Slitherine

edb1815 wrote:As a practical matter what troop types does this involve? In the TT game light troops must evade from heavies, and may evade from other lights. Certain cavalry may evade. (If I recall that was non-impact cavalry). So the player decision was fairly limited but having said that it could be a crucial one - not evading to tie up an enemy unit, etc.

the_iron_duke wrote: The unknown should exist in the random element of the result, rather than a lack of knowledge of how evade mechanics work.

MikeC_81 wrote:

the_iron_duke wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Personally I think leaving that unknown, as "fog-of-war" is a better game mechanism.

The unknown should exist in the random element of the result, rather than a lack of knowledge of how evade mechanics work.

I am heavily in agreement with this statement. A dedicated player if they so choose could probably come up with a reasonable model if they were willing to grind out umpteenth hours of trials. There is no reason for this to be a black box to the player. It would be the same as hiding PoA/combat power calculations from the player and just telling them to go by "gut feeling".

If you want to have inherent chance in the game on this mechanic, that is perfectly ok but the player needs to be able to make some sort of educated decision on this. Right now it is a rather arcane process of gut feeling, past experience and guessing at the relative weight of factors involved.

rbodleyscott wrote:

edb1815 wrote:As a practical matter what troop types does this involve? In the TT game light troops must evade from heavies, and may evade from other lights. Certain cavalry may evade. (If I recall that was non-impact cavalry). So the player decision was fairly limited but having said that it could be a crucial one - not evading to tie up an enemy unit, etc.

Troops that can evade are light foot, light horse, non-lancer cavalry and camelry, light chariots.

HughThompson wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

edb1815 wrote:As a practical matter what troop types does this involve? In the TT game light troops must evade from heavies, and may evade from other lights. Certain cavalry may evade. (If I recall that was non-impact cavalry). So the player decision was fairly limited but having said that it could be a crucial one - not evading to tie up an enemy unit, etc.

Troops that can evade are light foot, light horse, non-lancer cavalry and camelry, light chariots.

So I have seen the below in multiple head to head battles: Superior armored non-lancer cavalry will evade away from average unprotected javelin armed light cavalry something that seems to break common sense as well as the rules you've discussed above. Why is that happening?

TheGrayMouser wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote: ... Right now it is a rather arcane process of gut feeling, past experience and guessing at the relative weight of factors involved.

This last part I bolded sounds like how one makes decisions in real life, and IMHO is a GOOD thing to have in a game.

elmo3 wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:

MikeC_81 wrote: ... Right now it is a rather arcane process of gut feeling, past experience and guessing at the relative weight of factors involved.

This last part I bolded sounds like how one makes decisions in real life, and IMHO is a GOOD thing to have in a game.

Agree completely.

MikeC_81 wrote:Which I find a regressive game design philosophy.

MikeC_81 wrote:That is a fine sentiment but is not consistent with the rest of the game layout of information. Ex. Knowledge troop counts in units, knowledge of morale levels, and knowledge of combat percentages.....

rbodleyscott wrote: I am not sure what rule you think that is breaking, but it can happen for various reasons if the heavy cavalry consider themselves disadvantaged - e.g. they are flanked or disordered etc. I wouldn't recommend charging heavy cavalry with light horse as a viable tactic - they won't usually evade, and then the light horse will be massacred.

HughThompson wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: I am not sure what rule you think that is breaking, but it can happen for various reasons if the heavy cavalry consider themselves disadvantaged - e.g. they are flanked or disordered etc. I wouldn't recommend charging heavy cavalry with light horse as a viable tactic - they won't usually evade, and then the light horse will be massacred.

I guess it's a matter of opinion in how broadly you define "consider themselves disadvantaged". There is no penalty disordering penalty from being hit from behind if you're not in combat, but they were "flanked" but not disordered. In one case, after evading for no apparent reason the previous opponents turn, I turned them to face their Numidian nemeses who charged them again the next turn and, again, the superior armored non-lance armed noble cavalry evaded. That seems excessive unless the chances of that happening are minute and I've won the lottery multiple times.

MikeC_81 wrote:

the_iron_duke wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote: Personally I think leaving that unknown, as "fog-of-war" is a better game mechanism.

The unknown should exist in the random element of the result, rather than a lack of knowledge of how evade mechanics work.

I am heavily in agreement with this statement. A dedicated player if they so choose could probably come up with a reasonable model if they were willing to grind out umpteenth hours of trials. There is no reason for this to be a black box to the player. It would be the same as hiding PoA/combat power calculations from the player and just telling them to go by "gut feeling".

If you want to have inherent chance in the game on this mechanic, that is perfectly ok but the player needs to be able to make some sort of educated decision on this. Right now it is a rather arcane process of gut feeling, past experience and guessing at the relative weight of factors involved.

MikeC_81 wrote:That is a fine sentiment but is not consistent with the rest of the game layout of information. Ex. Knowledge troop counts in units, knowledge of morale levels, and knowledge of combat percentages. It also is something that can be tested extensively and thus is simply a barrier to newer or more casual players from making good decisions. Which I find a regressive game design philosophy.