Impact

[TheGrayMouser]

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 !

To be clear I am not advocating any changes to how flank attacks work in game, i like them, I was just pointing to the fact that the concept of flank attacks is not something we can really know for sure about....

Below is crude pic using the editor which show on a man man scale of a 240 man cavalry unit ( 3 ranks deep) flank attacking a several maniples with the assumtion each is 8 men deep. It not quite perfect as the depth of the Roman is distorted as the graphics only allow for 2 men deep per grid, and thus it give the appearance that MORE horseman would be in contact then in reality. In "real life" it would be more like ONLY 8 horsemen would impact 16 romans out of all this....
And then what happens??? DO the cavaly in the center "run the gantlet ".... Does not seem to safe to want to get squished between two formations of angry romans... What about the two cavalry flanks lapping about?? It seems they would just end up fighting the Romans head on , and have lost whatever advantage of momentum.... Just food for thought

[Athos1660]

^ Looks like a Monty Python's plan for the Holy Grail

Where did you get that Ancient and Middle age cavalry always charged in long lines of 80x 3 ranks IRL (ie that 80x 3 was the main layout) ?

[TheGrayMouser]

^ Looks like a Monty Python's plan for the Holy Grail

Where did you get that Ancient and Middle age cavalry always charged in long lines of 80x 3 ranks IRL (ie that 80x 3 was the main layout) ?

Where do you get that I would want, and or have time, to create possibly dozens of screen shots showing various combos of lines, columns, rhomboids, wedges or any other possible let alone plausible cavalry formations?

The 3 lines of 80 equals 1 Fog2 cavalry unit man power wise....nothing more.

[TheGrayMouser]

^ Looks like a Monty Python's plan for the Holy Grail

Where did you get that Ancient and Middle age cavalry always charged in long lines of 80x 3 ranks IRL (ie that 80x 3 was the main layout) ?

Where do you get that I would want, and or have time, to create possibly dozens of screen shots showing various combos of lines, columns, rhomboids, wedges or any other possible let alone plausible cavalry formations?

The 3 lines of 80 equals 1 Fog2 cavalry unit man power wise....nothing more. And it’s probably, as best one can determine with the “looseness” of groundscale in the game, the most frontage a cavalry unit can have to fit in a grid!!( hell, it’s likely too generous)

[TheGrayMouser]

Oops, hit quote instead of edit!!

[Athos1660]

^ Looks like a Monty Python's plan for the Holy Grail

Where did you get that Ancient and Middle age cavalry always charged in long lines of 80x 3 ranks IRL (ie that 80x 3 was the main layout) ?

Where do you get that I would want, and or have time, to create possibly dozens of screen shots showing various combos of lines, columns, rhomboids, wedges or any other possible let alone plausible cavalry formations?

Well, that’s you who tried to demonstrate...

….that the concept of flank attacks is not something we can really know for sure about....

and that flank attacks were IRL less powerful than shown in game...

...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..)

…by depicting a charge of 80 cavalrymen x 3 ranks...

The 3 lines of 80 equals 1 Fog2 cavalry unit man power wise....nothing more. And it’s probably, as best one can determine with the “looseness” of groundscale in the game, the most frontage a cavalry unit can have to fit in a grid!!( hell, it’s likely too generous)

I think that it is not a matter of "frontage", nor of the number 240. FoG2 is top-bottom designed. I know nothing about the warfare of the period but I think the in-game cav unit is meant to handle various forms of organisation of cavalry (in terms of depth, number of "sub-units", number of horsemen per ranks...). For example, in P&S, cavalry unit man power is 250 men but there are deep squadrons (cuirassiers) and thin ones (lancers). Moreover, IRL French compagnies of cavalerie légère included 100 troopers in 1610 and 60 troopers in 1620. Likewise, the number of compagnies per squadron varied over time, etc. See what I mean ? I think you can't divide 240 by 3 and say "as there are 80 cavalrymen in front, they can't succeed in flank charging". Sub-units could charge independently. And btw I'd bet on more ranks than 3, in general.

... to my understanding...

[TheGrayMouser]

^ Looks like a Monty Python's plan for the Holy Grail

Where did you get that Ancient and Middle age cavalry always charged in long lines of 80x 3 ranks IRL (ie that 80x 3 was the main layout) ?

