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

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

omarquatar wrote: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.
(Disclaimer: I am not involved in the development of FoG PC)

As has been pointed out previously, the stated number of men in a unit is largely decorative. However, LF already have their weakness in numbers taken into account by getting half as many dice (2 to the MFs' 4). So from a probability point of view they are not likely to win. But on the rare occasions that they do win, despite having less dice (less men) they can cause significant casualties. As has also been pointed out, the only significant number in this regard is the percentage losses caused, but because your unit has more notional men this means higher casualties reported in men. But as has already been said, the number of men is essentially decorative. So switch to % losses display and you won't have to worry about it.

It has also been pointed out that casualties do not necessarily mean men dead - they essentially represent a % permanent degradation of the unit's fighting power which can include many effects of fatigue and loss of will as well as actual casualties.


If the PC game has a fault in this regard, it is in the casualty reporting, rather than in the actual combat results.
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: 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
I have already explained in a previous post how this sort of thing can happen but here it is again, and it is very relevant to your example:

If we look at that specific example it is very easily explained and hopefully will explain why skirmishers in general seem to do better than they should against close formation melee troops. Close formation troops that are designed to physically engage in combat need to close to contact, but skirmishers are not in any soet of formed body, so this presents a problem to the melee troops. Picture this, the cataphracts are trotting forward trying to skewer or bash the slingers, meanwhile the slingers are trying to avoid getting up close and personal so they dart about and presumably use their slings at extremely close range! (slings were the missile weapon of choice against cataphracts as they were so damn effective against the armoured men, whether this is taken into account in the rules I'm not sure though). Now, if the cataphracts corner the slingers as it were, they will kill them for sure, but if by luck or cunning the slingers avoid the cataphracts then they could do a lot of damage at such short range. Picture it like a featherweight boxer vs a very slow heavyweight in a very big ring or better still David vs Goliath!

In wargames it is accepted that melee is a very complex affair that may not actually even be physical blows as such, but may simply be a very close range firefight especially with troops that have range weapons. In the case of missile troops vs melee troops the missile troops will desperately try to use their range weapon for as long as they can whilst the melee troops must close to within arms length to use their weapon. So, when your melee troops enage some skirmishers and seem to do badly try to picture what is actually being represented by the combat, it may not take they pain away, but it will make you realise why you are hurting.
hidde
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Post by hidde »

One thing puzzels me:
It been stated several times in this thread (and others) that the number of men in a battle group doesn't matter.
In the rules, however it says: "Modify the number of attacks for battle group losses. Quantity of attacks = Attacks x current strength / initial strength".
Surely that means that as the manpower decreases the nr. of attacks do as well?
And there also is the auto break even if doesn't come into play that much, I guess.
Xiccarph
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:05 am

Post by Xiccarph »

hidde wrote:One thing puzzels me:
It been stated several times in this thread (and others) that the number of men in a battle group doesn't matter.
In the rules, however it says: "Modify the number of attacks for battle group losses. Quantity of attacks = Attacks x current strength / initial strength".
Surely that means that as the manpower decreases the nr. of attacks do as well?
And there also is the auto break even if doesn't come into play that much, I guess.
I may be wrong, but that seems to come into play in 25% increments from what I have seen, so until you get to 75%, 76% to 100% has the same effect. I don't think its in 1% increments.
RyanDG
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:25 pm

Post by RyanDG »

hidde wrote:One thing puzzels me:
It been stated several times in this thread (and others) that the number of men in a battle group doesn't matter.
In the rules, however it says: "Modify the number of attacks for battle group losses. Quantity of attacks = Attacks x current strength / initial strength".
Surely that means that as the manpower decreases the nr. of attacks do as well?
And there also is the auto break even if doesn't come into play that much, I guess.
Its not based on the number of soldiers, but rather than the %. The % is how the casualties are determined and unit strength is determined rather than the actual number of soldiers in the unit. While this is a nit picking sort of thing to mention since ultimately it seems like the same thing (as long as you can think abstractly), it is important to realize that a 300 strong unit vs. a 1000 strong unit if all other stats are the same (protected/heavy foot/weapon choice) have ultimately no difference in the game what so ever.


