The power of dices

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft

Post Reply
TimW
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:20 pm

Post by TimW »

Somthing occured to me earlier today I'd like to float as a thought. I wonder if the "odd" combat results are more a matter of perception than anything else - because the game actually supplies the player with too much information. As I've said before, I've not seen amy combat results that struck me as utterly implausible. Like my slingers and cataphracts - there's a perfectly reasonable explanation when you consider that the game system is abstract and so is the terrain - "clear" does not mean "flat as a lawn with no cover or obstacles at all".

When I first got a copy of DBA a comment by Phil Barker in the introduction struck me very strongly. He said that the previous, more complex and (apparently) more "realistic" and "detailed" rules (such as his own 6th edition) had given the player more information than a real general would have had during a battle. A general wouldn't know how exactly how many losses his side had surrered or inflicted. All he would know is whether a unit/body was winning a melee, fighting and holding its own but at a standstill, edging backwards looking over their shoulders or running for the hills.

So no more individual man at a time casualty recording, no complex reaction tests to be triggered by a wide variety of circumstances. Instead of troops defined by a micro-description of their training, exact gradations of armour and every weapon historically carried, define troops by what heir generals used them for. Have only three combat results - one side destroyed, one side pushed back and giving ground or both at a standstill. In other words an abstract system that nevertheless is capable of giving good results and (despite a few anomolies of its' own) very playable. It was a real eye-opener to find a set of rules where a game could play faster than a turn every 30 or so minutes. I hope no-one will be offended, but I see FOG as a descendant/relative of that approach to rules writing with added fine detail (amongst other differences, but it's the philosphy that matters here, not the details).

FOG PC is kind of both worlds - the combat system seems actually quite abstract, but the player is fed the level of post-combat casualty information the older-style rules presented. How surprising would the apparently wildly swinging combat results look if instead of percentage losses all we knew was the unit was steady, in some level of disorder or routed? Regard the disorders/fragmented states as indicating not simply that the formation is now askew but that individual men are starting to lose their nerve. Casualties aren't simply the killed and wounded, they include those who individually take to their heels and slope off even though the vast bulk of the troops are still steady.

I'd be particularly interested in the thoughts of the TT FOG people regarding this.

On a second point, "inferior" units defeating/causing high casualties on "superior" ones, and the fluctuations in losses as revealed by the game engine after combats, there are all kinds of historical examples of exactly that. As an example, my original wargaming interest was the 16/17th centuries, and there's considerable evidence as to what went on in pike v. pike fighting, and I can't see it being that different in principle in ancient times.

Say it's 1520 in Italy. Two blocks of pike, each 16+ ranks deep, files shoulder to shoulder, each man with his left shoulder towards the enemy, approach each other at a steady pace. The front 4 or 8 ranks level their pike and just before impact the whole body tries to compact itself front to rear so that each man is pushing the man in front of him. There are two reasons for this.

The first is that without 15 men shoving them the front rank might decide that seeing as the enemy have 8 pike heads levelled at every single one of them the job has lost it's appeal even with the extra pay - there are accounts of engagements where the entire front rank of both side's pikes was pretty much wiped out at contact so they were right to worry. The front ranks also were where most of the officers and senior NCOs were, because they were more experienced, often better armoured and they were meant to set an example; but as a result they were also horribly vulnerable. It was very important not to let the front ranks flinch because that meant you were likely to take heavy losses while not infliciting much damage yourself.

The second reason was that if neither side broke on impact there'd now be a mess at the head of the columns with pike shafts, dead, wounded and living men jammed next to each other so neither side would be able to use their weapons effectively - at which point the "push of pike" became literally that as each side tried to shove the other backwards. All very similar to the descriptions of hoplite warfare.