Where do you get that I would want, and or have time, to create possibly dozens of screen shots showing various combos of lines, columns, rhomboids, wedges or any other possible let alone plausible cavalry formations?

Well, that’s you who tried to demonstrate...

….that the concept of flank attacks is not something we can really know for sure about....

and that flank attacks were IRL less powerful than shown in game...

...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..)

…by depicting a charge of 80 cavalrymen x 3 ranks...

The 3 lines of 80 equals 1 Fog2 cavalry unit man power wise....nothing more. And it’s probably, as best one can determine with the “looseness” of groundscale in the game, the most frontage a cavalry unit can have to fit in a grid!!( hell, it’s likely too generous)

I think that it is not a matter of "frontage", nor of the number 240. FoG2 is top-bottom designed. I know nothing about the warfare of the period but I think the in-game cav unit is meant to handle various forms of organisation of cavalry (in terms of depth, number of "sub-units", number of horsemen per ranks...). For example, in P&S, cavalry unit man power is 250 men but there are deep squadrons (cuirassiers) and thin ones (lancers). Moreover, IRL French compagnies of cavalerie légère included 100 troopers in 1610 and 60 troopers in 1620. Likewise, the number of compagnies per squadron varied over time, etc. See what I mean ? I think you can't divide 240 by 3 and say "as there are 80 cavalrymen in front, they can't succeed in flank charging". Sub-units could charge independently. And btw I'd bet on more ranks than 3, in general.

... to my understanding...

I never said that this is exactly how it would look and certainly the representation of sub units within FOG units are beyond the scope of this game, however despite the game being top down, a grid has a certain amount of room, no? It is wide enough to be 1/4 of the range of "effective bow fire". So loosely between 40-60 meters. So basicially horsies and their riders heel to heel need a meter of frontage each, I think perhaps 80 man wide is WAY too generous, more like 40-50.

It doesnt matter though because the entire point was to have a picture of how a flank attack , at the POINT OF CONTACT, has POSSIBLY very few men directly involved. What happens next is anyone guess, right? In my picture, would a few cavalry wedges do better? Would a 96 man wedge feel brave enough to trot down the aisle between two maniples of Roman heavy infantry with the expectation of coming out alive? I dunno!?

Nothing more about what I think feel or desire should be inferred here, this is a fun excersize. I say again though, I like how the game treats flanks as its good game play!

BTY in the Renaissance era German lancers were forming in deep columns, sometimes 50 ranks deep!! before pistols even came into common use, and the French tried , briefly, to form lancers in deep columns as well to counter pistol armed Cuirassiers.. It didnt seem to help much though...

[MikeC_81]

Hello TheGrayMouser,



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.

I never understood what you, Pete, Paul, and the anti-rng crowd really meant until you posted this topic. To be fair you guys were terrible at articulating what it was that actually bugs you . This is why we frequently talk in circles on the subject at various points in time. The fundamental gameplay principle that you guys object to is that RBS designed FoG2 with a firewall built between Frequency of Outcomes and the Range of Outcomes whereas many other gaming systems tie both the Frequency of Outcomes and the Range of Outcomes together in their system.

We all agree that in a strategy game, Player Input should have a measurable impact on success. How that translates into outcomes that the game provides to the Player is different though. Let's take DBA for example. Imagine a Roman Legionary represented as a Blade unit is matched up solo against a Greek Hoplite represented as a Spear unit and this is a favoured matchup for the Blades. Assuming all else is equal, most would agree that getting a Blade to matchup against a Spear is good Player Input. In close combat, DBA has 4 outcomes in this case when both sides roll a d6 to resolve combat. If the Blades double the Spears, the Spears die. If the Blades beat the Spears, the Spears recoil. If tied they are stuck together. If the Blades lose then they recoil. If the Blades get doubled, they die (an actual impossibility!).

Now imagine the Spear player is really good and managed to get double overlaps on Blade unit making him roll at a score of -2. Now it is the Spears who cannot suffer the catastrophic event of being killed by doubling (5-3+6) since the best score the Blades can get is an 8 while the Spears by default will score a minimum of 5 (4+1). Since DBA modifiers strictly add or subtract the unit's base attack score, as a more skillful player generates an ever-increasing number of modifiers in any given combat scenario, not only do the odds of a positive outcome increase, but the range of possible outcomes start to exclude the worst possible scenarios entirely (getting doubled and killed).

