Farcical Combat Results

[Xiggy]

I would turn on the most detailed combat results. Then you can see all the rolls and modifiers and look at what happens. It even lets you scroll back and look at the results that rolled off the screen. That help doc on keyboard shortcuts is complete. I forget what they are, but I turned all of them on a few days ago, and now I see at least a little of what is going on.

The randomness of combat is realist though not perfect. An example of this from the American Civil is the Iron Brigade. After many battles of being an elite unit, there was a battle toward the end of the war where they routed after very few casualties. Another example id what happened at Gettysburg. Where General Lee ordered pickets units to charge the union guns across an open field the 2nd day and they were pretty much destroyed. He had great confidence that they would succeed, and it didn't. That same battle General Custer ordered multiple cavalry charges against the supposedly superior southern cavalry. The union generals thought he was nuts. But on this day, he routed the rebels.

There is no such thing as a sure thing in war. How did America win the battle of midway. How did afganistan beat the USSR?

I know it's frustrating, but I have gotten used to it.

[deeter]

Pray tell, how does you scroll back and lock at the results that rolled off the screen?

Deeter

[deeter]

To lcarily, I was talking about cohesion tests.

Deeter

[omarquatar]

BTW, i dont know if you should lump all players whom are ok w the casualties ranges as in the game as people who are saying the game mechanics are a perfect representaion of reality for any and all things that happen within the game......

i don't know if he really did, but he surely should have...combat results certainly are a very important issue of the game system and to think they are realistic as they are now, well, i can't imagine...
i can admit it all averages in the end, but why cannot we have plausible results for each and every single combat? what is the purpose of the second dice throw? the too big role of luck in combats is a real pity and damages the fun of historical gaming, i thought this way after the first try of the game nine months ago and i still think so after hundreds of MP battles.
many things have changed, something to the better, something not, but what most needed a change stays bad as it was in the beginning

[deeter]

The miniatures game that this is based on has a second dice throw based on how many hits you took. If you roll less, you lose a stand. BGs are generally 6, 8 or 12 bases. It would be better, I think. if the PC just rolled one die as above and applied a set percentage loss.

Deeter

[omarquatar]

The miniatures game that this is based on has a second dice throw based on how many hits you took. If you roll less, you lose a stand. BGs are generally 6, 8 or 12 bases. It would be better, I think. if the PC just rolled one die as above and applied a set percentage loss.

Deeter

fully agree, we need bad luck only once for combat

[TheGrayMouser]

BTW, i dont know if you should lump all players whom are ok w the casualties ranges as in the game as people who are saying the game mechanics are a perfect representaion of reality for any and all things that happen within the game......

i don't know if he really did, but he surely should have...combat results certainly are a very important issue of the game system and to think they are realistic as they are now, well, i can't imagine...
i can admit it all averages in the end, but why cannot we have plausible results for each and every single combat? what is the purpose of the second dice throw? the too big role of luck in combats is a real pity and damages the fun of historical gaming, i thought this way after the first try of the game nine months ago and i still think so after hundreds of MP battles.
many things have changed, something to the better, something not, but what most needed a change stays bad as it was in the beginning

Oh boy, so you want an us vs them division and no room for gray?? (no pun on my login name either)

Listen, are we talking about the combat mechanics or the casualties?
As many have posted, casualties are really not that important factor in the game, although certainly taking too many high causalties on the "second roll" will add up and bring your unit that much closer to auto routing...

I am a big fan of realism, but i can handle abstractions as well and i think this game has a good blend of both that gives a very good experiance

So, i really in the end dont have a problem with 76mm's comment, since his writing style is sometimes a little harsh and he likly was making a very genersal comment.
I just dont like my opinions being dumped into a category of , well, whatever category you dumped me in, and you have clearly made an effort to say you ARE dumping me into a category ie some type of fanboy or someone who thinks the way the game is in ALL aspects is absolutely realistic.....

So , what do you want the casualties to be, step losses? loss of bases?
Or simply reduce casualties ranges for certain line ups ?
I just dont see the value of the effort , and am also a realist and Slitherine isnt going to change it?
I ignore casualty results (at least until skulls start to show), what i care about is cohesion losses, because that is what the game mechanic is really about.....