So - phalanx meets phalanx. At impact one side either mistimes it's final charge or momentarily flinches. It takes high casualties and inflicts few. The rear ranks however aren't affected anything like as much (being safe at the back), they put their shoulders to it and manage to halt the retreat of their own front rank and shove their opponents a few feet bckwards, allowing their side room to recover and use their pikes or reach for their swords. The situation is reversed, and so are the relative casualties. Up and down the battle front such events could easily be quite localised with each side winning some, losing some until eventually a gap appeared in one side or the other's phalanx. A satisfactory explanation? I don't know, but it certainly seems plausible to me. If FOG had the loser of a combat being physically pushed back as well as losing good order then maybe combats would be more understandable. And realistic :-)

As for pikes v. legionnaries, if the legionnaries got off their volley of pila at the right moment then they pretty much had it made. Get the pila timing wrong and men holding (probably still drawing) swords either get piked then trampled or make for the rear.
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

Tim,

I agree with you whole heartedly on this one.

I too used to play DBA and the rationale behind the rules struck me as being sound, the rules were a joy to play because they were fast and fun. DBM I hated, because although basically the same system (with added frills) the games became mosnters and bogged down with extras that did nothing for the game at all except ruin it. FOG is a descendant of DBA but has a far better genetic make-up than DBM, it retains the fast fun aspect of DBA but adds so much more without becoming bogged down like DBM.

I do agree that the pc version does give possibly too much info in the percentage chances of winning a combat and can be quite misleading really, especially if its a high percentage chance of winning and then you lose, I can see why some players may become upset by this. I do agree that these 'odd' results are a matter of perception. I think that maybe the odds were put in more for PC gamers than TT gamers as in the TT rules you get no such info and really you don't need it anyway. I for one would be happy if you could turn it off or on as it suits you as I quite often totally disregard the numbers and go with my gut feeling when it comes to combat and I am usually right to do so.

The main thing really for the PC gamers is to bear in mind that FOG is a TT system that has been made into a PC game, essentially the rules are the same, its just graphics instead of models that we are playing with.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

SRW1962 wrote:Tim,

I agree with you whole heartedly on this one.
As do I.
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

" I wonder if the "odd" combat results are more a matter of perception than anything else - because the game actually supplies the player with too much information."

Not at all. The problem for me is when in 2 IDENTICAL combat situations one gets 2 opposite results, i.e. you win the first 3 to 150 losses and then lose the second 150 to 3. Now in this example the net result is balanced, but what if there is only one combat and you lose? :cry:
Paisley
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:57 pm

Post by Paisley »

What if there is? Plenty more combats on the battlefield, surely?

Okay, if it was the case that for some reason you always lost what combats that should be pushovers, or even just lost them half the time, there'd be a problem. But what happens, I think, is people see half a dozen combats go against them, four of which they think they should have won (rightly or wrongly) and they assume the game is broken, whereas it's more likely that they've either failed to take into account underlying factors (eg Roman HF do better than pike HF on steep hills) or they're ignoring the fact that when you run a lot of combats, you are going to get 'freak' results, or often both.

I actually agree it's better to go by 'feel' than trusting the percentages as given or trying to take into account and balance up every factor that will affect the combat.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

omarquatar wrote:The problem for me is when in 2 IDENTICAL combat situations one gets 2 opposite results, i.e. you win the first 3 to 150 losses and then lose the second 150 to 3. Now in this example the net result is balanced, but what if there is only one combat and you lose? :cry:
First of all, I am assuming you have actually played the the game, right?

Secondly, that is simply a 'made up' example to try and push a point, I have NEVER seen that happen, and I have played LOTS of FOG games.

Thirdly, even if it did, just chill, its only a game, not life or death, just a game to enjoy and have fun with, win or lose.
WrongWay
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:59 pm

Post by WrongWay »

I treat the percentages as a "most likely" and "less likely" outcome not as a hard fact that it will happen. I think people get hung up on the numbers because they see 85% and they expect to win everytime but they forget that there is still 15% chance they won't. The key is to realize the percentages are only a factor over time. You must use the unit multiple times to see the 85% outcome.

It's like flipping a coin - 50/50 for heads or tails. But that doesn't mean that you won't get heads ten times in a row. You have to flip a lot of coins to see percentages approach 50/50.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

WrongWay wrote:I treat the percentages as a "most likely" and "less likely" outcome not as a hard fact that it will happen. I think people get hung up on the numbers because they see 85% and they expect to win everytime but they forget that there is still 15% chance they won't.
And also that whichever side loses may suffer heavy casualties. So that on the 1 in 6 times that the 85% side loses, it is likely to suffer fairly heavy casualties.

