The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Unlike Tabletop FOG and FOG1, the FOG2 army list minima and maxima are scaled to the total points available, so the amount of choice should be about the same.

Yes, I have checked a few armies out today e.g. Carthaginians, Greeks, Palmyrans - and even those with fewer categories of troop types still allow plenty of choices at 1600 and 2000 points.

[MikeC_81]

Pete, will increasing the size of the armies reduce player choice in army composition and make some army selections very predictable? i.e. pretty much everything listed would need to be taken to use 2,000 points. If yes, would this remove any tactical or surprise element from the game?

Unlike Tabletop FOG and FOG1, the FOG2 army list minima and maxima are scaled to the total points available, so the amount of choice should be about the same.

They typically do not scale well due to the chunky capital problem. There are certain breakpoints for FPs that generate the extra unit elite troops like Vet Hastati Principes. I have played the Roman 199BC lists so many times in the past at so many FP values that I know it like the back of my hand now. At 1600 FP, it is much easier to max out on Vet Principes while still fielding enough chaff for them to run wild with good flank protection. Whether by design or accident 1200 FP is a really good sweet spot.

Between two equally skilled players, it often does come down to luck but luck is overattributed 90% of the time. Players often refuse to see a litany of minor mistakes that sum up to lose them the game. While a particular moment of bad luck might stand out, that opportunity might have existed only because of prior errors or bad strategy. I have seen a lot of things like not having a single unit of reserves along the line, not dealing with an enveloping en echelon attack despite it being formed and advancing 5-6 turns, poor sequencing of moves, not understanding how ZoCs really work resulting in your opponent dictating exactly which units line up with which. Before you guys put in the change that cut the push back rates in half, I also saw opponents make tactics that totally ignored how the battle line would likely look after 2 or 3 turns. I can't tell you how many battle lines I wrecked because people just don't take the time to sit and think about the consequences for attacking and locking up a unit's ZoC prematurely or how a bad pushback would leave them totally open.

Or small little things like sequencing your combats properly to minimize the chance of failed CT tests from ruining the turn. It occurs to this day. I had an opponent this season who decided that it was a good idea to move more units adjacent to a fragmented unit and resolve that combat first before the others around it. It lead to 1 additional unit taking a CT test it didn't need to take, and risking that two adjacent units in combat would have to take a CT test first and potentially have to fight the turn under that player's control while disrupted. It turned out that no unit failed the CT tests but these little things add up very quickly. If one of his units did crack due to the loss of the fragmented unit he chose to resolve first, his entire line buckles and the game is literally over. If that had happened one might attribute it to "bad luck" when in fact that player took an extra CT test he didn't need to take and took 2 combats with the risk of being disrupted when he could have resolved the fragmented combat last and avoided all of those things.

It is important when you have lost or are losing, to stop and look at the entire battlefield and the chain of events that lead to the position you are in to see if there was something you could have done or foreseen. I went 5-2-2 in Classical Antiquity A with the Romans in Season 2 and I could still recreate with a large degree of accuracy the sequencing error that contributed to the Spartan game loss and bad pushbacks that lead to a humiliating defeat vs the Gauls an army I should have savagely beaten. Did I have bad luck in those games? Yes, I had an en echelon attack and a stubborn vet spear unit on the far end of the line miraculously survived despite having 3 Vet Hastati Principes pile on in successive turn Impact combat. But had I sequenced it properly I would have stopped a cavalry unit from ZoCing a flank charge that I should have had rendered the "bad luck" I suffered moot. Against GrayMouser's Gauls, I lost 2 generals killed for literally no reason other than bad RNG but I also played horribly from that point on accidentally offering flanks on 2 different occasions due to carelessness. The bad luck turned a 100% win game into a 50/50 game. My awful play subsequent to that turned it into a 0% game.

It is simply a prevalent problem with human psychology and luck/skill games. Its like that guy that keeps losing money at the poker table saying he never has good luck when in reality, he is not picking the right hands, in the right place, with the right raises or calls, for the right pot odds that is depriving him of his chance to even get lucky or his ability to maximize his profits when he does get lucky and is at an advantageous position.

[rbodleyscott]

+1

[stockwellpete]

Between two equally skilled players, it often does come down to luck but luck is overattributed 90% of the time. Players often refuse to see a litany of minor mistakes that sum up to lose them the game. While a particular moment of bad luck might stand out, that opportunity might have existed only because of prior errors or bad strategy.

How does having your opponent get 10 rallies in a battle to just 1 for yourself, or having two units in your battle line fragmenting on impact against similar opponents right at the start of a battle (and then causing cohesion loss to adjacent units when they rout) fit into your notion of the over-attribution of luck? What could any player possibly do to mitigate such outcomes?

[MikeC_81]

Between two equally skilled players, it often does come down to luck but luck is overattributed 90% of the time. Players often refuse to see a litany of minor mistakes that sum up to lose them the game. While a particular moment of bad luck might stand out, that opportunity might have existed only because of prior errors or bad strategy.

