Weird Results

[jomni]

Well usually they lose badly and drop cohesion. But I suppose an argument could be made that lights charged by non lights should automatically drop cohesion. That might require changes to unit pricing though.

Yes I think that would be a good change. I thank you all for your participation in this discussion.

Not good. Lights, in theory, do not require to keep formation. Thus maintaining cohesion is easier. Imagine them as not a coherent block of soldiers in some fixed formation. They are actually spread out across the tile taking cover from trees and rocks. Being attacked by non-light is inconsequential. In fact, it's the non-lights who have a problem with who they attack first among the soldiers dispersed all around.

As for the case of lights holding a phalanx back. Imagine this, a block of phalanx marches forward against a group of lights in an area. Phalanx can't move forward quickly as they are being peppered from all directions but cannot engage all the enemy at once. They have to deal with a small group of lights one at a time to secure the flanks, thus taking time.

[MikeC_81]

To be honest you might be just having a run of bad luck with a bit of confirmation bias. There is obviously no reasonable explanation for LF holding 6 turns in melee vs Pikes other than extreme luck. But you can go see my "bad beats" video. 2 extreme bad luck occurrences happened for each player in that game. There have been no core changes to gameplay mechanics that significantly affect LF vs Heavy Infantry interactions. It sticks out in your mind more probably because the LF that did not run and got lucky is now gumming up your line and causing a critical delay in your ability to execute your plan of attack.

With respect to steady troops suffering double drops, there are a large number of factors that most players do not typically think about. It is actually not that uncommon for a double drop to occur. Most combat between steady troops will face at least a -2 modifier to their cohesion test for losing combat. That is because steady units at close to full strength tend to do a ton of damage to the losing side and you are penalized for both taking more than 5% close combat damage and you end up "losing badly". An Average quality unit facing a -2 CT already has a 8.3% chance to double drop from this. That's almost 1 in 10 close combats. You should regularly expect to suffer double drops in any given game.

This is before we start adding things like Impact Foot or losing to Lancers which confer an additional -1 to your CT roll. At -3 it is now 16.7% chance to double drop. Finally, say the unit has taken some missile fire before losing combat and is below 75% strength or there is a unit operating on its flank that is capable of causing an auto drop should they charge. Bam, another -1 to CT rolls. At -4 CT your chance to double drop 27.8% (more than 1 in 4 ) and if it is -5, which happens a lot more than people realize, your chance to double drop is 41%. Almost a coin toss. That's why it is so critical to make use of generals properly. Generals are the only player-controlled method of bending the CT rolls in your favour.

If you were not previously suffering from double drops with regularity it is probably you were on the good luck end of the spectrum. As I mentioned before, players are getting better. I used to see sequencing errors all the time from players. I used to make all sorts of sequencing errors myself until I really sat down, examined the rules, and forced myself to play find ways to grind every little edge. Things like not moving the cavalry into flanking positions before resolving melees or shooting CTs. Not resolving combat with enemy units likely to rout first so as to possibly expose units to either side with the flank rule. Not getting your general into combat first before sending in adjacent units so that units on either side get +1 CT roll modifiers. Not making sure skirmish a key unit below 75% strength before engaging in melee. Good players are rapidly wiping out these holes in their game and it shows.

[Cunningcairn]

Well usually they lose badly and drop cohesion. But I suppose an argument could be made that lights charged by non lights should automatically drop cohesion. That might require changes to unit pricing though.

Yes I think that would be a good change. I thank you all for your participation in this discussion.

Not good. Lights, in theory, do not require to keep formation. Thus maintaining cohesion is easier. Imagine them as not a coherent block of soldiers in some fixed formation. They are actually spread out across the tile taking cover from trees and rocks. Being attacked by non-light is inconsequential. In fact, it's the non-lights who have a problem with who they attack first among the soldiers dispersed all around.

As for the case of lights holding a phalanx back. Imagine this, a block of phalanx marches forward against a group of lights in an area. Phalanx can't move forward quickly as they are being peppered from all directions but cannot engage all the enemy at once. They have to deal with a small group of lights one at a time to secure the flanks, thus taking time.

