combat resolution? Non comprende!

[omarquatar]

[quote="Javolenus"]Hi There,


2. Outflanking plus rear attacks:

a. I attack 1 enemy medium infantry unit with 3 (superior) heavy infantry units, which attack from front, rear, and flank. I score 11% against the enemy unit, which holds and desn't rout. I sustain a total of 17% damage. What's going on here?

11 to 17%? you were lucky, you could have fared much worse

[hidde]

I attack 1 enemy medium infantry unit with 3 (superior) heavy infantry units, which attack from front, rear, and flank. I score 11% against the enemy unit, which holds

Read this again in omarquatars post: if by hold you mean it didn't disrupt there can't have been a "proper" rear attack. Rear attacks give automatic disruption before impact is resolved. One more thing that can be a bit hard to see when one is new to the game. That distinction is actually quite well explained in the help pages. Also, there is no difference between front and flank on impact

[omarquatar]

I attack 1 enemy medium infantry unit with 3 (superior) heavy infantry units, which attack from front, rear, and flank. I score 11% against the enemy unit, which holds

Read this again in omarquatars post: if by hold you mean it didn't disrupt there can't have been a "proper" rear attack.

sure it works that way in the game; do you think it used to work the same way in historical battles?

now, to be serious, i felt just like javolenus (disgusted at the luck factor and wondering if i should dismiss the game at all) after 10 games; now, after let's say 300 games or more, i keep playing and keep having great fun at it, winning and losing at a 50% rate (i lose if i meet better players or have inferior armies, it's normal) - i think many players didn't have my patience; as for the game being a serious wargame, well, it isn't, IMHO; it's a pity it can't be, mostly because the designers feel it must remain faithful to the TT rules

[Chock]

Have to say I agree with the OP's sentiments here. Regardless of one's preferences for random elements, the game is supposed to be a serious simulation of warfare and it isn't cheap either, not to mention that it's also tied in with the historical research of Osprey's series of books, which by association creates the impression that it should realistically emulate how things would pan out for a real battle based on historical research. So, for example, it's really rather disappointing when you have well-drilled, well-equipped heavy infantry getting their arses kicked by poorly-disciplined and badly-equipped rabbles in a head on clashes. That just smacks of a badly designed bit of software which doesn't do what it says on the tin and certainly doesn't emulate how history tells us things generally worked out. It's difficult to reconcile how the Roman Army managed to create one of the largest empires the earth has ever known if their well trained, well-drilled and lavishly-equipped troops were basically entering a crap-shoot every time they launched an attack. The fact is, against the AI, it just isn't a very good simulation at all.

Al

[TheGrayMouser]

Have to say I agree with the OP's sentiments here. Regardless of one's preferences for random elements, the game is supposed to be a serious simulation of warfare and it isn't cheap either, not to mention that it's also tied in with the historical research of Osprey's series of books, which by association creates the impression that it should realistically emulate how things would pan out for a real battle based on historical research. So, for example, it's really rather disappointing when you have well-drilled, well-equipped heavy infantry getting their arses kicked by poorly-disciplined and badly-equipped rabbles in a head on clashes. That just smacks of a badly designed bit of software which doesn't do what it says on the tin and certainly doesn't emulate how history tells us things generally worked out. It's difficult to reconcile how the Roman Army managed to create one of the largest empires the earth has ever known if their well trained, well-drilled and lavishly-equipped troops were basically entering a crap-shoot every time they launched an attack. The fact is, against the AI, it just isn't a very good simulation at all.

Al

well the Romans did get their buts kicked many times in their long history by poorly equiped rabble. Nor were the roman legions alway well equiped or well disciplined. The very general "examples' you are giving really are relativley small isolated cases of extreme fortunes of war (ie dice rolls) How much you let that small 5% or so of oddities you see in a game effect your overall satisfaction is up to you. i would like one poster (btw I am not picking on you personally) who states the combat mechanism is bogusly unrealistic to describe to me in an exact formulaic way what would be better. (and by no means am i saying fog is the ultimate in simulation either)
Anyway I wont babble on any more as its off topic really, this thread is about luck and not the combat mechanics per se

[TheGrayMouser]

Well i have been thinking about luck in this game since it comes up so much and am wondering for the mathematical players out there (statistics and probobility knowledge)
2 things I have been mulling over:
A
Basically the root is most units get 4 dice vs another units 4 dice in most situations. No matter what poas etc , still 4 dice with only 6 sides and it does seam that this will occasionally (or always ,depending on your persective0 cause wild swings of fortune.

