Oddest Combat Result Ever!

[Londo]

This is an actual combat result from a recent league game. The situation: Medieval Crown of Aragon vs Wallachians.

A unit of Wallachian peasant archers (Poor LF, Bow) is facing a bunch of mean and nasty Almughavars (Superior MF, Protected, Offensive Spear).

Unfortunately for the Wallachians, they're surrounded with no escape route. The Wallachian player sets them to not evade, so that at least they won't be hit from behind. But alas when the Almugs charge, the Wallachians fail their cohesion roll, and turn around to run (quite understandably), only to get Almug spears in their backsides.

Almugs roll 2,2,2,3 - for one hit.

Wallachians roll 5,5 - two hits!

The Almugs are disrupted! So what happened - did they trip over their shoe laces pursuing the peasants?!

I suppose, you could suggest that one of the archers manages to nail the Almug CO with an arrow, and the unit is so shocked by the loss of their beloved commander that order breaks down. That is the most charitable interpretation I can think of.

But really, folks. If it were up to me, I would be tempted to rewrite the rules as follows:

1) If charged by formed troops in the open, LF and LC must always try to evade.

2) If charged a second time in a turn, LF and LC have a chance to do a second evade move (it may mean exceeding their normal movement allowance for a turn, but sheer terror is a great motivator!).

3) If nonetheless caught in the open, because they are surrounded or they don't get away with their evade move, the LF or LC are scattered and destroyed. Just like that. No roll required.

Harsh you might say, but honestly I can't picture any other outcome.

[TheGrayMouser]

One could argue in their rapid impetuous pursuit, the Almo's disordered themselves during the slaughter


I agree there SHOULD be more penalties in rolling to "hold" position when charged by formed troops , especially in the clear , it shouldnt be impossible though...

I 100% disagree that they should evade twice, now we'd be talking abount movement rates exceeding 10 hexes ( remember also the VMR's)
IMHO light foot already are way too fast for there own good

"Overruns" are a nice idea for some games but really dont fit well with the rest of the FOG mechanics though.....
I'd rather see LF be able to "break off" when facing say Heavy infantry rather than just evaperating... Perhaps additional cohesion test penalties when facing formed troops in open?

[Old_Warrior]

I feel that Light Infantry should only get ONE die roll in combat. Their main reason d'etre is to fire missiles - not fight with daggers.

I hit a POOR LI unit with Superior Cavalry and my unit Disrupted because of lucky die rolls.

The combat system needs this:

LI must hit on a roll of 6.
MI must hit on a roll of 5 or 6.
HI must hit on a roll of 4,5 or 6.

This would expedite melees more where HI is fighting LI or even MI. It would stop the nonsensical melees where the millions of Welsh MI are defeating English dismounted Knights with regularity.

Or go to a d10 system. Similar to the above:

LI must hit on a roll of 9 or 10.
MI must hit on a roll of 8-10.
HI must hit on a roll of 7-10.

LI in melee were worthless unless in terrain. THEN give the LI the bonus die to roll. Deduct a die from the MI and HI when attacking LI in cover.

[chris6]

Actually right now I`m in a lausy streak of bad dicerolling. Sometimes I`m close to deleting the game from my PC `cause it feels like an arrow. I can`t remeber a streak of bad dicerolling like this before in my live. But hey I`m playing in the league and will go on. It`s just a game and I hope to end the bad-dicerolling with every game I start.

[Old_Warrior]

I hope to design a game over the next few years that will remedy the die rolling issues of games. The key thing will be matchup, command status, facing of unit/where attacked, momentum of attacking unit (has it won a melee before, etc) and tactical formation.

Thus the die roll will be merely to add either slight negative or positive to the overall outcome. Not like in FoG where "hits" are the main thing.

It is a shame that a die has to negate a well setup attack. Such attacks usually swept the defender from the field (at least on one flank).

So the game will mainly get down to how you conduct your advance, how you take advantage of the situation but command will play more of a role in the game.

Once let loose your troops will be out of control unless you can reform them. Thus cavalry will pursue other cavalry off of the map ... just like it REALLY happened in real life. (ECW had this too - Rupert and his cavalry well known for going all out and off the field after the Parliament forces).

The board game Command & Colors lacks a pursuit rule as well. Galls me that that happens to in that game as the board edge is so close. If one of your defending units has to exit the map the attacking units are automatically able to turn on other defending units. Just didn't happen that way ALL of the time.

