combat resolution? Non comprende!

[CheerfullyInsane]

@ Cheerful
BTW #'s do count in impact although not directly... If you impact a unit and disrupt it (or cause enough casualties to have it lose a size POA), you do have a choice to charge another BG into it and reap the POA benefits etc. Isnt this enough, especially as yu get to control the order in which you charge units?

Well.... no. *LOL*
Especially given that even if you can 'gain the benefits', you still can't make the target drop any further in cohesion.
Or in other words, you can have 4 BGs charging the same unit without any further advantages than had you used 2, aside from the additional losses that may happen.
In fact, given that a Steady unit will have pretty good odds of inflicting a hit on each attacker, you'd be better off using only the one unit, wait a turn, and then charge with the next, using the first one in melee afterwards.
So a dribble is more powerful than a flat-out charge.....
I agree that any turn-based game will have some oddities because it has to be structured into distinct phases, but not penalizing a unit for multiple attackers is IMO just plain wrong.

As for a consensus.....Well, we're wargamers.
Put 10 wargamers in a room, and you'll get 12 different opinions, 6 alliances and usually a fist-fight if the discussion goes on for long enough

Lars

[TheGrayMouser]

As for a consensus.....Well, we're wargamers.
Put 10 wargamers in a room, and you'll get 12 different opinions, 6 alliances and usually a fist-fight if the discussion goes on for long enough

Lars

Imagine what would happen if there was actually such a thing as female wargamers in same said room

[76mm]

In fact, given that a Steady unit will have pretty good odds of inflicting a hit on each attacker, you'd be better off using only the one unit, wait a turn, and then charge with the next, using the first one in melee afterwards.
So a dribble is more powerful than a flat-out charge.....
I agree that any turn-based game will have some oddities because it has to be structured into distinct phases, but not penalizing a unit for multiple attackers is IMO just plain wrong.

This is exactly what I was trying to express, Cheerfully said it more clearly.

[76mm]

Imagine what would happen if there was actually such a thing as female wargamers in same said room

Let's not get silly...

[hidde]

Or in other words, you can have 4 BGs charging the same unit without any further advantages than had you used 2, aside from the additional losses that may happen.
In fact, given that a Steady unit will have pretty good odds of inflicting a hit on each attacker, you'd be better off using only the one unit, wait a turn, and then charge with the next, using the first one in melee afterwards.
So a dribble is more powerful than a flat-out charge.....

Not sure I'll agree. I find the advantage if ganging up on a BG big enough for me to charge in with all I have even if the attacked unit stay steady.
Depends on the situation around it but if it's isolated I certainly do it.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Not sure I'll agree. I find the advantage if ganging up on a BG big enough for me to charge in with all I have even if the attacked unit stay steady.
Depends on the situation around it but if it's isolated I certainly do it.

There's obviously an advantage to ganging up on a unit. My point is that this advantage doesn't manifest itself until the next turn, where melee-combat kicks in.
All you're doing when impacting with multiple units is increasing the odds of your own losses.
Bear in mind that the losses sustained in a --POA attack are exactly the same as a -POA attack.

And to add insult to injury, if the target rolls a 12 for cohesion, he'll quite happily stand there and slaughter each individual attacker as they come in, with exactly the same odds, and no chance of breaking.

Let's not get silly...

Too late...

Lars

[hidde]

My point is that this advantage doesn't manifest itself until the next turn, where melee-combat kicks in.

My point is that it's enough for me

And to add insult to injury, if the target rolls a 12 for cohesion, he'll quite happily stand there and slaughter each individual attacker as they come in, with exactly the same odds, and no chance of breaking.

There is no chance to disrupt him, that's true but if understand what's been said (and what I've seen) the combat can still go in the attackers favour. So it's not a given that he slaughter each attacker.

[Jernau77]

There's obviously an advantage to ganging up on a unit. My point is that this advantage doesn't manifest itself until the next turn, where melee-combat kicks in.

One question, since I'm not very familiar with the game yet: doesn't melee combat kick in during the opponent's turn? In that case, it might be important to push more units in to increase the odds of the melee going your way during his turn, particularly if the first impact combat went badly.

