What Wins Battles?

[rbodleyscott]

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.

True, but (beyond a certain point) the more the element of chance, the less edge the more skilful player has. The reductio in absurdo being a straight coin toss, in which there is no element of skill at all.

Clearly (to me at least) it is a continuum. The higher the chance element (beyond a certain point), the less skill.

In my view (and that of many others) the degree of chance in FOGPC is not at all excessive, and increases the skill requirement rather than reducing it.

[Scutarii]

For me the luck factor is to high and this factor win battles with a pair of good turns you can destroy enemy´s army and all the bonus of the world dont stop this.

See strange results isnt rare and things like average pike unit with rear and lateral support in open terrain at 100% in command range no malus attacked by a SINGLE MF unit of average gauls OUT OF COMMAND RANGE that inflict 10% of casualties and only take 1% isnt strange, see very bad results when you have all bonus possible isnt strange and if your enemy is a medium player you are dead... in a battle i lose 25% of my rout points (10) in a single turn because a command unit at 90% lose their commander (isnt the first time that see command units lose command in the first or second attack...) and my rival take advantage of this and i receive 2 very bad dices... in other wargames you can select an option that made extreme results more strange, could be an interesting feature for the future.

I dont know if people are fine with the luck factor but i think that we are near to 50% and because i defend that luck factor is too high i think that we are more

PD: other question is how routed units out of command range are patched and return to battlefield and your troops in command range never do it... of course none are in the autorout %.

[rbodleyscott]

For me the luck factor is to high and this factor win battles with a pair of good turns you can destroy enemy´s army and all the bonus of the world dont stop this.

Can, but rarely do unless the odds are even. The more bonus/malus in operation, the less likely it is to occur.

If the odds are fairly even, then inevitably the luck element becomes more significant.

I am afraid that all your posts (and my totally opposite experience) lead me to believe that either you are not setting up as good odds as you think you are, or you expect a small advantage to guarantee winning a combat.

[76mm]

True, but (beyond a certain point) the more the element of chance, the less edge the more skilful player has. The reductio in absurdo being a straight coin toss, in which there is no element of skill at all.

Clearly (to me at least) it is a continuum. The higher the chance element (beyond a certain point), the less skill.

In my view (and that of many others) the degree of chance in FOGPC is not at all excessive, and increases the skill requirement rather than reducing it.

I agree with most of your points, other than the value judgement about whether the role of luck is too great in the game. As you say, lots of people like it as it is, so I don't see much point in beating this dead horse once again...

[Scutarii]

I try to have all bonus i can but not allways can have all but hey, the point is that at equal situation the man with the bonus win or at least he is not raped by dices and i see to often how even with ALL POSSIBLE BONUS enemy units with 0 bonus rape my troops, read my example of MF unit is a strange situation but i find things like this in all my battles, when in a battle you see more than 5 "strange" situations something is wrong

PD: maybe luck is a personal point of view but is real that strange situations are usual and finally you try to play with then but is like a lottery and tactical advantages means nothing vs dices, other question.... bugs like the horrible retreat path that play other important role add luck/dices+bugs and you have a widowmaker

PD: sometimes beat the dead horse is the only way, remember the "fantastic" anarchy charges after 1.2.5 finally change this

[claymore58]

I try to have all bonus i can but not allways can have all but hey, the point is that at equal situation the man with the bonus win or at least he is not raped by dices and i see to often how even with ALL POSSIBLE BONUS enemy units with 0 bonus rape my troops, read my example of MF unit is a strange situation but i find things like this in all my battles, when in a battle you see more than 5 "strange" situations something is wrong:

mmmm .... are your troops well oiled Classical Spartans per chance?

As this game is based on the TT version, is the amount of "luck" equal in both?

[Blathergut]

Yes, in some ways, anyway. I've seen a little BG of velite LF break a unit of elite Companions.

I've seen a unit of velites hold a pike phalanx in place while the HF cohorts turned into the flank of cataphracts.

And have been on the opposite end of the luck too!! All part of the fun.

I say leave it as is. It makes the game interesting and fun and frustrating at times too!!!

[claymore58]

So called "luck" is really a representation of the uncertainties of warfare. Sometimes troops can defy the odds and turn certain defeat into victory. This as happened many times throughout the history of warfare. Was the result of Rorke's Drift really luck? One hundred and thirty-nine British soldiers successfully defended their garrison against three to four thousand Zulu warriors. In a game such as ours this could be represented by a "lucky" die roll.

[Scutarii]

Well, Rorke´s Drift is a mixture of good luck with "defensive bonus" and here the luck factor is that zulu dont attack in 2 points at the same time that their few "snipers" force british have their heads down and of course if they continue attacking british defense dont have any chance no bullets no defense... more than luck is a malus for enemy, call it "incompetent commander"

Of course when you play battles of 500 or more points the luck episodes have less impact but only if are individual episodes, if you have 2 of this to close in the same turn you can have a "mortal" turn, for example in one turn y lose commander in a pike unit and my right center goes out of command + total attack + bad dices cost to me 10 points, 25% of my army points, finally i win the battle because have enemy´s army at 5 points of defeat but my army ends so close to 30 rout points (27-40) in a single turn if i dont have a great advantage even i can lose the battle

Dont understand me, i like some luck factor but the problem is that many times luck is excesive, for example lose 10% of troops in a pike unit vs a MF unit... when you have ALL bonus and enemy have 0 is frustrating, i think that a good results for the MF is suffer 2% of casualties and inflict the same number or in the best situation 3% not 10x, there isnt a limit to good dices and this is the thing that i dont like becaus i search have all bonus in my side but a good enemy dices not only stop this (for me is enough) they punish your troops with great loses and for me this is bad.

