The power of dices

[Scutarii]

Well, i only post the image to show that i try to use all the bonus that game provide to me but this not give you all the control in the final result as 76mm says with their pikemen in the elevation, say that dont know the game is a little... becuase i know very well what kill my poor troops and suffer in a single attack 15% of casualties usually when you try to have all the bonus in your side...

For me reduce the number of % casualties is a good option but need change the side of units because armies not based in barbarians are outnumbered in units and can be flanked easy if combats are to long in time.

Reguard support add if i dont remember bad 2 bonus, one is morale bonus (cohesion test) and other is combat bonus, you need a HF unit behing the units BUT for pikemen/spearmen is different because they have their own fight bonus when are over 75% of their force and only receive the morale bonus (is a bonus in cohesion test).

[76mm]

Also it would alter the balance between a weighted attack and a homogenous defence.
Richard

Richard, could you expand upon this? I don't understand what you mean...

[petergarnett]

Rear support is misleading as it does not affect the combat itself. If you lose a combat & how to take a cohesion test then on that test you get a bonus for rear support (but not LF/LH) and from beign within range of a commander. Neither of these points help you to win the combat.

Also you can win a combat but still have to take a cohesion test I believe - which is way sometimes you see both sides rout!

Combat support is for having friends adjacent to the combat but not already fighting themselves - the effect is to reduce how many dice the opponent gets to roll.

On casualties it's not always 15% if you lose - it depends upon how many hits you have taken. For instance in impact combat 2 hits = 0.5% to 5% if you had equal or fewer hits and then 5-14% if you had more hits on you.

I do believe the PC version has weakened pikes & would prefer to see them lose their positve POA only after falling to 60% not 75%.

All of the above in only my interpretation of the rules.

As for too much luck - I'm currently playing rbodleyscott & he knows the rules better than me (& maybe playing better) so I'm happy to be losing as I can see why & intend to learn from the experience rather than focus on the dierolls.

[rbodleyscott]

Also it would alter the balance between a weighted attack and a homogenous defence.
Richard

Richard, could you expand upon this? I don't understand what you mean...

If you attack strongly in one place, while keep holding forces in another, you want the strong attack to defeat the opposition before your holding force is defeated.

Slowing down combat resolution would instead favour having an army deployed equally strong everywhere.

I am not saying that this is necessarily good or bad, but it does alter the balance.

[rbodleyscott]

Rear support is misleading as it does not affect the combat itself.

Really? It doesn't remove one of the opposition's combat dice? I thought it did in our last game when I had a unit of cavalry rear supporting my 2 cataphract units against your cataphracts.

[rbodleyscott]

Also you can win a combat but still have to take a cohesion test I believe - which is way sometimes you see both sides rout!

I suspect that that in fact occurs when the winning side has reached its autobreak point.

[76mm]

Slowing down combat resolution would instead favour having an army deployed equally strong everywhere.

I am not saying that this is necessarily good or bad, but it does alter the balance.

I think this is the essential issue. I don't think that slowing down combat resolution would favor an army deployed equally strong everywhere--it can also be said that such armies are equally weak everywhere.

Rather, I think it would favor the side with better tactics--ie, the side more capable of massing combat power at the decisive point. slower combat would allow better tactics to predominate rather than a few lucky die rolls. While the homogenous line could gradually grind down the opponent (assuming slower combat), a player using good tactics would not allow the homogenous line enough time to do so before striking the decisive blow with massed combat power.

[EDIT] Slower combat would also correspond more to my personal impression of how ancient battles unfolded: two lines eof armed and armored men inconconclusively pushing back and forth at each other for some time until something decisive happens--typically either a flank giving way or a commander being killed. In FoG, as often as not the center of the line gives way first because of the massive casualties sustained by the center. Just doesn't seem right...

[petergarnett]

I thought supporting units had to be adjacent to the opposing unit as well as you own, i.e. encourages lines. I fail to see how rear support works then as I often use one BG to the rear of 2 & yet don't get support in combat.

[76mm]

I think it speaks volumes that nobody (including the co-author of the TT rules!) really seems to understand how combat works in this game. The manual clearly needs to be improved.

[Blathergut]

I thought supporting units had to be adjacent to the opposing unit as well as you own, i.e. encourages lines. I fail to see how rear support works then as I often use one BG to the rear of 2 & yet don't get support in combat.

"Rear support" is just for cohesion tests...gives you +1. Shouldn't affect combat (though I've seen the 'support' note pop up over top of two broken BGs that were in line behind a fighting BG ).