Now what if we proportionally doubled the amount of dice rolls for all units in all comnbat situations(NOT cmts or CT tests ) Ie heavies would get 8 dice, lights 4 , scythed chariots 12 (in impact) etc etc Would the larger # of dice (all other factors remaining the same) average out the outomes and create a happier mean? or would it make no differnce? i am challenged in this area of math so I really dont know... If it would smooth out the more extreme results, more of a bell curve then maybe it should be worth considering, especially since it seems (for a non programmer) something that could be easily done.

B
# of casualties in combat. Now i have likly changed my mind on this in the past few weeks. Prior I never was really concerned about % casualties , and especially the wide variances that many players were seeing and wanting to be mitigated. I guess i felt it wasnt really a big deal or just didnt pay much attention. However The last 20 games or so i have played i have been paying close attention(likly promted cause it comes up here so many times) Also, recently I have been playing a lot of games where I am facing symetrical armies where every thing in theory is equal (except the rolls) Now i really understand how this bothers people. i have seen games where entire pike lines shatter from autorouts w/o a single cohesion loss prior to the rout. In one extreme example i had 2 Swiss pike charge an enemy Swiss pike who was down hill. In one turn of impact combat (yes one turn) that full strength enemy unit literally evaporated from 2 impact hits from causulaties alone. Anyway, i do agee(90% sure) that the % casualties should be trimmed down , whether its via a bell curve or if the % ranges are merely tightened up, whatever it takes.

[stockwellpete]

i would like one poster who states the combat mechanism is bogusly unrealistic to describe to me in an exact formulaic way what would be better.

Well, there was that thread a while back that had a poll about the combat results and a lot of players said that they would like to see a modification of the randomness of results - and they were talking about a "bell curve" that would reduce the frequency of "extreme" results. And reading all that I agreed with them that that could be one way to proceed. So there would still be a "luck element", it just wouldn't be so big.

I have been playing the game for about 4 months now and I am just starting to get my head round the finer points of the rules and mechanisms - and I think it was one of the beta-testers who said that the maximum number of POA's in combat any unit can achieve is two. I have the combat resolution details switched on now and I don't think that I have ever seen a unit get 3 POA's so that information must be correct. So my thought is - why not increase the maximum POA's to three? And then you could start having your 15% or 20% losses in a turn and that would reward players who, say, have got height advantage with their armoured units holding heavy weapons against protected medium foot or missile units.

What I have trouble accepting is a sequence where, say, two currour units (mounted War of the Roses troops) clash and the charging unit loses 3% in the first melee phase and the defending unit loses 6% (this is fine so far), but then in the next round one of the units loses 20% to the other units 2% - and you think, well, what can possibly be the reason for this happening suddenly when both units are "steady" at the start and are in open terrain. If it happened on impact you could possibly explain it by momentum or by taking the opposition by surprise.

So my view is that the designers really need to change this - FOG is a really good computer game and it has a lot of wonderful features, but it could be a really superb game if some of these "broken" elements were addressed (the power of horde armies is another serious issue). I know that those of us who come on this forum are a minority of those who actually play the game, but somewhere around two-thirds to three -quarters of us have expressed reservations about the current combat results system (in that poll). I feel that this is quite significant really.

[76mm]

I suspect many new players see the example in the first post as three attacks (I did) but this from the "manual" needs to be kept in mind:

A battle group retains the die roll from its initial impact combat in a single player turn, and uses that same die roll in all subsequent cohesion tests from losing an impact combat in a single player turn.

This is one of the things that drives me crazy in this game. I can attack with one BG, or six, and if the initial die roll is crap, I shouldn't even bother. That is to say, I don't bother, after the first attack with a crappy die roll, I divert the other five BGs to some other attack, which is totally gamey. In my view, numerical supremacy, even vast numerical supremacy and surrounding a unit on six sides, is not adequately rewarded in this game.

