Impact

[kronenblatt]

... the percentage chance quoted by Mike was 0.15% and not 1.5%...

I was actually referring to the PoA probabilities and the "about 2% chance to lose for the +50 PoA and 1% for a +100 PoA", interpolating to 1.5% for +75 PoA.

[Cunningcairn]

So, 1) As far as I know I never contributed to the thread about pursuers turning there backs to the enemy so WTH has it to do with this?
Sorry I'm getting grumpy. My badly made point is that the same argument is used to defend one absurd instance and support another absurd instance. It wasn't you.

2) Sure a flank is a flank... However you completely failed to address anything I said, i was just offering a quick "maybe this happened" to justify/explain a bad roll...

Let me ask you, how do you envision what potentially happened in "real life" in the GAME description of what you have an issue with?? A unit of lets say 50 men wide and 10 deep, all alone and unsupported just sits there and allows an enemy unit to waltz up and "cross the "T" " without doing SOMETHING ?? Even if it crossed the proverbial "T" ok.. so what happens.... The men on the flank turn about face, and now a 50 men wide front crashes into a unit 10 wide.... Sure i suppose the ends of the flanking unit could slowly chomp inward like a big PacMan but what effect would that even have? Would that part be impact or melee? How would that be any different than a column trying to punch thru a thin line? I dont know, I doubt its ever been described by any primary sources. I know you are aware of the Alternate GP mod which was been changing flank attackers to be less powerful for some of the reasons I noted here, primarily 90 degree flank attacks were likely not very common ... ( Oblique attacks for the rear are probably what ancient meant by flank attacks..)

Whatever abstracts are at play are not really relevant. This is a game that models ancient warfare and does so with a set of rules. The actual details of what is a flank, was it impact or melee, how deep the phalanx is or what armour is more effective is dictated by the rules. Abstractions become reality in the rules. We justify in our minds if the abstract view represented by the rules is logical and representative. The rules have clear statements regarding flanks and their vulnerability and yet you think that what happened in this example is logical and acceptable?
FOG is continuously evolving as have previous versions such as DBM, FOG1 etc. That is what makes it so much better than anything else out there. I also understand RBS being very cautious about making changes that might affect the balance or design philosophy but do think that some tweeks are required.

3) I liked FOG1 mechanics too, the virtual dice rolls were fun and visceral. But the amount of players screaming about RNG ruing the game were legion!! Yes I liked it too but this game has many improvements on FOG1

4) Good news for you is statistically this should not happen to you again for a long tine! LOL if only that was the case. Don't you know that one in a million chance events happen all the time

[Cunningcairn]

Having played some FoG1 before FoGII came out, the former definitely had far more outlier RNG events than the latter, thanks to its less granular dice system.

I played a lot of FOG1 and did not experience that as much as in FOG2.

[kronenblatt]

I abide to the wisdom and approach of Lloyd Christmas in Dumb Dumber:

Lloyd Christmas : I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary Swanson : Well Lloyd, that's difficult to say. We really don't...
Lloyd Christmas : Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you Mary, just... The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary Swanson : Not good.
Lloyd Christmas : You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary Swanson : I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd Christmas : So you're telling me there's a chance. YEAH!

[Gaznak]

FOG1 had a much higher chance of either unit winning as opposed to a tie.

Odds of losing on +1 POA in FOG1 was 20%. Odds of losing with just a quality advantage in FOG1 (which is represented in FOG2 was 50POA) was 28%.

There was no impact advantage to flank (not rear) attacks in FOG1. You got a +1 advantage for attacking flanks in melee, in which case the flanking unit would, as above, have a 20% chance of losing.

[Cunningcairn]

... the percentage chance quoted by Mike was 0.15% and not 1.5%...

I was actually referring to the PoA probabilities and the "about 2% chance to lose for the +50 PoA and 1% for a +100 PoA", interpolating to 1.5% for +75 PoA.

Sorry I misunderstood. I do not often use the tools provided by the game to determine whether to perform an action or not so I'm not always aware of the exact odds of succeeding in whatever I've decided. When the heat is on no-one actually starts looking at details and adrenaline, instinct, training and experience kick in. I think a great additional feature to the game would be to put a time clock on each move The designers have always modeled ancient warfare very well and I find that in most cases what happens represents what would be expected by historical accounts. The probabilities and details are only brought up when something that has occurred is discussed on the forum.

[Cunningcairn]

I abide to the wisdom and approach of Lloyd Christmas in Dumb Dumber:

Lloyd Christmas : I want to ask you a question, straight out, flat out, and I want you to give me the honest answer. What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me ending up together?
Mary Swanson : Well Lloyd, that's difficult to say. We really don't...
Lloyd Christmas : Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you Mary, just... The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary Swanson : Not good.
Lloyd Christmas : You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary Swanson : I'd say more like one out of a million.
Lloyd Christmas : So you're telling me there's a chance. YEAH!