[fogman]

there is a very simple way to fix the die; and it is to prevent repeating values. No more losing at +2 because you roll 1,1,2,2 and he rolled 6, 6. Ok he can still go 5, 6 but at least you will hit too (1,2,3,4 would be the worst you can do). Very easy to code if they really care about the issue.

pursuit is the other annoying issue but my point is different: it has become a tactic to kill expensive units by sacrificing cheapos. i'm sorry but a line of pikes should stay level, not get dislocated because of pursuit. and pursuit should depend on whether there are large enemy bodies around. as it is now, it's pretty much suicide in many cases.

[TheGrayMouser]

No offence Fogman, that makes no sense at all! if in your example the guy that rolled 1234 vs the 56 would still lose by two if he was at - or -- POA!

Also, by taking away probabilty to roll the same miss, your increasing the probabilty to roll a hit....( assume a 5and6 gets a hits, i roll ist dice w a 2/6 chances to get a hit , I roll a 1, a miss, my second dice cannot roll a 1 so basically now I have a 2/5 chance to get a hit)
Units that roll 6 dice will only get 4 hits max etc etc
Basically this sounds more like "fixed cost" for engaging in a combat

I do agree pursuits arent very satisfying, I have NEVER seen a unit break offf from a pursuit, even if the victor has a higher move rate... I wonder if VMD's are not working properly during pursuits ....
Even moe, I hate units that "evaperate" after a combat. Prior to one of the ist patches, routed units, even if surrounded stayed aroudn for at leats an additioanl players turn which seemed a lot more realistic.

[fogman]

No offence Fogman, that makes no sense at all! if in your example the guy that rolled 1234 vs the 56 would still lose by two if he was at - or -- POA!

At +2, 3 and 4 would be hit. so 1234 would be 2 hits not 0. Therefore a formed unit with a +2 would never lose to a light unit it hits from behind, as it can and does happen now. Note that my exemple specifically stated +2. At -2 it's no improvement, but it's no worse than what we have now, so i'm not sure how that is nonsensical.

Now look at an even-odd situation: right now A can roll 1122 and B can roll 5566, a spread of 4 hits to none
But with non repeating values, then A can't do worse than 1234 and B can't do better than 3456, a spread of 2 hits to none.
What this does in general is to reduce the extreme results; and by reducing the extreme results it makes the better odds stand up more often, which is what players want to see. Indeed, it has a bell curve effect.

The whole game is about getting in a position with the better POA; having worked hard and cleverly to achieve the better odds (like blasting someone from behind) it is infuriating to lose the fight because of extreme die rolls, the kind of things that has turned many players off. Anything that can mitigate that is good.

[TheGrayMouser]

"What this does in general is to reduce the extreme results; and by reducing the extreme results it makes the better odds stand up more often, which is what players want to see. Indeed, it has a bell curve effect."

I have yet to see an in depth consensus that this is what the majority of players want to see. The closest consensus was tweaking the % casualties ranges for the each # of hit brackets, reducing the worst Overlaps etc. Even then some suspect Hexwar did it this the way was to come as close as statistically possible to effectuate the "death rolls" of the TT.(and thus maintaining the balance of the dag armies...)

"The whole game is about getting in a position with the better POA; having worked hard and cleverly to achieve the better odds (like blasting someone from behind) it is infuriating to lose the fight because of extreme die rolls, the kind of things that has turned many players off. Anything that can mitigate that is good"

Is it? If Im playing a pike/lancer army (one of the many numerous Succesor style armies) and you are playing a protected hoplite army, Im going to beeline my pikes at your hoplite, my lancers vs you light spear cavaly. I'm guaranteed + POA (more in melee!) in every cav vs cav or pHI vs HI line up, making maneuver impossible for the Hoplites. Im' going to do it, yet there is nothing hard or clever about it. Guaranteeing a bell curve or whatever along the lines you illustrate means every combat the pike/lancers will be guaranteed 1-3 hits, the hoplites condemned to 0-2 hits.... No hope..(not that they would have much anyway but...)

This is only my opinion, but these ideas sound good in theory but unless the lists , and many other changes were made in the game there going to be a lot more problems introduced. Cram a bell curve onto a dice with only 6 outcomes? Get rid of the dice ? Just get rid of the whole game and start over is a better choice since everything revolves around the dice as is....

I'd much rather see BG's that are LARGER than other BG's using more dice in melee, the concept of overlaps (vs "combat support"), formations, a greater variability of # dice being thrown. Statistics is not my forte but what if all units simply threw twice as many die? Would that statistically reduce extreme results?

