What Wins Battles?

[Blathergut]

While quality and leaders are important, I've found the most critical to be support. It's worth charging into pikes or impact foot at a minus if the BG already adj. is going to end up with two support. It's usually that combat that puts the other side over the edge.

[hidde]

Exactly! It's funny how I just recently got my eyes open for this.
I have been far to cautios in attacking with low odds before. As you say the next round is the deciding one and with support you have a huge advantge.

[deadtorius]

taking dice away from your opponent seems to work most of the time, but extra luck is still key in this game. I have had too many situations where I go in with 4 dice at ++ and still lose, supports included. Some turns your just not lucky period

[cothyso]

my 2 cents are that at this point, the result of a combat depends way too much on the dices. way too much.

[Gunjin]

taking dice away from your opponent seems to work most of the time, but extra luck is still key in this game. I have had too many situations where I go in with 4 dice at ++ and still lose, supports included. Some turns your just not lucky period

And that what makes this game great...whatever the odds there is always that element of luck and uncertainty!!!!

[claymore58]

Yes, there is an element of luck ... which adds to the excitement of the engagements. Sometimes that unit of Light Foot can hold off the advancing hordes. Other times your Super Heavy Cav recoils at the first change into a Light spear. Sure the luck is there. It is knowing when to "chance your arm" that makes a general. You maneuver your troops into the best position possible and then "throw the dice". Remember that God is on the side of the big battalions.

[Scutarii]

Of course dices, if they want you are dead, tactics, bonus means nothing against the "power or dices" isnt the first time that i work hard to win a battle to see in 2 turns how dices kill me and this isnt funny because if i want luck i play lottery in a wargame i expect a minimun of consistency and see how a MF unit of gauls attack with no bonus a pike unit average, at 100% with rear and lateral support and suffer 10% and inflict 1% isnt funny is a s****

I prefer have luck with a bad deployment that the best deployment ever with no luck

[cothyso]

exactly my point. the element of luck (dices) has a too big impact into the outcome of the fights. way too big. and in my opinion, needs to be toned down.

at this moment, there's almost no thing you can count on, when deploying, as the outcome of "known" fights (like i can crush these light foot bowmen with my spear medium cavalry) is not really know at all, and you'll lose far too often fights you should actually by all accounts win.

I'm not saying dices should be totally ruled out, they are needed and surprise of a fight must still be in there, but it needs to remain exactly what its name says, a surprise, a 5-15-max20% rather than a 20-40% one.

[hidde]

I think you both exaggerate this a bit now.
I've played close to a 100 mp battles I guess and I only have one or two that I can remember going south because of persistant unlucky rolls of the dice.
I couple more than that were I felt I had undeserved luck (I remember a period when I killed at least one commander in almost every game ).
See how consistant players like pantherboy and iversonjm win their battles. I've played against them several times and never won and it didn't came down to luck I can assure you.

[cothyso]

yes, because usually the dices evens out, like in you'll lose some, and win some.

yet, when it comes about the integrity of the main battle line, there's an enormous difference between a not so good player having an opening in his, and a very good player having an opening in his, because of the difference in how they know to cover theirs, and exploit enemy's.

also, another observation would be the situation of the battlefield in the end. most of the games, no matter if won or lost, end up with a total mess, not even a trace of at least victor's battle lines, no nothing.

[Morbio]

I also believe the luck factor is being exagerated or misunderstood in the comments above. There is a lot of focus on the impact of one particular unit and one particular combat. I seriously doubt that a steady spear medium cavalry will ever lose to LF bow in open ground - if it did then it would be 1 in 1,000 or greater. Where the luck comes in, is how long it takes, what cohesion state the cavalry unit is in at the end and the losses it has incurred.

The result of one unit should not be the soul factor that determines the result of the battle. The best generals make allowances for the potential of all individual combat events not going to plan, because the one thing that is certain is that in a battle some combat results will not go as expected, even if it is perceived to be a nailed-on certainty.

Like Hidde I have played Pantherboy a few times and have never won and have played Iversonjm a few more times and have lost substantially more than I've won. I've lost these battles because they are better players and because I've made mistakes which they have exploited. If the random element was significant then I would've won some of the battles.

[cothyso]

you haven't understood my point.

the thing is like this: due to unpredictability of the outcome of the fights, unpredictability which works both ways (for both players) the weaker players are at a disadvantage (as complexity in battles favor the better players in defavour of the weaker players) and the final result of the battle is way scattered than it should be (like in no trace of the actual battle lines, at least for the victor, which should still have at least a resemblance of his battleline).

theoretically these too-dice-influenced outcomes of local BG fights are affecting both players, and would only influence the result of a battle when the chance gooes too much on one side.

but in practice, with outcomes of local BG fights going wrong evenly in both ways, there will be much more disorder appearing in the battle lines of both sides, disorder which can be easier covered or exploited by the better player, than the weaker player.

this is what I am saying.

