Slitherine

SRW1962 wrote:

omarquatar wrote: true...and i won't add anything more to this wisdom , but... my real pain is impact combat, ranged fire and melee seems more normal
are you ready to do the same test for impact?

...
In one of the impacts the cats drew with the slingers with 16 casualties each, but the slingers were Fragmented (thats the weird one I mentioned earlier)
...

In the game, the number of hits suffered by each side determines winning and losing, not which side took a higher percentage of casualties and most definitely not the number of casualties. (A sling unit has nominal strength of 500, cats have 1000, so 25% loses for cats = 50% loses for slingers.) There are also overlaps in the percentage loses based on number of hits.) Did you note if the slingers suffered more hits than the cataphracts? If they did, then dropping to fragmented would be a normal possible outcome of the cohesion test if they took at least two hits (I think, that's the requirement for the TT).

Casualty ranges from the 1.2 on line help:

If a battle group received more hits than it inflicted:

* 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
* 1 hit : 2% to 9%
* 2 hits : 5% to 14%
* 3 hits : 9% to 18%
* 4 hits : 12% to 24%
* 5 hits : 17% to 27%
* 6 hits : 22% to 28%

Other results:

* 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
* 1 hit : 0.25% to 3%
* 2 hits : 0.5% to 5%
* 3 hits : 2% to 9%
* 4 hits : 5% to 14%
* 5 hits : 9% to 18%
* 6 hits : 12% to 24%

For 16 casualties: 1.6% casualties for the cats, 3.2% casualties for the slingers. The number of hits is the most important thing to note when comparing combat outcomes for winning and losing. For 3.2% loses, the slingers should have taken 1 hit if they lost. The 16 for the cats sounds too high for 0 hits but I don't know if the 5s listed in the help may be rounded. At any rate, it would be best to note the comparative number of hits each side receives when running tests like this in future impact/melee tests.

Chris

(Editted to remove incorrect calculation of number of hits each side should have received based on using incorrect range for losing side.)

Hi Chris,

I didn't think to look at number of hits each unit took, thinking about it now I was a dope not to, but as the testgame is saved I can run it again and again and make notes of the hits caused etc. The game now set up only takes about half hour in total and thats with collecting all the data and writing it down.

Actually thinking about it I may set up a load of these examples and put them in a new thread, it might encourage others to do their own testing and help people to get a better understanding of the true nature of the percentages etc.

Morbio wrote:Funnily enough, I was actually thinking of doing the same sort of experiment, in my mind I was thinking of an average pike vs an average legions. This was to prove or disprove a theory I have that pikes are weaker than I'd expect them to be. If I can find the time then I'll do this, you are shaming me into it

Please do this, or when I get time I will do it myself. I usually play pike armies, and this is really starting to bug me. In a current game, for instance, the legions (superior and average) attacked part of my phalanx (average) head-on. upon impact, all of my pike BGs but one suffered 12-17% losses and were either disrupted or fragmented, with virtually no losses to the legions. By next turn, I expect this entire section of the line to collapse, with catastrophic results. So within two turns of impact, my center will be destroyed. This seems to happen with some regularity, although controlled testing is necessary to confirm.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the line I'm doing fine, and if my center wouldn't have collapsed like wet tissue paper, it would have been a fun game (win, lose, or draw). But if I can't count on an average phalanx to hold up at least a couple of turns against a legion, this game becomes much less fun for me.

Well first off, Legionary vs. Pike is a bad match up for Pike anyway (the classical Pike lost favor with a lot of armies for a reason...). You are at a disadvantage from the impact phase and if it does go into combat, any amount of disrupting/disordering is going to put you at about a 60 to 10 underdog to cause a hit. With that being said - I ran this any way and had the Pike (Average/Drilled Macedonians) vs the Legionary (Superior/Drilled). Here's what I came up with:

Out of 98 combats (small sample size, but bear with me) and the combat resolution chance in favor of the Romans (46 to 28 to cause a hit), on average, Romans inflicted 6.16% against the Pike while the Pike (surprisingly) dealt 6.91% casualties against the Romans. Out of the 98 match-ups, Romans were Disrupted 15 times and had 1 Fragmentation. In comparison, the Pikes were Disrupted 28 times and also had a single Fragmentation. These were all caused in the first impact phase. If you look at the initial hit chance numbers ( 46 to 28 ) vs. the number of disruptions caused (28 to 15) they are very, very close to being proportional -- which is ultimately what you would expect considering the cohesion tests resulting from the hits -- with a slight advantage to the Legionary due to their Superior status.

Both generals were out of range in this test, so they were not relevant to rolls or re-rolls.



As a side note here (and this has little relevance to the rest of the results here, but I thought people may be interested)... I went ahead and ran the 98 follow up combats just to see what would happen in the second attack with single combats...