In FoG2, regardless of how many positive modifiers you pile on, the risk of the worst possible outcome is never 0. You can only work to make a negative outcome less likely but should RNGesus decide unfavorably, you are not spared the worst possible outcome (losing the 1% combat and then rolling 3 or less to get hit by the double drop). In fact, the potential herculean efforts put in by players to obtain positive modifiers (flank, generals, good matchups, etc) only serve to infuriate the player ever more as they view their hard work flushed down the toilet by the vagaries of RNG. This issue is separate and distinct from the arguments that RNG overrides skill or that there is too much RNG in the game. This is how those who are not in favour how FoG2 works mechanically frequently voice their concerns, and to be fair it is inaccurate. Better skilled players will win more in the long run over their lesser-skilled brethren and extreme outliers will be just that - extreme outliers. But the fact that both of these things are true does not alleviate the fact that you will feel like absolute dog**** when your flank attack goes off only to see your men lose and instantly get fragmented.

Both systems have their merit. In the former system ala DBA, there is sometimes a "smothering" effect where games have to be played in a very specific style both strategically and mechanically because risk mitigation is limited to the bounds of the range of outcomes. These games also often contain very heavy "snow ball" effects as the first player to get a break in the RNG often can safely, systematically, and steadily convert that first advantage received into an insurmountable avalanche so the game is decided early but takes a long time to play out. The second system allows for a more dynamic range of events and forces players who don't want to have "glass cannon" gameplans to have more resources devoted to risk mitigation precisely because catastrophic outcomes can and will happen regardless of how well you planned it out.

The problem for you however is that RBS likely designed this game with this system in mind meaning that it is a fundamental game design choice and he is unlikely to change this ever.

[Athos1660]

I never said that this is exactly how it would look and certainly the representation of sub units within FOG units are beyond the scope of this game, however despite the game being top down, a grid has a certain amount of room, no? It is wide enough to be 1/4 of the range of "effective bow fire". So loosely between 40-60 meters. So basicially horsies and their riders heel to heel need a meter of frontage each, I think perhaps 80 man wide is WAY too generous, more like 40-50.

It doesnt matter though because the entire point was to have a picture of how a flank attack , at the POINT OF CONTACT, has POSSIBLY very few men directly involved. What happens next is anyone guess, right? In my picture, would a few cavalry wedges do better? Would a 96 man wedge feel brave enough to trot down the aisle between two maniples of Roman heavy infantry with the expectation of coming out alive? I dunno!?

Nothing more about what I think feel or desire should be inferred here, this is a fun excersize. I say again though, I like how the game treats flanks as its good game play!

BTY in the Renaissance era German lancers were forming in deep columns, sometimes 50 ranks deep!! before pistols even came into common use, and the French tried , briefly, to form lancers in deep columns as well to counter pistol armed Cuirassiers.. It didnt seem to help much though...

Here is an interesting quote of Richard (as always) about sub-units from this thread. This will be clearer than my own text :

Cavalry units in this period were made up of separate troops/drungi, not one monolithic block.
(...)
"Units" are not in reality monolithic blocks, but are made up of multiple sub-units, and cavalry combats in particular were a lot less static than is displayed on the screen. Much of what goes on within each "unit" is abstracted, and what is visible on the game screen should not be taken too literally. There is a lot going on in reality that is below the level of representation in the game, so is not displayed.

Cheers!

[TheGrayMouser]

I never said that this is exactly how it would look and certainly the representation of sub units within FOG units are beyond the scope of this game, however despite the game being top down, a grid has a certain amount of room, no? It is wide enough to be 1/4 of the range of "effective bow fire". So loosely between 40-60 meters. So basicially horsies and their riders heel to heel need a meter of frontage each, I think perhaps 80 man wide is WAY too generous, more like 40-50.

It doesnt matter though because the entire point was to have a picture of how a flank attack , at the POINT OF CONTACT, has POSSIBLY very few men directly involved. What happens next is anyone guess, right? In my picture, would a few cavalry wedges do better? Would a 96 man wedge feel brave enough to trot down the aisle between two maniples of Roman heavy infantry with the expectation of coming out alive? I dunno!?

Nothing more about what I think feel or desire should be inferred here, this is a fun excersize. I say again though, I like how the game treats flanks as its good game play!