By the way, while I understand the argument that numbers don't matter much during impact, I think it forgets the fact that units have different frontage (that is, you have more men for the same length in a phalanx than in a barbarian unit). It's certainly a minor point, and I think for the abstraction level of the game things work well as they are, but in truth there should be a (slight) difference.

[76mm]

There is no chance to disrupt him, that's true but if understand what's been said (and what I've seen) the combat can still go in the attackers favour. So it's not a given that he slaughter each attacker.

Maybe this is one of those misconceptions that the devs overturned, but to my mind, I would think that a unit would be more likely to break if outnumbered/overpowered at the impact stage, when the two units first clash together. I guess it is hard to say what is "realistic" but it sure seems to me that if you are charged by a unit which outnumbers you three to one, you are fairly likely to break right away.

[TheGrayMouser]

There's obviously an advantage to ganging up on a unit. My point is that this advantage doesn't manifest itself until the next turn, where melee-combat kicks in.

One question, since I'm not very familiar with the game yet: doesn't melee combat kick in during the opponent's turn? In that case, it might be important to push more units in to increase the odds of the melee going your way during his turn, particularly if the first impact combat went badly.

By the way, while I understand the argument that numbers don't matter much during impact, I think it forgets the fact that units have different frontage (that is, you have more men for the same length in a phalanx than in a barbarian unit). It's certainly a minor point, and I think for the abstraction level of the game things work well as they are, but in truth there should be a (slight) difference.

Exactly Antonio. Although I would argue its better to do it when the ist impact goes well, in most situations
Guys I guess Im not making my point clear,.. I get to chose which unit I impact ist (if I have the luxery of outnumbering an solo enemy BG. I can chose the one w the best odds and If i disrupt him, all the follow up impacts on that unit will be at a great advantage POA wise, the enemy bg will be down a dice for being disrupted, if its a pike or spear it will lose a POA, if by the time the 4th unit impacts it, it could very well, be so attiited in % losses it might lose a further dice or POA
In my opinion, this is enough of an advantage

[TheGrayMouser]

There is no chance to disrupt him, that's true but if understand what's been said (and what I've seen) the combat can still go in the attackers favour. So it's not a given that he slaughter each attacker.

Maybe this is one of those misconceptions that the devs overturned, but to my mind, I would think that a unit would be more likely to break if outnumbered/overpowered at the impact stage, when the two units first clash together. I guess it is hard to say what is "realistic" but it sure seems to me that if you are charged by a unit which outnumbers you three to one, you are fairly likely to break right away.

I guess you didnt try my TW example a couple posts back...
What about football? two lines of line backers smack into eachother, it takes a few moments for the lines to rupture or have weight of #s come into play correct?
Anyway, how would you guys rather had impact work to give xtra power to the attacker? Each sequential unit gets an xtra Dice? Defender loses a dice? Bonus POA's? Icant think of anything that wouldnt make the active player always have an overwhelming advantage...

[76mm]

I guess you didnt try my TW example a couple posts back...
What about football? two lines of line backers smack into eachother, it takes a few moments for the lines to rupture or have weight of #s come into play correct?

Indeed I did not try your TW example.

With football I can tell you exactly what I think would happen--if for some reason a line of football players were to be hit with a line with twice as many members, the first line would be flattened or pushed aside very quickly, almost certainly in far less than a minute. If the second line had three times as many players, the first line would be crushed, overrun, on impact.

If by "a few moments" you mean a few seconds, yes, I agree, but since impact takes up the entire first turn of combat I have assumed that the impact turn actually takes an extended period to play out (never thought about how long, but more than a couple of minutes...).

