The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[Cunningcairn]

I can understand your point to a degree.. but it is all about RNG again even if you don't think so. Like a rat killing a giant in Chaos Reborn. 3% chance to do it or something. It can upset people. Those units on the border have a small chance to rally but they do so.. Like I said, I haven't seen what you are describing almost ever in my games. That is just bad luck. (1-2 enemy units rallying at the back can happen but even that isn't so common.)

In these kind of arguments people tend to zoom in on the rat and complain. But, the actual likehood of the rat killing a giant or four units rallying on the edge of the map for your enemy is so small in reality.

In a number of historical battles that I have been reading about quite a number of units rallied and then came back to fight. It is not something absurd. I would say that FoG 2 is fair in this regard because the units can almost never fight so you just have to concentrate on beating the main army!

FOG2 is an historical wargame covering a period from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. The rules and outcomes of combat are based on accepted perceptions and interpretations of how troops of that period behaved in combat. Their training, weapons, armour, morale, impetuousness are taken into account. These same characteristics of their opponents are also factored in as is the terrain in which they are fighting. All these factors are based on historical precedent. In this current topic nobody has complained about RNG except those opposing the ideas being discussed. I can understand that in Chaos Reborn, which is not historical, some players would be upset by an elephant being killed by a rat that only had a 3% chance of doing so. However that is not relevant here. What is being discussed here are rules that do not sit well with historical precedent and can be improved. There has been a lot of good input by a number of players in this thread but it is drowned out by those opposing any suggestions or proposals without providing a logical argument supporting their point of view. I think you have made good points but I think you have mislead been by those against any change to improve the game.

[Sennacherib]

my thoughts on the game, chance is important and some situations are ridiculous ( new ZoC rule, charge in the rear were you lost, flee movement ). Chance is even more important when two good players confront each other and there is no bad plan or 'bad' army composition on a side, Pete say one on ten i disagree it is far more in my opinion. Last season on division A classical Antiquity on first game contact i loose one general in four games ! in three of these games i loose three generals in combat, add this, rally, double moral down and it make a difference on a battle. But Ok as far as i play with miniatures games luck is a factor that you must accept… maybe it can be better but i can't argue my English is not good enought.
My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

[stockwellpete]

My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

The Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons armies are not in the tournament this time as they are being changed. Which other armies do you think are a problem?

[Cunningcairn]

If that's the case why do dkalenda and pantherboy keep trashing me over and over again? Seems to me like the game rewards skill more than anything still.

This discussion remeber me Gary Lineker citat:
"Football is a simple game. Twenty-two men chase a ball for 90 minutes and at the end, the Germans always win."

LOL! Brilliant!

[paulmcneil]

I don’t know about your definition of RNG. If a unit rallies from routing this is random and out of anyone’s control. There is a certain probability of this occurring. But, this is the same in any game of this type and of course it comes under the ‘rules’. I played a game called Chaos Reborn and people complained a lot about RNG there. This is part of the rules and if you don’t like it then play another game or use the mod. (They did actually create another version in Chaos Reborn called Law which did away with almost any RNG at all and everything was based on pure predetermined outcome. A lot of players hated this version of the game but others liked it).

I know for some players anything that is random and that can have a seemingly strong effect on the battle (like double drops, rallies and routing) is annoying and they like to minimize these elements in a game. I can understand this view but I don’t agree with it. You lose a lot of the excitement and buzz in this game if you start to overly control and manipulate it.

I play standard games like in the Digital League - medium sized armies. There have been little rallies from routing in my last 8 games or so. Nothing that changed the outcome of the game. But, sometimes it can happen!

We are not really disagreeing on anything. I am not suggesting that unpredictability is removed from the game and I sincerely doubt that Pete and Schweetness are either. The fact that an introduction of anarchy and higher casualties for cavalry rules are being introduced in their mods makes that obvious. The purpose is to improve the enjoyment of the game and to give players a realistic experience of an ancient battle. I have also not suggested that curve balls should be removed but rather that the rules that govern their probability be changed so they happen less frequently or rather more realistically.