This is based on the principle that in ancient times most casualties were suffered when losing. There wasn't a steady high rate of attrition on both sides through gunfire as in Napoleonic warfare.
batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3608
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel »

rbodleyscott wrote:
WrongWay wrote:I treat the percentages as a "most likely" and "less likely" outcome not as a hard fact that it will happen. I think people get hung up on the numbers because they see 85% and they expect to win everytime but they forget that there is still 15% chance they won't.
And also that whichever side loses may suffer heavy casualties. So that on the 1 in 6 times that the 85% side loses, it is likely to suffer fairly heavy casualties.

This is based on the principle that in ancient times most casualties were suffered when losing. There wasn't a steady high rate of attrition on both sides through gunfire as in Napoleonic warfare.
Actually, I thought the principle was that most casualties were suffered after losing, e.g. once the fighting had mostly ended and fleeing troops were cut down by their pursuers.

I wonder if casualties are too high in general in FoG PC. It does seem like far more units auto-break in FoG PC (or are reduced to the level about where they would anyway) than do in FoG TT. Far more fragmented and broken BGs in FoG PC seem to be reduced below 75% or 60% when they get to this cohesion state rather than losing most of their cohesion with out having taken such heavy percentage casualties.
I expect some of this is due to the increased massing of missile fire that is possible in FoG PC and some due to the fact that BGs on the PC represent the equivalent of minimum size BGs on the TT, but it still seems that the overall casualty rate may be higher than it should for the PC.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
Paisley
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:57 pm

Post by Paisley »

Casualtiies are far too high if taken as dead and wounded. But perhaps about right if they represent men who have, for one reason or another, lost interest in the fight - they may not have abandoned their unit, they may nt be hurt, but they're not playing an active part beyond maybe defending themselves.
Playing as:
Danish - Won 1, Lost 2
Lancastrians - Won 3, Lost 3
Milanese - Lost 1
Scots Isles and Highlands - Lost 1
Swiss - Won 25, Lost 3
batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3608
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel »

Paisley wrote:Casualtiies are far too high if taken as dead and wounded. But perhaps about right if they represent men who have, for one reason or another, lost interest in the fight - they may not have abandoned their unit, they may nt be hurt, but they're not playing an active part beyond maybe defending themselves.
My question is in comparison to the TT rules where loss of cohesion is in general a bigger factor than casualties are. The PC in many ways seems to make casualties (whatever the numbers are meant to represent in the real world) a much more important factor than they are in the TT rules.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

SRW1962 wrote:
omarquatar wrote:The problem for me is when in 2 IDENTICAL combat situations one gets 2 opposite results, i.e. you win the first 3 to 150 losses and then lose the second 150 to 3. Now in this example the net result is balanced, but what if there is only one combat and you lose? :cry:
First of all, I am assuming you have actually played the the game, right?

Secondly, that is simply a 'made up' example to try and push a point, I have NEVER seen that happen, and I have played LOTS of FOG games.

Thirdly, even if it did, just chill, its only a game, not life or death, just a game to enjoy and have fun with, win or lose.
i've been playing this game since it came out.
no, it's not a theretical example, it really happens all the time and as far as i can judge from this thread i'm certainly not the one to think so.
i enjoy the game a lot, what doesn't mean it could not be better
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

I'm glad that you play the game, and I am also glad that you enjoy it too, but I will have to lend you my copy of the game as it must be a special version because I never seem to have these extreme combat examples that you say 'happen all the time'.

I do agree though that the game could be better, and as each week goes by it seems that the developers are actually improving it, but lets not for one second think that they will change the fundametal basis of the game because a few people cannot seem to get to grips with it, or are unlucky enough to encounter extremely bad luck in combats that seems to affect them so badly.