The Romans inflicted 5.95% casualties against the Pikes while the Pikes inflicted 6.09% casualties against the Romans. Pikes were favorites in any battle that they were Steady (even vs. a steady Roman opponent), while underdogs in any battle that they were disordered. At the end of the second attacks, Romans had 7 Fragmentations, 1 Rout, and 15 Disruptions. Pikes had 12 Fragmentations, 3 Routs, and 13 Disruptions.



I know you don't have much of a choice over your opponents army, but against average Legionary or Mid-Republic Roman armies, Pike odds go way, way up (which is expected since most opponents that a Pike based army of the day would've fought against the MRR armies as opposed to a Legionary based army). The battles you are playing in (Pikes vs. Legions) are a bit a-historical and as a result will tend to give a bit of a skew to the results in regards to historical accuracy or likeness for the rule set.



If I had one complaint about the FOG PC game it would be simply this... Due to the way that it's possible for battle groups to be picked on -- the middle fights will tend to fall apart a lot more frequently than you would see on the table top since an opponent (who is smart) will attempt to isolate and surround a disrupted battle group to fragment him quicker. On the table top, the opponent would basically need to wait one turn to be able to do this -- since the combat resolution is handled only after ALL battle groups have used their moves for the turn -- in the PC game, an opponent simply needs to move another battle group into base contact with that unit to start a new 'combat' for the same turn.

This does cause battle lines to fragment and disrupt a lot quicker - and after doing these tests, I will admit that while I don't believe there is an issue of too much luck in Field of Glory PC - there can be a debate about possible over-effectiveness of 'impact' based troops in the PC game vs their usefulness on the Tabletop. The reason why I say this is because an opponent can effectively 'feed' more battle groups into combat at will during the maneuver phase after already seeing the result of initial combats and cohesion tests... I've acclimated to the issue, but from a standpoint of accuracy to the TT rules -- I can see where this sort of mechanic can be utilized (I hesitate to say exploited since it is part of the PC versions rules by the choice of combat resolution mechanic) to expedite melee combats, especially against troops such as Pike where most of a Pike army's resiliency comes only when an initial impact fails to disrupt the group...

Ryan, thanks for posting the results of your test and your comments, I generally agree.

A couple of points, however:
1) I was applying the term "legions" loosely and in fact am playing against a mid-republican roman army
2) sure, phalanxs historically tended to lose against legions but it doesn't mean that they practically disintegrated on contact, as frequently happens in FOG PC.
3) in this particular game, four legions attacked my line of five phalanx BGs. Of the four phalanxes attacked, three were disrupted and one fragmented. Sure this is a small sample size, but still...
4) I've never played the TT version, but I think you're right that the PC version allows lines to be picked apart too easily. Phalanxes are particularly susceptible to this, and as I've stated over and over again, can lead to a total collapse of the center very quickly (too quickly IMO).

Hopefully I'll have time to run some similar tests this weekend.

76mm - do you use the detailed combat results when playing. If so what are the dierolls on such combats you describe?

petergarnett wrote:76mm - do you use the detailed combat results when playing. If so what are the dierolls on such combats you describe?

I don't use the detailed results; I tried for a while but given my lack of understanding of what the die rolls meant, I found the detailed display distracting rather than helpful. I think I understand the die rolls better now, so maybe should give it another try...

The benefit is that you can see if an unexpected result was caused by poor dierolls. My worst one so far was when my superior legion BG rolled 2 ones but got to reroll them - and got 2 ones again

Trust me, Morbio. Pikes are the strongest foot troops in the game, but you have to be very careful with them. I'm hoping my Seleucids will demonstrate this in our game.

Deeter

deeter wrote:Trust me, Morbio. Pikes are the strongest foot troops in the game, but you have to be very careful with them. I'm hoping my Seleucids will demonstrate this in our game.

Deeter

Kind of off topic but since talking of pike men... The impact combat table indicates that pikes get a POA "unless charging", i kind of thought that impact combat was "simultanious" since you can only engage the enemy by moving next to them, there is no distingushment between walking into combat or charging.... Is it better for pikemen to let the enemy come to you?

TheGrayMouser wrote:

deeter wrote:Trust me, Morbio. Pikes are the strongest foot troops in the game, but you have to be very careful with them. I'm hoping my Seleucids will demonstrate this in our game.

Deeter

Kind of off topic but since talking of pike men... The impact combat table indicates that pikes get a POA "unless charging", i kind of thought that impact combat was "simultanious" since you can only engage the enemy by moving next to them, there is no distingushment between walking into combat or charging.... Is it better for pikemen to let the enemy come to you?

The POA is "unless charging shock mounted", e.g. lance armed cavalry and cataphracts, and heavy chariots. For those you do better waiting for them to charge you.

