knight in just 2 turns with massive onesided losses, on clear, level terrain. This kind of things really are starting to wear me, and I playing less and less the game...

What were the stats of the other unit. For example if they are armed with a heavy weapon that negates the armor advantage of the knights and turns the combat to a net 0 POA. If they were swordsmen+ then it negates the knights heavy weapon and results in the same modifiers. What you do is buy 9pt superior protected heavy weapon heavy foot and they are the equal to a 13pt armoured heavy superior heavy knight. You can field 3 to 2 odds with little melee/impact change but significant changes in protection versus missile fire.

Cheers,

Steve

PS: I also find the ranges a little too wide and would prefer a narrower scale. It may result in more predictable results but you simply alter the AP costs to reflect this and allow a person to field more lower quality troops.

Almugavars Superior/undrilled/protected/medium foot/swordmen
English Knights: /Superior/drilled/hvy Armoured/ Hvy foot/Hvy weapons

The almughavars are impact foot, swordsmen. This actually gives them a +PoA at impact where armor is not factored in. In impact the almughavars fight exactly as well as superior Roman legionaries. Assuming that they won this round where they have the advantage, it is certainly possible for the dismounted knights to disrupt or even fragment after losing with an unlucky cohesion test. That might well leave the almughavars at an advantage in the second round as well with more attacks even at a lower PoA for inferior armor. Impact foot are specifically optimized for their initial charge into opposing foot so this isn't a case where the almughavars are just being too lucky.

Chris

[omarquatar]

[

The almughavars are impact foot, swordsmen. This actually gives them a +PoA at impact where armor is not factored in. In impact the almughavars fight exactly as well as superior Roman legionaries. Assuming that they won this round where they have the advantage, it is certainly possible for the dismounted knights to disrupt or even fragment after losing with an unlucky cohesion test. That might well leave the almughavars at an advantage in the second round as well with more attacks even at a lower PoA for inferior armor. Impact foot are specifically optimized for their initial charge into opposing foot so this isn't a case where the almughavars are just being too lucky.

Chris

certainly there are reasons inside the rules for every results, which does not mean that the rules are right.
what i find beyond my personal supension of disbelief is when in two identical sequential combats you win the first 1:329 and lose the second 329:1. i keep on thinking it shouldn't work this way. such (frequent) occurrences often ruin (my) enjoyment of this otherwise very good gaming experience

[CraigStevenson]

Each to their own I suppose. I like the randomness of combat. Overall it is generally predictable but occassionally will surprise you. I enjoy that and also suspect it is realistic as the unexpected happened regularly in real life battles.

[Gunjin]

Each to their own I suppose. I like the randomness of combat. Overall it is generally predictable but occassionally will surprise you. I enjoy that and also suspect it is realistic as the unexpected happened regularly in real life battles.

I agree totally with your sentiments!

[deeter]

There should be randomness, but what we have here is double random. The BG gets a certain number of dice to roll which results in hits. Okay. But then each hit is rolled again to see casualties are inflicted. It seems pretty common to get four hits because of POAs, quality, etc. but these cause nearly no causalites. Othe enemy roll its dice at -- POA and may get two hits, but the caulaties inflicted are huge. This makes no sense. It's double random.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I wouldnt look at it as "double random". Almost all games have a mechanism where you calculate the # of hits and then determine what "damage" is caused by a sperate mechanism .... The % killed really doesnt matter , at least until a unit reaches the auto rout level... I like how this additional randomness is handled in the game and would not like to see it changed....If it was changed to what? i realise you could make the game closere to the TT where a BG has stands so maybe each unit could have 4 pips of strength, howver how would one determine when a pip is lost? More dice rolls! No, i like the graudual deterioration of a unit as it does what the pc can do bet , keep track of a lot of #'s much easier than playing a t game... Also, the tt mechanics maks absolute sense as a bg has stands which can move semi independently, create overlaps , differnt formations etc... The pc does nothing like that so you would be taking away something but not replacing it with anything...
just my 2 cent!

[deeter]

My main concern is that the range for casualities is so broad. If it were narrower, you wouldn't see the melee winner taking huge losses while inflicting very few.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

My main concern is that the range for casualities is so broad. If it were narrower, you wouldn't see the melee winner taking huge losses while inflicting very few.

Deeter

True, but if too narrow , people will wonder why they got 4 hits but only caused 30 casaulties (which will be a 10% loss for any and all units now that they will be 300 men across the board ....)

[deeter]

Yes. That 300 thing is bizarre. I suppose RBS suggested that to keep SoA armies sizes reasonablly small, but it makes ancient armies really small. Still, I think it's really weird when a superior heavy unit wins a melee against slingers and inflicts 2% but recieves 23%.

