Slitherine

Although I've had the game for two years and have bought every expansion, and haven't really spent much time on it, and in fact only started playing MP a couple of weeks ago, I'd like to add my 2 cents. I used to play the old Avalon Hill games way back in the golden age when designs were simple and everything hinged on a CRT with a 6die, where even at odds of 3-1 there was the dreaded EXchange if you rolled a 6. Sh** happens. It's too easy to rail against luck beating your 'skills' when things don't go your way. With FOG, I don't even look at the replay or examine every die roll. I just look at the odds, attack, look at the result of the fight, and move on. No need to be paranoid. What I find compelling is the maneuvers before the clash of the armies, and the tactical decisions after it; the end result isn't all that important, no different than my sunday sports league. If there are cheaters, so what? they know who the actual losers are, and I feel more sorry for them than mad at them.
FOG to me is foremost a simulation, not a game. As a simulation I have no problem with luck playing a significant part. I came to wargaming as a military history buff, not as a gamer. History is filled with battles decided by the most random events and unexpected acts of men that defy the best laid plans. It boils down to some players wanting god like control over events and their outcomes: it is neither realistic nor advisable.

Not really, fogman. My point is not really about luck at all - sometimes I have luck in a game, sometimes I don't, but I know it evens out over time. There are no habitually unlucky players of FOG. The only issue here is that it seems to be the case (and I may be wrong) that every 5 or 6 games the dice favours one player over the other and so the game is rather lop-sided. If that really is happening then perhaps that is something that can be adjusted.

My concern is much more about historical accuracy (I write a lot of scenarios for the game). I just think some of the melee results are bizarre and they can happen 4 or 5 times in a turn when there is a lot of fighting. For example, in my opinion, heavily armoured cataphracts charging into medium cavalry on level ground just should never be losing the impact by a score of 15-1, as can happen now; and a melee between two equally matched sets of foot soldiers on level ground should never achieve a 23-1 result for one side or the other.

I would say that if the cataphract charge failed to "disrupt" the enemy cavalry and resulted in a 6-6 type of scoreline then that would be the worst result the cataphracts should get - after all, their charge has failed. Similarly a 2 to 1 casualty rate (say 12-6 or 8-4) would be the most that should result from two evenly matched groups of soldiers fighting each other on the same terrain.

Where I would have these bigger scores is if, say, fresh cavalry hit the rear of cataphracts who were already engaged to their front, or if cataphracts were caught on broken ground/steep hills by "superior" medium foot. Units that were already "disrupted" or "fragmented" should also be much more prone to these sorts of results (and I think they probably are in the game).

Another point about this that is not always appreciated is the balance between casualties from missile fire and casualties from melee. And I write as someone who is mainly interested in the medieval period and who thinks that archers (especially longbowmen) are under-powered. There is a lot of skill involved in the game in relation to maximising the number of archer shots you can get in before the main melee begins. But as hits tend to average out at 3-4% casualties inflicted each time, it takes quite a lot of shooting to seriously weaken the armoured units on a medieval battlefield.

For example, a skilful player may have been able to get 4 or 5 shots at the enemy's leading foot knight unit reducing it by 12% to 88% strength before it is able to melee. But if this leading foot knight unit achieves one of these bizarre 23-1 type results on impact with enemy foot knights then it has completely negated all the skilful efforts of the opponent's archers and has taken what is probably a decisive lead in that melee too. That just seems too much for me. If, on the other hand, the foot knight had won the impact 12-6 (a big win, in my opinion) then its strength would now be 82% while its opponent's would be 88% and everything would still be to play for in the melee. That seems more realistic to me.

But if the impact result had only been 6-6 (a quite plausible result given the attacking unit is being shot at as it advances) then the strength of the attacking unit after impact would be 82% and the defending unit would be at 94%. The defending unit would then be favourite to win the melee and the skilful use of the archers would have got its just reward too.

So this is what I am really getting at. I would like the game to be more realistic than it currently is and I don't believe that toning down the melee results will damage the enjoyability of the game in any way at all. In fact, I think it would enhance it.