[fogman]

"The whole game is about getting in a position with the better POA; having worked hard and cleverly to achieve the better odds (like blasting someone from behind) it is infuriating to lose the fight because of extreme die rolls, the kind of things that has turned many players off. Anything that can mitigate that is good"

Is it? If Im playing a pike/lancer army (one of the many numerous Succesor style armies) and you are playing a protected hoplite army, Im going to beeline my pikes at your hoplite, my lancers vs you light spear cavaly. I'm guaranteed + POA (more in melee!) in every cav vs cav or pHI vs HI line up, making maneuver impossible for the Hoplites. Im' going to do it, yet there is nothing hard or clever about it. Guaranteeing a bell curve or whatever along the lines you illustrate means every combat the pike/lancers will be guaranteed 1-3 hits, the hoplites condemned to 0-2 hits.... No hope..(not that they would have much anyway but...)

First you came up with a total mismatch as an example, in clear terrain that is. what would you do in bad terrain and your pikes and lances give you no advantages and just cost more?

But do you really think a good player will let you line up like that? in clear terrain at that? the clever thing is to get to that position in the right terrain. not easy. lydianed was challenging people to beat his hordes of jewish zealots the other day. do you think it is simple matter to make a beeline with my superior armoured swordmen+ for his zealots and blast away? expensive troops will mean inferior numbers and it takes skills to line up properly against the enemy in the right terrain and protect the flanks at the same time. now having done that and line up my legionnairies against his zealots, it would be mortifying to lose the melees, as it is very possible now. every decent player knows what the basic tenets are. but better players will make it work. and yes it's hard.

just look at it with two evenly matched armies. it comes down to getting the right troops matchups. and once there, you don't want to be thwarted by the die. that's the whole point.

[TheGrayMouser]

What does terrain got to do with a hoplite army? both are choosing open terrain and Superior armoured LS cost the same as superior armoured lancers I'd rather have 28 % less 11AP pikes then xtra 7 Ap cannon fodder protected spears anyday! Especially w double moves your never going to be able to "outmaneuver" a heavy infantry army using another HI army..


As for a mismatch example, sure it is, ( ya can never get ahead in a discourse if you argue against yourself) but there likely are many more, many historical too. I just fail to see how having more "fixed results" will resolve anything and make mismatches , well, even more mismatched!

I dunno, I think issues with game are due to the things LOST when they converted from a free flowing TT game with BG's that had depth, frontage etc, to one stuck in the abstract all BG are the same size in hexes. They , in the very beginning, might have tried to have some things covered, like formation changes and BG's of varying sizes, but opted for a cleaner, simpler approach. I just don't believe just changing the dice is going to do much balance wise , and many like the dynamics of the dice rolls as are. Everyone of course has things they would like to add! (my own wish lists are numerous)

Cheers man!

[fogman]

What does terrain got to do with a hoplite army? both are choosing open terrain and Superior armoured LS cost the same as superior armoured lancers I'd rather have 28 % less 11AP pikes then xtra 7 Ap cannon fodder protected spears anyday! Especially w double moves your never going to be able to "outmaneuver" a heavy infantry army using another HI army..

if i know i'm playing against pikes and lances, you bet i'm not choosing open terrain, even with a spear army. in non open terrain pikes are just spears and i'll have more spears.

anyways we have our ideas. cheers.

[TheGrayMouser]

Haha, I hear ya, I'd ;likely chose non open too in that circumstance(the circumstance that you KNOW your fighting pikes), but rather to try to get hills to park my hoplites on rather than trees to hide behind (of course they'd just anarchy off the hills anyways )

Anyhow, I'll likely never be convinced that bell curves are in order for 6d rolls. I am open to other ideas though....... Hmm, what if if units that are up ++ POA wise LOSE a combat , they get a +1 roll on their cohesion test? -- might get a -1? ( this doesn't sound like a lot but for cohesion test rolls a small modifier can go a long way) Although it wouldnt effect the combat die itself the overall impact might average out some extreme effects of luck. Hmmm, too many long term variables on any seemingly minor changes for my brain to handle.

BTW can anyone answer me this riddle of statistics? If double( or more) of the amt of dice a rolled, would the end result average out to more of a bell curve? ( I cant apply this to fog as when each attacker/defender rolls its dice , Winning/Losing/Draw is a comparative , not a direct correlation, of the two sides dice rolls....)

[batesmotel]

...
BTW can anyone answer me this riddle of statistics? If double( or more) of the amt of dice a rolled, would the end result average out to more of a bell curve? ( I cant apply this to fog as when each attacker/defender rolls its dice , Winning/Losing/Draw is a comparative , not a direct correlation, of the two sides dice rolls....)