As an example let's take the current rules regarding rallies. Do you think that a routing unit that is out of sight of it's own troops and too far away from the action to assist should save an army from defeat because it has rallied based on a percentage of losses calculation? In a game I am currently playing my opponent had 4 routing units on the battlefield all within 1 or 2 turns of exiting the edge. One of these units was 4 casualties off auto-breaking. All were average quality. In two consecutive turns all 4 rallied. That is 100% of the broken units on the table rallied out of sight of the action. These units have now turned certain defeat into a possible victory because they have experienced a psychological change to their state of mind although their compatriots don't even know that it has happened. I think this extreme and unrealistic.

I can understand your point to a degree.. but it is all about RNG again even if you don't think so. Like a rat killing a giant in Chaos Reborn. 3% chance to do it or something. It can upset people. Those units on the border have a small chance to rally but they do so.. Like I said, I haven't seen what you are describing almost ever in my games. That is just bad luck. (1-2 enemy units rallying at the back can happen but even that isn't so common.)

In these kind of arguments people tend to zoom in on the rat and complain. But, the actual likehood of the rat killing a giant or four units rallying on the edge of the map for your enemy is so small in reality.

In a number of historical battles that I have been reading about quite a number of units rallied and then came back to fight. It is not something absurd. I would say that FoG 2 is fair in this regard because the units can almost never fight so you just have to concentrate on beating the main army!

Depends on how many rats there are, how many giants, and how many times the rats can bite the giants. 3% can give a more or less guaranteed Giant Kill if the numbers are big enough. Scale matters as well. These arguments often focus on the likelihood of an individual rat event happening once, as opposed to the number of times that the rat event could happen given the number of times it's checked for.

[Cunningcairn]

Lancer battles and battles involving lots of medium infantry and particularly a few impact infantry do tend to be rather combustible. A few bad impacts here and there and your battlefield can end up looking like a warzone.

LOL! Heaven forbid!

[Sennacherib]

My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

The Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons armies are not in the tournament this time as they are being changed. Which other armies do you think are a problem?

No others in particular but i find that game favorize number over qualities and maneuver.

[Cunningcairn]

My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

The Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons armies are not in the tournament this time as they are being changed. Which other armies do you think are a problem?

No others in particular but i find that game favorize number over qualities and maneuver.

I think you are correct. It is a subject that has never really been addressed to the best of my knowledge. I think Schweetness and Pete's mod with the flank attack not causing an immediate drop in cohesion could help create a better balance between quantity versus quality.

[SimonLancaster]

I can understand your point to a degree.. but it is all about RNG again even if you don't think so. Like a rat killing a giant in Chaos Reborn. 3% chance to do it or something. It can upset people. Those units on the border have a small chance to rally but they do so.. Like I said, I haven't seen what you are describing almost ever in my games. That is just bad luck. (1-2 enemy units rallying at the back can happen but even that isn't so common.)

In these kind of arguments people tend to zoom in on the rat and complain. But, the actual likehood of the rat killing a giant or four units rallying on the edge of the map for your enemy is so small in reality.

In a number of historical battles that I have been reading about quite a number of units rallied and then came back to fight. It is not something absurd. I would say that FoG 2 is fair in this regard because the units can almost never fight so you just have to concentrate on beating the main army!

FOG2 is an historical wargame covering a period from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. The rules and outcomes of combat are based on accepted perceptions and interpretations of how troops of that period behaved in combat. Their training, weapons, armour, morale, impetuousness are taken into account. These same characteristics of their opponents are also factored in as is the terrain in which they are fighting. All these factors are based on historical precedent. In this current topic nobody has complained about RNG except those opposing the ideas being discussed. I can understand that in Chaos Reborn, which is not historical, some players would be upset by an elephant being killed by a rat that only had a 3% chance of doing so. However that is not relevant here. What is being discussed here are rules that do not sit well with historical precedent and can be improved. There has been a lot of good input by a number of players in this thread but it is drowned out by those opposing any suggestions or proposals without providing a logical argument supporting their point of view. I think you have made good points but I think you have mislead been by those against any change to improve the game.

Of course RNG is relevant because that is exactly what you are talking about. It doesn't matter if you are fighting in space or fighting on the plains of Macedon. You are upset because you don't think those 4 units should have a chance to rally.

If the rat can kill the giant at 3% that may annoy you. If there is 5% chance for a unit to rally at the end of the map that may annoy you. Let's be clear about this.