Deeter

[Morbio]

My main concern is that the range for casualities is so broad. If it were narrower, you wouldn't see the melee winner taking huge losses while inflicting very few.

Deeter

I don't know if this is a real example or a theoretical point, but I certainly think the mechanism is wrong if it is possible for the winner to inflict less damage than the loser.

I leave it to those that know the detailed combat mechanism better than I to see if this is real.

[Skanvak]

I understand the need for more randomness than in the TT game as on TT bookeeping as to be kept as a minimum, the randomn damage on PC make sense. But as I said earlier, I like result to be backed by stats and the choose of random range seem to have been taken at random. I really wonder if during a round of combat only 1 soldiers can die? ay be or may be not. I'd like the point of view of the historian among us.

As for game play, why not make the random damage optional? I know programmer hate option

[TheGrayMouser]

My main concern is that the range for casualities is so broad. If it were narrower, you wouldn't see the melee winner taking huge losses while inflicting very few.

Deeter

I don't know if this is a real example or a theoretical point, but I certainly think the mechanism is wrong if it is possible for the winner to inflict less damage than the loser.

I leave it to those that know the detailed combat mechanism better than I to see if this is real.

The mechanism is not wrong, can just seam odd if you take the "causalties" too literally...
The # killed is the % from the target unit, not anything to do with the combat power of the atacker (at least directly)

basically look at it this way, 1500 man heavy unit melees a 500 man light foot
the heavy unit rolls poor, 1 hit, the lf roles very good, 2 hits

The combat chart for casualties (guessing here as dont have in front of me) might say 2 hits causes 5-7% casualties and 1 hit causes 3-5%

Now the LF rolls the max for its hits vs the HF 7%, and the Hf rolls the worst vs the light foot 3%
Hf takes 7% of 1500 or 105 LT 3% of 500 or 15
seams crazy but remember the hf is only 4% differential

Now with the new 300 men every unit both uits would have taken 21 and 9 , but it doesnt matter as each unit will be the same propotion closer to its auto rout level...
You shouldnt let that get to you because in reality the LF likley became disrupted and will be destroyed next turn and the HF will be just fine (although a little closer to auto rout level)

I tend to look at it as combo of loss of combat effectiveness/wounds/ fatigues/shirkers as opposed to literally men dead (unless a unit of knight destroys a unit, then i like to imagine them trampled into the dust to a man)

[Morbio]

My main concern is that the range for casualities is so broad. If it were narrower, you wouldn't see the melee winner taking huge losses while inflicting very few.

Deeter

I don't know if this is a real example or a theoretical point, but I certainly think the mechanism is wrong if it is possible for the winner to inflict less damage than the loser.

I leave it to those that know the detailed combat mechanism better than I to see if this is real.

The mechanism is not wrong, can just seam odd if you take the "causalties" too literally...
The # killed is the % from the target unit, not anything to do with the combat power of the atacker (at least directly)

basically look at it this way, 1500 man heavy unit melees a 500 man light foot
the heavy unit rolls poor, 1 hit, the lf roles very good, 2 hits

The combat chart for casualties (guessing here as dont have in front of me) might say 2 hits causes 5-7% casualties and 1 hit causes 3-5%

Now the LF rolls the max for its hits vs the HF 7%, and the Hf rolls the worst vs the light foot 3%
Hf takes 7% of 1500 or 105 LT 3% of 500 or 15
seams crazy but remember the hf is only 4% differential

Now with the new 300 men every unit both uits would have taken 21 and 9 , but it doesnt matter as each unit will be the same propotion closer to its auto rout level...
You shouldnt let that get to you because in reality the LF likley became disrupted and will be destroyed next turn and the HF will be just fine (although a little closer to auto rout level)

I tend to look at it as combo of loss of combat effectiveness/wounds/ fatigues/shirkers as opposed to literally men dead (unless a unit of knight destroys a unit, then i like to imagine them trampled into the dust to a man)

I think I should have been more specific in my comments. I wasn't interested in absolute numbers of casualties (I've long since accepted that these are irrelevant), I was referring to percentages. I'm only concerned if the loser can inflict a bigger percentage damage on the winner than the winner does on the loser.

[TheGrayMouser]

Ah then a shorter answer would have been more effcient

Yeah the loser can inflict more "casualties", the loser as being defined by the BG that rolled less hits The combat charts show it well but the winner might , for example be the one that got say 3 hits and thus will inflict 9-18% causalties, the loser who got 2 hits 5-14%. A 5% differential, worst case scenario

[Scutarii]

The problem is the casualties system, see F of D units destroying better units ready is i can asume that not all attacks have the same effect BUT dont asume that a heavy horse superior unit attack an HF average D flank and suffer more % of casualties (18% vs less than 5%)