The power of dices

[Paisley]

And average troops do suffer bad dice. Superior and elite troops beat average ones far more tan they fail to. it's just the times they don't tend to stick min the mind rather. While obviously people will differ as to the degree of chance they want in the game, I think it's evident that the better generals tend to win out in the end - just look at Pantherboy's scores: 29 games played, only one lost. He's not suffering from the random factor. And I can put down nearly all my defeats to poor tactical decisions on my part or a bad set-up or good play by the other player. While I been surprised by some combat outcomes, one can learn to plan accordingly, I think.

[deeter]

I can deal with unpredictable dice rolls more easily than I can unpredictable cavalry evades.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

I can deal with unpredictable dice rolls more easily than I can unpredictable cavalry evades.

Deeter

I agree, what bugs me most is enemy cavalry evades and or Break offs that place the enemy unit in a better position than the player could have ever done due to the rules of the game, ie units breaking off can slide thru routed enemy units during a break off , which isnt possible to do if its actively your turn...

[Morbio]

I can deal with unpredictable dice rolls more easily than I can unpredictable cavalry evades.

DON'T START ME OFF ABOUT CAVALRY EVADES

OK, I've calmed down now

The problem with random factor is that when you win is fun but when you loose battles by dices isnt funny, for me see 2 attacks with 75% of win and loose THE TWO assaults is not funny, is frustrating because you search a tactical advantage only to see dices doing their job.

The thing that many people forget about this is that losing 2 battles, which are 75% in your favour, will happen 6.25% of the time (on average over a long period), which isn't that unlikely. With normal statistical variation over a short number it may happen a little more often (I haven't done the maths here but it wouldn't surprise me if it could be as high as 8% or so, i.e. 1 in 12). So, it isn't such a certainty - yes, you'd expect to win most of the time and if you found that it was always going against you then it would be wrong. But it will happen, and when it does you will certainly notice it, but you won't notice the 93 times in a hundred that you win, so it will seem like it happens more often.

As someone said earlier (I paraphrase), the good commander will pick the terrain and the fights to minimise the impact of when this does happen... and it WILL happen.

[76mm]

The thing that many people forget about this is that losing 2 battles, which are 75% in your favour, will happen 6.25% of the time (on average over a long period), which isn't that unlikely...So, it isn't such a certainty - yes, you'd expect to win most of the time and if you found that it was always going against you then it would be wrong.

Many people are focusing on the win/loss probabilities, which I don't think is the main problem. I think the main problem is the huge swing in casualties between winning and losing, as in below:

...so it loses 9 - 18%. The D unit only too 1 hit so only loses 0.25 - 3%....In the next combat the S unit...only lost 0.25 - 3%. However the D unit would now take 5 - 14%.

So in the first combat the unit can lose 18%, and in the next it can inflict 14%. First, where are these figures taken from? I have not seen them in the on-line help, are they there? If not, why not?

In my experience, when two main lines collide, either the attacker or defender will generally lose about 15% on impact, although you don't know which one. If a couple of adjacent units lose 15%, and are ht by more than one attacker, your line could well be toast upon impact. I have been on the winning and losing end of such results, and frankly when on winning end don't get any particular satsfaction out of breaking the opponent's line because I feel that it was decided by a coin flip. meanwhile the overall battle will be decided by a variety facotrs, including good tactics, and breaking the opponents main line is certainly only one part of any overall victory.

I still think that such large losses should be outliers rather than occurring in virtually every combat (at least on impact), and that generally losses for the "loser" should not exceed the 8%-10% range. In a current game, two of my phalanx units lost 20% on impact, and fragmented instantlly!

[arsan]

So in the first combat the unit can lose 18%, and in the next it can inflict 14%. First, where are these figures taken from? I have not seen them in the on-line help, are they there? If not, why not?

Sure they are!
http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... anism.aspx

But i agree losses seems a little too high and random IMHO

[76mm]

Arsan, thanks much for the link, very helpful. Admittedly part of my problem is that I've been swamped with work since buying FoG and haven't had as much time as I'd like to study the mechanics.

