Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:Probably not, as a 1% chance of losing the combat would probably equate to a 0% chance of losing it badly.

MikeC_81 wrote:Your chance of winning or losing combat has nothing to do with whether your unit will suffer double breaks. It doesn't even affect your chance of passing the cohesion test. A unit that loses a 99/0/1 win/draw/loss combat faces the same mechanics as a unit that lost a 1/0/99 combat.

MikeC, your post is helpful, but I still have at least one question--could we clarify the point above? Richard seems to indicate that the chance of losing a combat does affect the likelihood of "losing badly," which I understand is necessary for a "double-break" to occur? It sure seems logical that a unit with only a 2-5% chance of losing an impact would face a lower risk of "losing badly" and thus of double-breaking. But that has not been my experience.

MikeC_81 wrote: If you dislike double breaks, play heavy foot armies and troop quality of average or better. Protect flanks and avoid using units that have suffered more than 25% casualties. Those are the things that you can control to mitigate circumstances. Avoid fighting units with negative combat roll modifiers like Elephants, Impact foot, and Lancers with low quality units that are especially prone to these things.

heh, usually I comply with almost all of those recommendations--I usually play phalanx armies, although they of course have a medium foot component as well. But these armies are often outnumbered, so especially on the flanks units (usually medium foot) might be a bit spread out and thus, depending on the situation, might not have both (or either) flank protected. That said, I see phalanx units double-break on a fairly regular basis, albeit less then medium foot.

[EDIT] I don't think the manual describes what it means to have a "threatened flank" for cohesion tests purposes...does that simply mean no friendly units on both flanks, either flank? Or something else? I would call the former situation an "open flank" rather than a "threatened flank", but could someone explain a "threatened flank"?

Jishmael wrote: So I guess you're just having horrendous RNG?

Perhaps, but at this point it is increasingly difficult for me to believe that I'm just having a run of "bad luck". I started paying more attention to this issue about twenty MP games ago, and since then don't recall having a single battle where there were not 2-3 double-breaks (on my side) at a minimum (and again, I'm not talking about units which have hit in the flank), and often more. I really wonder why you are not seeing more, presumably some mix of armies that you play and play style/tactics?

76mm wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:Probably not, as a 1% chance of losing the combat would probably equate to a 0% chance of losing it badly.

MikeC_81 wrote:Your chance of winning or losing combat has nothing to do with whether your unit will suffer double breaks. It doesn't even affect your chance of passing the cohesion test. A unit that loses a 99/0/1 win/draw/loss combat faces the same mechanics as a unit that lost a 1/0/99 combat.

MikeC, your post is helpful, but I still have at least one question--could we clarify the point above? Richard seems to indicate that the chance of losing a combat does affect the likelihood of "losing badly," which I understand is necessary for a "double-break" to occur? It sure seems logical that a unit with only a 2-5% chance of losing an impact would face a lower risk of "losing badly" and thus of double-breaking. But that has not been my experience.

I'd go with Richard on this - the way FoG combat works does mean that it follows that a low chance of losing means a lower chance of hitting the losing badly point (and likewise a very high chance of winning means an increased chance of inflicting it on the enemy).

My personal experience bears this out FWIW.

76mm wrote:

Jishmael wrote: So I guess you're just having horrendous RNG?

Perhaps, but at this point it is increasingly difficult for me to believe that I'm just having a run of "bad luck". I started paying more attention to this issue about twenty MP games ago, and since then don't recall having a single battle where there were not 2-3 double-breaks (on my side) at a minimum (and again, I'm not talking about units which have hit in the flank), and often more. I really wonder why you are not seeing more, presumably some mix of armies that you play and play style/tactics?

Given the number of games you have no doubt now played I'd agree that it is very unlikely to just be a run of poor dice. I suspect there is something about the games you play, quite possibly something in your tactics, that is increasing your troops vulnerability to double-drops - something you have not (yet) recognised/worked out and so have not communicated to us. Certainly, to take an example, what you have said about combats with pike phalanxes is pretty much the opposite of my experience with them (hardly ever seen them double-drop unless in a very poor position indeed).

One thing I'd ask about the games since you started paying real attention to this is whether you mainly win or lose. Almost inherently if you win games your troops will most likely be in positions to suffer fewer double-drops, but when you lose they are likely to be more vulnerable.

76mm wrote:MikeC, your post is helpful, but I still have at least one question--could we clarify the point above? Richard seems to indicate that the chance of losing a combat does affect the likelihood of "losing badly," which I understand is necessary for a "double-break" to occur? It sure seems logical that a unit with only a 2-5% chance of losing an impact would face a lower risk of "losing badly" and thus of double-breaking. But that has not been my experience.

RBS's point was that a unit with a low chance of winning is unlikely to cause sufficient "damage" to incur the -1 modifier of "losing badly". The combat system is complicated in that the game assigns "damage" and uses "damage" to determine winner's and losers. But damage is not equivalent to casualties. The determination for losing badly is found in the script files which govern such things. I have no interest in finding out the exact nature of how its done because imo, its not something the player can really control beyond the fact that you don't want to put a unit in the position of losing badly in the first place. If it happens....it happens and you suffer the -1 penalty on the CT. Obviously a -1 penalty on the die roll would push the likelihood of rolling a 2 or worse post modifiers but not losing "badly" is no guarantee that a double break wouldn't occur either.

MikeC_81 wrote:Obviously a -1 penalty on the die roll would push the likelihood of rolling a 2 or worse post modifiers but not losing "badly" is no guarantee that a double break wouldn't occur either.

It is, because a unit can only double drop from a close combat cohesion test if it "loses badly". If it hasn't "lost badly" a double drop score is treated as a single drop.

nikgaukroger wrote: ...the way FoG combat works does mean that it follows that a low chance of losing means a lower chance of hitting the losing badly point...

