Too Many Double Breaks

[GiveWarAchance]

Personally, I think FoG II breaks units far too slowly. Average units hold out against impossible odds attacked from three sides too often for to long etc. In P&S and SJ if you broke a flank of an army you could often roll up a battle line in a few turns unless there were one or two better units that could stop the rot, as it should be. I have found that impossible in FoG II as units appear far more resilient and almost every single unit needs to be attacked front, flank and rear and ground down before it breaks. For example in the Lysimachus campaign last night I had a unit of standard Thracians hit by two veteran pike phalanxes and an average pike phalanx. It held out for six turns without even dropping to disordered before it autobroke on losses.

Woo-hoo! Always nice to hear about Thracians doing well for a change. Thracians are the most completely average unit in the game, you can never tell what they will do. I think there should be a few superior Thracians in the Thracian list so it balances out more (but I also put in the less reliable hillmen/javelinmen). I've done a new version of the Lysimachus campaign with an extra battle which will be uploaded soon; how do you like the existing version??

I lost a couple of MP battles recently after only about 3 turns of combat cause of total morale failure of everyone on my side. I was using German warbands vs Roman legionaires and all my warbands ran away after only one turn of very one-sided combat. Warbands must have been mercilessly nerfed by the recent patch cause they used to be fun units, but now they are the equivalent of peasant rabble. My other catastrophic collapse in a few turns was playing as Persians versus Greek hoplites.

EDIT: maybe the warbands aren't so bad. I'm playing the Julius Caesar campaign and the warbands can rough up my legionnaires fairly well before the Gauls are inevitably seen off.

[vakarr]

Vakaar, I enjoyed the Lysimachus campaign.Having played several of your campaigns, I would never have guessed you had a liking for Thracians! Really enjoying the Agesilaus campaign BTW. A solid veteran Spartan hoplite force supported by a cloud of skirmishers seems to fare well.

Bonus: this beautiful piece of artwork (engraving on a 5th century kylix) is in a private collection, probably found by treasure hunters, so provenance unknown (other than somewhere in Bulgaria, possibly near Stara Zagora), but it has only surfaced recently

Thracian with light lance 5th century kylix

light Lancer from 5th c kylix.jpg (188.32 KiB) Viewed 2813 times

This guy has all the classic Thracian garb. He's not holding a javelin, as a javelin doesn't need a blade at the rear end (and it would make it harder to throw). He's also holding low like a lance. Possibly the spear length has been shortened to fit the picture. Maybe this was for a boar hunt but otherwise this supports my contention (pages 87-93 and 96-102 of The Gods of Battle) that Thracian light cavalry favoured hand-to-hand combat over skirmishing with javelins, which is why I gave them 50% swords (don't want to make them too powerful) and added a few prodromoi for the Hellenistic list.

[vakarr]

I often get 2-3 double-breaks per turn, and then more in my opponents turn... I like the concept but I think they should not be so common--maybe half as common as they are now....

If you would like to see fewer happening then perhaps you could tell us how to prevent them, since you are obviously a good player, and maybe cause a lot of them to happen yourself? Maybe if you had better opponents there would be fewer of them? Some tips on tactics would be nice. For instance,

- what are the most important (or easy to get) morale modifiers - there's a long list of possible morale modifiers, but which are the easiest to get (other than having a general in, or next to, the unit). Do generals double up on morale modifiers (C-in-C + a sub general)? Is it a good idea to make at least one general a light horse unit so he can run around in the rear rallying troops, or is that a waste of a POA?

- can you explain the weirdness of the ZOC rules, they never seem to protect my troops, only my opponent!!!

- what's your best tactic for getting setup for a flank charge?

[76mm]

If you would like to see fewer happening then perhaps you could tell us how to prevent them, since you are obviously a good player, and maybe cause a lot of them to happen yourself? Maybe if you had better opponents there would be fewer of them? Some tips on tactics would be nice. For instance,

hmm, I've never claimed to be a good player, especially regarding the intricacies of the rules. But that's kind of the point--I'm not talking about clever tactics, or how good an opponent is--I'm talking about when units meet head on in open terrain with decent odds, and still suffer a double-break. In the first round of the holiday tourney, I suffered about six double-breaks per game--it was really kind of unbelievable, and it is pretty tough to bounce back from that. In this last round, I was probably the beneficiary, but either way, I don't like to see games decided by such frequent double-breaks. I think the idea is good, but it happens too often.

