The power of dices

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:07 am

Although I too would like seeing the dice rolls, dont fool youself that it will make you feel better when you have bad luck

In DAG battles the dice rolls are displayed for the initiative and I lost 10 in a row! even w Inspired commanders and more light cavalry, ie +2 for a leader, you roll a 1, for a net 3 , oponent rolls a "4" you lose initiative and so on and so forth. LOL

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:16 am

The U short cut will bring up the display window that shows all the die rolls and re-rolls.

Chris

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:50 am

batesmotel wrote:The U short cut will bring up the display window that shows all the die rolls and re-rolls.

Chris

Thanks, I new that was there but didnt realize it showd the actual dice rolls

Blathergut · Post by **Blathergut** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:01 am

While you can't seem to do much about the combat rolls or the percentage of doom, I've found I'm passing more cohesion tests if I make sure units fighting have rear support always (ohhhhh those 2pt Jewish geurrillas!!)(

) and a commander who can reach them once things start to disrupt (my Jewish LH commanders have been able to zip back and forth and make a real difference!!).

Once I've been passing more tests though, troops grind down to the autobreak point more often!

(Which is why those 6 superior Real Romans in the Jewish list are so nice...they just stand there and keep taking it!

As for combat, we've all seen the 4 1's rolled and even rerolled to misses!

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:41 am

iainmcneil wrote:If we gave you feedback about the dice rolls it might make you see why things were happening? E.g. we show you on screen 1-4 dice representing your combat rolls for each side and if then re-rolls rather than just the casualty outcome?

this mighlt help eliminate confusion, but only if we also have the tables showing what the die rolls mean and a better explantion of the significance of dice to combat.

Scutarii · Post by **Scutarii** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:08 am

The problem is that results usually arent controlled by player, i see in many test units from ready status to rout status in one attack (average units) and D units standing after 3 attacks!!! you can show in the screen the dices (a good idea) but it dont change the excesive power of dices.

I use rear support and try to have my units in the range of my commanders but if patch routed units depends of luck whats the point in have more commanders??? i can asume tactic mistakes (of course have them) but see routed enemy units patched in the end of battlefield aout or commander range is frustrating when my troops dont do it even when a commander near!!! luck is a factor in a wargame but never over the 25% because then tactics and other things in the players hands are missing.

PD: one of the collateral damage of dices power is that many times i am forced to use the crazy attack because ey, if i cant control what happends in battle field and i have 2 options, the crazy option (where if dices help me i can win the day) and the conservative option (where if all goes well dont win the day but if all goes bad i loss the day) force players to play as in a Casino is stupid because this is a wargame, for me play FoG is like play a russian rouletter with 3 bullets not 1

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:25 am

(Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the development of FOGPC, and am not in the pay of Slitherine, although the rules are based on the FOGTT rules of which I am co-author).

Obviously players will vary as to how much luck they want to see in games, but it would be a vast overstatement to claim that luck is everything in FOGPC.

Over many years of designing tabletop wargames rules, I have noticed how people, when they first take up any new rules set, overrate the luck element. This is partly because they don't know how to set up favourable situations and hence many of the combats revolve around a 50-50 chance, so are inevitably going to be decided by luck.

Once players get to know the game better, and can set up unwinnable situations for the enemy, it is apparent that the luck element diminishes considerably.

In the vast majority of cases, where there is a substantial advantage in FOGPC, the side with the advantage will win. Sometimes this does not happen. This is part of the fortunes of war, and it is part of the skill of the general (player) to allow for such disasters, and set up his forces in a way that minimises the ill effects.

Too much certainty is not historically accurate.

Where the balance is set is of course an issue, but it is one of taste - I myself am pretty happy with the level of luck in FOGPC - when I play well I win, and when I don't I lose. That surely means that luck cannot be the deciding factor overall.

petergarnett · Post by **petergarnett** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:34 am

Perhaps the issue with the PC version is it's ease of play - you can play without having to read the help files on how the combat mechanisms work. It would be interesting to know how many players of the TT version find the luck factor an issue with the PC version. I'd suspect not many as they have had to learn the rules.

