Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:01 am There is an irreconcilable difference of opinion between those who want more predictability in combat results, and those who are happy with the current level of unpredictability.

If we bow to the pressure for more predictability, we displease the players who actively like the lack of complete predictability.

It is just a matter of personal preference. We cannot please everybody.

The current level of predictability/unpredictability fits our design goals. and we have no immediate plans to change it.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:44 am

AlexDetrojan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:43 am This happens all the time, not just once in a while in an occasional game, but many, many times in each and every game, and in many instances, turn after turn in that particular melee. I played a game last night where 3 of my armored Sarmatian Lancers battled a fragmented Bosphoran light foot archer unit for two turns in clear terrain, no losses at all for my Lancer with nothing but 'held firm' each round of combat! In what universe is this reasonable or even remotely possible?

And then you compare your situation with the beginning of a war band battle, where fresh and completely undamaged units fragment quite regularly on impact and are then routed on the next turn causing cohesion tests to be taken by adjacent friendly troops. Within the same period of time (in game turns) it takes for 3 Sarmatian lancers to destroy the Bosporan skirmishers, a whole wing or centre of a war band army (among the most volatile units in the game) can be completely destroyed as a coherent force. I just think the range of possible outcomes here is too wide to retain any credibility. Most fragmented troops hit by a second enemy unit should probably automatically rout (maybe superior troops shouldn't), and fragmented skirmishers being attacked by more than one cavalry unit in the open should definitely do so.

vakarr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:48 am yes it's annoying when it happens to you, but I don't want everything to be entirely predictable, it's more fun this way!

AlexDetrojan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:07 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:44 am

AlexDetrojan wrote: ↑Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:43 am

The funny thing about my armored Lancer battle Pete, was they really weren't my target. They were the only unit on the enemies left flank as I swept around. My logic was that I would charge right through them and into the flank of 2 Theureoporoi foot that would have collapsed their right flank...instead 2 turns of quite frankly unbelievable fortitude by an understrength, fragmented, unprotected, light foot skirmishers...the end result is that flank of theirs was able to coalesce and get off scot free. This issue doesn't come down to predictability, it comes down to what a commander should reasonably expect should happen when force A is applied to object B. Yes when I play this game I weigh and balance the chances associated with each move and melee engaged in. If it doesn't seem favorable in my mind, that the outcome is too risky, then I don't initiate it. I'd like to think most players of this game do so also...as probably did generals in history. I'm pretty sure an Alexander or Hannibal would have had full confidence in their heavy Lancers in running down and trampling some already fragmented skirmishers. Would they have had back up plans in case those fragmented skirmishers 'held firm' for 'two turns'...I'm not so sure. I think they would have had full confidence that their lancers would have executed perfectly what they were designed to do. Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

Excellently put! Strategy is based on understanding the expected and possible results of an event. The reason the Alexanders and Hannibals had their success rates is because there was a degree of predictability. In 7th Edition, DBM, FOG1 you are able to reasonably predict what will occur with the occasional shock result. Why has this changed in FOG2?

Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 pm

Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

I'm surprised you actually believe that... The amount of arguments complaints and legion of recurrent threads about RNG and situations exactly as you just described were tenfold in the FOG1 forums than versus what is posted here. Especially as in FOG1 you can order a light foot to "hold" in the face of a lancer charge, and they will!

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:50 pm This game is a paradise compared to the battle mechanics of Rome Total War.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:54 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 pm

Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

I'm surprised you actually believe that... The amount of arguments complaints and legion of recurrent threads about RNG and situations exactly as you just described were tenfold in the FOG1 forums than versus what is posted here. Especially as in FOG1 you can order a light foot to "hold" in the face of a lancer charge, and they will!

Yes that is true regarding the LF but they did not last very long. It gave one the ability to delay with fairly predictable results. Know you have fragged LF holding up multiple lancer units for unknown periods. I did not say FOG1 was perfect but you could base strategies on expected results.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:57 pm

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:50 pm This game is a paradise compared to the battle mechanics of Rome Total War.

LOL! Thanks for the heads up. I love this game and all the iterations, including the TT rules sets that RBS and his team have been involved with. Every single one had initial teething problems but there was always acceptance of the issues and the willingness to correct them. This time there appears to be a reluctance to accept there are issues which is not helped by certain people who talk more than they play saying it is predictable and there are no issues.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:16 pm Talk more than play? Well I've been too busy playing to talk, but I guess I'm obligated to now. Having dabbled in FoG1, the RNG results are far, far, less crazy in FoG2, and the ability to order lights to 'hold' in the face of, say, cataphracts was just ridiculous. There is not a reluctance to accept that there are issues - see the changes made to the pushback system. This aspect of the game, in my opinion as someone who generally plays more than talks, is in a good place. You can disagree and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that your opinion ought to prevail in the design of the game. RBS can't please everyone, so he ultimately has to make decisions based on what proportion of players want certain changes, and how much those changes gel with his vision of the balance between gameplay and historical accuracy. The reason this game is so good, IMO, is because he has the clarity of vision to generally know when a change should be made, and when it would be best to stick to his vision, instead of listening to loud voices that insist they are a majority.