I understand that but in the cases I'm talking about there were no trees, rocks or other terrain for them to hide behind. There was also not any avenue of escape after they entered combat. They were in close combat outnumbered by 5 to 1 at the start. They had not been trained to fight in this way and their opponents had. The thing is though people aren't all that brave even when they are trained to fight. The world cup celebrations in France illustrate LF behaviour. Not taking into account the damage to property which is irrelevant in most war time combat all they really do is waste time. The trained bodies of heavy infantry, in this case police, always triumph. Sometimes there are minor casualties but I know of no instances when the police morale drops and they lose the conflict.

The other weird behaviour which has not received much response is the pursuit and change of facing of the pike phalanxes after charging lights. There can be no justification for a unit trained to keep formation at all costs to turn its flanks or rear to formed enemy troops because its advance has driven off light troops. In the examples given the pike are turning to face the final position of lights (which you have admitted are dispersed at the best of times) which have moved out of sight. Why have the pike become oblivious to the obvious threats of the formed enemy units in close proximity that they are turning their backs to?

[Cunningcairn]

To be honest you might be just having a run of bad luck with a bit of confirmation bias. There is obviously no reasonable explanation for LF holding 6 turns in melee vs Pikes other than extreme luck. But you can go see my "bad beats" video. 2 extreme bad luck occurrences happened for each player in that game. There have been no core changes to gameplay mechanics that significantly affect LF vs Heavy Infantry interactions. It sticks out in your mind more probably because the LF that did not run and got lucky is now gumming up your line and causing a critical delay in your ability to execute your plan of attack.

With respect to steady troops suffering double drops, there are a large number of factors that most players do not typically think about. It is actually not that uncommon for a double drop to occur. Most combat between steady troops will face at least a -2 modifier to their cohesion test for losing combat. That is because steady units at close to full strength tend to do a ton of damage to the losing side and you are penalized for both taking more than 5% close combat damage and you end up "losing badly". An Average quality unit facing a -2 CT already has a 8.3% chance to double drop from this. That's almost 1 in 10 close combats. You should regularly expect to suffer double drops in any given game.

This is before we start adding things like Impact Foot or losing to Lancers which confer an additional -1 to your CT roll. At -3 it is now 16.7% chance to double drop. Finally, say the unit has taken some missile fire before losing combat and is below 75% strength or there is a unit operating on its flank that is capable of causing an auto drop should they charge. Bam, another -1 to CT rolls. At -4 CT your chance to double drop 27.8% (more than 1 in 4 ) and if it is -5, which happens a lot more than people realize, your chance to double drop is 41%. Almost a coin toss. That's why it is so critical to make use of generals properly. Generals are the only player-controlled method of bending the CT rolls in your favour.

If you were not previously suffering from double drops with regularity it is probably you were on the good luck end of the spectrum. As I mentioned before, players are getting better. I used to see sequencing errors all the time from players. I used to make all sorts of sequencing errors myself until I really sat down, examined the rules, and forced myself to play find ways to grind every little edge. Things like not moving the cavalry into flanking positions before resolving melees or shooting CTs. Not resolving combat with enemy units likely to rout first so as to possibly expose units to either side with the flank rule. Not getting your general into combat first before sending in adjacent units so that units on either side get +1 CT roll modifiers. Not making sure skirmish a key unit below 75% strength before engaging in melee. Good players are rapidly wiping out these holes in their game and it shows.

Thanks Mike I agree with your comments above regarding the probability of events occurring. I especially agree with what you say in your last paragraph. But is this then not the actual problem? If game play overrides the typical behaviour/results of troops/combat in ancient battles then maybe the rules need tweaking. Lights should not be able to fight formed troops in open terrain as they currently are doing. Pike blocks should not be exposing flanks because they have driven off lights. The odds have having an unscathed, supported, disciplined heavy infantry unit drop 2 cohesion levels when the game mechanics show that it has a combat advantage should not happen as frequently as it does. Is the probability of this happening not too high then?

I thank you all for your comments and input. I'm going off to read the rules in more detail

[rbodleyscott]

It is worth noting that light archers and slingers should actually be breaking more easily vs close combat troops since the v1.3.9 patch, because they have an extra -1 modifier on their cohesion test since the patch.

We may need to tweak this further for light foot vs non-light.

[Cunningcairn]

It is worth noting that light archers and slingers should actually be breaking more easily vs close combat troops since the v1.3.9 patch, because they have an extra -1 modifier on their cohesion test since the patch.

We may need to tweak this further for light foot vs non-light.