How does having your opponent get 10 rallies in a battle to just 1 for yourself, or having two units in your battle line fragmenting on impact against similar opponents right at the start of a battle (and then causing cohesion loss to adjacent units when they rout) fit into your notion of the over-attribution of luck? What could any player possibly do to mitigate such outcomes?

There is nothing that can be done to mitigate truly low percentage outcomes from ruining a game, but you have to ask yourself how often does that occur over the long run and are you projecting that particular circumstance of true unavoidable bad luck onto other circumstances where maybe you got a little unlucky and mistakes or superior play from an opponent (even if by accident) was what ended up forcing your hand.

Everyone gets a set over set situation from time to time. But everyone also understands that you are supposed to lose your stack in those situations and they are rare circumstances.

[Geffalrus]

How does having your opponent get 10 rallies in a battle to just 1 for yourself, or having two units in your battle line fragmenting on impact against similar opponents right at the start of a battle (and then causing cohesion loss to adjacent units when they rout) fit into your notion of the over-attribution of luck? What could any player possibly do to mitigate such outcomes?

My understanding of how the rallies work is that units normally check once every two turns, and once every turn when they have a general present? At that point, Superior gives a bonus, as does having a general in melee, and then being a heavy infantry unit gives a bonus as well. Which is how I think I won a battle in Classical by having a Veteran pike with general rally two turns after breaking from a flank attack, giving me just the right percentage advantage to win.

So in practice, what I've been noticing happening is that I - personally - like to focus on gaining early advantages and picking off lone units. However, that results in the enemy having a decent number of units going through rally checks for several turns because that approach does not typically generate a sudden victory. It's a slower process. As such, those units have many opportunities to rally........and thus I quickly feel like my opponent is getting lucky. In some of my more recent games, however, I have been more successful at arranging it so that I hit my opponent with a massive attack, and then break that person's units in quick succession. Using one broken unit to downgrade another, etc etc. When that happens, it's much harder for the opposing player to recover because those units don't have the time for multiple rally checks. So they stay broken and I reach 40% quite quickly.

[devoncop]

Really interesting discussion.

I am probably more on the Mike81 side being a solidly mediocre player through making solidly mediocre decisions whenever I play

On the other hand the bigger scale and averaging out of bad luck of larger armies and battlefields do appeal so I would be in favour of the change.

I look forward to confirming my mediocrity on a bigger stage !

All the best

Ian

[Geffalrus]

Really interesting discussion.

I am probably more on the Mike81 side being a solidly mediocre player through making solidly mediocre decisions whenever I play

On the other hand the bigger scale and averaging out of bad luck of larger armies and battlefields do appeal so I would be in favour of the change.

I look forward to confirming my mediocrity on a bigger stage !

All the best

Ian

Here's an idea: have a special bracket/division/event within the next tourney be the SUPER SIZE ME brigade. The others sections remain Medium size, but you could use that special section to test out how players would really like to compete at larger sizes. That way you cater to both.

Personally, it's been very enlightening to compare playing the Antigonid list and the Breton list. One focuses on few, expensive, power units, while the other uses mass and flexibility. For the Antigonids, I need to maximize the impact of my pikes and get those good rolls. For the Bretons, my individual units are expendable. I can take stupid losses and still have more than a chance to win. Sacrificing 5 units is totally fine if that means that my opponents best units chased them to somewhere unimportant, allowing me to focus on dealing with the weaker elements of the army. Unlike with the Antigonids, where losing pike units massively degrades my combat power AND adds a lot to my opponent's score.

[paulmcneil]

I'm all for bigger armies, but PLEASE let's have much bigger playing areas, both width and depth to make games more realistic from flanking to hidden moves (like on a real battlefield)

[edb1815]

When I was playing a lot of TT tournaments someone once told me that the objective was to force the other army to take as many CT as possible. Eventually they will fail a critical one and the line will crumble, etc.

I do like Geffalrus' idea to have a trial run tournament or section using large maps and large armies and see how it goes.

[MikeC_81]

I can only hope that expanding the battlefield will not simply lead to another increase in passive and overly defensive play

[stockwellpete]

There is nothing that can be done to mitigate truly low percentage outcomes from ruining a game, but you have to ask yourself how often does that occur over the long run and are you projecting that particular circumstance of true unavoidable bad luck onto other circumstances where maybe you got a little unlucky and mistakes or superior play from an opponent (even if by accident) was what ended up forcing your hand.

Well, it happened in consecutive games to me. And 2 games later, two double-drop fragmentations in the same turn has happened to my opponent with warbands fighting warbands. This sort of things happens much more often than people are suggesting, in my opinion.

Edit: since the two double-drops in my favour, I have had about 30 rounds of melee and managed just one disruption while my Themed Event armies have fallen apart. Laughable.

[stockwellpete]

Here's an idea: have a special bracket/division/event within the next tourney be the SUPER SIZE ME brigade. The others sections remain Medium size, but you could use that special section to test out how players would really like to compete at larger sizes. That way you cater to both.

