The power of dices

[ianiow]

If anyone thinks this game is based mainly on luck, they should play 10 games against Pantherboy. The results should be 5 wins each right?

While there is a luck element in this game. The trick is to allow for bad luck with a backup plan. It is possible to stack up the 'luck' in your favour by skill and strategy. That is why the same old players usually win their games. But yes, once in a while they do get beaten. And this is what makes the game fun. Even the 100/1 shot can still have his day.

[Paisley]

Most often when I win, I can see why - and it's seldom down to luck. And when I lose, which is more often than I'd like, it's never yet been down to luck.

As I've said, at first I found many combat results puzzling. But now I find I'm actually very happy with the combat results.

[Zonso]

I win more often than not as well. I know some wins were very lucky as were some losses. I recall vividly one lovely game versus rbodleyscott where part way through I realized I had been masterfully outmanuevered yet in the end I had 'won' when more likely my opponent should have for playing a better game. However, it really isn't about winning or losing as some keep referring to; it is about people's perceptions regards the combat results and likely outcomes based on their prior gaming experiences. As like many others, I have been wargaming for 35+ years and to my mind FoG is just a little too random in areas as evidenced here that are usually more certain. If that's always been FoG's design focus then fine - I'm new to TT rules and player's expectations - but don't be surprised if/when posters comment on the random/luck aspect.

[Paisley]

I don't win more oten than I lose (though I have been doing better now I've concentrated on bigger battles). But I don't actually find the variability in results unsettling. In fact I rather like it now I've become used to it.

[Morbio]

A couple of observations from a relatively impartial observer of this thread....

Views are getting more polarised and strong (if you know what I mean ) as the thread gets longer . I don't think (m)any people are saying that the game is totally decided by luck, I think they are saying that it has a bigger influence than it should.

This may partly be because either they are TT gamers and are comparing to that, or are reasonably knowledgable about historical events, units, battles, or both. Either way, they are expecting the PC game to be a close representation to one or both.

Now, I'm neither of the above, and I think it's an unreal expectation for FoG PC to like the TT game or history. There has to be compromise to make the game as playable as it is. I take the game for what it is and I enjoy it for that fact. I understand that others may not.

My last comment is by all means give critical feedback, but accept others views as well.

[batesmotel]

A couple of observations from a relatively impartial observer of this thread....

Views are getting more polarised and strong (if you know what I mean ) as the thread gets longer . I don't think (m)any people are saying that the game is totally decided by luck, I think they are saying that it has a bigger influence than it should.

This may partly be because either they are TT gamers and are comparing to that, or are reasonably knowledgable about historical events, units, battles, or both. Either way, they are expecting the PC game to be a close representation to one or both.

Now, I'm neither of the above, and I think it's an unreal expectation for FoG PC to like the TT game or history. There has to be compromise to make the game as playable as it is. I take the game for what it is and I enjoy it for that fact. I understand that others may not.

My last comment is by all means give critical feedback, but accept others views as well.

My overall impression is that luck as a factor in FoG PC is roughly equivalent to it in FoG TT and I do not think anyone has claimed there is a serious divergence in that respect. There may well be with other TT rules for the period or with people's interpretations of historical outcomes.

Chris

[SRW1962]

Zonso, I think that as previously mentioned by someone else the root of this may well be the difference with percetion/expectation of TT and PC gamers. As you said yourself you are new to TT rules and as you gain experience of them you will realise that the luck/random factor is probably far higher than most PC or even board wargamers are used to. But this game is trying to replicate a TT wargame 'warts n all' for use on the PC and as such it is trying to be faithful to the TT game. As an experienced player of the TT game I was thrilled by the idea that there would be a PC version, and as such I wanted it to be a carbon copy of the original. I know that this cannot be the case and as such there are differences, but they are good differences for the most part and the looks and playability of the game are from my FOG TT experience, really astounding. For anyone who plays the TT version the luck factor shouldn't be an issue as they will be used to it, but coming from a different perspective I can see how you may see things differently. In time I think this will become less of an issue especially when people realise where FOG PC is coming from.