Well said Pete and that is all we are really after some realism in the game instead of totally bizzare and one sided results as can occur.This is in my opinion a great game it just needs a few adjustments .I think the worst result is when you have 2 hits to 3 and inflict zero casualties on your opponent and lose 18%. Surely a hit counts for something.

stockwellpete wrote:I just think some of the melee results are bizarre and they can happen 4 or 5 times in a turn when there is a lot of fighting. For example, in my opinion, heavily armoured cataphracts charging into medium cavalry on level ground just should never be losing the impact by a score of 15-1, as can happen now; and a melee between two equally matched sets of foot soldiers on level ground should never achieve a 23-1 result for one side or the other.

I would say that if the cataphract charge failed to "disrupt" the enemy cavalry and resulted in a 6-6 type of scoreline then that would be the worst result the cataphracts should get - after all, their charge has failed. Similarly a 2 to 1 casualty rate (say 12-6 or 8-4) would be the most that should result from two evenly matched groups of soldiers fighting each other on the same terrain.

Where I would have these bigger scores is if, say, fresh cavalry hit the rear of cataphracts who were already engaged to their front, or if cataphracts were caught on broken ground/steep hills by "superior" medium foot. Units that were already "disrupted" or "fragmented" should also be much more prone to these sorts of results (and I think they probably are in the game).

Pete, you hit the nail on the head me thinks.Thanks for writing down my thoughts for me
I don't have any problem with the luck factor in this game but when the dice not only gives you a bad roll when it comes to winning or loosing but then goes on and produce the most excessive casualty result it feels...wrong.
Pretty sure I don't agree with you about the missile fire, though. That's not really about casualties in my opinion, it's about inflicting disruption.

hidde wrote:Pretty sure I don't agree with you about the missile fire, though. That's not really about casualties in my opinion, it's about inflicting disruption.

Hmm . . . well disruptions are certainly good if you can get them but bowfire very rarely disrupts heavily armoured knights. It will only disrupt protected troops about 1 in 10 times so casualties are very important, in my opinion. Heavily armoured knights suffer an average of about 2% casualties each time from archery fire, protected spearmen suffer somewhere just over 3%, which I think is a bit on the low side.

what you folks are hinting at are the occurences of extreme results. And that I agree it can be frustrating. But as long as it affects both players randomly, I don't see it as crippling. I coach youth sports for fun and I've seen so many games won or lost by just bizarre events that I learned to live with it. Just real life. It's certainly nice when you win after scoring on one shot when the other teams hit the post 5 times!

While I admire fogman's very chilled-out attitude (and wish I had more of it myself ), I think Pete has nailed down my gripes with the randomness. I don't want chess, but equally I don't want to see 25% of a unit vaporise on a 'simple' loss of a combat.

"It is now quite clear how greatly the objective nature of war makes it a matter of assessing probabilities. Only one more element is needed to make war a gamble - chance: the very last thing that war lacks. No other human activity is so continuously or universally bound up with chance. And through the element of chance, guesswork and luck come to play a great part in war.

If we now consider briefly the subjective nature of war - the means by which war has to be fought - it will look more than ever like a gamble. The element in which war exists is danger. The highest of all moral qualities in time of danger is certainly courage. Now courage is perfectly compatible with prudent calcualtion but the two differ nonetheless, and pertain to different psychological forces. Daring, on the other hand, boldness, rashness, trusting in luck are only variants of courage, and all these traits of character seek their proper element - chance.

In short, absolute, so-caled mathemetical, factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way through the length and breadth of the tapestry. In the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards."

On War - Carl von Clausewitz

stockwellpete wrote:

hidde wrote:Pretty sure I don't agree with you about the missile fire, though. That's not really about casualties in my opinion, it's about inflicting disruption.

Hmm . . . well disruptions are certainly good if you can get them but bowfire very rarely disrupts heavily armoured knights. It will only disrupt protected troops about 1 in 10 times so casualties are very important, in my opinion. Heavily armoured knights suffer an average of about 2% casualties each time from archery fire, protected spearmen suffer somewhere just over 3%, which I think is a bit on the low side.