So is it fair to say that there are three layers of luck in combat resolution:
1) how many hits you get;

2) if you get more hits than your opponent (ie, you "win"); and

3) the loss range for your number of hits and your win status. This is the only item I have a problem with, and the probability distribution of the outcomes within the range is not given--are the extreme outcomes just as likely as the outcomes in the middle? That's what it seems like, and I think that the outcomes should be probability-weighted toward the center.

(not sure if I understand this properly, someone pls correct me if I'm wrong).

[hidde]

Many people are focusing on the win/loss probabilities, which I don't think is the main problem. I think the main problem is the huge swing in casualties between winning and losing

Agree. I don't see a problem with a inferior unit holding their ground but when they inflict heavy casualties time after time on a clearly better unit it just doesn't feel quite right.
I think I've noticed that poor troops very seldom succeed against average like average can do against superior and elite. Anyone else seen this?
I tend to avoid poor troops like the plague so I'm not sure.
Also think that evading cavallry is the bigger problem and mystery.

[batesmotel]

Arsan, thanks much for the link, very helpful. Admittedly part of my problem is that I've been swamped with work since buying FoG and haven't had as much time as I'd like to study the mechanics.

So is it fair to say that there are three layers of luck in combat resolution:
1) how many hits you get;

2) if you get more hits than your opponent (ie, you "win"); and

3) the loss range for your number of hits and your win status. This is the only item I have a problem with, and the probability distribution of the outcomes within the range is not given--are the extreme outcomes just as likely as the outcomes in the middle? That's what it seems like, and I think that the outcomes should be probability-weighted toward the center.

(not sure if I understand this properly, someone pls correct me if I'm wrong).

The percentage ranges of loses for a given number of hits is given in the combat mechanism section of help. It is now correctly updated to reflect that the ranges of loses for losers in combat are higher than they are for non-losers and from missile fire.

Chris

[76mm]

The percentage ranges of loses for a given number of hits is given in the combat mechanism section of help.

But we have no idea of the probability distribution. In other words, if the range is from 9%-185, is there an equal chance of receiving losses of 9%, 10%, 11%, 12%-->18%, or is the distribution weighted toward the middle of the range?

[rbodleyscott]

The percentage ranges of loses for a given number of hits is given in the combat mechanism section of help.

But we have no idea of the probability distribution. In other words, if the range is from 9%-185, is there an equal chance of receiving losses of 9%, 10%, 11%, 12%-->18%, or is the distribution weighted toward the middle of the range?

Experience suggests not.

Of course, in the TT game, to keep things simple, you either remove a base or not, depending on a simple dice roll against the hits received (with a few modifiers). So for a 4 base BG, the losses are either 0 or 25%, of course generally skewed toward 0. (i.e. There is a +2 modifier on death rolls from shooting, so if you suffer 1 or 2 hits you never suffer any losses, and if you suffer 3 hits there is a 1 in 6 chance of losing a whole base).

One reason that shooting is more effective in FPGPC than in FOGTT is that a steady trickle of hits will eventually autobreak a unit, whereas in FOC TT (unless more than 2 hits are scored from all the units shooting at that unit in a turn) it would cause no bases losses at all - and 1 hit usually would not even cause a cohesion test.

Of course part of the reason for the difference is that the PC game adjudicates combats one at a time, rather than totalling up all the hits on a unit in the current phase before determining losses.

[76mm]

Experience suggests not.

Er, experience suggests not what? Not evenly distributed or not weighted toward the center? In my experience it does not seem weighted toward the center.

Thanks for your comments they are always very illuminating.

[rbodleyscott]

Experience suggests not.

Er, experience suggests not what? Not evenly distributed or not weighted toward the center?

Not weighted toward the centre.

[76mm]

Of course part of the reason for the difference is that the PC game adjudicates combats one at a time, rather than totalling up all the hits on a unit in the current phase before determining losses.