LOL brilliant!

[Cunningcairn]

FOG1 had a much higher chance of either unit winning as opposed to a tie.

Odds of losing on +1 POA in FOG1 was 20%. Odds of losing with just a quality advantage in FOG1 (which is represented in FOG2 was 50POA) was 28%.

There was no impact advantage to flank (not rear) attacks in FOG1. You got a +1 advantage for attacking flanks in melee, in which case the flanking unit would, as above, have a 20% chance of losing.

Thanks that is interesting. I really did play many, many, many games of FOG1 and attacked many a flank yet not once did I fragment when doing so.

[Ludendorf]

My personal guess is that one of the hoplites got his spear jammed in the ground, did a pole vault into the air, landed on his commanding officer (killing him instantly) and then the rest of the phalanx tumbled head over heels over the two fallen soldiers only to slide gracefully to a halt in front of their bewildered enemies... but just close enough to be within spear thrust range.

[TheGrayMouser]

FOG1 had a much higher chance of either unit winning as opposed to a tie.

Odds of losing on +1 POA in FOG1 was 20%. Odds of losing with just a quality advantage in FOG1 (which is represented in FOG2 was 50POA) was 28%.

There was no impact advantage to flank (not rear) attacks in FOG1. You got a +1 advantage for attacking flanks in melee, in which case the flanking unit would, as above, have a 20% chance of losing.

Thanks that is interesting. I really did play many, many, many games of FOG1 and attacked many a flank yet not once did I fragment when doing so.

There was no impact “flank” attack in fog 1. There was a melee only bonus when in melee with more than one enemy, similar to what fog2 has.

[MikeC_81]

Having played some FoG1 before FoGII came out, the former definitely had far more outlier RNG events than the latter, thanks to its less granular dice system.

I played a lot of FOG1 and did not experience that as much as in FOG2.

Where there no double drops in FoG1? A more granular system actually can increase frustration with RNG from a game design standpoint. In systems where everything is resolved on 1d6 for instance, if there is a chance for failure, the smallest it can get is 1/6 which to a person is a reasonably large amount that can be anticipated for. When you get more granularity and odds of failure go as low as 1%, the psychological "feel bad" kicks in much harder because even though the odds were not 0, no reasonable person would anticipate that being the outcome, much less plan contingencies for. In systems that have less granularity, designers are stuck with either retaining a large percentage as a minimum chance of occurrence or shift them out of existence entirely and turn events into guaranteed outcomes.

[TheGrayMouser]

My personal guess is that one of the hoplites got his spear jammed in the ground, did a pole vault into the air, landed on his commanding officer (killing him instantly) and then the rest of the phalanx tumbled head over heels over the two fallen soldiers only to slide gracefully to a halt in front of their bewildered enemies... but just close enough to be within spear thrust range.

There is also the varmint hole that trips up the front ranks. I often roll this unfortunate dice combo when doing my yard work and twisting my ankle...below is my varmint hunter, eyes still glazed after a kill!

[Athos1660]

Hello TheGrayMouser,

I know you are aware of the Alternate GP mod which was been changing flank attackers to be less powerful for some of the reasons I noted here, primarily 90 degree flank attacks were likely not very common ... ( Oblique attacks for the rear are probably what ancient meant by flank attacks..)

I still can’t figure out why some players lobby for toning down in-game effects, such as those of flank charges. The FoG2/P&S/SJ series is so much better with strong effects.

(…) some of the reasons I noted here, primarily 90 degree flank attacks were likely not very common ... ( Oblique attacks for the rear are probably what ancient meant by flank attacks..)

This is a bold claim !

Cheers !

[SimonLancaster]

Hello TheGrayMouser,

I know you are aware of the Alternate GP mod which was been changing flank attackers to be less powerful for some of the reasons I noted here, primarily 90 degree flank attacks were likely not very common ... ( Oblique attacks for the rear are probably what ancient meant by flank attacks..)

I still can’t figure out why some players lobby for toning down in-game effects, such as those of flank charges. The FoG2/P&S/SJ series is so much better with strong effects.

+1

The game is exciting because of the possibility of strong and unplanned effects. This is what makes it so good and a classic. Not chess as one grog told me!

[Cunningcairn]

My personal guess is that one of the hoplites got his spear jammed in the ground, did a pole vault into the air, landed on his commanding officer (killing him instantly) and then the rest of the phalanx tumbled head over heels over the two fallen soldiers only to slide gracefully to a halt in front of their bewildered enemies... but just close enough to be within spear thrust range.