Lets not exagerate Pete
Longbows have no POA + or - vs Heavy armoured knights so 50% chance to hit/per dice with three dice(might as well be coins)

So theres 8 possible out comes MMM, MMH, MHM, MHH, HMM, HMH, HHM, HHH

1/8 3 hits
3/8 2 hits
7/8 one hit
1/8 no hits

it requires 2 + hits to force a cohesion test with missle fire so basically you are forcing a test 50% of the time Whether thay pass or fail that is or course another dice (actually two which need to beat a 7 to pass which is 5/12 pretty darn close to 50% ) ( im not going to think about quality rerolls)
so your chance to disrupt a HA Knight per longbow BG firing
50% to get to test(2plus hits) multiplied by 25 %(or pretty darn close ) = 13% per longbow firing to CAUSE a disruption loss from steady to disrupted. Not entirly accurate as if knights are superior need to factor rerolls but also three hits gives a test penalty)

BTY , protected foot have the same odds as heavily armoured knights vs Longbows even POA or 50% to hit per dice.
Casualties can range with 2 hits from .5-5%, 3 hits 2-9%!

So , considering the volume of longbow BG's on the table vs the knights, that, imho is more than enough chances to disorder knights that are likly outnumber 4 to one by longbows.

I think longbows have no + or - POA against Heavy Armored Lancers Knights. If HA knights are on foot they have 25% chance of hitting.

Am I wrong?

I have to agree with Pete . Time after time i have watched Longbows do little or no damage against Mounted Knights.What was the rate of fire per minute in volley . About 8 arrows per minute times 300. 2400 Arrows per minute. Im not saying they should perform like a machine gun but they should be more effective than they currently are. Maybe make them superior would that make any difference?

IainMcNeil wrote:This is not going to happen - it would be like chess. The whole system only works because there is a chance of a unit which is down a POA wins. Take that away and you you win every fight you have a +POA. That would be extremely dull and very unrealistic. The system makes it more likely you will win an individual combat if you play well but not guarantee it. If you are looking for a system that allows you to guarantee victory then this is not for yo. In fact none of our games do that. FoG has no more randomness than our other games but for some reason its picked up time and again. Just try Battle Academy or Commander Europe at War. They all have randomness and while you do get the odd person moaning about bad luck it doesn't go any further. This randomness is never going to be removed as it would destroy the game.

The same goes for the PBEM warning system. This is in all games and its only the FoG forum where it generates a cause for concern. I don't really understand why issues seem to be bigger in the FoG forum - this is just an observation!

If you don't like randomness at all you need to go and play something like Hero Academy or Chess. Try our Hero Academy for an idea of what a game with no randomness feels like. Very sterile and predictable with a few simple tactics that always work. It appeals to casual gamers but not to true wargamers.

Iain, this post confuses me . Cohesion is differnt than causalties , no?
You can "lose" the combat whether up or down POAS's, better quality(moral) can influence quite a bit with rerolls, but ONLY if you lose do you have to test for a cohesion (moral, formation loss) and then its no certain thing but another roll where again, quality might help the better unit prevail.

Casualties are differnt, no matter how good you feel about your immortality, it aint armour to stop an arrow or spear thrust. I really dont undertand the decision to do causalties the way they are currently, but even more confused why you want to change it the way you indicate ( ie the loser cant ever inflict more than the winner) This makes it LESS likly that poor quality BG's can beat a better unit in the long run, You really need lucky casualty rolls to take out an elite unit in the PC game...

Its a completly different concept from the TT, yet the basic combat mechanism is the same... Considerng the % casualties inflicted is based upon 100%, its abstract anyway , a unit with 50% men remaining or 100% remaining gets the same 5% reduction if it rolls that on the causalty chart, So 45% or 95 % remaining, no acounting either way that a smaller unit might take a larger or smaller ratio of casualties, ie its not 5% of 50% or 2.5% "actual men killed" The way causulaties are now would have made some more sence if BG's could actually have been differnt sizes that could throw differing amounts of dice, but were stuck w one size fits all...