BTY in the Renaissance era German lancers were forming in deep columns, sometimes 50 ranks deep!! before pistols even came into common use, and the French tried , briefly, to form lancers in deep columns as well to counter pistol armed Cuirassiers.. It didnt seem to help much though...

Here is an interesting quote of Richard (as always) about sub-units from this thread. This will be clearer than my own text :

Cavalry units in this period were made up of separate troops/drungi, not one monolithic block.
(...)
"Units" are not in reality monolithic blocks, but are made up of multiple sub-units, and cavalry combats in particular were a lot less static than is displayed on the screen. Much of what goes on within each "unit" is abstracted, and what is visible on the game screen should not be taken too literally. There is a lot going on in reality that is below the level of representation in the game, so is not displayed.

Cheers!

Ahh, so you agree with me, the game is abstract and a flank attack can mean many things, and thus in game results can vary from destruction of the flanked unit, not much to either, or even rarely the flanker getting slapped hard! What I have been suggesting the entire time.

[rbodleyscott]

Both systems have their merit. In the former system ala DBA, there is sometimes a "smothering" effect where games have to be played in a very specific style both strategically and mechanically because risk mitigation is limited to the bounds of the range of outcomes. These games also often contain very heavy "snow ball" effects as the first player to get a break in the RNG often can safely, systematically, and steadily convert that first advantage received into an insurmountable avalanche so the game is decided early but takes a long time to play out. The second system allows for a more dynamic range of events and forces players who don't want to have "glass cannon" gameplans to have more resources devoted to risk mitigation precisely because catastrophic outcomes can and will happen regardless of how well you planned it out.

The problem for you however is that RBS likely designed this game with this system in mind meaning that it is a fundamental game design choice and he is unlikely to change this ever.

Correct.

[Athos1660]

I never said that this is exactly how it would look and certainly the representation of sub units within FOG units are beyond the scope of this game, however despite the game being top down, a grid has a certain amount of room, no? It is wide enough to be 1/4 of the range of "effective bow fire". So loosely between 40-60 meters. So basicially horsies and their riders heel to heel need a meter of frontage each, I think perhaps 80 man wide is WAY too generous, more like 40-50.

It doesnt matter though because the entire point was to have a picture of how a flank attack , at the POINT OF CONTACT, has POSSIBLY very few men directly involved. What happens next is anyone guess, right? In my picture, would a few cavalry wedges do better? Would a 96 man wedge feel brave enough to trot down the aisle between two maniples of Roman heavy infantry with the expectation of coming out alive? I dunno!?

Nothing more about what I think feel or desire should be inferred here, this is a fun excersize. I say again though, I like how the game treats flanks as its good game play!

BTY in the Renaissance era German lancers were forming in deep columns, sometimes 50 ranks deep!! before pistols even came into common use, and the French tried , briefly, to form lancers in deep columns as well to counter pistol armed Cuirassiers.. It didnt seem to help much though...

Here is an interesting quote of Richard (as always) about sub-units from this thread. This will be clearer than my own text :

Cavalry units in this period were made up of separate troops/drungi, not one monolithic block.
(...)
"Units" are not in reality monolithic blocks, but are made up of multiple sub-units, and cavalry combats in particular were a lot less static than is displayed on the screen. Much of what goes on within each "unit" is abstracted, and what is visible on the game screen should not be taken too literally. There is a lot going on in reality that is below the level of representation in the game, so is not displayed.

Cheers!

Ahh, so you agree with me, the game is abstract and a flank attack can mean many things, and thus in game results can vary from destruction of the flanked unit, not much to either, or even rarely the flanker getting slapped hard! What I have been suggesting the entire time.

Don't be of bad faith. You perfectly know that our disagreement is about this statement :

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..)

and the fact that it can't proved with your 80 horsemen x3 ranks drawing.

I suggest we stop this discussion here and behave like Gentlemen. Have a nice day, Sir

[Cunningcairn]

I never understood what you, Pete, Paul, and the anti-rng crowd really meant until you posted this topic. To be fair you guys were terrible at articulating what it was that actually bugs you . This is why we frequently talk in circles on the subject at various points in time. The fundamental gameplay principle that you guys object to is that RBS designed FoG2 with a firewall built between Frequency of Outcomes and the Range of Outcomes whereas many other gaming systems tie both the Frequency of Outcomes and the Range of Outcomes together in their system.

