SRW1962 wrote:...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'.
...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...
...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....Wargames (except chess) ALL have luck in them, some more than others, but this particular game has the balance right....
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.
I also find many of your statements (like the ones above selected from just one of your posts) to be rather obnoxious. Judging from your background in cards and backgammon, you seem to enjoy (and do well at) games which involve skill and luck, but which involve more luck than your average wargame. More power to you, but it is ludicrous, and frankly insulting, to claim that people who think luck plays too large a part in this game have a "special version", cannot "get to grips" with the game, or are making "wild claims" or "ridiculous" arguments.
The fact is that many people apparently think that luck does play too large a part in this game (BTW no one claims it is "just luck"), and that this is apparently a matter of personal taste. So I'd say either tone down the attitude or be prepared for this kind of response.
historian wrote: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.
As well as countless examples of where all the good luck in the world couldn't save someone.
Zonso wrote:One of the most important things in a Wargame system is a measure of predictability...Case in point: when an enemy BG is engaged to its front and you escalate the battle by attacking its flanks and rear, you are predicting favourable results based on historical outcomes, FoG sort of turns this convention on its head with a frequency that does lead to frustration...These outliers do happen frequently, and to some probably much too frequently
This is the kind of thing that frustrates me as well. In particular, attacking a BG's flank seems to offer very little advantage, even when the unit is engaged to its front already. Attacking the rear is generally effective, but many times I'll have units under attack on five sides and they don't break until I can maneuver in a unit to attack from the sixth hexside, which can be very difficult on a crowded battlefield.
rbodleyscott wrote: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.
I find this statement very puzzling. While I generally agree with your characterization of ancient warfare, I don't understand at all how your comments apply to the PC version of FoG. Indeed, PC FoG features a "steady high rate of attrition on both sides" (although via melee rather than gunfire), and I've mentioned before that this seems rather unrealistic--generally the center will break within a few turns just because of casaulties inflicted by the opposing battleline in a head-to-head fight, rather than because a flank was turned, etc. If you are are saying that the side "losing" the die roll (rather than the battle) should suffer disproportionate casaulties, I agree that this is what happens in game but don't think that it seems realistic. It sounds like the TT version is quite different in this regard...