The rules that don't sit well with historical precedent is just you getting annoyed at the chance of the units rallying. We are all giving input and ideas about this but you just don't want to accept anything to be honest. You want to get the game changed and that is that. Maybe playing the mod will be better for you - just as playing Law mode on Chaos Reborn was better for a lot of players that hated RNG.

PS I think 'improving the game' is a pretty loaded term!

[SimonLancaster]

We are not really disagreeing on anything. I am not suggesting that unpredictability is removed from the game and I sincerely doubt that Pete and Schweetness are either. The fact that an introduction of anarchy and higher casualties for cavalry rules are being introduced in their mods makes that obvious. The purpose is to improve the enjoyment of the game and to give players a realistic experience of an ancient battle. I have also not suggested that curve balls should be removed but rather that the rules that govern their probability be changed so they happen less frequently or rather more realistically.

As an example let's take the current rules regarding rallies. Do you think that a routing unit that is out of sight of it's own troops and too far away from the action to assist should save an army from defeat because it has rallied based on a percentage of losses calculation? In a game I am currently playing my opponent had 4 routing units on the battlefield all within 1 or 2 turns of exiting the edge. One of these units was 4 casualties off auto-breaking. All were average quality. In two consecutive turns all 4 rallied. That is 100% of the broken units on the table rallied out of sight of the action. These units have now turned certain defeat into a possible victory because they have experienced a psychological change to their state of mind although their compatriots don't even know that it has happened. I think this extreme and unrealistic.

I can understand your point to a degree.. but it is all about RNG again even if you don't think so. Like a rat killing a giant in Chaos Reborn. 3% chance to do it or something. It can upset people. Those units on the border have a small chance to rally but they do so.. Like I said, I haven't seen what you are describing almost ever in my games. That is just bad luck. (1-2 enemy units rallying at the back can happen but even that isn't so common.)

In these kind of arguments people tend to zoom in on the rat and complain. But, the actual likehood of the rat killing a giant or four units rallying on the edge of the map for your enemy is so small in reality.

In a number of historical battles that I have been reading about quite a number of units rallied and then came back to fight. It is not something absurd. I would say that FoG 2 is fair in this regard because the units can almost never fight so you just have to concentrate on beating the main army!

Depends on how many rats there are, how many giants, and how many times the rats can bite the giants. 3% can give a more or less guaranteed Giant Kill if the numbers are big enough. Scale matters as well. These arguments often focus on the likelihood of an individual rat event happening once, as opposed to the number of times that the rat event could happen given the number of times it's checked for.

There are never that many rats on the battlefield - around six maximum in many games. The giant attack would be 96% or something on the rat so almost a guaranteed kill. Yes, I understand that numbers do matter. These type of games rely on a lot of number crunching and it means a lot to all of us!

[Cunningcairn]

I can understand your point to a degree.. but it is all about RNG again even if you don't think so. Like a rat killing a giant in Chaos Reborn. 3% chance to do it or something. It can upset people. Those units on the border have a small chance to rally but they do so.. Like I said, I haven't seen what you are describing almost ever in my games. That is just bad luck. (1-2 enemy units rallying at the back can happen but even that isn't so common.)

In these kind of arguments people tend to zoom in on the rat and complain. But, the actual likehood of the rat killing a giant or four units rallying on the edge of the map for your enemy is so small in reality.

In a number of historical battles that I have been reading about quite a number of units rallied and then came back to fight. It is not something absurd. I would say that FoG 2 is fair in this regard because the units can almost never fight so you just have to concentrate on beating the main army!

FOG2 is an historical wargame covering a period from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. The rules and outcomes of combat are based on accepted perceptions and interpretations of how troops of that period behaved in combat. Their training, weapons, armour, morale, impetuousness are taken into account. These same characteristics of their opponents are also factored in as is the terrain in which they are fighting. All these factors are based on historical precedent. In this current topic nobody has complained about RNG except those opposing the ideas being discussed. I can understand that in Chaos Reborn, which is not historical, some players would be upset by an elephant being killed by a rat that only had a 3% chance of doing so. However that is not relevant here. What is being discussed here are rules that do not sit well with historical precedent and can be improved. There has been a lot of good input by a number of players in this thread but it is drowned out by those opposing any suggestions or proposals without providing a logical argument supporting their point of view. I think you have made good points but I think you have mislead been by those against any change to improve the game.

Of course RNG is relevant because that is exactly what you are talking about. It doesn't matter if you are fighting in space or fighting on the plains of Macedon. You are upset because you don't think those 4 units should have a chance to rally.