Is it possible to have a look at the pursuit and especially change of facing of pike and other heavy foot after driving off lights? What is currently happening isn't logical and due to some spectacular evades by lights is unpredictable. The resultant facing of the pike is often a game changing event.

[rbodleyscott]

It is worth noting that light archers and slingers should actually be breaking more easily vs close combat troops since the v1.3.9 patch, because they have an extra -1 modifier on their cohesion test since the patch.

We may need to tweak this further for light foot vs non-light.

Is it possible to have a look at the pursuit and especially change of facing of pike and other heavy foot after driving off lights? What is currently happening isn't logical and due to some spectacular evades by lights is unpredictable. The resultant facing of the pike is often a game changing event.

This should rarely be an issue if the units support each other properly and care is taken not to charge units willy-nilly when adjacent units cannot move forward to protect their flanks.

I am wary of dumbing down the game by making it unnecessary to consider such things.

[Cunningcairn]

It is worth noting that light archers and slingers should actually be breaking more easily vs close combat troops since the v1.3.9 patch, because they have an extra -1 modifier on their cohesion test since the patch.

We may need to tweak this further for light foot vs non-light.

Is it possible to have a look at the pursuit and especially change of facing of pike and other heavy foot after driving off lights? What is currently happening isn't logical and due to some spectacular evades by lights is unpredictable. The resultant facing of the pike is often a game changing event.

This should rarely be an issue if the units support each other properly and care is taken not to charge units willy-nilly when adjacent units cannot move forward to protect their flanks.

I am wary of dumbing down the game by making it unnecessary to consider such things.

The thing is it cannot be considered as the results are bizarre. Have you see the image posted in this thread of the pike that turned after chasing off the LH? That just should just not happen.

[MikeC_81]

Thanks Mike I agree with your comments above regarding the probability of events occurring. I especially agree with what you say in your last paragraph. But is this then not the actual problem? If game play overrides the typical behaviour/results of troops/combat in ancient battles then maybe the rules need tweaking. Lights should not be able to fight formed troops in open terrain as they currently are doing. Pike blocks should not be exposing flanks because they have driven off lights.

I am hesitant to comment on whether the gameplay is or is not reflective of combat in ancient battles. As always I point out in threads like these, no one sitting here today has witnessed an ancient battle take place. There are very few individuals who have had ringside seats to these extraordinarily rare spectacles and their records are often only committed to writing by subsequent authors decades or centuries after the event has occurred. Even if they were recorded and accurate, by nature of their vantage points available to them, they would not be able to speak in general terms or scope.

The only thing I will say is that history records strange and curious happenings all the time. I am an avid study on the American Civil War. Really the last major war where troops fought in closed order formations and we bound essentially by the ability to command limited by the power of one's voice alone. That war does have ample first-hand accounts of companies, regiments, and divisions doing nonsensical things due to misunderstood orders and or overzealousness of troops and the like. Entire brigades end up marching and wheeling to offer flanks to artillery batteries within canister range or entire divisions charging out of control only to get massacred by a counterattack in the flank.

The odds have having an unscathed, supported, disciplined heavy infantry unit drop 2 cohesion levels when the game mechanics show that it has a combat advantage should not happen as frequently as it does. Is the probability of this happening not too high then?

I thank you all for your comments and input. I'm going off to read the rules in more detail

It may or may not be too high, I don't know. What I will say is that the inherent unpredictability of combat and morale drops highly encourages the formation and use of reserves even in smaller 1200 FP games and discourages all or nothing strategies where everything has to behave "as it should" in order for you to get the result you want. It also encourages players to create flexible strategies that can both absorb a run of bad luck and be in a position to take maximum advantage of a run of good luck. I personally think these are good things to have in a game and is a good skill differentiator, but I totally understand that it boils down to how much unpredictability are you willing to accept in your "simulation".

I will say though that "good play" is increasingly reliant on taking advantage of abnormal behaviours that the rules create. Namely that you can very effectively game pushbacks/fallbacks by getting a cheap backstop for the unit that you want to hold. Some examples of me "abusing" the rules to good effect include using skirmisher units either block the butt of either a friendly or enemy unit to prevent them from being able to fall back. This is a staple tactic I use as Romans vs all sorts of Pike armies to get flanks on expensive and high percentage bodies of pikes.