PD: i like FOG??? Yes, i like all features??? No, i like the actual influence of luck in casualties??? No. I support FOG but isnt a perfect game and need more work in the basic features.

[Aryaman]

To me the problem with luck is only a part of the main problem, that is, FOG doesn´t feel like a real battle, but rather it feels like a particular game, like chess (but here there is no luck) or backgamon, with their own rules. In FOG command and control is not really represented. Battle fatigue, formations, manouvers, etc, are so streamlined as to be non existant. What gives you victory is looking for opportunities to rear attacks, and that is usually made through some tricks and some luck. I enjoyed FOG at the start because for a while I have the feeling I was fighting an ancient battle (and there is so few wargames dealing with premodern battles) but in the end it is simply another game, you can like it by itself, but I don´t feel like fighting ancient premodern battles anymore, and that is why I play less and less.
When I started playing the game I played Pantherboy and defeated him a cople of times, no doubt I would not be able to do it anymore, but that is beacuse he masters the game, the FOG game, not because he is a "better general" or has a better understanding of premodern warfare.

[Gunjin]

I have been following this post with a lot of interest.

My 2 pennies worth is:-

1) Is this game a game of skill? YES
2) Does luck play a part in the game? YES
3) Is the random factor excessive? In my oppinion NO.

Most of the luck in this game can be reduced to a minimum. Just like in REAL warfare its down to the general to minimise that luck factor! In this game it means manouvering your troops to get match ups that favour you. Also annalyzing the potential odds and have a plan if it does not work out. (To go into battle with odds of 50/50 most of the time is just plain stupid!) Deployment setup, having an overall battle plan, maintenance of aim, support, Generals influence ranges, and Cohesian is very important. But most of all (For me) is the annalyzing potential results and looking ahead across the battlefield before you hit/roll the dice and resolve combats. Resolving the combats must be done in the right order.

These are the things that WIN BATTLES.

[76mm]

To me the problem with luck is only a part of the main problem, that is, FOG doesn´t feel like a real battle, but rather it feels like a particular game, like chess (but here there is no luck) or backgamon, with their own rules. In FOG command and control is not really represented. Battle fatigue, formations, manouvers, etc, are so streamlined as to be non existant. What gives you victory is looking for opportunities to rear attacks, and that is usually made through some tricks and some luck.

I generally agree with this as well--when one of my units inflicts 20% casualties, and my (identical) next unit over suffers 20% casualties (attacking the same type of enemy) on the same terrain, and so on down the line, and then the next turn all these numbers reversed...attacking on flanks generally provides little advantage, attacking in the rear usually does (except when the attacker suffers 20% casualties (!))...and then all of the various terrain effects (difficulty of defending any sort of terrain)--it just doesn't feel very "real" to me...

With all of these complaints, why do I keep playing? Well, I play much less now than I used to, but I think that the DAG and MP systems are great, and provide lots of variety and (usually) challenging and enjoyable games.

[Scutarii]

If you have bad dices even using a panzers or warhammer units is irrelevant, give me good dices because tactical advantages means nothing against them and i suffer this many times like see a superior Heavy horse unit with commander at 100% attacking average HF unit D flank and lossing 23% and the commander and only inflict 5% of damage

For me "luck" is excesive and in small battles is the most important factor, in big battles is important maybe here tactical rules a little but 2 bad dices in a critical point breaks even the best tactical situation, good dices with good tactic is like use panzers against napoleonic battle line, good tactic with bad dices is a lose battle

[Gunjin]

If you have bad dices even using a panzers or warhammer units is irrelevant, give me good dices because tactical advantages means nothing against them and i suffer this many times like see a superior Heavy horse unit with commander at 100% attacking average HF unit D flank and lossing 23% and the commander and only inflict 5% of damage

For me "luck" is excesive and in small battles is the most important factor, in big battles is important maybe here tactical rules a little but 2 bad dices in a critical point breaks even the best tactical situation, good dices with good tactic is like use panzers against napoleonic battle line, good tactic with bad dices is a lose battle

These things dont happen often. The Topic is not about "Luck" its about "What wins Battles" Dice alone does not win battles!!!!

[76mm]

These things dont happen often. The Topic is not about "Luck" its about "What wins Battles" Dice alone does not win battles!!!!

I find fairly often that the choice of the two armies basically decides the battle, with some variance depending on what map you end up with. I think that many armies simply won't beat Late Repub Romans, unless they get really lucky with the map.

After that, I've found that players (me!) can lose battles by mishandling their light troops and giving their opponent 10-20 cheap points.

[omarquatar]

The Topic is not about "Luck" its about "What wins Battles" Dice alone does not win battles!!!!

yes, they do (unfortunately)

[TheGrayMouser]

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.

Im coming into this post a little late but the original premise/post seems incorrect.... You do not get "support" at impact combat, only in melee (unless the rules are completely wrong/changed)

That being said when to commit your battle line is critical, as I have had superior legions get fragged on the ist impact... doh, not a good way to begin an assault!

[hidde]

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.

Im coming into this post a little late but the original premise/post seems incorrect.... You do not get "support" at impact combat, only in melee (unless the rules are completely wrong/changed)

That being said when to commit your battle line is critical, as I have had superior legions get fragged on the ist impact... doh, not a good way to begin an assault!

I read it as he means the support you get the next round if you have three BG:s ganging up on one, Reducing the dices.

[TheGrayMouser]

Thank goodness, thought their was a huge knowledge gap on my part!

[hidde]

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.

Just for fun but here is what I call a battleline