"Combat support, the units supporting have to be adj. to what you are attacking...or something like that. Again, like rear support and break offs, I can't find combat support mentioned in the help/rules.

[Morbio]

I think a 'toggleable' (is there such aword? - Methinks not), savable log is a great idea. For those that like to review things and see dice rolls etc. it would be a real boon. It would also be a great tool to diagnose potential problems. You could chose to have the log being writen in the preferences screen.

You could consider one log, which is overwritten each time a battle turn is played, e.g. FoG_Log.Txt.
A log per battle, which is overwritten each time a turn from that battle is played, e.g. FoG_Hereclea_Log.Txt or FoG_DAG_blahblah.Txt.
Or a specific log per battle turn, e.g. FoG_Hereclea_2010_03_18_20_05.Txt (Battle_date_time).

I can't believe that any of these logs would be more than a few thousand lines per turn (maximum) so only a few KB of hard disk space to store them.

[pcaravel]

I can't find combat support mentioned in the help/rules.

See here http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... anism.aspx
step 2, under Melee Combat.
It says:

Modify the number of attacks for supporting battle groups

* A supporting battle group is:
o Not attacking or being attacked in the current combat.
o Not routing.
o Adjacent to a battle group that is attacking or being attacked in the current combat.
* Each adjacent supporting enemy battle group reduces a battle groups attacks by one.

[Blathergut]

Thanks...one down.

But this would suggest that units behind do give combat support. I was sure it was only units somehow adj to the enemy...or friendly front...hmm....will have to watch for it and see...

[pcaravel]

You're right the rules are not clear here.
During play time, I've only noticed combat support given by friendly units being at the flanks of my combating unit and who are in touch with the specific enemy too.

[batesmotel]

Thanks...one down.

But this would suggest that units behind do give combat support. I was sure it was only units somehow adj to the enemy...or friendly front...hmm....will have to watch for it and see...

The BG giving combat support must be adjacent to the BG losing the attacks, e.g. so if a friendly BG is being attacked by an enemy BG, other friendly BGs adjacent to the enemy BG (and not in combat with a different enemy BG as indicated by combat arrows) will each reduce attacks against the defending friendly BG.

A BG giving Cohesion Test support must be adjacent to the rear of the friendly BG taking the Cohesion Test and may not be LF or LH, and may not be broken (as of 1.1.1?).

Using the U shortcut to display the Details Display will help make the actual game mechanics clearer than they may be from the on line help alone.

Chris

[petergarnett]

Sorry but according to rbodleyscott he got combat support for a unit to the rear of the one he had in combat with me - this supporting unit was not adjacent to any of my units

[batesmotel]

Sorry but according to rbodleyscott he got combat support for a unit to the rear of the one he had in combat with me - this supporting unit was not adjacent to any of my units

If rbodleyscott said that one of your units lost an attack due to one of his units that was to the rear of his unit and was not adjacent to your unit that lost the attack? If so, that sounds like a bug which should be brought up in the support forum. It would probably help to have a screenshot to help Hexwar track down the issue.

Chris

[rbodleyscott]

I think it speaks volumes that nobody (including the co-author of the TT rules!) really seems to understand how combat works in this game. The manual clearly needs to be improved.

Well, to be fair, I have not actually read the manual right through.

[rbodleyscott]

But this would suggest that units behind do give combat support.

That's how I read it, and why I thought it did. However, I tried it again in another game and it didn't, so I guess Peter's cataphracts must have lost a dice for some other reason in the previous game. (I did have 2 units facing them frontally, but they were both going to fight them this round, so I assume that shouldn't give combat support - or should it?)

Rear support only affect Cohesion Tests in the TT game, of course, so the actual rule does make sense, even if the manual confused me.

(I suppose it turns on a rather specific definition of the term "adjacent" - i.e. beside rather than merely touching.)

Richard

(Strangely, my parents did not christen me rbodleyscott)

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks...one down.

But this would suggest that units behind do give combat support. I was sure it was only units somehow adj to the enemy...or friendly front...hmm....will have to watch for it and see...

The BG giving combat support must be adjacent to the BG losing the attacks, e.g. so if a friendly BG is being attacked by an enemy BG, other friendly BGs adjacent to the enemy BG (and not in combat with a different enemy BG as indicated by combat arrows) will each reduce attacks against the defending friendly BG.

Ah, the mist begins to clear. So they do give each other combat support if 2 units will both be attacking the same enemy unit this turn?