Chris

As far as I know you get 1 POA for over 75% strength & not frag'd and then either 1 for pike charging foot or 1 for pike not charging & over 50% strength - so provided you are over 75% you have 2 POA's in the impact combat whether you charge or stand.

This 2 POA's matches Impact Foot's 2 so they would cancel each other out I believe & leave you & your opponent with zero.

Of course this is in good terrain etc.

batesmotel wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:

deeter wrote:Trust me, Morbio. Pikes are the strongest foot troops in the game, but you have to be very careful with them. I'm hoping my Seleucids will demonstrate this in our game.

Deeter

Kind of off topic but since talking of pike men... The impact combat table indicates that pikes get a POA "unless charging", i kind of thought that impact combat was "simultanious" since you can only engage the enemy by moving next to them, there is no distingushment between walking into combat or charging.... Is it better for pikemen to let the enemy come to you?

The POA is "unless charging shock mounted", e.g. lance armed cavalry and cataphracts, and heavy chariots. For those you do better waiting for them to charge you.

Chris

I dont doudt what your saying but the following is a direct copy and paste from the rule:


Field Of Glory - Impact Combat
Summary
This is the initial clash as the charge goes in. The front ranks are the key troops at impact, with greater numbers being less important at this point. The 'Short Name' is the reference to this particular modifier in the combat summary display to the center and bottom of the display when you move the cursor over a sword icon.

See combat mechanism for the details on how a combat result is calculated.

Short Name Charger (Current Player) Points Of Advantage Conditions

spear/pike Any offensive or defensive spearmen or pikemen if not charging +1 Above 50% initial strength and not fragmented


Its confusing to me as it indicates the "current player" which is the one initilaizing the impact combat, however the poa states if not charging (i put in bold....)
To me it reads like a total contradiction....

TheGrayMouser wrote:

batesmotel wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote: Kind of off topic but since talking of pike men... The impact combat table indicates that pikes get a POA "unless charging", i kind of thought that impact combat was "simultanious" since you can only engage the enemy by moving next to them, there is no distingushment between walking into combat or charging.... Is it better for pikemen to let the enemy come to you?

The POA is "unless charging shock mounted", e.g. lance armed cavalry and cataphracts, and heavy chariots. For those you do better waiting for them to charge you.

Chris

I dont doudt what your saying but the following is a direct copy and paste from the rule:


Field Of Glory - Impact Combat
Summary
This is the initial clash as the charge goes in. The front ranks are the key troops at impact, with greater numbers being less important at this point. The 'Short Name' is the reference to this particular modifier in the combat summary display to the center and bottom of the display when you move the cursor over a sword icon.

See combat mechanism for the details on how a combat result is calculated.

Short Name Charger (Current Player) Points Of Advantage Conditions

spear/pike Any offensive or defensive spearmen or pikemen if not charging +1 Above 50% initial strength and not fragmented


Its confusing to me as it indicates the "current player" which is the one initilaizing the impact combat, however the poa states if not charging (i put in bold....)
To me it reads like a total contradiction....

Sorry, I forgot there are two separate lines for pikes/spears, one for charging and one for not charging (bolding added):

• spear/pike Any offensive or defensive spearmen or pikemen if not charging +1 Above 50% initial strength and not fragmented
  
  spear/pike pikemen or offensive spearmen if charging foot or non-shock mounted troops. Defensive spearmen if charging defensive spearmen +1 Above 50% initial strength and not fragmented

So pike will get the first +1 if not charging or will get the second +1 if charging anything except non-shock mounted troops. You really need to read both lines to understand pike POAs. My last response failed to take into account that they were called out separately like that. (There is also a final +1 POA for pikes above 75% strength further down in the table so that steady pikes above 75% normally have +2 POA whether charging or not charging.)

Chris

Thanks for responding, i have tried to read the table as a whole, but I still am not quite sure: Is it advantagous say, on a pike to pike confrontation to wait for the enemy to come to you?

I dont get the "not charging" part as in order to move, well you are charging! I guess the poa's cancel out so a pike vs pike combat it doesnt matter... (or any other combat for that matter, unless you are charging cavalry then you lose the poa) Me thinks me got it!

TheGrayMouser wrote:Thanks for responding, i have tried to read the table as a whole, but I still am not quite sure: Is it advantagous say, on a pike to pike confrontation to wait for the enemy to come to you?

I dont get the "not charging" part as in order to move, well you are charging! I guess the poa's cancel out so a pike vs pike combat it doesnt matter... (or any other combat for that matter, unless you are charging cavalry then you lose the poa) Me thinks me got it!

Bingo! You've got it.

Chris

hey, batesmotel:

funky avatar!

Deeter

deeter wrote:hey, batesmotel:

funky avatar!

Deeter

At least it saves me from eventually turning into a naked fanatic like some people over in the FoG TT forums

Chris