[rbodleyscott]

This has all been covered before. Some people would like a smaller chance element, some would not. It appears that the PC game designers and (more importantly) a substantial proportion of their customers are happy with the present level of chance. That being the case, it seems unlikely to change.

I have been playing wargames for 39 years and I like the amount of chance in FOG PC.

I win nearly 80% of my mp games, and I always lose to Pantherboy or Iversonjm.

I understand your point cothyso, but I don't see it as a bad thing.

You don't really think, do you, that historical battles ended up as tidy at the end as their initial deployments appear on battle maps? If they made any attempt to exploit break-throughs, then, inevitably, they wouldn't.

The main reason the games end up more scattered than is entirely realistic is not the chance element, but the more-than-historically-realistic manouvrability of troops. But some would see that as making a better game than a strict simulation would be.

Clearly, it is a matter of taste.

[batesmotel]

you haven't understood my point.

the thing is like this: due to unpredictability of the outcome of the fights, unpredictability which works both ways (for both players) the weaker players are at a disadvantage (as complexity in battles favor the better players in defavour of the weaker players) and the final result of the battle is way scattered than it should be (like in no trace of the actual battle lines, at least for the victor, which should still have at least a resemblance of his battleline).

theoretically these too-dice-influenced outcomes of local BG fights are affecting both players, and would only influence the result of a battle when the chance gooes too much on one side.

but in practice, with outcomes of local BG fights going wrong evenly in both ways, there will be much more disorder appearing in the battle lines of both sides, disorder which can be easier covered or exploited by the better player, than the weaker player.

this is what I am saying.

So are you saying that the added complexity introduced by the significant variance in combat results makes player skill too important? Some how it doesn't seem to me that making player skill more important and introducing uncertainty into simulating battle field events is a bad thing even if it may make the game a bit more compelx for new players to get up to speed.

Chris

[76mm]

See how consistant players like pantherboy and iversonjm win their battles. I've played against them several times and never won and it didn't came down to luck I can assure you.

As others have pointed out, all of this has been covered before and I don't intend to be drawn into the arguments again.

That said, I believe that the statement above does not do anything to prove whether or not combat in this game to too heavily influenced by luck, because combat resolution is only part of the game. While certain players are certainly better than others, this would not necessarily change whether or not the individual combats were determined by a coin toss, by some very sophisticated algorithm, or by the current rules, because much of these player's success presumably stems from their ability to position and maneuver their troops in a way that puts their enemy at a disadvantage.

[grumblefish]

actually you're all wrong. A long line of hoplites wins battles, slowly marching forwards regardless of terrain.

[deeter]

Masses of cheap, leaderless shooty types tend to work as well.

Deeter

[rbodleyscott]

See how consistant players like pantherboy and iversonjm win their battles. I've played against them several times and never won and it didn't came down to luck I can assure you.

That said, I believe that the statement above does not do anything to prove whether or not combat in this game to too heavily influenced by luck, because combat resolution is only part of the game. While certain players are certainly better than others, this would not necessarily change whether or not the individual combats were determined by a coin toss, by some very sophisticated algorithm, or by the current rules, because much of these player's success presumably stems from their ability to position and maneuver their troops in a way that puts their enemy at a disadvantage.

This is only true if chance plays a secondary role. Take your extreme example of a coin toss - there is no way for a skilful player to do better than evens with this (except by cheating).

It is true that a skilful player will be better able to play the odds than an unskilful player - but there have to be some odds for the skilful player to play.

Clearly the odds can be stacked, and that is how Pantherboy and Iversonjm and their ilk do so well. This shows that the chance element does not in fact dominate compared to POAs, terrain, position etc.

Nobody is suggesting that there isn't a significant element of chance in individual combat rounds. Overall, however, victory will go to the player who stacks the odds.

Real warfare is all about heavily stacking the odds. (Try reading Liddell Hart). It is not about having a 20% advantage everywhere and expecting to win everywhere. The real world just doesn't work like that.

[spike]

1. Have reserves, preferably using mobile troops!
2. see rule 1

[76mm]

This is only true if chance plays a secondary role. Take your extreme example of a coin toss - there is no way for a skilful player to do better than evens with this (except by cheating).

It is true that a skilful player will be better able to play the odds than an unskilful player - but there have to be some odds for the skilful player to play.

But even if combat were decided by a coin-toss, there WOULD be odds for the skillful player to play--for instance, a player would have an advantage, and would thus be more likely to win, if he had a particular genius for positioning his troops so that 3 of his units would fight 2 enemy units. While clearly it would be more difficult to win like this than being able to rely on the current combat resolution mechanisms, I think it is clear that even with combat based on a coin toss certain players would be better than others.