Richard said above that if there is a 1% chance of losing an impact, there is supposedly a zero percent chance of suffering a double-break. I can't speak to 1%, but I've suffered a double-break with a 2% chance of loss, and very frequently suffer them when the chances of an impact loss are 5-10%. How to predict or prevent that? I have no idea, if someone does I am all ears. I have no idea if double-breaks are affected by the presence/absence of generals, it does not seem to be described in the rules.

[Jishmael]

First off I think the overall balance here is pretty good, I have experienced some really bad strings of luck in the past (ive had to try the battle against the gauls in 7 hills of rome around 7 times (emperor progressive) until my line stopped imploding) But thats RNG for you and overall I dont notice any consistent problems.

I've noticed that double drops seem to happen mostly in situations that skew the cohesion test modifiers heavily against the affected unit. hoplites colliding with impact foot, mediums in open terrain hit by heavy/heavy impact. The stacking of negative modifiers causes double drops to appear much more frequently.

so a good heavy charge by a warband against a hoplite unit can easily incur:
-1 for >5% losses
-1 for a bad loss
-1 for loosing against impact

if theyve lost men before from skirmishing, melees or even other charges the same turn this can go to another
-1 for under 25% of original manpower very easily.

they get +1 for being heavy foot themselves, for average troops this is not a good roll (assuming an average result of 7 from two d6, this is a cohesion loss on average and making an extremly low result and thus a double drop much more likely, have them be disrupted or with a threatened flank and things only go worse.

The exact score for a double drop is not documented, but im asusming its a 2.

assuming a -3 cohesion modifier including bad combat loss that makes every roll of 5 or less a doubledrop. 5 or less out of a potential two to twelve is not that unlikely, and we havent even talked about troops quality or did the math for mediums in open terrain here.

Important note this is not a 5/11 chance for a doubledrop on any combat or lost comba, the prerequisite is a "bad loss" for which I'm not approximating the odds, but it tends to appear in the same situations as the stacked cohesion modifiers ie outclassed troops in open terrain.


So what can be done to prevent this?
If it comes to the cohesion test its pretty much too late to do anything to actively prevent double drops, as morale isnt really influencable.
The only "trick" I've found especially when fighting a matchup that makes these results probable is to stick my generals onto my best units and get them fighting as soon as possible, so that my line gets the +1 for inspiration.

The main factor in not double dropping should be not loosing a combat badly, and while a sucky dice roll cannot be prevented this comes down to not loosing combat, which comes down to troop matchup, positioning, (again) the involvement of generals and most importantly use of terrain and elevation.
If youre playing an army that is outmatched on a unit to unit basis find the right terrain, try to form a battleplan that is not hinging on your line taking the charge, and pray to the RNG gods.

I have not seen significant (I actually remember a single one) doubledrops in even or beneficial situations, and from my understanding the documentation of game mechanics enforces this to be WAD (even though my math is probably shitty as im not a statistician)


What I have witnessed though, and I'd love to have some input from the designer(s) on this, is a double drop from a cohesion test for the loss of a general. It might have been combined with other tests in the same round for neighbouring breaks, and it happened to irregulars from which I dont expect any heroics, but it seemed odd.




on the questions about flank charge and ZOCs asked by vakarr, theres some elaboration needed for a good answer.

Whats weird bout the ZOC rules for you? Locking down enemy units by setting up a potential flank threat and putting them in the main zoc of troops of the same type (foot zocing foot) is working consistenly for me in mp and sp alike. The rules take some getting used too, but they are not skewed in any way.

How to set up flank charges depends greatly on the units and armys involved and the terrain situation.
Careful management of pushbacks, exploiting gaps in the enym line and placing your more maneuvrable units around the flanks of the line are my keywords.
I'd also make a point that there are many situations in which it is crucial to send units into nonbeneificial terrain and patiently maneuver around ongoing melees,
making sure to not zoc lock your flankers by going to close and facing the front of the unit you wanted to flank has also worked out well for me.
but specific advice depends on matchup and terrain more then most other factors imho.


edit: remembered that 2d6 don't roll a 1, grammar

[76mm]

Jishmael; thanks for the detailed and insghtful post...need to read it more thoroughly when im at my computer:::

[MikeC_81]

Part 6 of my Beginner's guide will go indepth into Cohesion checks including the double break phenomenon. Will be out for sure in a few days tops. I am already well into it.