However even with the U shortcut on it is still sometimes a problem to see what has happened as the text window has no scroll bar so you cannot always see the attackers die-rolls.

SRW1962 · Post by **SRW1962** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:50 am

The biggest difference for me between the TT and PC versions of the game is the actual casualties being recorded by each side in a combat. In the TT version you just get a hit or a miss and no casualties being recorded other than a base being lost. I do think that the gradual attrition suffered by units in the pc version does make a big difference, but then it applies to both sides so it evens out. As for luck that evens out too, the more dice rolls the more luck will average out. Personally I look at the percentage chance of winning a combat as a guide only and to be honest I totally disregard it mostly as depending upon the situation, if I feel that I have a tactical advantage then despite what the figures say I will go for it. Many times I have gone into a combat when the percentages have been against me and beaten the opposing unit, as for me the tactical advantage overrode the figures being presented.

Also, from experience of being a tabletop wargamer for over 30 years and actually reading a lot of military history books I do know that many people that play wargames never bother to do this and simply play the game and lists as as it were. I rememebr only too well a TT game where I charged ECW royalist cavalry into some dragoons to be told that my cavalry had lost because it was Cav(F) against LH(S) or some such nonsense. Obviously I laughed at how ridiculous the result was to be told that thats how it was historically, this being based on the opponent only ever reading the rules and lists of course. I then explained that according to every history book I had ever read that Roylaist gallloper cavalry would have riden into the dirt without pausing to think about it, dragoons who were simply men with muskets given an old nag to transport them from A to B. This was a revelation to my opponent who admitted to never reading any books about the English Civil War despite owning a couple of large 15mm armies. This is also very typical of ancient wargamers too, who can quote rules and lists all day long, but who don't bother to read many actual books about their fave army etc.

I played a game last night head to head on my pc against a mate of mine, it was the Taurus 39BC scenario. My mate picked the Romans I had the Parthians, before the game started I told him exactly what I intended to do and how I would achieve it, I also told him how best to counter my plan. Now, this was an experiment to see what he would do. My plan was simple enough, just attack his skirmishers with my horse archers and drive them from the field in rout then shoot the shit out of his legionaries and finally advance into contact frontally with my cataphracts, the hosre archers then would envelope the flanks of the Roman army and he would die in droves. In all a simple but lazy plan as I would usually have worked the flanks far more agressively. Now, my mate plays the percentages, if it looks good he goes with it, if not he stays put. He also loses over 90% of the games we play no matter what the system and he has had over 30 years of this. I read more books, I understand more about the armies I play with and against, I go with what I think should happen and I win lots of games. He puts it down to me being lucky, but does freely admit I am better read and therefore have a better understanding than he does. He lost the game last night, absolutely hammered to be exact.

The point of all this is simple enough, if the rules are historically based (and I do believe them to be) then historical tactics will work, depite the luck factor. But, if you don't read up on historical tactics etc. to begin with then how will you know what to do? Quoting plus one for this and that and then bemoaning luck factors doesn't do it for me, luck is part of the ride.

PS. I would love a simulated dice roll option whereby you click on the dice and they roll for your result, like they do in pc backgammon games, for me that would make it even more brilliant and even more like the TT version.

Scutarii · Post by **Scutarii** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:13 am

Well, in my opinion in FoG luck plays an excesive role, i dont say that luck is bad but when use support units, use units in commander range and things like this only to see how dices made all this bonus null if frustrating because where is the sense on buy quality, commanders or use a plan??? i was defeated 2 times attacked by a single line of HF one time as late cartago VS late roman was literally destroyed in 6 turns on second with Late Macedonian VS iberian lusitanian i prevent be flanked in my two flanks (500 points armies) and defeat the superior legionaries (i change my line in the middle of the battle to have superior pikemen in this part of the enemy line) only to see how routed enemy units reform in the end of map out of commander range (i kill one of their commanders but curious the routs start in my army) when in the game only 1 of my units in the range of commander reform.