[cothyso]

This is some partial mechanism for the impact phase from the AWG ancient tactical wargame project I am working on (of course, adapted to the FOG game):

One way would be to have the impact round combat results based on support units, (with the results influencing mostly the cohesion of the receiving unit). In this way:
- no overhelming advantage is given to the attacker (as no matter how many units are thrown in charge, only the cohesion of the receiving unit may change)
- battlelines and second lines/commander support would mean lesser chances for the charged BG to drop cohesion
- flanks, isolate units will be overhelmed by the impact with more troops

Cohesion state drops may be in intervals based on the number of supporting units:
- 1 level possible cohesion drop for both flanks secure + rear/commander support (an even lower chance to drop cohesion)
- 2 levels possible cohesion drop for only 1 support (flank/rear/commander)
- 3 levels possible cohesion drop (rout) for single units
Each new charging unit throws the dices according to the above intervals

Also, another possibility (but totally out of current FoG's combat mechanism) would be to have ALL the combat calculations made ONLY AFTER the movement phase. Like in, when his turn begins, a player moves all his troops (movement, charges, picks up the rounds' melee fight for a certain BG from the available options - if more than one presented), and then gives the turn to the next player, moment in which all the combat calculations are made, before the second player starts his own turn. This mechanism would prevent all the successive waves of unit charging the same enemy BG during a single turn.

I won't give up everything I am doing for the AWG project, but there are many, many more ways to balance and do things than the current FoG combat system.

[deeter]

At risk of annoying anyone, I'll mention that the TT rules prohibit ganging up on one unit during impact. Each unit in contact fights only on enemy and any leftover units don't fight at all.

Furthermore, BGs on the TT are multiple stands wide forming one unit whose collective die rolls are compared to another unit's collective die rolls to determine the winner, how big the win was and potential casulalties. It is rare on the TT for one BG to face more than two enemy BGs in melee.

I think it is important to refere to the TT rules because these were extensively play tested whereas the PC rules were not. The TT rules form the foundation of the PC game and many of it's problems arise from where it diverges from the TT rules.

As for casualty determination, I would like to see a very slight range of results. For example: for each die that hits, the base casualties would be 4% with a random change to be either 3% or 5% instead. Thus, if a unit rolls three hits casualties would range between 9% and 15% rather than the current 0% to 24%. This would make it much less likely for a slinger to beat HF which is fairly common today.

Percentages should also be determined by the attacker's strength. I would also like to see a return to different strengths based on unit type as in the original FoG PC release.

Deeter

[cothyso]

Blocking secondary attacks on a BG would only be ok in a battleline vs battleline situation, otherwise would be just a forcing non-natural rule.

[TheGrayMouser]

Percentages should also be determined by the attacker's strength. I would also like to see a return to different strengths based on unit type as in the original FoG PC release.

Deeter

Remember though Deeter that that was a 100% pure eye candy, it had no ingame impact and made no diffence compared to the now standard 300 men per BG
Back in the day the 1500 pike unit taking the 10% hit would lose 150 men , the 500 light foot 50, no diffence at all now with a 300 man Bg , in which case it would lose 30. Same proprtion/ratio, same exact effect.

Now if they just decided to make multiple hex size units.....

[cothyso]

Two hex based units were present in GBCE (for the phalanx units, be them greek, macedonian or persian (cardaces)), and are incorporated into AWG. Their clumsy movement perfectly depicted their ancient counterparts characteristics.

[deeter]

I know it was eye candy, but it was also mind candy. I liked RBS's suggestion to make HF 500, MF and Cav 350 and LF/LH 250. Instead we got 300 across the board.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I know it was eye candy, but it was also mind candy. I liked RBS's suggestion to make HF 500, MF and Cav 350 and LF/LH 250. Instead we got 300 across the board.

Deeter

He he, I miss it too. And if their goal for changing was to stop confusing new players(and old) regarding the # of men they were dead wrong

And yes, GBCE handled the multi hex units very nicely , i think the combat mechanic in FOW is much much better though

[deeter]

I loved the Great Battles board games and the double-sized pike units, although it got a bit fiddly with all the markers needed for cohesion, ammo etc. The computer version was good, but changing the order of initiative messed up the game pretty badly.

Multi-hex markers in FoG would be nice, but to replicate a big Celtic unit would require a six-hex wide marker! That's why I'd like to just see some rule to make units stick together to create larger BGs.

I must confess, when I first heard about FoG PC using hexes and one-hex BGs, my enthusiasm waned considerably for the very reasons being discussed in this thread.

Deeter