If the rat can kill the giant at 3% that may annoy you. If there is 5% chance for a unit to rally at the end of the map that may annoy you. Let's be clear about this.

The rules that don't sit well with historical precedent is just you getting annoyed at the chance of the units rallying. We are all giving input and ideas about this but you just don't want to accept anything to be honest. You want to get the game changed and that is that. Maybe playing the mod will be better for you - just as playing Law mode on Chaos Reborn was better for a lot of players that hated RNG.

PS I think 'improving the game' is a pretty loaded term!

I apologise but I don't understand why you think it is an RNG issue. I am thinking that RNG means Random Number Generator. Is that what you think as well?

I have tried to explain to you that it is not RNG but rather that as this an historical wargame whatever outcomes there are they should be in line with what happened historically. My understanding that is also RBS' intention or I would not have commented in the first place. Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do. Can you provide any logical explanation for why a cavalry unit cannot move away from an infantry unit that is pinning it? Can you provide any evidence of a average LH unit fragmenting a superior armoured lancer unit with a general (who does not die in the charge)? There are many such points. I have asked these questions before but never get a straight answer. If there is a precedent then the probability of it occurring can be built into the rules. Once that is done the RNG is assigned to provide results on that probability. How can it be the RNG when we can't even find a precedent?

FOG2 is brilliant but like anything in life it can always be improved. Improving something does not mean that the creators of the original are lacking in any way. Ancient wargame rules, the better ones anyway, have always evolved which is a good thing. I respect peoples opinion and have not resorted to being rude when anyone's opinion differs from mine. This however is not the case with a number of people that oppose the ideas being discussed here. Try the mods you might be pleasantly surprised.

[SimonLancaster]

FOG2 is an historical wargame covering a period from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. The rules and outcomes of combat are based on accepted perceptions and interpretations of how troops of that period behaved in combat. Their training, weapons, armour, morale, impetuousness are taken into account. These same characteristics of their opponents are also factored in as is the terrain in which they are fighting. All these factors are based on historical precedent. In this current topic nobody has complained about RNG except those opposing the ideas being discussed. I can understand that in Chaos Reborn, which is not historical, some players would be upset by an elephant being killed by a rat that only had a 3% chance of doing so. However that is not relevant here. What is being discussed here are rules that do not sit well with historical precedent and can be improved. There has been a lot of good input by a number of players in this thread but it is drowned out by those opposing any suggestions or proposals without providing a logical argument supporting their point of view. I think you have made good points but I think you have mislead been by those against any change to improve the game.

Of course RNG is relevant because that is exactly what you are talking about. It doesn't matter if you are fighting in space or fighting on the plains of Macedon. You are upset because you don't think those 4 units should have a chance to rally.

If the rat can kill the giant at 3% that may annoy you. If there is 5% chance for a unit to rally at the end of the map that may annoy you. Let's be clear about this.

The rules that don't sit well with historical precedent is just you getting annoyed at the chance of the units rallying. We are all giving input and ideas about this but you just don't want to accept anything to be honest. You want to get the game changed and that is that. Maybe playing the mod will be better for you - just as playing Law mode on Chaos Reborn was better for a lot of players that hated RNG.

PS I think 'improving the game' is a pretty loaded term!

I apologise but I don't understand why you think it is an RNG issue. I am thinking that RNG means Random Number Generator. Is that what you think as well?

I have tried to explain to you that it is not RNG but rather that as this an historical wargame whatever outcomes there are they should be in line with what happened historically. My understanding that is also RBS' intention or I would not have commented in the first place. Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do. Can you provide any logical explanation for why a cavalry unit cannot move away from an infantry unit that is pinning it? Can you provide any evidence of a average LH unit fragmenting a superior armoured lancer unit with a general (who does not die in the charge)? There are many such points. I have asked these questions before but never get a straight answer. If there is a precedent then the probability of it occurring can be built into the rules. Once that is done the RNG is assigned to provide results on that probability. How can it be the RNG when we can't even find a precedent?

FOG2 is brilliant but like anything in life it can always be improved. Improving something does not mean that the creators of the original are lacking in any way. Ancient wargame rules, the better ones anyway, have always evolved which is a good thing. I respect peoples opinion and have not resorted to being rude when anyone's opinion differs from mine. This however is not the case with a number of people that oppose the ideas being discussed here. Try the mods you might be pleasantly surprised.