I used to play a TT system that had virtually all the luck filtered out of it, it was a very legalistic set of rules and I played with my wargames group months with this system and I never lost a game, but I hated it, it reminded me of the sterile nature of chess (although I am a decent chess player) and it caused arguments between players (as chess does) because the beaten players were made to feel inferior for not having the right tactics, knowledge or skill. From my own viewpoint I decided not to play the game again and went on to buy another set of rules that had lots of dice throwing and luck etc. The new rules were much better, because everyone had a chance to win, the guys with the most knowledge/skill could win and the guys with less skill/knowledge could win too if they got lucky sometimes. Most TT wargamers jokingly acknowledge that their wins are because they are Alexander/Napoleon reincarnate and their loses are because the dice gods have deserted them, myself I make no such claim other than I am good at rolling 6's.

What I am trying to say is that above all else it is a game and we all deserve a chance to be winners no matter who we play against and how skillful they are, this is our enjoyment win or lose and as long as we enjoy the game it will continue.

[76mm]

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.

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.

heh heh, indeed! I certainly have the right to continue to express my opinion as an adult, just as you do, and urge you to take your own advice not to take offense.

I can't be bothered to respond to all of your various points, but have already stated that I have played many many board and computer wargames over the years but few TT games (and no ancients TT games whatsoever) so think that I can express an opinion that this game features more luck than most of those wargames.

I continue to note that the TT gamers are most vociferous in their defense of the role of luck in this game and have concluded that this is partially due to a greater comfort level with the role of luck in combat resolution AND most probably with their greater familiarity with the game's rules and mechanics (since they have a rulebook and all), which would certainly reduce the perception of luck. I admit that I need to become more familiar with certain aspects of the rules.

Lastly, I have never said that the game designers have it "all wrong". If I thought that, I would have already removed the game from my hard drive and certainly wouldn't be posting here. My chief complaints are: (1) that casualties mount too quickly because the combat results are too extreme (with a simple fix: slow down combat slightly by weighting combat results toward the center rather than allowing the extremes to occur so frequently; and (b) combat results in non-open terrain seem quite strange to me, and things like streams and woods seem to offer very little benefit for a defender. This is a particular issue for which I need to better understand the rules and do some in-game testing (once I have time...).

Most important, I recognize that these are my personal opinions, and others hold their own opinions, which are equally valid (well, at least most of them...). While I disagree with people on this forum, and particularly in this thread, quite often, as a rule I refrain from personal attacks in an attempt to keep to keep the discussion on an intellectual rather than an emotional level. If someone thinks otherwise, feel free to PM me and let me know the errors of my ways...

[IainMcNeil]

I think we could definitely do more to explain combat results for non tabletop players that would make it all much clearer as at the moment much of it is hidden away. This was by design but it may be we need an option at least to get under the hood more easily. E.g. one thought I had was to show the dice rolls that a combat is based on an whether each one hit or not. Once you understand the underlying mechanics I think you'll perceive the roll of luck differently. I'll add that to the long list of things we'd like to add!

[batesmotel]

I think we could definitely do more to explain combat results for non tabletop players that would make it all much clearer as at the moment much of it is hidden away. This was by design but it may be we need an option at least to get under the hood more easily. E.g. one thought I had was to show the dice rolls that a combat is based on an whether each one hit or not. Once you understand the underlying mechanics I think you'll perceive the roll of luck differently. I'll add that to the long list of things we'd like to add!

It already shows the die rolls in the display window. It would be nice to be able to have some history of them rather than just for the latest combat. (There are definitely times when it feels like I had a run of unexpectedly negative results and it would be nice to be able to confirm or disprove that by looking at the overall die rolls for turn.)

Chris

[SRW1962]

76mm I will respond to each point seperately:


"76mm wrote" heh heh, indeed! I certainly have the right to continue to express my opinion as an adult, just as you do, and urge you to take your own advice not to take offense.

I take no offence by your comments/opinion most of my responses are tongue in cheek when dealing with possible insults or personal attack, so no harm there then.


"76mm wrote" I can't be bothered to respond to all of your various points, but have already stated that I have played many many board and computer wargames over the years but few TT games (and no ancients TT games whatsoever) so think that I can express an opinion that this game features more luck than most of those wargames.

Well, not being bothered to respond to all the points someone makes sort of detracts from your ability to have a reasoned debate really. But addressing your wargaming background as I and others have previously stated this is possibly where the problem is coming from, you don't play TT games and THIS PC game is trying to emulate a TT game, it does admittedly have its differences but the underlying system is the same, especially the random factor. And I would agree that this game probably does have more luck than you are used to in other board games/PC games, but then it is supposed to.