If luck was a significant factor, then the best players would lose a lot more.

You are suggesting that luck is not a significant factor in this game? Just because some players do better than others does not mean that luck is not a factor. Look at poker or any number of other games to see that some players are simply better than others notwithstanding the fact that luck figures into the game. I've said before that with FoG, I think that you could decide combat with a coin flip and some players would still be better than others, because it is not simply a matter of combats, but dispositions, troops selection, BG positioning, etc.

[stockwellpete]

After all of the debates on this topic on this forum, I am kind of amazed that people are still making this kind of straw man statement...no one is asking for a "determinate system," just one where luck plays a smaller role. Obviously there should be some random element, just a smaller one.

Yes, absolutely right. I don't think anyone has asked for FOG to be like a game of chess.

[Javolenus]

Many thanks indeed for all the replies and excellent advice. Reading the replies above has been very instructive. Basically, I've misunderstood the premise of the game. I assumed it was a combat sim and that real world tactics would apply. But I now know this is not the case. I can also see that luck will play a big part in battles and that a fair amount of experience will be needed in order to play the game effectively. Based on my experiences as a newcomer, I would recommend the following:

1. Clearly explain the luck factor in an up-to-date manual
2. Perhaps reduce the luck factor or have a 'luck reduction' option (presuming these ideas are possible)
3. Include an option in multiplayer to request a training game
4. Include annotated training games in single-player, which illustrate the game mechanics
5. Include an option in multiplayer where a game result will default if you do not move within an agreed time (e.g. 7 days)

Well, these are just idle thoughts - maybe they're not possible to implement?

[76mm]

5. Include an option in multiplayer where a game result will default if you do not move within an agreed time (e.g. 7 days)

I believe this is already there, but the period is 30 days, which makes sense given vacations, travel, etc.

[Jernau77]

As I mentioned up thread, I'm still a newb at this game and I've only played the AI so far, but here's my opinion for what it's worth.

I think partially the problem may lie with the tabletop roots of the rules. Combat calculation in the computer version is a two tier system: dice hits + casualty percentage. I think the former is probably ok: the biggest swing you'll usually see is 4 hits to 0, but POA modifiers, quality re-rolls and numerical superiority (in reducing dice number) balance this, and I think extreme results should be fairly rare.

The big problem I feel is with the casualty calculation, and I think this is where the big luck comes in. If I'm reading the help files correctly, a unit suffering two hits and inflicting one during dice rolling in melee combat can suffer 14% casualties and inflict only 0.25%. So you've turned a relatively balanced, 2-1 (out of 4), result in the hit rolling (which is, as far as I can tell, where all the modifiers come in), into a huge disparity in number of casualties. I think it's this mechanic which leads to results like balanced match ups causing 200 casualties on one side and 5 on the other, which seems kind of silly. Worse, if I'm reading things right, cohesion testing then depends again on the hits rolled, not casualties, so you can be taking big casualties (compared to what you're inflicting), without much degradation in cohesion state, leading to auto-routs. Now, I don't know what the casualty percentage distribution is like for each hit band, but I suspect that it's far too broad, leading to the frequent extreme results that people see.

So, from what I've seen so far, I think the main problem with the game rules, and the reason why people complain about luck, is in the way hit numbers get turned into casualty percentages, and the relation of these to cohesion tests.

By the way, a point I've felt might be related to this is that total casualties from a battle seem far too high. Against the AI I've often had battles where the defeated army suffers 50% casualties, which to me seems extremely high for an average quality army, if you consider that in ancient times a lot of the casualties suffered by the losers would come in the pursuit, after the army breaks, which is largely outside the scope of the game.

[76mm]

By the way, a point I've felt might be related to this is that total casualties from a battle seem far too high. Against the AI I've often had battles where the defeated army suffers 50% casualties, which to me seems extremely high for an average quality army, if you consider that in ancient times a lot of the casualties suffered by the losers would come in the pursuit, after the army breaks, which is largely outside the scope of the game.