I'm not sure how the TT rules work via the PC rules, but this could be another key reason why the PC rules seem too "brutal" to me. Not only are the casualty swings huge, but a unit can suffer massive casualties multiple times if attacked more than once (30-50% in one turn!), and attackers can "pick on" disrupted/fragmented units to further hasten their demise. These factors combined mean that a main line often collapses within two turn in my experience, at least one composed of pikes.

[Morbio]

I agree that Pikes seem to go down too fast, which is a shame because I have a huge affinity for pikes.

As for disrupted / fragmented units being picked on, then I'd suggest this is perfectly logical / normal. Any good commander will send his troops to attack those troops most likely to collapse and thus hopefully start a massive rout.

[76mm]

As for disrupted / fragmented units being picked on, then I'd suggest this is perfectly logical / normal. Any good commander will send his troops to attack those troops most likely to collapse and thus hopefully start a massive rout.

yes and no. First, it is not like there would be a big flag above a disrupted/fragmented unit, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to tell from a steady unit (although presumably the screams of terror and curses would be a helpful indicator).

Second, units would enter battle in a solid line, not sequentially as in the PC game. In real life, the two lines would surge together in one fell swoop, so commanders wouldn't be able to pick and choose which section of the line to attack based on the success of other unit's attacks.

These comments are directed toward combat in the main line, not other units such as cavalry seeking out and picking on unsteady units, which I agree is realistic.

[Paisley]

units would enter battle in a solid line

I'm not so sure about that myself. All units of all types need a gap between themselves and the next or else they will become hopelessly fouled when advancing. The longer a line becomes, the more ragged and unmanoueverable it ineviatbly becomes. Given that gaps between units must have existed, I see no special reason why fighting along a front should have been concurrent. One unit might charge when anothe rholds back for some reason best known to its commander. Fighting might be intense at one point and units to either side might simply be shouting abuse and throwing stones (very common apparently) at each other.

The ganging up thing is something I used to think was silly. But looking at each game counter as anything up to 18 separate sub units (Roman centuries), I think there could well be some concentration of effort at a central point between the units that two counters represent. Also, I don't think that the game responds too well to an analysis of any single turn sequence or part of that sequence. It's not a simulation in that way. It simulates overall results and the detail is there for flavour. Tweaking it to be a stricter simulation of unit on unit combat would, I think, undermine the concept, which is more grand tactical (if that's the term I want) than tactical.

[Morbio]

I agree that the sequence of attacks is somewhat artifical and arbitrary. I know that I tend to sequence my attacks in the order of those perceived most favourable, down to those least favourable. I do this in the hope of getting drops of enemy unit cohesion states to aid later attacks. I'm sure that largely isn't realistic.

Perhaps a better representation might be for a commander to select all the individual battles to be fought in a turn and then the software would resolve each one independently and then display the result all together, or maybe display results sequentially (perhaps left to right). This may have a second, follow-up phase within a turn, to allow the commander to exploit any gaps created with any unused units. However, I do realise that this is a major re-engineering exercise for the game and don't expect this to be done (this isn't a criticism).

Overall, while imperfect in a number of ways, the game is still great fun and gives a good 'overall' representation of a battle and generally, in my opinion, the better combination of tactics and units wins.

now, if I could change 2 things, it would be;
- Cavalry to catch LF in some circumstances
- Control of when cavalry stand and fight rather than evade

[Paisley]

I think rather than have mounted troops (except light horse) evade, they should simply be allowed to break off if they lose a combat against enemy horse (other than light). This would represent a troop or two remaining as rearguard whilst the others withdrew in good order.

[76mm]

Perhaps a better representation might be for a commander to select all the individual battles to be fought in a turn and then the software would resolve each one independently and then display the result all together, or maybe display results sequentially (perhaps left to right). This may have a second, follow-up phase within a turn, to allow the commander to exploit any gaps created with any unused units. However, I do realise that this is a major re-engineering exercise for the game and don't expect this to be done (this isn't a criticism).

I had exactly the same thought, and the same reaction-a lot of effort and frankly I'm not sure how fun it would be...