(EDIT - And ultimately, if you view the game with casualties rather than %, the 1000 strong unit will end up seemingly taking more casualties despite what could be the same # of hits due to the higher loss of casualties despite the % being the same. This is why I mentioned its a lot better to view this information as % rather than individual casualties. For example, the two units deal 5% casualties to one another... The 1000 strong units 5% will look like more casualties than the 300 strong units 5% when from a game standpoint they are the exact same for every factor that matters.)
hidde
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1837
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Post by hidde »

I'm playing Gaugamela scenario at the moment and there Darius is set to strength 1. My 2000 strong pikes should be careful when they see him :lol:
Jokes aside, be it number or percentages what I'm getting at is that losing men (or %) makes a difference. That's what makes me react to high and wildly swinging losses.
As I wrote earlier I don't complain when a sling or bow unit engage in melee combat with my legion and are able to make a stand. If they holds out a couple of turns it can make a big dent in my carefully crafted plans 8) but if they also inflict several hundreds of causalties (or dozens of %) it feels a bit over the top to me.
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

RyanDG wrote:
hidde wrote: it is important to realize that a 300 strong unit vs. a 1000 strong unit if all other stats are the same (protected/heavy foot/weapon choice) have ultimately no difference in the game what so ever.


(EDIT - And ultimately, if you view the game with casualties rather than %, the 1000 strong unit will end up seemingly taking more casualties despite what could be the same # of hits due to the higher loss of casualties despite the % being the same. This is why I mentioned its a lot better to view this information as % rather than individual casualties. For example, the two units deal 5% casualties to one another... The 1000 strong units 5% will look like more casualties than the 300 strong units 5% when from a game standpoint they are the exact same for every factor that matters.)
they weren't, in my example, if you recall it: unprotected poor LF against average protected MF...and the dice weren't even so extreme, so the role of luck could have been greater...
In the end, if i understand correctly, losses are dependant on the strength of the target unit, not of the firing/attacking; in other words, the more men you have in a BG, the more losses you're going to take...
if this is really so, it explains a lot, but i certainly don't agree with the general concept
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

omarquatar wrote:
it is important to realize that a 300 strong unit vs. a 1000 strong unit if all other stats are the same (protected/heavy foot/weapon choice) have ultimately no difference in the game what so ever.


(EDIT - And ultimately, if you view the game with casualties rather than %, the 1000 strong unit will end up seemingly taking more casualties despite what could be the same # of hits due to the higher loss of casualties despite the % being the same. This is why I mentioned its a lot better to view this information as % rather than individual casualties. For example, the two units deal 5% casualties to one another... The 1000 strong units 5% will look like more casualties than the 300 strong units 5% when from a game standpoint they are the exact same for every factor that matters.)
they weren't, in my example, if you recall it: unprotected poor LF against average protected MF...and the dice weren't even so extreme, so the role of luck could have been greater...
In the end, if i understand correctly, losses are dependant on the strength of the target unit, not of the firing/attacking; in other words, the more men you have in a BG, the more losses you're going to take...
if this is really so, it explains a lot, but i certainly don't agree with the general concept

As has been previously stated, the number of men in a (non-light) unit is largely decorative. The game is based on the TT game, which does not recognise that there are necessarily any less men in, say, a MF unit than a HF unit. (MF does not represent loose order).

The source of the apparent anomaly, therefore, is that the PC version reports that there is a different number of men, but uses exactly the combat resolution mechanisms as the TT version, which does not assume any such thing.

If you could just bring yourself to ignore the stated number of men entirely, you will find that everything, in fact, works fine.

In your example, the LF could not ever have got 3 hits, because they only get 2 dice when fighting non-light troops- because in this case there really are less men. So in your example the program clearly does recognise the difference in numbers because the MF get 4 dice and the LF only 2, with a worse to hit chance. So the result in your case was an extreme case, and not at all typical. However, the program does not make it impossible to happen, because that would be unhistorical.

Extreme cases, while obviously much less common than typical cases (as the probability curve of the above example does in fact model), were not at all rare in Ancient/Medieval times.

e.g. From Appian's Mithridatic Wars: "A hundred Sarmatian horse of his advance-guard came upon 800 of the Nicomedean cavalry and took some of them prisoners."

This sort of thing is not at all unusual historically.
Last edited by rbodleyscott on Sat Mar 27, 2010 10:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar »

rbodleyscott wrote:
It has also been pointed out that casualties do not necessarily mean men dead - they essentially represent a % permanent degradation of the unit's fighting power which can include many effects of fatigue and loss of will as well as actual casualties.