Sometime I think you guys should just scrap the whole damn % thingie and go to the TT. Assume all BG's are 5 bases. If you win or tie a combat and take 2 or more hits you need to roll a death throw, a single sided dice that , with a +2 modifier you need to BEAT the # of hits you recieved, pass no losses, lose, you lose a base ( or 20%)
if you LOSE the combat, same pass fail roll without the +2 modifier

This would mitiagte extreme results where a cataphract loses a combat vs a slinger ie the cat rolls 4 2's and misses all, the slinger rolls a 1 and a 5 , one hit , a victory and then rolls 9% casualties vs the cat
With a death throw the cat would have t be really unlikly not to roll a 2 3 4 5 or 6 to survive a "base loss" (quality rerolls dont apply in the TT to death throws)


My gut tells me all the issues that people have somehow revolve around the balance of the game where it deviated from the TT. Now to be clear Im not saying the TT is the way to go SOLELy because its the TT but because the TT was balanced with everything taken as a whole. The PC game took 60% of the rules verbatum but then changed altered or ignored the rest...
*so now we have medium foot armies that can put out armies of 60-80 bp's at 500 aps, all undrilled yet have more mobilty in some ways than a cavalry army, powerful small armies ( ie knights) gets swamped out as they ALWAYS get small bits of attrition every combat they are in win lose or tie, and believe me its those mere 2-3% casualties that adds up to crippled units near the middle of the game.
Whats the point of expensive superior units if after 5 turns of winning every combat they are in , they are near auto rout level?

*Theres no reckoning of larger BG's being clumsy or not maneverable like in the TT, so truly borg like swarming can occur (how about some 2 hex wide units!)

*there no complex move tests that encourages large undrilled armies to keep tactics "reaslistically simple" at the risk of losing all control..

* theres no way to get a BG in combat unless it impacts , unlike the TT where one can enter a MELEE via "overlap" this means that cavalry , in particular can devastate spears MUCH more so than the TT, especally lancers. I mean you cant charge a lancer as it generally negates a spear + POA , which mean that a phlalanx of 6 Hoplites have to just take it in the arse when a single lancer impacts the line and sticks ( ie doesnt break off because it only got slightly lucky and disrupted the center spear BG ) no over whelming #s can be utilised by the spear guy on HIS turn as feeding in additioanal spears is impact and is done at a - POA, doh. I have see a single superior armoured cavalry unit take out a line of protected spears, over an over again because of the severe impact "attack" penalty of spear vs lance

How the heck can you simulate sword and buckler men getting into a pike formation in the PC game and causing havoc? YOu cant as even if the pikes are disrordered, you have to IMPACt to get them to the melee stage, at a -2 POA!
With this lack of function, sword only units, heavy weapons units etc are off balance and underwhleming , spears too get a short thrift vs cavalry...heck, protected ones suck vs everthing!


Oye , there more too but I cant go on as this looks like Im having a tantrum. Anyways, you guys can tweek the casualties but it isnt going to change much in gamelay. As for the dice, love em, dont change The POA system, ( unless its to add more classes, like "polearms" to complement the least satisfying weapon, the way too abstract "heavy weapon" class that states a 28 inch falx is the same thing in utility as an 9 foot halbard))

TheGrayMouser wrote: Lets not exagerate Pete
Longbows have no POA + or - vs Heavy armoured knights so 50% chance to hit/per dice with three dice(might as well be coins)

So theres 8 possible out comes MMM, MMH, MHM, MHH, HMM, HMH, HHM, HHH

1/8 3 hits
3/8 2 hits
7/8 one hit
1/8 no hits

it requires 2 + hits to force a cohesion test with missle fire so basically you are forcing a test 50% of the time Whether thay pass or fail that is or course another dice (actually two which need to beat a 7 to pass which is 5/12 pretty darn close to 50% ) ( im not going to think about quality rerolls)
so your chance to disrupt a HA Knight per longbow BG firing
50% to get to test(2plus hits) multiplied by 25 %(or pretty darn close ) = 13% per longbow firing to CAUSE a disruption loss from steady to disrupted. Not entirly accurate as if knights are superior need to factor rerolls but also three hits gives a test penalty)

BTY , protected foot have the same odds as heavily armoured knights vs Longbows even POA or 50% to hit per dice.
Casualties can range with 2 hits from .5-5%, 3 hits 2-9%!

So , considering the volume of longbow BG's on the table vs the knights, that, imho is more than enough chances to disorder knights that are likly outnumber 4 to one by longbows.