We all agree that in a strategy game, Player Input should have a measurable impact on success. How that translates into outcomes that the game provides to the Player is different though. Let's take DBA for example. Imagine a Roman Legionary represented as a Blade unit is matched up solo against a Greek Hoplite represented as a Spear unit and this is a favoured matchup for the Blades. Assuming all else is equal, most would agree that getting a Blade to matchup against a Spear is good Player Input. In close combat, DBA has 4 outcomes in this case when both sides roll a d6 to resolve combat. If the Blades double the Spears, the Spears die. If the Blades beat the Spears, the Spears recoil. If tied they are stuck together. If the Blades lose then they recoil. If the Blades get doubled, they die (an actual impossibility!).

Now imagine the Spear player is really good and managed to get double overlaps on Blade unit making him roll at a score of -2. Now it is the Spears who cannot suffer the catastrophic event of being killed by doubling (5-3+6) since the best score the Blades can get is an 8 while the Spears by default will score a minimum of 5 (4+1). Since DBA modifiers strictly add or subtract the unit's base attack score, as a more skillful player generates an ever-increasing number of modifiers in any given combat scenario, not only do the odds of a positive outcome increase, but the range of possible outcomes start to exclude the worst possible scenarios entirely (getting doubled and killed).

In FoG2, regardless of how many positive modifiers you pile on, the risk of the worst possible outcome is never 0. You can only work to make a negative outcome less likely but should RNGesus decide unfavorably, you are not spared the worst possible outcome (losing the 1% combat and then rolling 3 or less to get hit by the double drop). In fact, the potential herculean efforts put in by players to obtain positive modifiers (flank, generals, good matchups, etc) only serve to infuriate the player ever more as they view their hard work flushed down the toilet by the vagaries of RNG. This issue is separate and distinct from the arguments that RNG overrides skill or that there is too much RNG in the game. This is how those who are not in favour how FoG2 works mechanically frequently voice their concerns, and to be fair it is inaccurate. Better skilled players will win more in the long run over their lesser-skilled brethren and extreme outliers will be just that - extreme outliers. But the fact that both of these things are true does not alleviate the fact that you will feel like absolute dog**** when your flank attack goes off only to see your men lose and instantly get fragmented.

Both systems have their merit. In the former system ala DBA, there is sometimes a "smothering" effect where games have to be played in a very specific style both strategically and mechanically because risk mitigation is limited to the bounds of the range of outcomes. These games also often contain very heavy "snow ball" effects as the first player to get a break in the RNG often can safely, systematically, and steadily convert that first advantage received into an insurmountable avalanche so the game is decided early but takes a long time to play out. The second system allows for a more dynamic range of events and forces players who don't want to have "glass cannon" gameplans to have more resources devoted to risk mitigation precisely because catastrophic outcomes can and will happen regardless of how well you planned it out.

The problem for you however is that RBS likely designed this game with this system in mind meaning that it is a fundamental game design choice and he is unlikely to change this ever.

A very good explanation of game systems Mike. You are however incorrect in grouping Paul, Pete, myself and unnamed others as an anti RNG crowd. I have certainly never discussed anything with them regarding this topic outside what has been posted on the forum and we certainly don't share a single view of what this game should or should not be.

I agree and understand that RBS has chosen this game system and in fact prefer that second system as described by you. What is being discussed in this and one or two other topics I have brought to the forum is not opposing this system. In an earlier reply to TheGreyMouser I said something like abstraction becomes reality when it is manifested into the rules. At this point abstractions are justified and accepted or rejected by participants and the "blurriness" around issues like this are presented. I suppose my issue is that I find it very difficult to justify some of RBS' abstractions and their manifestations into a "rule" in my own head. So going back to where we started. My question "Does it make sense that a steady unit of hoplites should fragment when it hits another hoplite unit in the flank?" is asked at the level of abstraction manifested into a rule. In other words with RBS' chosen system does this outcome support the abstraction or is it pushing the boundaries of that abstraction? I don't really have any right to make this statement as RBS has never ever presented his abstraction on this forum (only in the rules) so all I can do is question instances that make it difficult for me to justify to myself.
So assuming now that our FOG2 community all support this second system as described by you over any other system, does anyone here think it makes sense that a unit of hoplites should be able to drop 2 cohesion levels when it charges another unit of holplites in the flank?