If the PC game has a fault in this regard, it is in the casualty reporting, rather than in the actual combat results.
It might be that way, as i feel the general battle result is reasonable, while the single combats are "odd".
To avoid this uneasy feeling, it could be better to show only desorder/fragmented status and the skulls as signs of the actual strenght of a BG
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

omarquatar wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
It has also been pointed out that casualties do not necessarily mean men dead - they essentially represent a % permanent degradation of the unit's fighting power which can include many effects of fatigue and loss of will as well as actual casualties.


If the PC game has a fault in this regard, it is in the casualty reporting, rather than in the actual combat results.
It might be that way, as i feel the general battle result is reasonable, while the single combats are "odd".
To avoid this uneasy feeling, it could be better to show only desorder/fragmented status and the skulls as signs of the actual strenght of a BG
I tend to agree. Or at least, to make that an option.

One problem I have with displaying results as %ages is that it is hard to see who has won when fully zoomed out - it is easier to see the difference when shown as casualty numbers. (And I personally do not find it hard to ignore any apparent anomalies arriving therefrom. To me it is the overall simulation that matters, not the nuts and bolts).
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

Hopefully with that explanation this can finally be put to bed.

However, as a direct question to Richard Bodley-Scott; Is there any direct evidence for Medieval LCM's as seen in the new Robin Hood film by his distant relative Ridley Bodley-Scott? And why is Dover always depicted as next to Sherwood Forest in such films?
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

SRW1962 wrote:However, as a direct question to Richard Bodley-Scott; Is there any direct evidence for Medieval LCM's as seen in the new Robin Hood film by his distant relative Ridley Bodley-Scott? And why is Dover always depicted as next to Sherwood Forest in such films?
LCMs?
RyanDG
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 135
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:25 pm

Post by RyanDG »

rbodleyscott wrote:
SRW1962 wrote:However, as a direct question to Richard Bodley-Scott; Is there any direct evidence for Medieval LCM's as seen in the new Robin Hood film by his distant relative Ridley Bodley-Scott? And why is Dover always depicted as next to Sherwood Forest in such films?
LCMs?

I'm assuming he's talking about the landing craft used in the movie that makes the scene in the trailer look like something out of the D-Day invasion of Normandy...
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28284
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

RyanDG wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
SRW1962 wrote:However, as a direct question to Richard Bodley-Scott; Is there any direct evidence for Medieval LCM's as seen in the new Robin Hood film by his distant relative Ridley Bodley-Scott? And why is Dover always depicted as next to Sherwood Forest in such films?
LCMs?

I'm assuming he's talking about the landing craft used in the movie that makes the scene in the trailer look like something out of the D-Day invasion of Normandy...
The mind boggles. Well that's one to give a miss then, unless it is sufficiently hilariously crap as to become a cult classic.
Zonso
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:50 pm

Post by Zonso »

One of the most important things in a Wargame system is a measure of predictability: if you can't predict what the results of your orders will be (in the absence of enemy interference) then the game simply becomes more random and more frustrating. 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, wargame/boardgame experience etc rewarding such tactics. FoG sort of turns this convention on its head with a frequency that does lead to frustration - if this happens when the enemy BG is a LF and your flank Attacker is a HF or HC then the level of frustration increases exponentially. These outliers do happen frequently, and to some probably much too frequently. Someone said above they don't see these sort of things and must have a different game, well I will gladly trade mine for his because I see them almost every, if not every, game. Regards :)
76mm
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1289
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm »

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...
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

For those of you who are feel the casualties are misleading I suggest you go to the options and change to %. This will give you the accurate information. The casualty reports were not in early versions of the game at all and only went in because I felt they added a lot of flavour rather than 2%, 10%.

There is an element of luck in FoG but what you will find is that it balances out. Usually within the course of a game but on rare occaisons not. We have tabletop players who record every die roll they make as they are convinced they've been unlucky only to find out in the end that it all averages out. Fog PC games are far larger than tabletop games. Normally a TT game woudl have around 10-20 battlegrousp a side. Thats about a 250 point army. Larger battles give more die rolls and more averaging of the effects of luck.

On teh predicatability of results, this is by design. We did not want a formulaic system. The problem with a system like this is that unit X always beat unit Y. Historically unit X beat unit Y 75% of the time. Without randomness you cannot get the historical results. Randomness also adds excitment.