Totally agree, every battle is a bloodbath, even for the victors. Just feels totally wrong, especially how quickly casualities accumulate.

[IainMcNeil]

On the historial accuracy we are sure this is one of the best models of ancient warfare. There is extensive research in to why combat results have the non deterministic outcomes and the FoG tabletop section can explain these to you as this is where the original designers live. They can give you battle reports to back up every decision that has been made in the design.

Our research is extensive and overthrows many common misconceptions about what did or didn't happen in ancient battles. Did the best equipped troops always win - no. Did it vary by as much as our results vary - yes.

The skill in this game is to plan for the worst but hope for the best.

The same players will always be at the top of the pile in a tournament showing the skill is more important than the luck. All the evidence supports this.

I understand that some people would prefer each combat to have less randomness and this is fine, but to suggest it is not realistic is not backed up by the research we have conducted and the evidence we have found.

[hidde]

As I mentioned up thread, I'm still a newb at this game and I've only played the AI so far, but here's my opinion for what it's worth.

I think partially the problem may lie with the tabletop roots of the rules. Combat calculation in the computer version is a two tier system: dice hits + casualty percentage. I think the former is probably ok: the biggest swing you'll usually see is 4 hits to 0, but POA modifiers, quality re-rolls and numerical superiority (in reducing dice number) balance this, and I think extreme results should be fairly rare.

The big problem I feel is with the casualty calculation, and I think this is where the big luck comes in. If I'm reading the help files correctly, a unit suffering two hits and inflicting one during dice rolling in melee combat can suffer 14% casualties and inflict only 0.25%. So you've turned a relatively balanced, 2-1 (out of 4), result in the hit rolling (which is, as far as I can tell, where all the modifiers come in), into a huge disparity in number of casualties. I think it's this mechanic which leads to results like balanced match ups causing 200 casualties on one side and 5 on the other, which seems kind of silly. Worse, if I'm reading things right, cohesion testing then depends again on the hits rolled, not casualties, so you can be taking big casualties (compared to what you're inflicting), without much degradation in cohesion state, leading to auto-routs. Now, I don't know what the casualty percentage distribution is like for each hit band, but I suspect that it's far too broad, leading to the frequent extreme results that people see.

So, from what I've seen so far, I think the main problem with the game rules, and the reason why people complain about luck, is in the way hit numbers get turned into casualty percentages, and the relation of these to cohesion tests.

By the way, a point I've felt might be related to this is that total casualties from a battle seem far too high. Against the AI I've often had battles where the defeated army suffers 50% casualties, which to me seems extremely high for an average quality army, if you consider that in ancient times a lot of the casualties suffered by the losers would come in the pursuit, after the army breaks, which is largely outside the scope of the game.

Thanks Antonio, my thoughts exactly. Now I don't have to write all that
Here is the casualty percentage:

Calculate manpower losses?
Depending upon the number of hits the losses inflicted will vary randomly:
If a battle group received more hits than it inflicted:
0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
1 hit : 2% to 9%
2 hits : 5% to 14%
3 hits : 9% to 18%
4 hits : 12% to 24%
5 hits : 17% to 27%
6 hits : 22% to 28%

[Chock]

i would like one poster (btw I am not picking on you personally) who states the combat mechanism is bogusly unrealistic to describe to me in an exact formulaic way what would be better. (and by no means am i saying fog is the ultimate in simulation either)

Okay here's one example of how I think things can sometimes be poor because of cookie cutter automated AI responses which don't emulate how things probably really would be (this is a genuine incident I had a couple of evenings ago and you'll certainly recognise this one yourself ):

I had what were supposedly well-disciplined cavalry on the left flank of my force mount a quick dash across open terrain to engage some light infantry on the right flank of the enemy force which had advanced from out of some wooded terrain into the open. As one would expect, my cavalry attack on this probing assault turned out well initially, where my cavalry engaged lightly armed troops out in the open. However, as a result of this the enemy routed, turning tail and dashing back into the wooded area from which they had emerged. The problem is, my cavalry then automatically went chasing after them into a wooded area where there were other troops outflanking them in the centre of the enemy force who simply had to wheel around to find my cavalry in amongst trees, turning what was a smart move on my part into a disaster waiting to happen thanks to the simple automatic 'troops chase after routed enemies' AI.