LOL damn now that you explain it I can see it happening

[Cunningcairn]

FOG1 had a much higher chance of either unit winning as opposed to a tie.

Odds of losing on +1 POA in FOG1 was 20%. Odds of losing with just a quality advantage in FOG1 (which is represented in FOG2 was 50POA) was 28%.

There was no impact advantage to flank (not rear) attacks in FOG1. You got a +1 advantage for attacking flanks in melee, in which case the flanking unit would, as above, have a 20% chance of losing.

Thanks that is interesting. I really did play many, many, many games of FOG1 and attacked many a flank yet not once did I fragment when doing so.

There was no impact “flank” attack in fog 1. There was a melee only bonus when in melee with more than one enemy, similar to what fog2 has.

To be honest I can't remember. I'm sure you dropped a cohesion level when hit in flank or rear when in combat or is that a false memory?

[Cunningcairn]

My personal guess is that one of the hoplites got his spear jammed in the ground, did a pole vault into the air, landed on his commanding officer (killing him instantly) and then the rest of the phalanx tumbled head over heels over the two fallen soldiers only to slide gracefully to a halt in front of their bewildered enemies... but just close enough to be within spear thrust range.

There is also the varmint hole that trips up the front ranks. I often roll this unfortunate dice combo when doing my yard work and twisting my ankle...below is my varmint hunter, eyes still glazed after a kill!

Beautiful! From the look in his eye many a varmint have been taken down.

This is my varmint hunter and phalanx tripper.

2435.jpg (904.57 KiB) Viewed 1826 times

[Cunningcairn]

Having played some FoG1 before FoGII came out, the former definitely had far more outlier RNG events than the latter, thanks to its less granular dice system.

I played a lot of FOG1 and did not experience that as much as in FOG2.

Where there no double drops in FoG1? A more granular system actually can increase frustration with RNG from a game design standpoint. In systems where everything is resolved on 1d6 for instance, if there is a chance for failure, the smallest it can get is 1/6 which to a person is a reasonably large amount that can be anticipated for. When you get more granularity and odds of failure go as low as 1%, the psychological "feel bad" kicks in much harder because even though the odds were not 0, no reasonable person would anticipate that being the outcome, much less plan contingencies for. In systems that have less granularity, designers are stuck with either retaining a large percentage as a minimum chance of occurrence or shift them out of existence entirely and turn events into guaranteed outcomes.

Yes I agree with everything you say. In this flank attack incident I understand from your calculations that probability was indeed very low. Less than 1%. That is the overall probability that takes into account a few RNG rolls to cover combat and then the cohesion test. The way I see it is that the two -1 cohesion penalties for losses of >5% and suffering many more casualties than were inflicted is where the problem is. The possibility of two cohesion penalties when charging an opponent in the flank/rear could for example be limited to a maximum of -1 cohesion penalty. The problem would go away, results would be far more in line with historical precedent, silliness could still occur but without the feeling that magic spells had been introduced.

[Cunningcairn]

Hello TheGrayMouser,

I know you are aware of the Alternate GP mod which was been changing flank attackers to be less powerful for some of the reasons I noted here, primarily 90 degree flank attacks were likely not very common ... ( Oblique attacks for the rear are probably what ancient meant by flank attacks..)

I still can’t figure out why some players lobby for toning down in-game effects, such as those of flank charges. The FoG2/P&S/SJ series is so much better with strong effects.

+1

The game is exciting because of the possibility of strong and unplanned effects. This is what makes it so good and a classic. Not chess as one grog told me!

It is a wargame, It models warfare. Everybody knows you plan for the unexpected but there are always boundaries within which these unexpected events can occur. Yes the game is exiting when you play a close tight game that is not governed by events that are way beyond the boundaries. That type of game is very boring and definitely not exiting or enjoyable and very much like snakes and ladders.

[TheGrayMouser]

My personal guess is that one of the hoplites got his spear jammed in the ground, did a pole vault into the air, landed on his commanding officer (killing him instantly) and then the rest of the phalanx tumbled head over heels over the two fallen soldiers only to slide gracefully to a halt in front of their bewildered enemies... but just close enough to be within spear thrust range.

There is also the varmint hole that trips up the front ranks. I often roll this unfortunate dice combo when doing my yard work and twisting my ankle...below is my varmint hunter, eyes still glazed after a kill!

Beautiful! From the look in his eye many a varmint have been taken down.

This is my varmint hunter and phalanx tripper.
2435.jpg

Haha, yours is much more gentile than my mutt, but he gets the job done. Last couple years chipmunks have over populated ( ie infested) the NE and are trying to kill me from their bunker networks and mine shaft warfare under my driveway and foundation!!