"76mm wrote" I continue to note that the TT gamers are most vociferous in their defense of the role of luck in this game and have concluded that this is partially due to a greater comfort level with the role of luck in combat resolution AND most probably with their greater familiarity with the game's rules and mechanics (since they have a rulebook and all), which would certainly reduce the perception of luck. I admit that I need to become more familiar with certain aspects of the rules.

I totally agree!


"76mm wrote" Lastly, I have never said that the game designers have it "all wrong". If I thought that, I would have already removed the game from my hard drive and certainly wouldn't be posting here. My chief complaints are: (1) that casualties mount too quickly because the combat results are too extreme (with a simple fix: slow down combat slightly by weighting combat results toward the center rather than allowing the extremes to occur so frequently; and (b) combat results in non-open terrain seem quite strange to me, and things like streams and woods seem to offer very little benefit for a defender. This is a particular issue for which I need to better understand the rules and do some in-game testing (once I have time...).

You don't think the game designers have it wrong but then go on to say that they have casualties wrong and suggest a way to 'fix' it and combat results are strange, well it does seem like you think they have got it wrong from reading that. I do agree though you do need to understand the rules better, and perhaps as you previously stated the TT gamers do have the benefit of the original rulebook with all its insights into the game mechanics etc. Maybe some of the same can be done with the PC version.


"76mm wrote" Most important, I recognize that these are my personal opinions, and others hold their own opinions, which are equally valid (well, at least most of them...). While I disagree with people on this forum, and particularly in this thread, quite often, as a rule I refrain from personal attacks in an attempt to keep to keep the discussion on an intellectual rather than an emotional level. If someone thinks otherwise, feel free to PM me and let me know the errors of my ways...

You are like everyone else free to air your views and I for one welcome them as they are the whole point of a forum, although I don't agree with your viewpoint I can see exactly where it is coming from and totally agree with the notion of staying away from personal attacks. I do think that as with all subjects that people debate, the difference with intellectual rather than emotional input becomes rather confused especially when you are debating something you may have a passion for. I personally don't think that there is any need for anyone here to PM you on about this and wish you all the best with future posts as I have enjoyed our debate.

[TimW]

It's already been suggested that we view casualties as percentages, not "numbers of men lost". Could I also suggest trying the "bar chart" display of pre-combat "chances" (the numbers in the shield when you hover the mouse over a sword icon) rather than the percentages one? Rather than win/lose odds you get win/draw/lose as a three-column graph. I've tried a dozen games v the AI using that option and I suspect it's the more realistic reflection of the likely combat outcome.

On a second point (and not in any way intending to be argumentative), I wonder if some FOG PC critics are players who have little ancients/medieval wargaming experience but quite a lot of WW2/modern (or gunpowder era, at least)?

[76mm]

You don't think the game designers have it wrong but then go on to say that they have casualties wrong and suggest a way to 'fix' it and combat results are strange, well it does seem like you think they have got it wrong from reading that.

?? Give me a break. So its OK if others state their opinions about their perceived issues with this game (LF, cavalry, evading, DAG/Scenario builder issues, etc. etc. ) and their suggested fixes, but I can't state my opinion about combat resolution without being accused of saying that the devs got it "all wrong" (your words). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove but this is getting tiresome.

[SRW1962]

You don't think the game designers have it wrong but then go on to say that they have casualties wrong and suggest a way to 'fix' it and combat results are strange, well it does seem like you think they have got it wrong from reading that.

?? Give me a break. So its OK if others state their opinions about their perceived issues with this game (LF, cavalry, evading, DAG/Scenario builder issues, etc. etc. ) and their suggested fixes, but I can't state my opinion about combat resolution without being accused of saying that the devs got it "all wrong" (your words). I'm not sure what you are trying to prove but this is getting tiresome.

If you are going to quote me, then at least be decent enough not to misquote me as you have done here.

I actually said: "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"

That is the only time I said "all wrong" and that was in the context I used it.

