IS THIS NORMAL ????

[Sennacherib]

Today i play edghill, this is a good battle with plenty of possibilities and after i play Bristol.....
the interest is doubtful but why not.... rout move are more stupid but it's normal...... rout in the enemy line instead of surrender..... and worst dragoon charge and make flee the infantry uphill and behind protection as well as in BUA WTF !!!! artillery fire at close range is ridiculous, they do not use grapeshot at this period ???
i like the game but it can be better !!!:)

[SSLConf_zeergoed]

Well, I don't know if it's normal, but in 2 out of 3 (solo)games I played so far, I lost! And I play only in colonel level. I know, if it was for real, I would be shot!

[Sennacherib]

[GuyFawcett]

I've been playing the game for the last two days and find that most situations resolve quite well and the lack of command control over routing and pursuing units is what I would expect. Don't change this it is all part of the period . It was still a problem with British cavalry right into the 19th Century.

The one thing I will agree with is the Line of Fire issues and elevations.

A unit on the far slope firing at a unit on the opposite slope of the same two square wide hill engaging successfully with muskets or artillery seems very incorrect.

Other than that I am enjoying the game much more then HPS Musket and Pike and as much as the old Age of Rifles (Koger)

[ravenflight]

Sorta on this topic Richard, I've had several games where the numbers seem to be beyond belief.

For example, I've fought Fragmented Det Horse with Steady Veteran Cavaliers and the Fragmented Horse stick around for like 3 turns! I know you can get good 'dice rolls', but it seems to be a bit over the top. I'm not saying it's not right - I don't know - I don't get to see the dice rolls, but it seems to happen quite a bit.

A disproportionate number of 'advantaged' combats seem to be lost (again, I know it can happen with dice rolling).

There also seems to be some anomalies in the way pursuers go. Sometimes a nice juicy flank is right in front of them and they'll turn 90 degrees to follow routers and other times they seem to turn 90 degrees to charge into the flank of something and not going straight ahead to follow routers. Am I missing something?

I'm not sure if it's just me or the random generator seems to be a bit wierd.

I'm not complaining per se, just giving feedback with which you can do with what you want .

[rbodleyscott]

There also seems to be some anomalies in the way pursuers go. Sometimes a nice juicy flank is right in front of them and they'll turn 90 degrees to follow routers and other times they seem to turn 90 degrees to charge into the flank of something and not going straight ahead to follow routers. Am I missing something?

Pursuers can attack enemy within 45 degrees of straight ahead while pursuing. They will only do this if they (the AI on their behalf) fancy their chances. They will divert round enemy against whom they don't fancy their chances.

If they would have had to turn 45 degrees to follow the routers, this plus a 45 degrees wheel to hit the fresh enemy could result in a 90 degree turn overall.

I'm not sure if it's just me or the random generator seems to be a bit weird.

It is the natural tendency of human beings to make the observation that "luck" consistently runs against them. This is commonly seen with tabletop wargamers too, despite using simple dice. There is nothing odd or biased about the random number generator in this game. Exactly the same code is used in exactly the same way for both sides.

The whole purpose of the random element in wargames is to ensure that events do not always follow expectations. Dealing with such contingencies is one of the skills of real generals that we want to represent in the game.

[TimW]

A few thoughts.

What I seem to have noticed is that the chance of winning/draw/losing in the close combat window seems about as unreliable as in FOGPC (unlike BA1 and 2 where it seems reasonably accurate). Could just be my perception of course, but very often the likely outcome is given as a very high percentage chance of winning only for the unit to either lose or have little effect at all. I'm thinking of keeping a record of odds shown vs combat outcome just to check.

There are also some huge casualty swings at times. Two equally matched pike keils can be prodding away at each other for several melee phases causing low and roughly equal casualties then all of a sudden one scores 70 or 80 against the other's much lower score before casualties drop back again.

Heavy/medium artillery is pretty much useless once down to roughly musket range. While it wasn't anything like as destructive as the artillery of the early 19th century due to low fire rates (the Swiss reckoned to minimise artillery casualties by charging the enemy guns between discharges) this apparent severe drop-off in effectiveness seems strange. Almost like the gunners had forgotten to bring hail shot and never thought to use pebbles or scrounge a few kegs of musket balls off the infantry.

Also on the subject of artillery, the gunners seem to be the toughest close-quarter fighters in the game. They can fight toe to toe for several turns even against pistol-armed cavalry. The gunners always lose, but it takes ages.

Pursuit. While some cavalry was inclined to pursue a beaten enemy for miles while ignoring the rest of the battle (yes Rupert and Turenne, I'm looking at you) to the extent that win or lose it was unlikely to be seen for hours, not all was. Cromwell's Eastern Association and the New Model horse being the obvious English Civil War examples of horse that could often be kept 'in hand'. Infantry also seem far too willing to go racing after a defeated enemy leaving gaps in their line and exposing themselves to multiple flank and rear attacks. At the moment all too often the only thing more destructive to a unit/army than losing a melee seems to be winning one.

The result is that it can be quite effective to break up your army into a weak front line with units scattered all over the place behind it and facing sideways or even towards the rear. Make a sacrificial charge, hope the AI throws multiple units against yours, lose the melee then pounce on the pursuers. The AI seems particularly adept at this. While second lines were present in part to do this I'm far from certain that every unit in melee would always pursue regardless of its orders or the danger it is exposing itself to, particularly experienced troops or mercenaries who might be willing to risk their lives but less willing to take what they knew to be stupid risks. Infantry may at times have pursued out of a position of advantage such as a hill or field fortification into a largely intact enemy force, but every time?