Yes, I think this might be the way to do it if there is general support for the idea among the players. Early Middle Ages or Biblical perhaps.

[stockwellpete]

I'm all for bigger armies, but PLEASE let's have much bigger playing areas, both width and depth to make games more realistic from flanking to hidden moves (like on a real battlefield)

Yes, if we move to 2,000 points then the battlefields are automatically "very wide". At 1600 points you have a choice between "wide" and "very wide".

[gamercb]

I do get frustrated when the odds say I have a 60% chance of winning and I charge only to lose badly and double drop, especially when it is one of the few warbands I am allowed in my army. Also when I bring up light troops to shoot at opponents light troops and, whilst doing damage, they do not drop morale only for them to shoot my lights who immediately drop morale. It is particularly frustrating when this happens not once but two or three times down the line.

I am a firm believer that there is a scale of luck, with some people at the top and others at the bottom. You notice it not only in wargaming but also in life. I am sure most of you know people who win more often in raffles than others even when they all have the same number of tickets.

I looked at and recorded the dice results in FOG1 for a number of games which was interesting. I have not discovered how I can see dice results in FOG II. Is it possible and how do I do it?

[MikeC_81]

There is nothing that can be done to mitigate truly low percentage outcomes from ruining a game, but you have to ask yourself how often does that occur over the long run and are you projecting that particular circumstance of true unavoidable bad luck onto other circumstances where maybe you got a little unlucky and mistakes or superior play from an opponent (even if by accident) was what ended up forcing your hand.

Well, it happened in consecutive games to me. And 2 games later, two double-drop fragmentations in the same turn has happened to my opponent with warbands fighting warbands. This sort of things happens much more often than people are suggesting, in my opinion.

Edit: since the two double-drops in my favour, I have had about 30 rounds of melee and managed just one disruption while my Themed Event armies have fallen apart. Laughable.

Then either RBS is not telling us the real calculations or there is a bug in the programming causing this. I personally have not felt the luck to be off. Everyone can get a bad run and everyone can go on a good run. That is the nature of RNG. The best players seem to keep on winning though. Monsters like Pantherboy and Ruski just keep taking trophy after trophy.

[rbodleyscott]

I have not discovered how I can see dice results in FOG II. Is it possible and how do I do it?

Unlike FOG1, FOG2 does not replicate tabletop FOG's "dice" for combat calculations, so no, you can't.

This is also why there is a lot less chance of extreme against-the-odds combat results in FOG2 than in tabletop FOG or FOG1.

[rbodleyscott]

There is nothing that can be done to mitigate truly low percentage outcomes from ruining a game, but you have to ask yourself how often does that occur over the long run and are you projecting that particular circumstance of true unavoidable bad luck onto other circumstances where maybe you got a little unlucky and mistakes or superior play from an opponent (even if by accident) was what ended up forcing your hand.

Well, it happened in consecutive games to me. And 2 games later, two double-drop fragmentations in the same turn has happened to my opponent with warbands fighting warbands. This sort of things happens much more often than people are suggesting, in my opinion.

Edit: since the two double-drops in my favour, I have had about 30 rounds of melee and managed just one disruption while my Themed Event armies have fallen apart. Laughable.

Then either RBS is not telling us the real calculations or there is a bug in the programming causing this.

Eh? What? How does that follow?

I would also note that warband vs warband combats have an increased chance of resulting in double cohesion drops at impact, because whichever side loses has an extra -1 CT modifier for fighting Impact Foot.

[General Shapur]

Well, it happened in consecutive games to me. And 2 games later, two double-drop fragmentations in the same turn has happened to my opponent with warbands fighting warbands. This sort of things happens much more often than people are suggesting, in my opinion.

Edit: since the two double-drops in my favour, I have had about 30 rounds of melee and managed just one disruption while my Themed Event armies have fallen apart. Laughable.

Then either RBS is not telling us the real calculations or there is a bug in the programming causing this.

Eh? What? How does that follow?

I would also note that warband vs warband combats have an increased chance of resulting in double cohesion drops at impact, because whichever side loses has an extra -1 CT modifier for fighting Impact Foot.

Thats interesting. I had experienced this a few times and had started to just position my troops for the opponent to attack and take the double frag risk. However, others also seem aware of this and we just face off and look at each other while the malestrom goes on around us.

[rbodleyscott]

Then either RBS is not telling us the real calculations or there is a bug in the programming causing this.

Eh? What? How does that follow?

I would also note that warband vs warband combats have an increased chance of resulting in double cohesion drops at impact, because whichever side loses has an extra -1 CT modifier for fighting Impact Foot.

Thats interesting. I had experienced this a few times and had started to just position my troops for the opponent to attack and take the double frag risk. However, others also seem aware of this and we just face off and look at each other while the malestrom goes on around us.

If the units are the same, the risk is the same to both units, whichever side charges.