Before I made that post I actually did a "test", TGM. I took 50 longbow shots at heavily armoured foot knights and scored no "disrupts". I then took 50 longbow shots at protected spearmen and got 5 "disrupts". Not definitive by any means but quite interesting nonethless.

Turk1964 wrote: Maybe make them superior would that make any difference?

I have actually done that in some of my scenarios, Turk, and it works OK. The problem for the developers here is that the longbow really was a bit like a "medieval machine-gun" and massed archers were able to deliver an incredible number of arrows into the target area in a very short space of time.

However, sometimes their ammunition was very limited so they could only sustain this activity for a short part of the battle (on other occasions they would be well supplied and often they could fire back enemy arrows that had initially been directed at them). So unless you were able to introduce ammunition rules (maybe with a supply wagon for re-loading possibilities) then you are stuck with the archers being able to fire all the time during the battle. Consequently archery fire necessarily becomes attritional instead of "explosive" on the later medieval battlefields (for earlier periods where "bows" are in use rather than "longbows" this is not so much of a problem).

The Medieval Longbow was a very powerfull weapon and combined with armour piercing bodkins was very devestating on massed Cavalry.I agree there should be some limitation on ammunition but not to begin with. If say Arrow carts are purchased 1 for X amount of archer battle groups then unlimited use of the bows would occur.To be honest i think superior mounted archers perform far better in the digital game.

stockwellpete wrote: ...
Before I made that post I actually did a "test", TGM. I took 50 longbow shots at heavily armoured foot knights and scored no "disrupts". I then took 50 longbow shots at protected spearmen and got 5 "disrupts". Not definitive by any means but quite interesting nonethless.

Something to remember is that many or most of the heavily armoured foot knights are wearing plate armour that was specifically designed to resist longbow (and heavy crossbow) fire. The fact that the game reflects this seems pretty positive to me. The big effect that the adoption of mass longbow fire had on their opposition was that it generally forced opponents to dismount when opposed by longbowmen rather than causing them to discard their ineffective heavy armour! It took the adoption of effective firearms to finally do that and even then armor didn't disappear overnight.

Out of curiosity, were the heavily armoured foot and the protected foot the same grade, e.g. superior or average, in your test? If comparing superior heavily armoured foot versus average protected spearmen, the difference in grade would be a significant factor in determining how often disruptions should occur. It might be worthwhile noting how often the protected vs. heavily armoured foot BGs received two hits and were required to test rather than the number of disruptions that occurred.

Chris

fogman wrote:what you folks are hinting at are the occurences of extreme results. And that I agree it can be frustrating. But as long as it affects both players randomly, I don't see it as crippling. I coach youth sports for fun and I've seen so many games won or lost by just bizarre events that I learned to live with it. Just real life. It's certainly nice when you win after scoring on one shot when the other teams hit the post 5 times!

Less nice when it's the other way around though, isn't it?
70% possesion of the ball with 10 shots bouncing off the posts, while the other side gets a lucky toe to the ball in the penalty box and scores.

Now, the object of any game or sports is to win, unless I'm very much mistaken.
Actually, the main goal is to have fun, but while I can only speak for myself, I tend to have a lot more fun when I'm winning.
And saying that getting screwed by the dice is 'frustrating' doesn't really cover it.....

There was a post earlier quoting Clausewitz, comparing war to a card-game.
Who in here has ever played a card-game to win, and NOT counted cards to enhance his chances?
Anybody play poker, and go all-in hoping to draw a hole-card for a straight? (If you do, I'll be happy to play you. Preferably for money )

The point isn't that the game should be all-skill. Hell, I've played ASL for more years than I care to remember, and that's got some serious dice-throwing in it. The point is getting the amount of randomness right. And in FOG's case, I think they've over-done it.
Extreme results happen in every game; one memorable ASL game had my opponent needing to cross a bridge covered by my MMGs to win.
Which he promptly did....Running straight down three hexes of open ground inside my firelane.
Naught to do but grin and bear it. However, and this is the key thing, nothing like this has ever happened before or since in 400+ games.
But I can't tell you how often I've seen skirmishers beat back knights, multiple units of HF break and run due to one unit losing a combat, or LH making mince-meat out of Steady Spears (Britney's younger brother.... )
The problem IMO isn't the randomness per se, but the wild fluctuations of the results. You can have identical units attacking identical targets in the same round and end up with one victorious combat, and the other resulting in your unit double-breaking and running like pansies.
You just can't be sure of anything when the spectrum from total defeat to total victory is covered by a D6.
And the argument that it affects both players equally is utter nonsense.
You can't have a random event affect anything evenly, it's a contradiction in terms.
As for the comparison with the AH games of yore, there is perhaps a reason that the D-Elim games faded out in the late 70's.