On the positive side, routing units don't hammer their way through multiple formed units on their own side and reduce their entire army to chaos as in FOGPC. Also, this is really an issue of the game possibly benefiting from a few tweaks,as a whole it's very good indeed.

As a final thought, how about giving pistol-armed non-impact cavalry (such as parliamentary horse and cuirassiers generally) a short-ranged fire combat ability? They did use their pistols (and carbines if carried) this way at times, and as the game is at present when facing infantry they either have to charge home and take casualties themselves or do nothing. The imperialists seem to have used cuirassiers in this way against the Turks as well, using firepower to drive away opposing light horse rather than charging and risking pursuing an evading enemy.

[rbodleyscott]

What I seem to have noticed is that the chance of winning/draw/losing in the close combat window seems about as unreliable as in FOGPC (unlike BA1 and 2 where it seems reasonably accurate). Could just be my perception of course, but very often the likely outcome is given as a very high percentage chance of winning only for the unit to either lose or have little effect at all. I'm thinking of keeping a record of odds shown vs combat outcome just to check.

You are welcome to do so, but as the chances of winning/drawing/losing are calculated by running the actual close combat computation 1000 times, it is unlikely that you will come up with a significantly different result!

very often the likely outcome is given as a very high percentage chance of winning only for the unit to either lose or have little effect at all

An 85% chance of winning is a 15% chance of not winning. So the unit will not win 15% of the time.

Even if the unit does "win", that just means that the enemy unit will have to take a Cohesion test. If it passes that, then nothing much will happen.

So an 85% chance of winning a round of combat does not mean an 85% chance of routing the enemy, or even making them drop a cohesion step.

[rbodleyscott]

All cavalry pursue enemy cavalry at least once, but Cavaliers and gendarmes are much more likely to continue pursuing thereafter than horse or determined horse, and to leave the map.

Artillery in the open have been nerfed further in the first patch, which should go live next week.

[flatsix518]

Richard wrote: "You are welcome to do so, but as the chances of winning/drawing/losing are calculated by running the actual close combat computation 1000 times, it is unlikely that you will come up with a significantly different result!"

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

The single biggest failing of FoG Digital in my opinion was reducing combat to basically a 4D6 or less resolution. FoG tabletop works OK because melee combats could involve more than 4D6 -- often six or 8D6. With only 4D6, combat results could be very granular, very extreme.

In Pike & Shot, since the computer can run many, many calculations -- these tend to move the results to a normalized distribution. Which makes most results along an "expected" outcome, but does not preclude extreme results -- just makes them less likely.

I love it.

John
aka flatsix

[Miletus]

It is the natural tendency of human beings to make the observation that "luck" consistently runs against them. This is commonly seen with tabletop wargamers too, despite using simple dice. There is nothing odd or biased about the random number generator in this game. Exactly the same code is used in exactly the same way for both sides.

The whole purpose of the random element in wargames is to ensure that events do not always follow expectations. Dealing with such contingencies is one of the skills of real generals that we want to represent in the game.

Have to say I agree with Richard here. My own experience so far, playing solo against the AI, is that the balance seems right. A run of bad luck can seem "odd" - but no more so than on the table top!!!

[ravenflight]

It is the natural tendency of human beings to make the observation that "luck" consistently runs against them. This is commonly seen with tabletop wargamers too, despite using simple dice. There is nothing odd or biased about the random number generator in this game. Exactly the same code is used in exactly the same way for both sides.

The whole purpose of the random element in wargames is to ensure that events do not always follow expectations. Dealing with such contingencies is one of the skills of real generals that we want to represent in the game.

Well, I don't think I'm looking at it that way. I may come across as abrasive in my comments. I don't mean to be. I'm do it more scientifically and send details.

When I 'make the above complaint' I'm not saying from a 'boohoo, I lost' perspective... this is across an entire game... anyway, I'll do more research and get back to you.

[TimW]

An 85% chance of winning is a 15% chance of not winning. So the unit will not win 15% of the time.

Even if the unit does "win", that just means that the enemy unit will have to take a Cohesion test. If it passes that, then nothing much will happen.

So an 85% chance of winning a round of combat does not mean an 85% chance of routing the enemy, or even making them drop a cohesion step.

I was thinking more in terms of respective casualties than cohesion to be honest.

Much of this could well be my perception as well, as you say, and I'm still getting the hang of the system and what does what, and how the AI behaves (very well indeed as it happens).

[rbodleyscott]

An 85% chance of winning is a 15% chance of not winning. So the unit will not win 15% of the time.

Even if the unit does "win", that just means that the enemy unit will have to take a Cohesion test. If it passes that, then nothing much will happen.

So an 85% chance of winning a round of combat does not mean an 85% chance of routing the enemy, or even making them drop a cohesion step.

I was thinking more in terms of respective casualties than cohesion to be honest.

I wouldn't take too much notice of respective casualties, particularly in absolute numbers. What really matters is cohesion, followed by casualties as a proportion of unit strength.

As previously stated the Win/Draw/Loss chance is specifically related to the chances of "winning"/"drawing" or "losing" a combat round and forcing a cohesion text or being forced to take a cohesion test. The casualties are affected by this, but the relationship is not linear.

[kdonovan]

Rather than win/lose/draw showing the chance of an enemy/friend taking a cohesion it might better be expressed as the probability of them having to take a cohesion test and then failing said test.