FOG - 50% Skill, 50% Luck?

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 2:42 pm

If the casualties are less random, then would something have to be done with missile and melee factors to even it out? I dont have a problem with the casualties. They allow some of the trash armies to attrit the super trooper armies. You dont want everyone playing, Pike lists or Roman lists. So if anything is done, hopefully the net results would be the same as it is now, just not the all or nothing.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 3:29 pm

I tend to go back and fouth on the causaulty thing but currently i think it should remain as is , although perhaps tightening up the overlapping ranges might be ok. The problem is i think if causualties are tightened too much (meaning using a mean average etc ) will cause some unbalancing . Superior units will be more powerful and Elites will be virtually indestructible. When is th last time you routed an Elite via cohesion hits alone? Usually you need to hammer them down to 37% before they break. Also, i know people dont like the "luck" factor but if causualties are "standardised", then the luck of the "cohesion test" pass/ fail will really come into play.

Missles should remain as is with no tweaking at all.

mceochaidh · Post by **mceochaidh** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 6:37 pm

I am also glad that Iain is going to look at casualty rates, as I think it is a major issue that can be changed with very little programming. My suggestion, at the risk of repeatedly repeating myself:

"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.

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:06 pm

Well historically there lots of instances of units folding quickly. In quite a few battle Alexander charged with his elite cav units and broke a flank. This happened quickly. We can't do that now. If casualties are normalized, can we have the artificial constraint of only dropping 2 cohesive levels removed?

So we can punch through and possibly have a little more dynamic battle. Currently charging mounted are way to expensive. (Look at S&S lists)

At least this way they have a chance of shattering some units at impact and following up through a hole to get to someone's rear. Just a thought.

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:39 pm

Hmm Ziggy, i think players that are looking for causalties to be more uniformly spread are looking to make combats last longer, not break thrus or over runs. i do kinda of agree though, would be nice to have knights plow thru(literally) /overrun a shallow line of crossbows or bidets (LOL) and not get stuck in 5 rounds of melee cause now they are "attached" to the units flanking same said unit....

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:38 pm

If we are interested in realistic results, which is what we are all shooting for in one way or another. More realistic battlelines in 1 feature, but also we need to make Alexanders heroics possible, Some of the mongol feint routes possible. The current casualty system occationally allows you to attrit through missile fire and then get a charge that will break something important. With normalized casualties that is less likely and the horde armies get stronger. I dont think anyone wants that.

Another option I thought of in the hirding cats vein is if a LF or LC evades off the board they count as broken and 2 BP's. They are so hard to catch, that would make people use them historically so they evade behind HF or cats. If you manage to finally get one to evade off the board, you should get rewarded more than 1 point.

I would also like to see us have control over break offs. (If in command range) The current system is not great.

mceochaidh · Post by **mceochaidh** » Tue Apr 19, 2011 10:31 pm

To Ziggy and the TGM's comments on cavalry, I played a miniatures rule set (George Gush's Renaissance War rules) that handled cavalry charges very well. Cavalry charges would either cause very little affect or be devastating. I think they should be handled differently than infantry charges. Heavy infantry charges against enemy heavy foot, if delivered by equal quality troops in good order, would usually result in prolonged mele.

Cavalry charges, on the other hand, would be delivered against heavy foot in the hope that the enemy foot flinched and the cavalry would break into the formation. At that point, both sides would be disordered but the cavalry would have the advantage of weight and momentum. Once breaking into a formation, the probability of breaking the infantry unit would be very high. Gush's rules allowed that, if the infantry broken into were not routed on the first turn of mele, then the cavalry would actually break through the infantry formation and end up behind the infantry. Casualties were very high for the infantry broken into.

If the cavalry charge and fail to break into the infantry formation, then casualties would be light on each side and the cavalry would bounce back. In FOG terms, I think if steady infantry lose an impact to cavalry, they should become automatically disrupted, taking a cohesion test as disrupted. This simulates the cavalry "breaking into" the formation. I would allow the cavalry to remain steady. If the infantry fail cohesion, they become fragmented. Then there would be a mele round with the cavalry. See how long those light foot stand when being caught by heavy cavalry under this system!

If cavalry lose an impact to steady foot, the cavalry would withdraw BEFORE any mele round, becoming disordered. Once recovering their order, the cavalry would charge again. If I remember my Arrian, he describes the charges of the Companion cavalry as multiple charges in their wedges. Charge, re-group and charge again.