[kronenblatt]

Does anyone here think it makes sense that a unit of hoplites should be able to drop 2 cohesion levels when it charges another unit of holplites in the flank?

Yes, my view is that it makes sense that it's possible. Still (highly) unlikely, but possible. And with the vast number of battles, turns, and dice rolls, it's bound to happen from time to time.

[kronenblatt]

We all agree that in a strategy game, Player Input should have a measurable impact on success. How that translates into outcomes that the game provides to the Player is different though. Let's take DBA for example. Imagine a Roman Legionary represented as a Blade unit is matched up solo against a Greek Hoplite represented as a Spear unit and this is a favoured matchup for the Blades. Assuming all else is equal, most would agree that getting a Blade to matchup against a Spear is good Player Input. In close combat, DBA has 4 outcomes in this case when both sides roll a d6 to resolve combat. If the Blades double the Spears, the Spears die. If the Blades beat the Spears, the Spears recoil. If tied they are stuck together. If the Blades lose then they recoil. If the Blades get doubled, they die (an actual impossibility!).

Now imagine the Spear player is really good and managed to get double overlaps on Blade unit making him roll at a score of -2. Now it is the Spears who cannot suffer the catastrophic event of being killed by doubling (5-3+6) since the best score the Blades can get is an 8 while the Spears by default will score a minimum of 5 (4+1). Since DBA modifiers strictly add or subtract the unit's base attack score, as a more skillful player generates an ever-increasing number of modifiers in any given combat scenario, not only do the odds of a positive outcome increase, but the range of possible outcomes start to exclude the worst possible scenarios entirely (getting doubled and killed).

In FoG2, regardless of how many positive modifiers you pile on, the risk of the worst possible outcome is never 0. You can only work to make a negative outcome less likely but should RNGesus decide unfavorably, you are not spared the worst possible outcome (losing the 1% combat and then rolling 3 or less to get hit by the double drop). In fact, the potential herculean efforts put in by players to obtain positive modifiers (flank, generals, good matchups, etc) only serve to infuriate the player ever more as they view their hard work flushed down the toilet by the vagaries of RNG. This issue is separate and distinct from the arguments that RNG overrides skill or that there is too much RNG in the game. This is how those who are not in favour how FoG2 works mechanically frequently voice their concerns, and to be fair it is inaccurate. Better skilled players will win more in the long run over their lesser-skilled brethren and extreme outliers will be just that - extreme outliers. But the fact that both of these things are true does not alleviate the fact that you will feel like absolute dog**** when your flank attack goes off only to see your men lose and instantly get fragmented.

Both systems have their merit. In the former system ala DBA, there is sometimes a "smothering" effect where games have to be played in a very specific style both strategically and mechanically because risk mitigation is limited to the bounds of the range of outcomes. These games also often contain very heavy "snow ball" effects as the first player to get a break in the RNG often can safely, systematically, and steadily convert that first advantage received into an insurmountable avalanche so the game is decided early but takes a long time to play out. The second system allows for a more dynamic range of events and forces players who don't want to have "glass cannon" gameplans to have more resources devoted to risk mitigation precisely because catastrophic outcomes can and will happen regardless of how well you planned it out.

The problem for you however is that RBS likely designed this game with this system in mind meaning that it is a fundamental game design choice and he is unlikely to change this ever.

I like the direction this discussion is taking, because now it really starts becoming interesting, comparing these two fundamentally different systems. And I too like (as I wrote above) the FoG2 vision; that the probability of a really adverse outcome can approach but not quite reach 0, and that of a beneficial outcome never quite reach 1. Over the longer term, it will even out and skill will overtake chance, but in an individual situation, surprises create excitement (and admittedly from time to time frustration) and that is a nice ingredient for a great game. (I don't claim to be an expert on Alexander the Great, but have read a little about him and his era, and he seems to have been very able and fairly lucky (at least until Babylon in 323 BC). (You could even argue that he was lucky that his army refused to march further into India, and as far as his legacy and achievements are concerned, he may even have been lucky to die at a young age, with unsurpassed achievements and few failures. My one cent.))

[TheGrayMouser]

Does anyone here think it makes sense that a unit of hoplites should be able to drop 2 cohesion levels when it charges another unit of holplites in the flank?