[omarquatar]

[

Listen, are we talking about the combat mechanics or the casualties?
As many have posted, casualties are really not that important factor in the game, although certainly taking too many high causalties on the "second roll" will add up and bring your unit that much closer to auto routing...

do you really think that losing 0% or 15% after you take one hit in combat is the same thing?
may i disagree with the "many" that assert this?
may i quote yoursellf:" certainly taking too many high causalties on the "second roll" will add up and bring your unit that much closer to auto routing..."
that's the core of the problem.
by the way, it seems that casualties should be the results of combat mechanics, so we're talking about exactly the same thing

[mceochaidh]

The issue raised above relating to retaining dice between combats brings up another issue. Impact combats are handled individually without advantage of supporting BGs. Therefore, if 3 BGs charge (impact) 1 enemy BG, each combat is handled separately. The only advantage is if the first impact causes disruption and /or significant casualties.

Then, the second impact should provide some advantage to the attacker and the third impact more advantage. I think this is meant to simulate what would probably be a simultaneous attack by all three BGs, sine the hex system prevents all three moving in at the same time. The problem is the complete variability of combat results causes many un-realistic results and these results can and do happen at the most inopportune times. You can carefully plan such an attack only to have the dice gods destroy the effort.

I think the manpower loss table should be adjusted downward. My suggestions are:

Receiving more hits Other results

1 hit - 2% to 7% 1 hit - .25% to 2.5%
2 hits - 4% to 12% 2 hits - .5% to 3.5%
3 hits - 8% to 16% 3 hits - 2% to 7%
4 hits -10% to 20% 4 hits - 4% to 12%
5 hits -14% to 24% 5 hits - 8% to 16%
6 hits -18% to 26% 6 hits - 10% to 20%

I think this would preserve the variability in results required but reduce the more extreme examples. It should also reduce the rather un-realisticly high casualty rates and prolong combat, providing more staying power for HI and MI. There would be effectively more die rolls, smoothing out results.

[mceochaidh]

Sorry, the table in my previous post was supposed to be a suggestion for Manpower Losses - Other results.

My suggestion for "If battle Group received more than it inflicted:" is:

1 hit - 2% to 7%
2 hits - 4% to 12%
3 hits - 8% to 16%
4 hits - 10% to 20%
5 hits - 14% to 24%
6 hits - 20% to 26%

[TheGrayMouser]

[

Listen, are we talking about the combat mechanics or the casualties?
As many have posted, casualties are really not that important factor in the game, although certainly taking too many high causalties on the "second roll" will add up and bring your unit that much closer to auto routing...

do you really think that losing 0% or 15% after you take one hit in combat is the same thing?
may i disagree with the "many" that assert this?
may i quote yoursellf:" certainly taking too many high causalties on the "second roll" will add up and bring your unit that much closer to auto routing..."
that's the core of the problem.
by the way, it seems that casualties should be the results of combat mechanics, so we're talking about exactly the same thing

No, nor did i say 0 or 15% is the same thing... I dont have access to the rules right now but is the causalty range that extreme , ie 1 hit can cause a 15% spread? From memory i thought it was more like 6-7%
I guess in the end i dont try to make every aspect of the game conform to absolute reality, especially a turn based game.... for me, i dont really care that my knights losses 45 men in a melee combat(15%) vs a handgunner unit that loses 5(3%) What I care about is that my knight , even though losing the combat isnt disrupted, and based on statistics will clobber the sod the next turn (of course timing is everything and the delay could be fatal!)

Can such wide variances be explained? sure if you wanted to go the the effort to explain every odd combat to yourself while playing, I can think of plausable scenarios where such reasults could happen, maybe not frequently or at least not as frequently as sometimes happens in the game . However, i hesitate to do so because someone will always jump all over you for just givng an example... For example in one long forgotten thread, players were arguing how crazy it was that a javelin unit could inflict equal casualties to a legion in melee.... I merely posted and abstract idea that , hey dont imagine that the javelineers are litteraly all duking it out toe to toe, but are still mostly skirmishing, and perhaps a small # of legionarires broke formation and were cut down by javelins or tackled from behind or whatnot...... I was accused of pulling this, i believe from some Tolkein movie scene....
oh well, cheers

[omarquatar]

[
Can such wide variances be explained? sure if you wanted to go the the effort to explain every odd combat to yourself while playing, I can think of plausable scenarios where such reasults could happen, maybe not frequently or at least not as frequently as sometimes happens in the game . However, i hesitate to do so because someone will always jump all over you for just givng an example...
oh well, cheers

me too posted some example of wild improbable combat results and was ridiculed and even accused of not knowing was i was talking about or more or less of "playing some other set of rules". so i won't do this anymore...
but i'm glad that you admit it happens frequently in the game and wonder why it cannot be tempered. one hit = a fixed percentage of losses, it could be so simple...