Dont understand me bad but in FoG when i start to play big battles i see that tactics work only if dices admite that, in small scens you dont have many tactic choices and looks for a direct melee is the main tactic, in big battles i expect find more than this, play expecting that dices be with you is a little...

Well, i continue playing the game but for me the random factor is to powerfull, add the option to see the dices is interesting because add more information to the game (see then in the melee, over the melee in the battlefield).

PD: even if i win the last battle i find the game to random for my taste, every melee is like trhow a coin because dices can kill all bonus or malus when for example for me a D units with the best dices only can prevent a full defeat doing equal the number of cuasualties in defender and attacker

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:20 am

Post moved

Scutarii · Post by **Scutarii** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:22 am

Sorry, i edit the last post...

The problem with rallied units wasnt in late roman, was in iberian lusitanian VS late macedonian

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:24 am

Scutarii wrote: PD: even if i win the last battle i find the game to random for my taste, every melee is like trhow a coin because dices can kill all bonus or malus

Can, but usually don't.

Well it's a matter of taste.

(And probably the reason the Romans are more likely to rally is because their troops are Superior, which allows them to re-roll 1s on their Cohesion Tests. I agree that it is frustrating when this happens, especially when they are so hard to rout in the first place. But it is not just chance.).

(And if your Carthaginian spearmen were Average, Protected, I am afraid that rear support is not enough to cancel the Roman combat advantage, taking into account combat factors and the Romans getting to re-roll 1s, which, of course, further modifies the odds).

Scutarii · Post by **Scutarii** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:45 am

I talk now about late macedonian VS iberian lusitanian but in the battle with late romas as late cartago my african spearman were superior and i use this deploy, 2 units of superior african spearmen in the front with a campanian hastati in reguard.

This was the final in the roman game as you can see i dont use a single line of battle.

Curious i was defeated where romans have less troops, in a single melee i loose the battle i can asume this, they are romanators hehehe but pikemen defeated by average shock troops... i am curious to know if units not armed with pikes/spears suffer any type of malus when they suffer heavy casualties because a 1.000 men unit dont fight as a 1.500 unit you know, fatige and this things and even a barbarian unit dont have the same discipline as a spearmen unit.

All is taste in this life

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:59 am

At impact, Roman legionaries have a combat factor advantage against veteran African spearmen. After that the veterans have a combat advantage if steady, but not if disrupted or fragged.

Essentially, Carthaginian veteran spearmen are only just good enough to match Roman troops on equal terms, other Carthaginian infantry are at a major disadvantage.

Ignore the specified number of men in each unit, as far as I can see that is largely decorative and does not affect the combat results.

If combats are roughly equal (according to the rules of this or any other wargame) then luck must inevitably decide the result unless you want a small advantage to guarantee victory. That would not be historically realistic.

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:09 am

rbodleyscott wrote:...I have noticed how people, when they first take up any new rules set, overrate the luck element. This is partly because they don't know how to set up favourable situations and hence many of the combats revolve around a 50-50 chance, so are inevitably going to be decided by luck.

Once players get to know the game better, and can set up unwinnable situations for the enemy, it is apparent that the luck element diminishes considerably.

rbodley, thanks for posting, your perspective is interesting, and your points well taken. I agree that the key to winning battles is setting up situations that are unwinnable for the enemy, but when it comes it the individual combats, I really feel like I'm flipping coins (as you seem to agree based on your 50-50 comment). This would be OK, but the problem is that these "unwinnable situations" can quickly turn into "winnable" situations based on a couple of bad die rolls, just because the combat results are so extreme (eg, one side or the other losing 15%). Once one unit cracks, the whole line often crumbles, so one or two bad results can literally spell disaster. I would be very comfortable with the 50-50 aspect if typical losses were, say, 5% or less to one side or another, not 15%. That way the situation would play out more slowly and luck would play less of a role. With a pike army in particular, losing 15% in one roll really puts you in a bad situation.

Also, in the PC game I have little confidence that good tactics (or my approximation of them) will lead to good results. In a recent game, I had a line of pikemen (steady, average) on a hill. They were attacked (uphill) by legions (average and superior) and my line was absolutely crushed within about two turns, because on impact most or all of my pikemen took 15% hits, sometimes from multiple legions. Luckily I won the battle because I had already crushed my opponent's flank, but seeing the phalanx melt like butter when attacked from downhill was rather disheartening.