Come on, if we are talking about ‘logic’ do you really think giving an extreme example of something happening that you don’t like (i.e. four enemy units rallying at the edge of the battlefield) is really justification for changing the game??

Other people can report on this but honestly in my last 100 games or whatever I have never seen this. In my last 10 games there have been relatively few rallies and none at the edge of the battlefield. What you are giving as an example hardly ever happens (at least in my games).

Now, if we get to the nitty gritty of the probability of units rallying then there is an argument - maybe 5% chance of rallying or whatever it is is too high. Everyone will have an opinion. But, I just think the game works fine in terms of rallies. That is just my opinion, of course!

[Cunningcairn]

Come on, if we are talking about ‘logic’ do you really think giving an extreme example of something happening that you don’t like (i.e. four enemy units rallying at the edge of the battlefield) is really justification for changing the game??

Other people can report on this but honestly in my last 100 games or whatever I have never seen this. In my last 10 games there have been relatively few rallies and none at the edge of the battlefield. What you are giving as an example hardly ever happens (at least in my games).

Now, if we get to the nitty gritty of the probability of units rallying then there is an argument - maybe 5% chance of rallying or whatever it is is too high. Everyone will have an opinion. But, I just think the game works fine in terms of rallies. That is just my opinion, of course!

I have made my point as clearly as I can. You don't believe it and like the rules as they are. No problem, I understand. My questions still remain unanswered though. An answer could add some value.

[SimonLancaster]

Come on, if we are talking about ‘logic’ do you really think giving an extreme example of something happening that you don’t like (i.e. four enemy units rallying at the edge of the battlefield) is really justification for changing the game??

Other people can report on this but honestly in my last 100 games or whatever I have never seen this. In my last 10 games there have been relatively few rallies and none at the edge of the battlefield. What you are giving as an example hardly ever happens (at least in my games).

Now, if we get to the nitty gritty of the probability of units rallying then there is an argument - maybe 5% chance of rallying or whatever it is is too high. Everyone will have an opinion. But, I just think the game works fine in terms of rallies. That is just my opinion, of course!

I have made my point as clearly as I can. You don't believe it and like the rules as they are. No problem, I understand. My questions still remain unanswered though. An answer could add some value.

You haven’t answered my question! That would add some value, too!

You also haven’t said what % change you want with rallies. If it is 5% now or whatever it is.. I am sure that the chance for units to rally is already quite low. Bunny or someone can tell us if you don’t know.

I mean, in reality, if there is a 5% chance for a unit to rally and you want to change it to 2% I would say why bother...

[Macedonczyk]

The real issue in this discussion is whether:
1. We want the battles to be addictive (probably this is main objective of developer of game, randomness must stay)
2. We want the battles to be more historic(similar to 1 but add some more complex rules and less decision in hand of player: mele like in P&S - no posibility to choose order of mele and move after mele, anarchy and refusal charges).
3. We want skills to play a bigger role and then the double drop, general death and maybe routed units rally would have to be eliminated.

My opinion is first and last possibilities are interesting, the games are more exciting with point 1 but the tournaments could be a little more fairer (but probable more boring) with point 3 (but who want to play with Kalenda, Nosy Rat and Pantherboy if they really always win then ).

PS: I have idea what to do with rally of routed units: replace them with adding of routed unit soldiers(or some percentage of them) to similar units which are close to them OR ignore them in percent score, score stay as there is no rally.

[MikeC_81]

Can you provide an example of troops rallying out of sight of the main battlefield and therefore causing their entire army to rally? Any battle between 3000 BC and 1500 AD will do.

I know of two offhand.

Battle of Magnesia (Romans vs Seleucids). Livy describes Seleucid cavalry breaking the Roman left which proceeded to stream back to their fortified camp. A tribune in charge of the camp went out and supposedly rallied the fleeing mass by initiating executions of the routers by the camp guards. Apparently it was successful and with Macedonia and Thracian troops prodding them back, they re-engaged and checked the Seleucid cavalry threat.