Some of us learn to embrace the luck aspect of the game or indeed any game with luck in it (which is most) and then there are the people who seem to need certainty in games, they tend to play chess. I used to play cards competitively, bridge, euchre, cribbage etc. and also I played backgammon competitively (which isn't cards). ALL these games are games of skill AND luck, but mostly skill. I won a few small tournaments and I considered myself a good player, because I embraced the luck aswell as the skill/knowledge of playing the game. Wargames (except chess) ALL have luck in them, some more than others, but this particular game has the balance right. Everyone has had their share of bad luck, misfortune etc. but most people deal with it and learn from it, I know I do.

I have played hundreds of different TT wargames rulesets, boardgames and PC games, and this is one of the best, from its unique approach to its playability it is superb! I really don't see any evidence whatsoever for any of the wild claims that this game is just luck, the whole argument is basically ridiculous.
petergarnett
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1029
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:01 pm
Location: Gatwick, UK

Post by petergarnett »

Maybe the problem is what some perceive as just a game of luck when your best cavalry unit inflicts 3 casualties on a LF but takes 150 in return, i.e. it's the display of men lost that is misleading some.
Talizh2
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:47 am

Post by Talizh2 »

But that is what ancient warfare was all about. Just read Livy, Thucydides, Caesar, or Polybius and you will see countless examples of one side or the other losing because of bad luck. On the other hand, other battles were won by a single soldier picking up a standard and rallying his comrades. I have been stung more times than not by bad dice but that is part of war. A good plan does not win all of the time. Sometimes a bad plan gets lucky.
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

SRW1962 wrote:
I have played hundreds of different TT wargames rulesets, boardgames and PC games, and this is one of the best, from its unique approach to its playability it is superb! I really don't see any evidence whatsoever for any of the wild claims that this game is just luck, the whole argument is basically ridiculous.
Me too, starting with Avalon Hill's Waterloo back in the 1970s. I find that the game is good, while your comments are less than polite. Further, as an experienced wargamer and a buyer of FoG and RoR, i'd like to feel free to express my opinions on the game in the forum without being accused to say something "wild" and ridiculous. I repeat that the examples I've given are real and frequent; in conclusion, I find that "odd" combat results occur too often for my taste and that's all.
RyanDG
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:25 pm

Post by RyanDG »

omarquatar wrote:
SRW1962 wrote:
I have played hundreds of different TT wargames rulesets, boardgames and PC games, and this is one of the best, from its unique approach to its playability it is superb! I really don't see any evidence whatsoever for any of the wild claims that this game is just luck, the whole argument is basically ridiculous.
Me too, starting with Avalon Hill's Waterloo back in the 1970s. I find that the game is good, while your comments are less than polite. Further, as an experienced wargamer and a buyer of FoG and RoR, i'd like to feel free to express my opinions on the game in the forum without being accused to say something "wild" and ridiculous. I repeat that the examples I've given are real and frequent; in conclusion, I find that "odd" combat results occur too often for my taste and that's all.
Here's a couple of things - #1, switch from casualties to %'s in the options for the rules. I definitely understand where you are coming from when you see 3 vs 150 casualties, but when you view it as percentages, depending on the units used, it is simply a 0 vs 10%-15% casualty rate which will be ultimately easier to stomach. The number of soldiers in this game are strictly for flavor purposes (and thusly so the number of casualties that pop up are irrelevant outside of their actual percentages). #2, if you took the exact same combat situation and replayed it multiple times (which is extremely easier to do hotseat in the scenario editor), there are two things that you will find in the long run - a) with all things aside, randomness evens out and you will have a nice 'curve' effect for pretty much every single combat situation and b) troops used to the best of their abilities will far more often than not defeat troops used haphazardly.

When FOG TT first came out I created a simply graph diagram for my group showing combat resolution details as a form of curve bar graph to display just how much randomness is not a factor in the FOG ruleset. I understand that for some people it may seem more random, but a lot of the times this is simply a short sighted obversation based on an anomoly of a combat result. Outliers WILL happen, just as they happened historically.

I've been thinking about creating the same sort of graph here in FOG using some basic combat situations...