[76mm]

Part 6 of my Beginner's guide will go indepth into Cohesion checks including the double break phenomenon. Will be out for sure in a few days tops. I am already well into it.

This is video series? Usually I don't watch video but will try to watch this one.

[w_michael]

Part 6 of my Beginner's guide will go indepth into Cohesion checks including the double break phenomenon. Will be out for sure in a few days tops. I am already well into it.

This is video series? Usually I don't watch video but will try to watch this one.

The link is here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=81192

There is a lot of valuable information for both recruit and grognard alike.

I'm waiting for Mike's Advanced Guide of videos since he trounces me every time we play.

[vakarr]

Whats weird bout the ZOC rules for you? Locking down enemy units by setting up a potential flank threat and putting them in the main zoc of troops of the same type (foot zocing foot) is working consistenly for me in mp and sp alike. The rules take some getting used too, but they are not skewed in any way.

Well I can't see if an enemy unit is ZOC'd or not by my own troops (can only see enemy ZOC), and I often find that I have a unit with an enemy unit right in front of it and it can't charge it, I mean it's right next to it, it should be able to charge regardless. Also it seems I can't charge a unit in front of it if there is an enemy unit behind the unit wanting to charge, oh are you saying that foot and cavalry have different types of ZOC, I mean I think that light troops have no ZOC except against light troops. It can be really hard to work out once you have units facing other units at an angle, not at 90 degrees. Personally I'd like to see the ZOC rules got rid of, it's a lot more fun that way.

[MikeC_81]

Part 6 of my Beginner's guide will go indepth into Cohesion checks including the double break phenomenon. Will be out for sure in a few days tops. I am already well into it.

This is video series? Usually I don't watch video but will try to watch this one.

The link is here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 77&t=81192

There is a lot of valuable information for both recruit and grognard alike.

I'm waiting for Mike's Advanced Guide of videos since he trounces me every time we play.

I am not even that good a player

Most of my "edge" comes from the fact that I probably took a lot more time digging into the game mechanics than you or others I have played so far and since the game is still fairly new, I am getting some favorable results because of it.

edit: I am also very heavy foot biased

[Jishmael]

Well I can't see if an enemy unit is ZOC'd or not by my own troops (can only see enemy ZOC), and I often find that I have a unit with an enemy unit right in front of it and it can't charge it, I mean it's right next to it, it should be able to charge regardless. Also it seems I can't charge a unit in front of it if there is an enemy unit behind the unit wanting to charge, oh are you saying that foot and cavalry have different types of ZOC, I mean I think that light troops have no ZOC except against light troops. It can be really hard to work out once you have units facing other units at an angle, not at 90 degrees. Personally I'd like to see the ZOC rules got rid of, it's a lot more fun that way.

1. yes you cant see the zoc of your own, but it follows the same principle ie: primary zoc directly in front, secondary in the squares next to it, for a diagonally facing unit those secondary squares are still touching the unit. so for a unit facing diagonally to the upper left its NOT
2
1
X 2

but it IS

21
X2

(I hope thats comprehensible with out a screenshot)

2.
if you are in the primary zoc of another unit you will not be able to charge something in front of you, unless you are also in that enemys primary zoc. the game uses an undocumented, but from my experience, pretty logical priority system here.
Basically your units will not be able to charge whats in front of them if their flanks or backs are threatened by a unit thats ZOCing them.
This can lead to situations where enveloped units can not make a "breakout" bu are instead forced to turn on the spot and take some kind of flank charge regardless of what they do.
This is realistic and WAD. It keeps units from making attacks that would seem suicidal to them on a local level.
Imagine your commander yelling "charge that row of spears in front!" while you know that theres horss just waiting to smash into your exposed backs.
It also gives inherent worth to "weaker" units like rabble or irregulars, as they still excert a ZOC.