Anyway, this thread has now covered anti-cheating, general randomness, and casualty-calculations.........
Man, we've got the attention-span of a butterfly on cocaine.

Lars

batesmotel wrote: Something to remember is that many or most of the heavily armoured foot knights are wearing plate armour that was specifically designed to resist longbow (and heavy crossbow) fire. The fact that the game reflects this seems pretty positive to me. The big effect that the adoption of mass longbow fire had on their opposition was that it generally forced opponents to dismount when opposed by longbowmen rather than causing them to discard their ineffective heavy armour! It took the adoption of effective firearms to finally do that and even then armor didn't disappear overnight.

Yes, I agree with this Chris. It was the horses the knights were riding that were most vulnerable to massed archery fire - if they were not actually hit then they were terrified by all the arrows.

Out of curiosity, were the heavily armoured foot and the protected foot the same grade, e.g. superior or average, in your test? If comparing superior heavily armoured foot versus average protected spearmen, the difference in grade would be a significant factor in determining how often disruptions should occur. It might be worthwhile noting how often the protected vs. heavily armoured foot BGs received two hits and were required to test rather than the number of disruptions that occurred.

The test was "superior" heavy armoured knights and "average" protected spears - these being among the most common types on the medieval battlefield. I just did the test to give myself a rough idea of the difference between the two troop types.

stockwellpete wrote:

Turk1964 wrote: Maybe make them superior would that make any difference?

I have actually done that in some of my scenarios, Turk, and it works OK. The problem for the developers here is that the longbow really was a bit like a "medieval machine-gun" and massed archers were able to deliver an incredible number of arrows into the target area in a very short space of time.

However, sometimes their ammunition was very limited so they could only sustain this activity for a short part of the battle (on other occasions they would be well supplied and often they could fire back enemy arrows that had initially been directed at them). So unless you were able to introduce ammunition rules (maybe with a supply wagon for re-loading possibilities) then you are stuck with the archers being able to fire all the time during the battle. Consequently archery fire necessarily becomes attritional instead of "explosive" on the later medieval battlefields (for earlier periods where "bows" are in use rather than "longbows" this is not so much of a problem).

Maybe the new developers could for example:
Give a unit a determined quality for shooting and a different one for melee and or impact.

That way you can have Longbowmen with superior quality for shooting and average quality for impact and melee.

I like the idea

Fedem wrote:

stockwellpete wrote:

Turk1964 wrote: Maybe make them superior would that make any difference?

I have actually done that in some of my scenarios, Turk, and it works OK. The problem for the developers here is that the longbow really was a bit like a "medieval machine-gun" and massed archers were able to deliver an incredible number of arrows into the target area in a very short space of time.

However, sometimes their ammunition was very limited so they could only sustain this activity for a short part of the battle (on other occasions they would be well supplied and often they could fire back enemy arrows that had initially been directed at them). So unless you were able to introduce ammunition rules (maybe with a supply wagon for re-loading possibilities) then you are stuck with the archers being able to fire all the time during the battle. Consequently archery fire necessarily becomes attritional instead of "explosive" on the later medieval battlefields (for earlier periods where "bows" are in use rather than "longbows" this is not so much of a problem).

Maybe the new developers could for example:
Give a unit a determined quality for shooting and a different one for melee and or impact.

That way you can have Longbowmen with superior quality for shooting and average quality for impact and melee.

I like the idea

I like that too!

Thinking beyond longbows, it could do quite a bit for shooty armies, or even Numidans (avgerage javelin light cavalry, pretty much all they get, but with superior missles....hmmm.)