Some players will feel that the element of luck prevents them winning when they should. However, the skill in a game like this is to plan for the best but be prepared for the worst. What happens if your Elite Legions dont win this combat. Have you got their flank covered? Tabletop wargmaing has always had luck - different sets of rules to different degrees but the ones that get the balance right are always the most popular and successful. If you look at the rankings, the same players win or get placed near the top in all the competitions, so the skill is clearly the overriding factor. Luck can determine the winner between 2 equal players but very rarely can do much about a skill inbalance.

For those of you who dont like the element of luck I'm not sure what to say - it is absolutely fundamental to the system. It just would not work without it and it will not be changing.

The element of luck always gives you something to blame as well when you lose - you dont want to be in the pub after a tabletop competition or you'll hear endless tales of woe as the knights rolled 1's at the critical time!
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

76mm wrote:
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.
Just when you think this is all sorted, this happens, oh dear!

76mm its a shame that you don't like my comments, as frankly I could not care less. I stand by them and will continue to give my opinion in a way that I feel appropriate! But weigh up this, you are in the vast minority here, as most people find the balance of luck to be about right, what you see is different to what others see as it really is a matter of perception, and yours is a little askew on this subject. I have spoken about the subject of casualties etc. with two of my wargaming friends as we have played this game (both of which have bought the game since I introduced them to it) and both laugh at the idea that there is too much of a random factor in the game, and yes sometimes things go against us but we don't gripe (okay we swear at the screen sometimes or call each other lucky f***ers!) we just get on with it as we accept that sometimes things don't go quite to plan. But for some people like you, it seems that isn't enough, EVERYTHING must go to plan or else the system is flawed, well its not flawed its fine, its your way of looking at things that is flawed. Whatever copy of the game I play with I will see a good game with which I can have fun and win, because I have sound plans and allow for the vagaries of luck etc. Whatever copy of the game people such as you have you will always see too much luck when even the slightest thing goes wrong. That means you cannot get to grips with the game as you are still griping about it. And to put you straight, I said mine is the special copy of the game, not yours!

Now I have played cards, and how dare you say that bridge or cribbage have more luck in them than the average wargame (now that is ridiculous!), obviously a; you have NEVER played bridge or cribbage! b; not played many wargames (by which I mean TT ones (which is what this PC game is supposed to be a simulation of!) as if you look at the most popular systems over the years they ALL seemed to roll dice and in the case of Warhammer Ancients its bucket fulls! An ill thought out response from you, at least try to find out what the hell you are talking about before commenting on it! And another point, you seem to make is 'my background in cards', again get your facts straight (you don't know me), my background is in WARGAMING, I love it and have played wargames for over 30 years, BOTH TT and PC. FOG has in my humble opinion the best wargame system I have ever seen, and I have played some cracking games and systems on PC and TT, the balance of luck and skill is perfect!

Now I did say that the designers will NOT change the random factor in this game, guess what? They haven't and have no intention of doing so, read post above! Thats because they have got it right, thats because the system it emulates got it right! Now, on the subject of obnoxious, I do think that you are being very insulting to the designers of both the original TT system and the PC version for suggesting they have it all wrong when it comes to the luck factor, ever wondered why they have had such an overwhelmingly positive critical response? It's because they have got it about right! I do think that the whole argument of there being too much luck to be ridiculous and I do think some of the claims are wild and I do think its simply because some people cannot get to grips with it.

Now is that 'toned down' enough for you, or do you now feel the need to chastise me once more as you seem to feel you have the right to do so.
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

Let's all calm it down a little. Everyone is here to have fun and everyone has fun in different ways. If you guys were meeting face to face you'd never have gotten off to such a bad start! Wargaming is a small enough hobby as it is - lets try not to fragment it further.
SRW1962
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:17 pm
Location: Wolves

Post by SRW1962 »

iainmcneil wrote:Let's all calm it down a little. Everyone is here to have fun and everyone has fun in different ways. If you guys were meeting face to face you'd never have gotten off to such a bad start! Wargaming is a small enough hobby as it is - lets try not to fragment it further.
You are quite right on this, in person difference of opinions are dealt with diferently to a written message, as humour and emotion in general seem to get lost in translation.

I think forums are like cars, everyone sort of cut off from each other in the traffic and horns tooting etc. cars moving can all seem threatening and intentionally aggressive, whereas people walking in the street face to face see a different view of each other as they walk by.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”