But what qualifies as a "low chance of losing" in your view? 1%? 5%? 10%? I'd call all of those low or fairly low, but regularly see double-breaks with those percentages.

[EDIT] And can anyone clarify what a "threatened flank" is in a cohesion test context?

nikgaukroger wrote:

76mm wrote:

Jishmael wrote: So I guess you're just having horrendous RNG?

Perhaps, but at this point it is increasingly difficult for me to believe that I'm just having a run of "bad luck". I started paying more attention to this issue about twenty MP games ago, and since then don't recall having a single battle where there were not 2-3 double-breaks (on my side) at a minimum (and again, I'm not talking about units which have hit in the flank), and often more. I really wonder why you are not seeing more, presumably some mix of armies that you play and play style/tactics?

Given the number of games you have no doubt now played I'd agree that it is very unlikely to just be a run of poor dice. I suspect there is something about the games you play, quite possibly something in your tactics, that is increasing your troops vulnerability to double-drops - something you have not (yet) recognised/worked out and so have not communicated to us. Certainly, to take an example, what you have said about combats with pike phalanxes is pretty much the opposite of my experience with them (hardly ever seen them double-drop unless in a very poor position indeed).

I was mainly trying to make the point that its possible, if entirely unprobable, that every single combat is lost badly in a row and causes a double break every time.
Thats just how dice work, and as far as I'm aware FOG II is not weighting its RNG.
As I mentioned earlier, I had to redo a specific battle 7 times to the point where I was starting to doubt my sanity, but in that case it wasnt my tactics, it was just rotten luck, as noone else could reproduce these harsh results.

Now to the matter at hand.
First off to my tactics and armie choices, I do play quite the mix of armies, though I havent spend that much time with macedonians or seleucids. I've spent a lot of time with indians (cause I like them) and Persians, and with hoplite based armies cause even though some of my post suggest a deep hatred for those, I'm still trying to figure them out.
I see quite the number of double drops when my indians finally get charged (which makes sense looking at all the negative modifiers that get piled onto bowmen) and with hoplites as well, especially when confronted with impact foot of any type. But that is WAD considering the bad melee chances and the CT modifiers.

I don't see it (regularly, there have been outliers of course) in "even" or beneficial situations, which in my mind is combats that are 10% loss chance or less.

So I assume you're using Sarissa style Pike Phalanxes?
The fact that you regularly incur bad losses wih these at loss chances of around 5% honestly leaves me a bit baffled and makes me want to go "bad die rolls!" again.
The laws of probability speak against this, unless theres something at work that we're not seeing.
The odds are calculated by the engine simulating a 1000 combats in the matchup, a loss chance of 5 percent means that 50 of those have been lost, which leaves around 5 or 10 of those to be lost badly (this is all guesswork)
That makes it improbabale, but again not impossible, that these occur all after the other...
I don't want to beat the rng horse, I just see any other explanation if your loss chances in these situations are consistent around 5% and your consistently loosing combats.
Cause thats something that I just don't see happening in my games, my phalanxes double drop when disordered and beaten, not when steady and on open ground, because I they just don't loose those combats normally.


What the probabilities and the rules do enforce is them double dropping a lot as soon as they fulfill the condition (having lost badly).

The CT modifiers for a sarissa phalanx do not differ from that of a normal hoplite unit, which, especially against anything impact, is very prone to double breaks as calculated earlier.


So the question is, what exact units are involved? is everyone steady and at full strength? is there terrain disordering your phalanx? what are your generals doing?

I'm assuming a "threatened flank" is being in the ZOC of a unit thats facing either flank or back. though I'd definetely like some clarification on this and if its a cumulative modifier or only counts once.


edit: I'm not gonna argue pushback here. Theres a seperate thread for that.

Jishmael wrote: So the question is, what exact units are involved? is everyone steady and at full strength? is there terrain disordering your phalanx? what are your generals doing?

Especially in tournaments, campaigns, etc., I play a wide variety of armies, but usually I select of the phalanx armies, which obviously comprise both heavy foot (phalanx and sometimes hoplites) and medium foot (thureos, thoras, and thracians). Any number of units can be on the receiving end, from legions, to warbands, phalanxes, irregular foot, thureos, tharos. I think I've had phalanxes double-break on impact against everything except Thracians (even irregular foot!).

I see most of the "strange" double-breaks during the impact attack, towards the beginning of a battle. Units are almost always average or better quality, steady with minimal losses and in open terrain. If conditions are different, such as a battered unit or one in disordering terrain, the odds of losing are usually much higher, say north of 33%. I also see double breaks in those conditions of course but don't find them very objectionable, since the unit is under stress.

In a just completed game, I had relatively few double-breaks (only 3), but those were all with 4-5% chance of losing (thora vs thureo or thureo vs thureo). My opponent suffered ten double breaks (!), although most of those were in instances where his units were totally outclassed (phalanx vs thureo, etc.).

Jishmael wrote: I'm assuming a "threatened flank" is being in the ZOC of a unit thats facing either flank or back. though I'd definetely like some clarification on this and if its a cumulative modifier or only counts once.

If it is as you think, it cannot be a factor in what I'm seeing, which is frequent double-breaks on initial impact. If "threatened flank" means "open flank" as I described above (ie, no unit on either side), it might explain a lot, because when a unit advances to attack, it often has no units on either side of it (because they are waiting for their turn to move). But I don't think this alone should be enough to create a "bad defeat" and thus a double-break, as long as the odds are good.

Threatened flank means it has an enemy unit that could charge it in flank next turn. (Ignoring lights vs non-lights)

I have uploaded the last video which deals with cohesion tests although most questions seemed to have been resolved here already.