[TheGrayMouser]

[
Can such wide variances be explained? sure if you wanted to go the the effort to explain every odd combat to yourself while playing, I can think of plausable scenarios where such reasults could happen, maybe not frequently or at least not as frequently as sometimes happens in the game . However, i hesitate to do so because someone will always jump all over you for just givng an example...
oh well, cheers

me too posted some example of wild improbable combat results and was ridiculed and even accused of not knowing was i was talking about or more or less of "playing some other set of rules". so i won't do this anymore...
but i'm glad that you admit it happens frequently in the game and wonder why it cannot be tempered. one hit = a fixed percentage of losses, it could be so simple...

Well, I didnt admit that it happens frequently, but sometimes frequently, but that is just playing with semantics. Likly since it doesnt bother me much I likly dont really absorb how much or how much it doesnt happen

Be carefull what you wish for, if causalties are fixed. then it is highly proboble that very good technical players will be able to take advantage of such a mechanic

[76mm]

So, i really in the end dont have a problem with 76mm's comment, since his writing style is sometimes a little harsh and he likly was making a very genersal comment.

Still dont' understand what I said to set all of this off...

[TheGrayMouser]

No worries, you didnt set anything off. The fault is mine
But for a fun recap:

You stated:
"Anyway, the bottom line is that many people share your opinion, and many consider the combat resolution system a "realistic" representation of the vagaries of combat. To each his own, clearly."

I probably took this a little too seriosly and took excpetion to be lumped in a if not A then B category (because i did often post in the power of dice thread), despite the fact you wernt personally identifying anyone in particular

and I posted this response

"BTW, i dont know if you should lump all players whom are ok w the casualties ranges as in the game as people who are saying the game mechanics are a perfect representaion of reality for any and all things that happen within the game...... "

Then:
Omar posted soemthing to the effect that HE didnt think you were lumping ME into a category , but that you SHOULD have

I then went on and took exception to that comment by Omar and commented that I did indeed read to much into your comment, but certainly his was clear! My comment about your style being harsh was totally out of sync, my apoligies, I should have said brutally frank (which isnt a bad thing!)

In the end , totally my bad, i really hate being categorized / misquoted and i saw shadows where they wernt there in the ist place
I definataley should not post in this forum while having a real bad day at work!

And for the record, I have bever said the casualties ranges are realistic as is, that I just dont find them outragioulsy unrealistic either... In the end who knows!

[Blathergut]

you're such a categorisor

[TheGrayMouser]

you're such a categorisor

No I'm not

TheGrayMouser: good
Blathergut: evil


welcome back , hope you have all your ren TT figures painted so you can get back to playing the PC version

[Blathergut]

nah..fingers are sticky with that damn DIP stuff...but I'll play a game if you want one...only have one on the go

[TheGrayMouser]

nah..fingers are sticky with that damn DIP stuff...but I'll play a game if you want one...only have one on the go

Prepare for victory, uh I mean defeat!

BTW , tobacco produts are not good for you, the ladies especially dont like dip

[Belis4rius]

Before we get stuck in the mire and lose all sense of proportion my original post was not a whine about the odd random event on which a combat or battle may turn occuring, it was about the almost consistant (and farcical) huge swings in combat that I see in all my half dozen battles.

I have fought hundreds of TT games in 40+ years in several periods and have been frustrated by that unit if skirmishers putting up a fight instead of running, or my swanky guard being routed by peasants torn from the fields, that is not my problem with the game, my problem is that this kind of thing seems to happen every turn and to me, and I admit I am not the brightest bulb in the house when it comes to sums, oops, maths, that seems wrong. And it is not 'realistic' to have the Spooners beating up superior gendarmes time and time again.

I cannot remember now the exact combats which stretched my incredulity, but you have all seen them.

However it would seem I either have to put up or shut up as this topic will never be resolved. I just find having found a PC wargame which lookes like it may actually be worthy of the name (and I have tried a few, and still not learned my lesson) I am disappointed that it just misses the mark.