I have completely stopped playing 400 pt DAG games because in these smaller games luck plays too large of a role for my taste. In bigger battles (600 pts and up) I have found that luck tends to even out more.

Also, as stated previously, maybe I've missed in the in the manual, but I really don't think that the possible range of combat results is adequately addressed/explained in the PC rules.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:14 am

76mm wrote:I would be very comfortable with the 50-50 aspect if typical losses were, say, 5% or less to one side or another, not 15%. That way the situation would play out more slowly and luck would play less of a role.

This is a valid point. Also the game would play out more slowly. Also it would alter the balance between a weighted attack and a homogenous defence. A matter of taste I suspect.

Richard

TheGrayMouser · Post by **TheGrayMouser** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:15 am

petergarnett wrote:Perhaps the issue with the PC version is it's ease of play - you can play without having to read the help files on how the combat mechanisms work. It would be interesting to know how many players of the TT version find the luck factor an issue with the PC version. I'd suspect not many as they have had to learn the rules.

However even with the U shortcut on it is still sometimes a problem to see what has happened as the text window has no scroll bar so you cannot always see the attackers die-rolls.

I agree with this, the game reminds me of Panzer General in its ease of play and the fact that you can jump right and do moderately well! However it is also very deap with a lot if subtle rules that perhaps should be better documented (or documenetd at all!) in the manual.

For example, as far as I know there are no references to "dice rerolls" for certain troops under certain circumstances anywhere in the manual . I have seen in meantioned in threads by TT players but I kind of assumed it was something only present in the table top game.

Rear support?? This is completely news to me! as i believe the manual contradicts what I see diplayed on the screen. Under combat Mechanism it states you get support for adjacent units that are NOT also engaged in combat I dont get this because it implies only rearwards units give support yet the screen shows only units in line with your(on the sides) unit receiving support but if this is 2 opposing battle lines how can the side units give ANY support since they are clearly engaged in combat?? (contradicts the Combat Mech explanition) Yet the screen shows them receiving support....

I think if some of these very subtle but important factors were better known to non table top players it woudld reduce the feeling that the game is luck based....

keyth · Post by **keyth** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:26 am

TheGrayMouser wrote:Rear support?? This is completely news to me! as i believe the manual contradicts what I see diplayed on the screen. Under combat Mechanism it states you get support for adjacent units that are NOT also engaged in combat I dont get this because it implies only rearwards units give support yet the screen shows only units in line with your(on the sides) unit receiving support but if this is 2 opposing battle lines how can the side units give ANY support since they are clearly engaged in combat?? (contradicts the Combat Mech explanition) Yet the screen shows them receiving support....

I think if some of these very subtle but important factors were better known to non table top players it woudld reduce the feeling that the game is luck based....

I would agree that the manual could be clearer and I agree with a lot of the points raised (non-TT player here), but the rear support for cohesion tests is mentioned in the manual... you just have to find it

Cheers,

Keyth

76mm · Post by **76mm** » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:26 am

rbodleyscott wrote:If combats are roughly equal (according to the rules of this or any other wargame) then luck must inevitably decide the result unless you want a small advantage to guarantee victory. That would not be historically realistic.

I don't think that anyone denies that luck should play some role, the question is how much, and how quickly. For instance, combat could be decided by a roll of the die in which the loser's BG is eliminated entirely, or in which the loser suffers 5% casualties, and the process is repeated until one unit breaks. Both results are determined by luck, but luck plays a greater role in the former approach. In my opinion, combat resolution in the PC version is too much slanted toward the former approach, and luck plays too large of a role.

On a related topic, the issue involves not only how many casualties are suffered, but the impact of such casualties on the cohesion status of a unit. I encounter vast numbers of elite legions in DAG games, and these units typically do not even disrupt until well below 50%. I know they're elite and all, but this seems nutty to me...have their colleagues are dead and they don't even break a sweat?