Are we really to accept that well-disciplined cavalry would do such a thing, placing themselves in such a poor situation after having carried out a successful slashing attack of the kind cavalry are supposed to perform? Needless to say, the cavalry in question found themselves then in trouble, which should not have happened if they had behaved as any well-trained cavalry would in reality: i.e. seeing off the enemy I initially sent them to engage, and then returning to my own lines to await another such opportunity. Any student of military history knows that's what cavalry should and indeed would have done, and especially cavalry that are supposed to be well disciplined, with experience of combat.

So the problem here is just one of many, in that soldiers automatically race after any routing enemy, regardless of the terrain they run into on such a chase, nor with any regard to the placement of other units which might cause problems from them having done so. This is an example of a poor AI response to what should be a successful outcome, which in no way emulates how experienced soldiers would behave and certainly not cavalry who can see further than foot soldiers by virtue of the fact that they are in an elevated position on horseback. Sure, have inexperienced troops occasionally gleefully pursue a routing enemy into a trap - that's happened plenty of times in history - but would well-drilled and combat-savvy experienced soldiers fall for that one?

To paraphrase Cliff Robertson's Lt Lawson character in my favourite war movie of all time, Too Late the Hero: You don't have to be the goddam Duke of Wellington to know that's not a smart move.

Al

[Jernau77]

On the historial accuracy we are sure this is one of the best models of ancient warfare. There is extensive research in to why combat results have the non deterministic outcomes and the FoG tabletop section can explain these to you as this is where the original designers live. They can give you battle reports to back up every decision that has been made in the design.

Our research is extensive and overthrows many common misconceptions about what did or didn't happen in ancient battles. Did the best equipped troops always win - no. Did it vary by as much as our results vary - yes.

I'm not questioning the historical accuracy of the game, and personally, despite all the discussion about randomness, I think it gets the broad picture about right. There's maybe one or two things that I'd expect to be different, but they're really more minor quibbles than serious issues. In any case, I'd argue that the paucity of sources and the general uncertainty about many of the aspects of ancient warfare will always leave some room open for discussion, and so there can never be a definite model, which just means that the designers should be allowed some leeway in how they interpret things.

But while I'm sure the tabletop rules were extensively researched, I feel that maybe something was lost in translation when making the digital version rules. Like I said, I would argue that the whole hit and POA system, which I suspect was probably lifted more or less in its entirety from the tabletop version, is broadly correct and is mostly not where people's issues come from. I think the main culprit here is the casualty calculation. I would go as far as saying that the average values, from the table hidde posted, are probaly in the right ballpark (related to base losses in the tabletop version, maybe?), but that their variance is too large, giving extreme differences too many times. And please notice that I'm not saying those extreme results shouldn't happen, just that they're happening too often. Could you consider publishing the rules for that, just so people can have an idea?

PS: By the way, and sorry for the thread hijack, but since my question in the forum seems to have slipped unnoticed and I would like to give you more money , could you please confirm that expansions bought from matrix are compatible with the base version from Slitherine? Thanks.

[Jernau77]

Are we really to accept that well-disciplined cavalry would do such a thing, placing themselves in such a poor situation after having carried out a successful slashing attack of the kind cavalry are supposed to perform? Needless to say, the cavalry in question found themselves then in trouble, which should not have happened if they had behaved as any well-trained cavalry would in reality: i.e. seeing off the enemy I initially sent them to engage, and then returning to my own lines to await another such opportunity. Any student of military history knows that's what cavalry should and indeed would have done, and especially cavalry that are supposed to be well disciplined, with experience of combat.

Actually, and pardon me for saying so, but I think that's not a very good example, because I think the answer to your question is a very big yes. Again and again you read accounts of ancient battles which were lost because victorious cavalry went off in pursuit of their defeated opponents, heedless of the actual battle situation. Granted that these are more examples of cavalry running off the field rather than exposing themselves to flank attacks, but the point stands that controlling victorious cavalry, no matter how well disciplined, was one of the toughest things to do in an ancient battlefield. You'd probably have a better point with infantry moving out of line to pursue routed opponents.