I am only suggesting this system for cavalry charging infantry as their impact target, as I think the FOG combat mechanism works fine except for this circumstance (although I still suggest reducing the frequency of wild combat results as above.) This may sound sound somewhat radical, but will produce more dynamic cavalry action that I think is more realistic.

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:06 am

I have played GUSH's rules as well and I dont think they really apply to this period. They were a bit more tactical than FOG. There were subunits inside swiss pike blocks and all kinds of things. They were a renaissance set and cover a much later period. Mounted shock were pretty much supermen. I do like the mechanic of break throughs, but I do not think they apply to this period except maybe for roman armies and elephants.

mceochaidh · Post by **mceochaidh** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 3:20 am

Xiggy,

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that the breakthrough part of Gush's rules be used for cavalry. I think that would be a stretch for FOG PC to accomodate. I am suggesting that cavalry charges against foot may be considered differently than cav vs cav or foot versus foot. In fact, they already are treated differently, with cavalry retiring after a mele in certain circumstances. I am suggesting that the timing of this retirement may be re-considered, as well the result of a successfull impact.

On the luck versus skill issue, I think there is an element of luck in FOG, but games are primarily determined by skill.

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Wed Apr 20, 2011 1:57 pm

Ok,

I think breakoffs/retires are one of the weakest points of the FOG PC system. Evades still are somewhat odd as well.

Geordietaf · Post by **Geordietaf** » Thu Apr 21, 2011 9:24 pm

I would also like to see LF being able to break off from MF/HF.

Old_Warrior · Post by **Old_Warrior** » Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:39 pm

John Tiller has an option in his game engines for combat for both melee and fire combat. There is less of a variance of losses and frankly I always turn that one on. Now while it did happen that losses were heavy or really light from fire I am seeing quite a variance of losses. Any where from 1 to 40 losses from some of my bow and sling units. Some shots higher.

One thing that I am noting that is really odd: I am seeing light to medium infantry getting in better losses against heavy infantry in the melees. Was this intentional? Seems like it works out better to send in the lights at times. That is really odd ...

Had some combats lately really go south. Hit in flank by good troops but fail to do more damage. In this case it was a Superior Drilled Legion infantry unit against a German undrilled unit. Hit in rear, etc. No effect other than disrupt it. Losses were actually more in favor of the Germans! Really odd.

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:56 pm

What were the die rolls? If the superior legions rolled badly, including any rerolls, and the germans rolled well then that would explain it. Any time I get what appears to be an exteme result I look at the dice & usually see why.

I'm not sure that I understand the benefit of reducing the losses on the combat results as proposed above. Perhaps someone could explain.

Cheers

Old_Warrior · Post by **Old_Warrior** » Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:31 pm

Ok - dumb question - where I can see the die rolls?

davouthojo · Post by **davouthojo** » Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:14 am

You can see the die rolls by switching on the detailed information

Suggest you press 'p' next game, and 'h' if you are a detail-junkie (like me!)

http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/Hotke ... +mechanics

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Tue Apr 26, 2011 9:02 am

You're not the only detail junkie! Wonder if it comes from having played TT games and that pure PC gamers think we're mad wanting this level of detail?

Xiggy · Post by **Xiggy** » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:51 pm

Probably the grognard control freak in me wants that kind of detail.

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 10:27 pm

iainmcneil wrote:The casualties is an area I would like to tighten up but have not got round to.

Any news on this front Iain? Some of the bizarre melee results I am getting in my games are really starting to do my head in - it really does spoil the game, in my opinion - and it does mean that I will be spending less money on FOG in future.

For instance, if you have two lines of Swiss pikes (4 BG's of mercenaries each, say) charging into each other on open ground then the melee results should not be something like 17-1, 2-15, 10-0 and 3-2. This happens far too often for my liking and it is plainly bonkers.

Whereas they should more usually be something like 8-8, 6-9, 10-6 and 5-5 - and only occasionally might you get an extreme result like 10-1 or 15-2.

deeter · Post by **deeter** » Sat Sep 03, 2011 11:15 pm

Hear, hear!

Deeter

stockwellpete · Post by **stockwellpete** » Sun Sep 04, 2011 8:42 am

Another example from a recent game. I had a mounted knight leader unit, 100% strength, that attacked an enemy non-leader mounted knight unit that was at 85% strength on upen ground. I lost the combat 17-1 even though my unit was higher quality (leader) and more numerous at the outset (by 15%). What possible reason can there be for a result like this? Did a flock of seagulls fly into my men at the point of impact or something? Completely barmy.

A good result for the smaller force would have been 8-8 or something like that - i.e. they had held their ground and then maybe other units could have moved up to support them in subsequent turns of melee.