3. I expressed myself unclear, there is no difference between foot and cavalry zoc. Only between lights and non-lights. You are correct here.
This is very important as it allows comparatevly "light" cavalry to bind and control even the heaviest foot (ie indian cavalry can ZOC-lock roman legions)


Id make the argument that hile the ZOC rules are sometimes a bit hard to follow, especially when units are zoced multiple times and the priority override kicks in, they are a deep and rewarding System that
A rewards careful planning and troop management over blind charges
B gives a chance to "lighter" troops in the face of superior opposition
C represents the fact that these are human soldiers on the battlefield, not robots that will charge to their doom and expose their flanks if they know theyre gonna be murdered for it
I understand that some players prefer total control over their units movement, I do think its pretty well done though

[rbodleyscott]

if you are in the primary zoc of another unit you will not be able to charge something in front of you, unless you are also in that enemys primary zoc. the game uses an undocumented, but from my experience, pretty logical priority system here.

Actually it is documented in the manual - section 12.12.2 "Effect of enemy ZOCs on permitted charges".

In addition to Jishmael's comments, I would also say that the ZOC system is intended to mitigate the IGOUGO nature of the rules. In the real world, the ZOCing unit would not stand there doing nothing while the ZOC'd unit swans off and charges someone else.

[Jishmael]

if you are in the primary zoc of another unit you will not be able to charge something in front of you, unless you are also in that enemys primary zoc. the game uses an undocumented, but from my experience, pretty logical priority system here.

Actually it is documented in the manual - section 12.12.2 "Effect of enemy ZOCs on permitted charges".

That documents the effect of charge choice, I was basing my statement on 12.1.1. "If a unit is in the ZOC of multiple enemy units, the game will decide
which one it must move away from – prioritizing primary ZOCers."

maybe im being confused here ^^

[rbodleyscott]

if you are in the primary zoc of another unit you will not be able to charge something in front of you, unless you are also in that enemys primary zoc. the game uses an undocumented, but from my experience, pretty logical priority system here.

Actually it is documented in the manual - section 12.12.2 "Effect of enemy ZOCs on permitted charges".

That documents the effect of charge choice, I was basing my statement on 12.1.1. "If a unit is in the ZOC of multiple enemy units, the game will decide
which one it must move away from – prioritizing primary ZOCers."

maybe im being confused here ^^

I wondered if you perhaps meant that, but was not entirely clear.

It is not only undocumented, but also indeterminate - in such circumstances it will pick the first one it finds of the higher priority.

[76mm]

I have not seen significant (I actually remember a single one) doubledrops in even or beneficial situations, and from my understanding the documentation of game mechanics enforces this to be WAD (even though my math is probably shitty as im not a statistician)

Jishmael, I've gone back and re-read your post, and first, I'm very surprised by your statement above. I guess it depends on how you define "even or beneficial situations", but I see very many double-breaks when I have a 5% or less chance to lose an impact. In an ongoing game, I had a double-break in a unit with a general in which the unit had a 4% of losing the impact. The next turn, a unit two squares over also double-broke with similar odds (but without the general). So much for that wing... I see this several times every game--is this really WAD? I rarely attack if my chance of losing is more than 10%-12, but still see frequent double-breaks. How do you define "even or benficial"?

Also, are you sure that the cohesion test modifiers apply to the double break test as well? If so, that would mean that the odds of double-break (after losing an impact/melee) would raise from about 2.8% (assuming you need snake-eyes) to about 11.% in your example (rolling a five). But I think I am seeing it more than even 11% during impacts.

[Jishmael]

I have not seen significant (I actually remember a single one) doubledrops in even or beneficial situations, and from my understanding the documentation of game mechanics enforces this to be WAD (even though my math is probably shitty as im not a statistician)

Jishmael, I've gone back and re-read your post, and first, I'm very surprised by your statement above. I guess it depends on how you define "even or beneficial situations", but I see very many double-breaks when I have a 5% or less chance to lose an impact. In an ongoing game, I had a double-break in a unit with a general in which the unit had a 4% of losing the impact. The next turn, a unit two squares over also double-broke with similar odds (but without the general). So much for that wing... I see this several times every game--is this really WAD? I rarely attack if my chance of losing is more than 10%-12, but still see frequent double-breaks. How do you define "even or benficial"?

Also, are you sure that the cohesion test modifiers apply to the double break test as well? If so, that would mean that the odds of double-break (after losing an impact/melee) would raise from about 2.8% (assuming you need snake-eyes) to about 11.% in your example (rolling a five). But I think I am seeing it more than even 11% during impacts.

what you are describing is definetely a pretty high quota of double breaks, but it also not something I'm seeing. I remember a single instance pretty recent where i charged a unit of sabapara into romans with a 5% loss chance and they lost and broke to fragmented, thats about it. I have never seen the beaviour you describe.
I have seen more double drops from hoplites vs impact foot and from medium foot agsinst heavy/impact if the medium is not impact, which is explained by the cohesion modifiers.
So while I think what you are describing is a weird spike regardless (youre basically rolling two bad losses in two instances of around 5% for ANY loss) I just dont share the same experience (and ive been playing since beta...)