[Morbio]

If luck was a significant factor, then the best players would lose a lot more.

You are suggesting that luck is not a significant factor in this game? Just because some players do better than others does not mean that luck is not a factor. Look at poker or any number of other games to see that some players are simply better than others notwithstanding the fact that luck figures into the game. I've said before that with FoG, I think that you could decide combat with a coin flip and some players would still be better than others, because it is not simply a matter of combats, but dispositions, troops selection, BG positioning, etc.

I'm not suggesting it plays no part, simply that it isn't the biggest factor. Now thinking what I have just written I'm wondering if it is as simple as I write? Maybe for the better players it is less of a factor because they have alternate plans and options in mind and so aren't dependent on individual combats going with the percentages. Maybe it's also because the better players stack so many of the various combat factors in their favour that the luck is simply a smaller effect. Conversely, for those players that don't have plan Bs etc. and build on the assumption that every combat stacked in their favour will go in their favour, and perhaps don't maximise their combat factors, then any unlucky roll, or set of rolls, will cause a more catastrophic effect to their plans.

For sure, and Iain supports this with his comments a few posts ago, the better players win consistently. If luck was a big factor then the spread of wins would even out as the luck did. I certainly don't subscribe to a player being lucky... unless it's the Gary Player lucky (I paraphrase here... when asked if he was a lucky player he replied: "The more I practice the luckier I get").

Are we really to accept that well-disciplined cavalry would do such a thing, placing themselves in such a poor situation after having carried out a successful slashing attack of the kind cavalry are supposed to perform? Needless to say, the cavalry in question found themselves then in trouble, which should not have happened if they had behaved as any well-trained cavalry would in reality: i.e. seeing off the enemy I initially sent them to engage, and then returning to my own lines to await another such opportunity. Any student of military history knows that's what cavalry should and indeed would have done, and especially cavalry that are supposed to be well disciplined, with experience of combat.

I agree with the sentiments of what's written here, I suffer the frustrations when this happens to me too. However, I wonder if we are making judgements based on our perception of historical reality. Many ancient armies were not professional soldiers (in the modern sense) and their values and beliefs were different from ours. Certainly if we judge this by the professionalism of the 19th century onwards then you are right to criticise the behaviour quoted. However, in a time when individual bravery was highly respected and honoured and many believed that dieing in battle to be an ultimate honour that would lead to a wonderful afterlife and many really wanted and needed the loot they could get from killing the routers then is the behaviour described so outrageous? Is it more likely to occur than not? I genuinely don't know the answer to the question, I'm not well-read enough of genuine historical documents to judge. I've read some of the easily available opinions, that people write but I can't say that these opinions are right or wrong. I suspect that the foolish behaviour (judged by our standards) was more prevalent than we'd like to think. IMO then some sort of CMT should occur before any unit follows a router into unfavourable terrain, or massed enemy (e.g. lines of pikes) with a plus if the unit is drilled. I certainly think it should be allowed to happen, just less often than it seems to.

[Javolenus]

I think one of the big issues here relates to newcomers like myself: A) how the game is sold to newcomers, relating to B) what newcomers expect. I expected an Ancient-world tactical combat based on real-world tactics and outcomes. I found little ingame documentation telling me what to expect. I found general advice like 'protect your flanks' and so on.

My original post was prompted by bewilderment at combat resolution outcomes. Having read through the replies above, it seems there is an ongoing debate. Seems to me that, underneath the accessible, smooth, game design (rightly praised) is a whole other game based on table-top rules that newbies like me are unfamiliar with. Not sure I would have bought the game in the first place if I'd known all this. Now that I have, the question is whether or not to heave myself up the learning curve?

I think the comment above to 'plan for the worst' while 'hoping for the best' is good advice and should actually appear ingame. In other words, to avoid repetitions of this thread, the game needs to come clean and let newbies know how to play it. No buyer of electronic games should have to consult forums to learn how to play their game, much less be obliged to purchase 'the rules' - it should be a complete package. Yes?