I never said you couldn't state your opinion in fact I said: "You are like everyone else free to air your views and I for one welcome them as they are the whole point of a forum, although I don't agree with your viewpoint I can see exactly where it is coming from and totally agree with the notion of staying away from personal attacks."

I think that my point is made, and yes being misquoted is very tiresome!

End of debate.

[IainMcNeil]

Am I going to have to lock this thread? No personal attacks please or this will be shut down.

[Scutarii]

Well, i only play before FoG 1 wargame based on ancient wars, "Great battles" serie but many years ago... 10-12 years and dont remember it very well, medieval wargames... well, if you accept TW series... but ask this is irrelevant, a wargame isnt based on periods, is based on bonus/malus and lists of them, you can use a generic list and change the period (of course can adapt it to musket period or bow period) but base is the same, for example SoA is based on medieval time and RoR in ancient, what is the diference between periods??? weapons and unit composition but engine is the same.

When i talk about power of dices i want say that many results are to extreme and the combination of dices+casualties to "strange" is a bad combination, for example yesterday in a test a see an average ready jabelin unit attacked by superior ready phalanx unit loosing phalanx 34 soldiers and jabelin unit only 15.... for me the worst result to this melee could be change the result 15-34 because fail in a melee vs a skirmis unit using combat units (HF, HC, MF) is not D or F jabelin unit but suffering less loses, see a light infantry unit killing a heavy unit is... psss base the casualties sistem in % in a game where units are represented by soldiers is strange because you can see rare results.

PD: another question is the quality factor, i see poor slingers or bow units killing more troops than superior units shooting at the same unit.

[TimW]

yesterday in a test a see an average ready jabelin unit attacked by superior ready phalanx unit loosing phalanx 34 soldiers and jabelin unit only 15

How about his as an explanation?

"Melee" isn't necessarily two units coming to hand-to-hand combat - it includes the use of point-blank/very short range missiles. Many light troops fought at short ranges - a few dozen paces at most, often it seems by sending a group forward to skirmish while their "main body" was a bit further away - getting it's breath back, re-arming etc.

In your example, for the phalangites to harm the javelinmen they first have to get close enough to actually catch one - which is harder than it sounds if you think of 1500 heavily equipped men chasing 500 lightly equipped men around a very large field. If the 500 men are also all are throwing javelins at every opportunity then I suggest that kind of result is perfectly possible (and the phalangites would end up quite disordered I would have thought).

Another possibility is that, historically, one phalanx tactic used against skirmishers was for the front rank only to make a short (hopefully) controlled charge in the hope of catching some of the light infantry or at least driving them away and getting a brief respite. Again, the light foot would try to stay just out of reach and use their own weapons to best effectiveness. Light foot (and even more so light horse) were fairly invulnerable to heavy foot, all other things being equal (ground, the local commanders, etc.).

another question is the quality factor, i see poor slingers or bow units killing more troops than superior units shooting at the same unit

My reading of the game's help file leads me to understand troop quality doesn't affect casualties caused/received directly, but rather the unit's chance of passing a cohesion test/recovering cohesion/auto-routing. The effect on combat is that as higher quality units are less likely to lose cohesion they will tend to do better over time.

[Morbio]

... and talking about troop quality.... and the effectiveness of poor quality troops.... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 300.stm?ls

Reminds me of some of the troops I've had in some of my battles

[batesmotel]

yesterday in a test a see an average ready jabelin unit attacked by superior ready phalanx unit loosing phalanx 34 soldiers and jabelin unit only 15

...

another question is the quality factor, i see poor slingers or bow units killing more troops than superior units shooting at the same unit

My reading of the game's help file leads me to understand troop quality doesn't affect casualties caused/received directly, but rather the unit's chance of passing a cohesion test/recovering cohesion/auto-routing. The effect on combat is that as higher quality units are less likely to lose cohesion they will tend to do better over time.

Troop quality affects both cohesion test and combat in the same way. This is by having different quality troops re-roll their dice in certain cases (only re-rolled once max per die):

Elite: 1s,2s
Superior: 1s
Average: none
Poor: 6s

You will see a designation like 1r6 (1 re-rolled to a 6) in the display when this occurs.

Chris

[petergarnett]

You need to use the correct keyboard shortcuts to see the combat results Chris describes. From memory it is the P key.

Also a one rerolled can lead to a 2nd one being rolled so still a miss