So I guess you're just having horrendous RNG?

from my understanding of the rules there is no seperate "double break" test. If your unit looses close combat, regardless if impact or not, it rolls for cohesion. If it fails this roll it drops a level.
No Snake Eyes or Modifiers will ever change this into a double UNLESS
You loose the combat BADLY (which admittetly is a bit of a fuzzy term and I don't know the propabilities involved)
If the combat was lost badly, you take a single cohesion test, which, if by a natural roll OR modifiers produces a result of two or less, then causes a double drop.

There is no need for "snake eyes" to be rolled, the conditions are:
combat badly lost
AND a Ct result after modifiers of 2 or lower.

That is my interpretation and fits with my experiences of the game (ie double drops happening consistent when a lot of negative modifiers are piled on and troops are outclassed)
Again I nothing in the rules makes what you're experiencing impossible, but it is A improbable B not consistent with the results I see.

[nikgaukroger]

There is no need for "snake eyes" to be rolled, the conditions are:
combat badly lost
AND a Ct result after modifiers of 2 or lower.

IIRC you can also double drop for seeing a general killed, but the score for doing so is the same as described.

[Archaeologist1970]

"represents the fact that these are human soldiers on the battlefield, not robots that will charge to their doom and expose their flanks if they know theyre gonna be murdered for it
I understand that some players prefer total control over their units movement, I do think its pretty well done though"

Except when units start pushing units back two or three turns in a row and break the battle line. Seems like they forgot the memo...

[MikeC_81]

I have not seen significant (I actually remember a single one) doubledrops in even or beneficial situations, and from my understanding the documentation of game mechanics enforces this to be WAD (even though my math is probably shitty as im not a statistician)

Jishmael, I've gone back and re-read your post, and first, I'm very surprised by your statement above. I guess it depends on how you define "even or beneficial situations", but I see very many double-breaks when I have a 5% or less chance to lose an impact. In an ongoing game, I had a double-break in a unit with a general in which the unit had a 4% of losing the impact. The next turn, a unit two squares over also double-broke with similar odds (but without the general). So much for that wing... I see this several times every game--is this really WAD? I rarely attack if my chance of losing is more than 10%-12, but still see frequent double-breaks. How do you define "even or benficial"?

Also, are you sure that the cohesion test modifiers apply to the double break test as well? If so, that would mean that the odds of double-break (after losing an impact/melee) would raise from about 2.8% (assuming you need snake-eyes) to about 11.% in your example (rolling a five). But I think I am seeing it more than even 11% during impacts.

Unless I find glaring factual errors tonight when I review my video, all of this will be explained in detail in part 6 which will go live sometime around or after midnight my time (NA Eastern).

But to give a short explanation now in case you don't want to be staring at my spreadsheet for 20 minutes here is the short version. Your chance of winning or losing combat has nothing to do with whether your unit will suffer double breaks. It doesn't even affect your chance of passing the cohesion test. A unit that loses a 99/0/1 win/draw/loss combat faces the same mechanics as a unit that lost a 1/0/99 combat.

Jishmael is correct in the mechanics in that you need to roll a 6 to pass and rolling a 2 after modifiers are applied causes a double break. If you look at the cohesion test table you will see there are a ton of negative modifiers with very few positive ones. After building a chart on the odds of events occuring, it has become clear to me that combat with non-heavy foot troops and troops with average or lower unit quality are inherently risky. It gets more risky once you have things like undefended flanks since those also pose additional negative modifiers.

If you dislike double breaks, play heavy foot armies and troop quality of average or better. Protect flanks and avoid using units that have suffered more than 25% casualties. Those are the things that you can control to mitigate circumstances. Avoid fighting units with negative combat roll modifiers like Elephants, Impact foot, and Lancers with low quality units that are especially prone to these things.

If you want a full breakdown of the odds/statistics, like I said the video will go live unless I find I have made a serious factual error tonight around midnight my time.