Yes, my view is that it makes sense that it's possible. Still (highly) unlikely, but possible. And with the vast number of battles, turns, and dice rolls, it's bound to happen from time to time.

Well, I’m pretty open minded about what flank attacks actually could represent in game, so yeah I have no problem at all with the current game mechanic.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Though I prefer Pike and Shot's auto drop system, I don't have a problem with how it works in FoGII. I've played hundreds of MP games and I have never seen that happen, so it seems appropriately rare to me.

[MikeC_81]

I suppose my issue is that I find it very difficult to justify some of RBS' abstractions and their manifestations into a "rule" in my own head. So going back to where we started. My question "Does it make sense that a steady unit of hoplites should fragment when it hits another hoplite unit in the flank?" is asked at the level of abstraction manifested into a rule. In other words with RBS' chosen system does this outcome support the abstraction or is it pushing the boundaries of that abstraction?

I personally think that regardless of what is being abstracted, high impact - very low probability events are always possible IRL. Is modeling such events good gameplay? Not always especially if this is mixed in with hard rules that can never be broken like ZoCs and flanking auto drops. Ex

-As I said, it can create excessive frustration to the player who 'made the right play'. It creates situations where very bad outcomes arise where no player would ever competently assign resources to create contingency plans for such an exceedingly low probability event.

-It has an adverse effect on gameplay where if your opponent is willing to take a high variance strategy, you must also tailor your own strategy somewhat to encompass higher variance to counter.

-Finally, it can create situations where if a player is behind, the correct play is in many occasions is not to play to the best of their ability mechanically to try and stabilize, but rather to immediately initiate as many RNG events as possible since extreme variance will yield a greater EV in the long run than playing 'standard' and trying to recover purely through predictable mechanical means.

So in your case, if perhaps there was an adjustment where a unit flanking another would not necessarily always win, but would never lose the combat (ie draw) or that if it did lose it would auto pass its CT, I would not be averse to such a rule change though you would have to strongly think through knock-on effects.

[Cunningcairn]

Though I prefer Pike and Shot's auto drop system, I don't have a problem with how it works in FoGII. I've played hundreds of MP games and I have never seen that happen, so it seems appropriately rare to me.

The chance to charge an opponent in the flank is indeed a rare occurrence and the odds for double dropping when doing so are very low. In saying that since my first post I have had only two opportunities to do so and have dropped two cohesion levels in both instances.

[Cunningcairn]

I suppose my issue is that I find it very difficult to justify some of RBS' abstractions and their manifestations into a "rule" in my own head. So going back to where we started. My question "Does it make sense that a steady unit of hoplites should fragment when it hits another hoplite unit in the flank?" is asked at the level of abstraction manifested into a rule. In other words with RBS' chosen system does this outcome support the abstraction or is it pushing the boundaries of that abstraction?

I personally think that regardless of what is being abstracted, high impact - very low probability events are always possible IRL. Is modeling such events good gameplay? Not always especially if this is mixed in with hard rules that can never be broken like ZoCs and flanking auto drops. Ex

-As I said, it can create excessive frustration to the player who 'made the right play'. It creates situations where very bad outcomes arise where no player would ever competently assign resources to create contingency plans for such an exceedingly low probability event.

-It has an adverse effect on gameplay where if your opponent is willing to take a high variance strategy, you must also tailor your own strategy somewhat to encompass higher variance to counter.

-Finally, it can create situations where if a player is behind, the correct play is in many occasions is not to play to the best of their ability mechanically to try and stabilize, but rather to immediately initiate as many RNG events as possible since extreme variance will yield a greater EV in the long run than playing 'standard' and trying to recover purely through predictable mechanical means.

So in your case, if perhaps there was an adjustment where a unit flanking another would not necessarily always win, but would never lose the combat (ie draw) or that if it did lose it would auto pass its CT, I would not be averse to such a rule change though you would have to strongly think through knock-on effects.

Firstly a thanks to everyone that responded. Mike yes once again we are in agreement. I think gameplay is a victim here. Irrespective of the game system a good wargame will always promote the tactics of the period it models and I feel that is being undermined by some of these extreme events. A little tweek will do no harm but add great benefit.

PS If the hoplite had dropped one cohesion level it would probably never even have been discussed.