Yes, as more dice are rolled the expected deviation of the results from the expected bell curve should get smaller. Once you get to a large enough number of rolls, however, adding more shouldn't change the expected deviation by very much however. This is the same type of calculation as is required for determining a large enough sample size for a poll to have a given confidence level.

Chris

[CheerfullyInsane]

...
BTW can anyone answer me this riddle of statistics? If double( or more) of the amt of dice a rolled, would the end result average out to more of a bell curve? ( I cant apply this to fog as when each attacker/defender rolls its dice , Winning/Losing/Draw is a comparative , not a direct correlation, of the two sides dice rolls....)

Yes, as more dice are rolled the expected deviation of the results from the expected bell curve should get smaller. Once you get to a large enough number of rolls, however, adding more shouldn't change the expected deviation by very much however. This is the same type of calculation as is required for determining a large enough sample size for a poll to have a given confidence level.

Chris

Except this doesn't help with the FoG combat-system, since it is based on a single D6 and thus hasn't got a bell-curve.
The expected result of a D6 is between 1 and 6, no matter how many times you throw it. If you roll six 6's, the dice do not 'owe' you a 1.
it's the same principle used by gamblers that somehow think that their 'bad streak' is just about to end because Lady Luck 'owes' them something.
Unfortunately Lady Luck is something of a cold-hearted strumpet, and dice do not have memories.

You can use dice in skill-games (backgammon comes to mind), but only when used in multiples.
You could double the number of dice in FoG and then use them in pairs instead. That is, a 4-dice attack would become a 4x2-dice attack.
Now you've got a bell-curve with an expected result of 7, and decreasing chances of results on either end of the 2-12 scale.

Cheers,
Lars

[Old_Warrior]

"You could double the number of dice in FoG and then use them in pairs instead. That is, a 4-dice attack would become a 4x2-dice attack.
Now you've got a bell-curve with an expected result of 7, and decreasing chances of results on either end of the 2-12 scale."

But if you roll a 7 do you crap out?

[CheerfullyInsane]

"You could double the number of dice in FoG and then use them in pairs instead. That is, a 4-dice attack would become a 4x2-dice attack.
Now you've got a bell-curve with an expected result of 7, and decreasing chances of results on either end of the 2-12 scale."

But if you roll a 7 do you crap out?

I don't need dice to crap out.
My highly-trained troops will usually find a way to stab themselves in the foot.

Cheers,
Lars

[ericdoman1]

I have told Turk about this one so now open to the community.

Luckily it was not me.

Also this was a FOG-tabletop game.

Superior arm lancers with general hits the rear of another superior armoured lancer unit.

4 dice needing 3s, rerolling 1s and 2s vs 3 dice needing 5s, rerolling 1s

The charging unit has 1 hit!, defending unit has 2 hits.

Charging unit disrupts?

Then defending unit rolls 2 d 6 and kills charging unit general!

Charging unit fragments due to failing test and routs next turn.

I have had a steady elephant unit fragged by a charging lancer unit, frontal attack and a superior light chariot unit fragged by superior lf on a frontal attack. A really amazing one was an mf imp foot charging into the rear (I was also uphill, doesn't make much difference though) of an unprotected mf bow unit. I did 0, yes ZERO casualties! I have probably had quite a bit of good luck but it is a wargamers thang to only remember the bad results! One good one, a bg of horde charging the rear of elite legions and routing them

[Sabratha]

Well the weirdest were always those rolls where both units routed. Usually happened when a higher quality, but manpower-depleted unit attacked an inferior disrupted unit.

[ericdoman1]

Londo

Back to the original point of this link.

Firstly I reckon the Almughavars were so confident that they were about to destroy the lf that they threw away their spears, blindfolded themselves and brought out their trusted handbags.

As for suggestions with ref to lf. I agree with all to some extent. However historically you did have some pretty tough light troops. Roman velites, allegedly could go toe to toe with warbands, 1 vs 1. The Stradiots were regarded as the toughest light horse in Europe and would give knights a torrid time (I believe this is a fact). They still have to pass a test if in the open and have do not evade, I am not sure if they receive a minus. So if they had rear support and a gen within ZOC, all they need to roll is a 5. Maybe they should receive say a - 2 for standing against any shock troops and a -1 for any other or -3 vs shock troops, -2 vs other mounted, hf or mf and - 1 vs a better class, armed, armoured light troops. Also well trained light troops were the bane of elephants, in this system they have no chance in combat. I think it all stems down to an ANcient set of rules covers 2 to 3000 years of warfare and it has to take all factors into consideration.