And no, I'm not saying that there are no issues, just that this is not an issue to me, and that the things I do think need to be worked on either are or likely will be worked on. And if there are a couple aspects of the game that I wish were different, that doesn't mean I'll struggle to like it. Even my favorite games have things that I wish were a little different, because everybody has different preferences, and nobody is making games for a market that consists of just me.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 pm

Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

I'm surprised you actually believe that... The amount of arguments complaints and legion of recurrent threads about RNG and situations exactly as you just described were tenfold in the FOG1 forums than versus what is posted here. Especially as in FOG1 you can order a light foot to "hold" in the face of a lancer charge, and they will!

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:54 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 pm

Oh well, in the end I'll just go back to playing FOG1. Not as pleasing to the eye, but at least I can expect outcomes that to my mind were/are more historical. No offense meant to anyone associated with this game.
Cheers
Alex

I'm surprised you actually believe that... The amount of arguments complaints and legion of recurrent threads about RNG and situations exactly as you just described were tenfold in the FOG1 forums than versus what is posted here. Especially as in FOG1 you can order a light foot to "hold" in the face of a lancer charge, and they will!

Yes that is true regarding the LF but they did not last very long. It gave one the ability to delay with fairly predictable results. Now you have fragged LF holding up multiple lancer units for unknown periods. I did not say FOG1 was perfect but you could base strategies on expected results.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 11:09 pm

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:54 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:05 pm I'm surprised you actually believe that... The amount of arguments complaints and legion of recurrent threads about RNG and situations exactly as you just described were tenfold in the FOG1 forums than versus what is posted here. Especially as in FOG1 you can order a light foot to "hold" in the face of a lancer charge, and they will!

Yes that is true regarding the LF but they did not last very long. It gave one the ability to delay with fairly predictable results. Know you have fragged LF holding up multiple lancer units for unknown periods. I did not say FOG1 was perfect but you could base strategies on expected results.

Haha, I dont know how you in FOG1 could predict a Cataphract at impact rolling twos and threes on its 4 combat dice ( all misses), while the skirmisher with no impact weapons rolls box cars ( 2 hits), you just lost the combat "badly" and then your Cat double drops to fragged!! This happened here an there but some in the community made a stink like it happened three times a game, every game. Such an occurance is so almost impossible in FOG2 that it likley hasnt happened yet, as no one has posted a complaint about it! FOG1 was a great game and FOG2 is a great game with much more to offer, especially in the single player field.
The question is why did OP dump three lancers onto one skirmisher in the first place. Economy of force? Nope! Feed success, not failure, as some general probably said somewhere or sometime.

MikeC_81 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:36 pm

vakarr wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 4:48 am yes it's annoying when it happens to you, but I don't want everything to be entirely predictable, it's more fun this way!

If anything, it is very predictable. 2 out of 3 games, I can reliably discern the winner on or before first contact just based on who managed to get the matchups they wanted.

Once the lines come together, there is not actually a whole lot you can do to affect the outcome other making sure you don't blunder and offer a flank by accident or something and make sure you sequence attacks properly

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 2:19 am Hey Alex, sorry if that came across as some critique of your generalship. What I was trying to express was i find bad luck lurks when you are most confounded and then rash. I have thrown xtra units into a melee to defy being denied immediate expected results from an enemy hero unit , when I could have chilled and things would have corrected themselves ...instead now I have two or three units stuck because it aced it’s cohesion roll .. the rules are clear , you just need to rember the subtleties , not easy to do in a raging battle.

I understand what you saying but in turn based games don’t look for literal reasons why somthing is or isn’t happening in the occasional oddities that occur. in this case the skirmishes holding off lancers for a turn or so too long. Believe the game mechanics justifications ( which indicate : very rare situation, don’t worry it will likely not happen again in this exact way). Use your imagination : the skirmishers weren’t beating off massed lancer charges, they were overrun but all your lancers were having too much fun running down the men and became intermingled and all that wasted time was them just getting their formations back and under control. Either way you don’t have control of them..
Anyway, I felt there were way many more “I need to pretend” situations in fog1 than ps or fog2 ( which are equivalent).
Cheers man!

AlexDetrojan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 1:41 am Why did I dump three lancers onto one skirmisher? Because there was an(not outlandish)expectation that I would run rough-shod over it and get to the target(2 theuroporoi units)in their flank...crushing and rolling up their flank...and this is why I originally started this post. I felt my logic and chance of success was sound. Instead magically I had to factor in game mechanics that just don't seem to be realistic in this particular circumstance.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:57 pm LOL! Thanks for the heads up. I love this game and all the iterations, including the TT rules sets that RBS and his team have been involved with. Every single one had initial teething problems but there was always acceptance of the issues and the willingness to correct them. This time there appears to be a reluctance to accept there are issues which is not helped by certain people who talk more than they play saying it is predictable and there are no issues.