Battle of Verneuil (Lancastrian English vs French). Accounts a fuzzy as always but apparently the Milanese cavalry initiated a massive charge on the English right-wing which was made up of archers. The dry and hard-packed soil prevented their now standard defensive earthworks and stakes and the Longbowmen were promptly overrun. Many fled and were later executed for treason. The Milanese cavalry proceeded to run off the battlefield to try and loot the English baggage trains and with the threat gone, the English right flank regained their composure and at some point in the battle rejoined part of the main battle and attacked the French infantry which was locked in a stalemate with the one contingent of English men-at-arms (the main battle line had split in two at this point). The French apparently tried to flee shortly afterwards and were either drowned in the nearby moat or massacred. The English then went back to surround the Scots which were still facing off against a separate division of the English army. Apparently no quarter was given to the Scots.

I am unsure whether you still don't understand the concept despite several attempts to have it explained to you

You know where to put your patronising twaddle.

I think you and Schweet should do your mod . . .

We are not asking for your permission.

For someone whom many others have said dishes out the same kind of stuff on a regular basis, you seem to have a thin skin when you are on the receiving end. No one needs permission, never said you needed mine.

[SimonLancaster]

The real issue in this discussion is whether:
1. We want the battles to be addictive (probably this is main objective of developer of game, randomness must stay)
2. We want the battles to be more historic(similar to 1 but add some more complex rules and less decision in hand of player: mele like in P&S - no posibility to choose order of mele and move after mele, anarchy and refusal charges).
3. We want skills to play a bigger role and then the double drop, general death and maybe routed units rally would have to be eliminated.

My opinion is first and last possibilities are interesting, the games are more exciting with point 1 but the tournaments could be a little more fairer (but probable more boring) with point 3 (but who want to play with Kalenda, Nosy Rat and Pantherboy if they really always win then ).

PS: I have idea what to do with rally of routed units: replace them with adding of routed unit soldiers(or some percentage of them) to similar units which are close to them OR ignore them in percent score, score stay as there is no rally.

Good points. Surely the double drops, loss of a general, and rallied troops are all part of the game and make it fun. I mean, the chance of a general dying is around 3% as I seem to remember (could be wrong but around that, I think).

[SnuggleBunnies]

I'm largely happy with the state of RNG in the game. That said, rallies probably on the whole benefit horde armies more than smaller high quality forces, as the latter have a higher proportion of auto-broken units amongst the routed. Perhaps a modest change, such as routers dispersing after 4 turns instead of 5 could make a small but noticeable difference.

But as I said, I do not feel strongly that such a change is needed, and I am resistant to more radical changes. I enjoy the unpredictability of the game. Luck normally evens out over the course of a battle. When it's very much in my favor, I can grin take full advantage of it! When it turns against me, it's best to laugh at the sheer magnitude of the disaster and crack another beer. Some of the most memorable matches I've had are when I've clawed my way to victory after some bad luck.

[Schweetness101]

Yes, exactly right.

Well obviously. If a game was otherwise exactly equal, the only thing that could decide it is RNG.

It isn't the RNG it is the probability of these events happening that is the problem. I refer here mostly to double drops and units rallying although LH sticking is a personal bugbear. In one of Schweetness' mods I think casualty mitigation helped prevent the frequency of the double drop but I am not 100% sure what mod it was. With the rallying issue the fix could for example be as simple as only being able to rally when in command range of a general or dropping the probability to 1 in 1000 if not.

that was the pike mod, which I would like to incorporate eventually into the alt gameplay mod. Specifically it reduced casualties and some negative CT modifiers in combat with pikes in order to make it last longer, but I actually liked the effect enough that, experimentally, in the next version of the alt gameplay mod non light vs non light infantry combat will have some melee casualty reduction (increases average time until combat resolution by a few turns)

[devoncop]

I'm largely happy with the state of RNG in the game. That said, rallies probably on the whole benefit horde armies more than smaller high quality forces, as the latter have a higher proportion of auto-broken units amongst the routed. Perhaps a modest change, such as routers dispersing after 4 turns instead of 5 could make a small but noticeable difference.

But as I said, I do not feel strongly that such a change is needed, and I am resistant to more radical changes. I enjoy the unpredictability of the game. Luck normally evens out over the course of a battle. When it's very much in my favor, I can grin take full advantage of it! When it turns against me, it's best to laugh at the sheer magnitude of the disaster and crack another beer. Some of the most memorable matches I've had are when I've clawed my way to victory after some bad luck.

Perfectly put.

Agree with every word.