The above quote from Iain and my response was from Feb 18th, 2011, and was part of a long list of comments from many contributors. Since I have lately seen a request from Iain for ideas regarding game play, I am taking the opportunity to solicit ideas from the group.Iain said "It's true that some things have changed because of the digital adaption. Casualty rates completely different because they are much more ganular on the tabletop. You either lose a base or not (representing about 25% of your battle group strength) when you get a hit. The chance of losing a base is 16.6% per hit. So 3 hits is a 50% chance.
This means the digital version can much better deal with the gradual errosion of battlegroups. The % damage may be off but if we change it there could be serious balance issues. We can certainly have a look at it. Maybe we should make each category have less variance and not overlap. E.g. 1 hit should not go to a max % that is above 2 hits min %. We've already used randonmess to determine the hits so no need to use it again to determine the spread to such a large degree."
"I am very encouraged that Iain and his group would be willing to revisit the variability of combat results. The poll I conducted in the fall showed that 2 in 3 players responding were in favor of reducing the frequency of wild combat results. I have suggested a modest change in the form of a bell curve applied to the manpower loss tables. This approach would not change the overall percentage chances of receiving losses, but would reduce the frequency of the extreme percentages. In the example of receiving 2 hits, a manpower loss of 14% may only occur 1 time in twenty (5% of the time) instead of one time in ten (10% of the time). This would result in generally longer combats with battle lines staying intact longer. This change, in my opinion, would not materially affect game balance. The wild results would still occur, just not as frequently."
In order to best help prioritize the ideas for the design group, I would like to request that interested responders 1) limit their responses to the two most important areas to change and 2) include a way to make the change without much or any programming. I think this is important due to limited design staff time available. It is obviously fine with me if responders have the same top issues, but a diferent solution.
The above quote details issue number 1 for me and includes my solution, which would be easy to implement.
Issue number 2 for me is the lack of a unit command structure in the PC. In the TT version, the concept of a "battle Line" is used to combine BGs for movement. I have suggested different solutions to this issue, but lately have been playtesting in DAG games a very simple change. If a BG is not in command range, I reduce its movement allowance by 1. For example, if I am moving a medium foot BG with a movement allowance of 3, I click on the unit to show me the possible moves which are highlighted and then check to see if in command range. If not, I reduce the move by 1 hex. This is not hard to do and produces a very interesting change in the game. Pike units no longer take walks in the country by themselves; they tend to stay with they fellow pikes. I have to plan ahead for wide sweeping moves by medium foot or cavalry. I use all of the generals available. It makes games against the AI a little more interesting. This change would impact heavy foot more so than other troops, but all are affected. The biggest benefit to me is that it provides more realistic, historically accurate behavior (as well as moving more towards the TT rules.)
Ultimately, I play FOG in the hopes of getting a flavour of how combat was played out 1000 to 2000 years ago. I know that no game can be the same as real combat, but a balance of historical accuracy and playability. I think the changes I have suggested would move FOG in the direction of being more historical, without sacrificing playability or game balance. In fact, I think the two changes would compliment each other. The slight reduction of wild combat swings would tend to make melees last a little longer and the change in movement when out of command would motivate heavy and medium foot to stay in battleline.
I hope (and expect knowing our forum group) for other ideas that could be considered and acted upon by the design team in the near future. I think that it is very important to continue to evolve the core game, as has been done lately, for example, with the addition of the map choices.