It is definitely a matter of taste though. I'm happy with the casualty rates in FOG, because I understand that despite an odd outlier or two, ultimately good tactics and strategy will far outweight any benefit that the dice may bestow on a lucky player.
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

omarquatar wrote:
SRW1962 wrote:
I have played hundreds of different TT wargames rulesets, boardgames and PC games, and this is one of the best, from its unique approach to its playability it is superb! I really don't see any evidence whatsoever for any of the wild claims that this game is just luck, the whole argument is basically ridiculous.
Me too, starting with Avalon Hill's Waterloo back in the 1970s. I find that the game is good, while your comments are less than polite. Further, as an experienced wargamer and a buyer of FoG and RoR, i'd like to feel free to express my opinions on the game in the forum without being accused to say something "wild" and ridiculous. I repeat that the examples I've given are real and frequent; in conclusion, I find that "odd" combat results occur too often for my taste and that's all.
Two things:

First, My comment was not aimed at you specifically but at the argument that the game is just luck, having said that if you feel that is what you are saying them please feel free to include yourself in my comment.

Second, If you feel that because I expressed a different opinion to you that I am less than polite then I think that you really are being oversensitive. The whole point of a forum is to be able to debate such things as adults, and thats exactly how I expressed my opinion, you don't have to sgree with it, nobody does, but I am entitled to it. So long as I am not being abusive or threatening and my comments are well thought out then they are perfectly acceptable as anyones are. I am an adult and I don't take it personally that you find my comments impolite to you, and I take no offence by it at all, I just think you should perhaps do likewise.
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

RyanDG wrote: Here's a couple of things - #1, switch from casualties to %'s in the options for the rules. I definitely understand where you are coming from when you see 3 vs 150 casualties, but when you view it as percentages, depending on the units used, it is simply a 0 vs 10%-15% casualty rate which will be ultimately easier to stomach. The number of soldiers in this game are strictly for flavor purposes (and thusly so the number of casualties that pop up are irrelevant outside of their actual percentages).
here's an example that occurred 2 minutes ago, so i can recall it.
a unit of theurophorai, average drilled protected medium foot, full strength (1000) in good order meets a BG of spartan peltasts, poor undrilled light foot, having already lost 15% strength (430) in the open. The theurophorai are more than 50% of the enemies. medium foot get bad dice and give 1 hit only; the peltasts are more lucky and give 2 hits (they could have scored 3).
The net result is: theurophorai lose 112, peltasts 3, both disordered. Hmmm, 1 hit by 1000 men = 3 losses, 2 hits by 430 (light foot in impact combat) = 112 losses?
As i love wargaming also as a historical simulation, i'm less than happy with that. Someone please explain the rationale behind that to me.
Thanks
Toby42
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:45 am
Location: Florida

Post by Toby42 »

omarquatar wrote:
RyanDG wrote: Here's a couple of things - #1, switch from casualties to %'s in the options for the rules. I definitely understand where you are coming from when you see 3 vs 150 casualties, but when you view it as percentages, depending on the units used, it is simply a 0 vs 10%-15% casualty rate which will be ultimately easier to stomach. The number of soldiers in this game are strictly for flavor purposes (and thusly so the number of casualties that pop up are irrelevant outside of their actual percentages).
here's an example that occurred 2 minutes ago, so i can recall it.
a unit of theurophorai, average drilled protected medium foot, full strength (1000) in good order meets a BG of spartan peltasts, poor undrilled light foot, having already lost 15% strength (430) in the open. The theurophorai are more than 50% of the enemies. medium foot get bad dice and give 1 hit only; the peltasts are more lucky and give 2 hits (they could have scored 3).
The net result is: theurophorai lose 112, peltasts 3, both disordered. Hmmm, 1 hit by 1000 men = 3 losses, 2 hits by 430 (light foot in impact combat) = 112 losses?
As i love wargaming also as a historical simulation, i'm less than happy with that. Someone please explain the rationale behind that to me.
Thanks
Mmm, Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think all 1000 men are actually in the combat at the same time. Just because 1000 men are in the unit, all of them aren't committed to combat at once. I think that the unit size relates to staying power???
Tony
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”