I have also successfully used skirmisher units to delay powerful enemy units I don't want to deal with for a few turns by placing them in front of the enemy unit and then angling the units behind and beside it to prevent said skirmisher from being able to "pass through" friendly lines. Thus they will always stand and fight and usually are good for occupying that unit for at least a turn or two. The skirmishers will inevitably rout but who cares, there is no CT test.

[MikeC_81]

I just want to add that I am not advocating that the system is fine as it is or that changes are not required. There is a large laundry list of items I would like to see changed to eliminated/introduced. It is just that I tend to focus less on that kind of stuff and would just rather focus on learning how to win. There are flaws in every game system and the game system I want may not be the game system you want. For me though as long as the game is largely skill dependant, has lots of interesting decisions to make, and is not egregious in terms of how they represent the material they are using, I am ok with it and will play it.

I will always put in my 2 cents in terms of things I would like to see changed or if something is incorrectly depicted and if it's too much for me, I just walk away from the game system. There are always tons of other games to play and try.

[Cunningcairn]

I just want to add that I am not advocating that the system is fine as it is or that changes are not required. There is a large laundry list of items I would like to see changed to eliminated/introduced. It is just that I tend to focus less on that kind of stuff and would just rather focus on learning how to win. There are flaws in every game system and the game system I want may not be the game system you want. For me though as long as the game is largely skill dependant, has lots of interesting decisions to make, and is not egregious in terms of how they represent the material they are using, I am ok with it and will play it.

I will always put in my 2 cents in terms of things I would like to see changed or if something is incorrectly depicted and if it's too much for me, I just walk away from the game system. There are always tons of other games to play and try.

No I won't do that. These guys have improved their games in the past and I have no doubt that they will do what is necessary to make this game better. All of the best ancient war game rule sets have had many revisions.

[SnuggleBunnies]

May we all take a moment to appreciate this thread? It was neither hyperbolic nor vitriolic, just people calmly discussing, and yes, sometimes (civilly) debating their points. Very nice to see.

[rbodleyscott]

This should rarely be an issue if the units support each other properly and care is taken not to charge units willy-nilly when adjacent units cannot move forward to protect their flanks.

I am wary of dumbing down the game by making it unnecessary to consider such things.

The thing is it cannot be considered as the results are bizarre. Have you see the image posted in this thread of the pike that turned after chasing off the LH? That just should just not happen.

Ah, yes, now I have. Yes, that is outrageous, I will look into it.

The simplest solution would be to stop them from turning to face the final position of the evaders. This might still lead them to exposing their flank, but only if they did so during their pursuit rather than at the end of it.

How does that sound?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think that sounds like a good solution. Makes it so you still couldn't predict how far your unit will go, but you can at least plan approximately on what direction it will be facing.

[Kabill]

The simplest solution would be to stop them from turning to face the final position of the evaders. This might still lead them to exposing their flank, but only if they did so during their pursuit rather than at the end of it.

How does that sound?

Following this thread, I wasn't convinced anything actually needed changing. But I do quite like that idea.

[KiwiWarlord]

I was getting weird results well before the upgrade Martin
Here is an earlier post of mine re skirmishers

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=82948


Here is an earlier post of mine re Light ( Super ) Troops.
Sort of explains why I am rather peeved about them

Re: Proper use of light troops in skirmish role?

Post by KiwiWarlord » 04 Dec 2017 23:28
I am new to FoG 2 and never played FoG 1, I have found Light Infantry to be the 'Super Troop' of the game.
They seem much more powerful than I would have thought from my knowledge of history and 40 years playing tabletop wargames.
Here is a good example from a recent game, 200 Sarmatian Light Foot with Jav/LtSpear v 900 Macedonian Pikemen and 450 Macedonian Cavalry which included a General.
Using Macedonians I charged a unit of 200 Sarmatian Light Foot, Jav/Lt Spear, in the open with Superior Cavalry lead by a General, the Light Foot held.
I then charged the Light Foot with 900 Pikemen getting full factors for the pikemen, the Light Foot held again.
Getting quite peeved about this I then charged another unit of Cavalry downhill into the Light Foot, they held again....

I suggested to my opponent that he rush out and buy a Lotto ticket.

[Cunningcairn]

This should rarely be an issue if the units support each other properly and care is taken not to charge units willy-nilly when adjacent units cannot move forward to protect their flanks.

I am wary of dumbing down the game by making it unnecessary to consider such things.

The thing is it cannot be considered as the results are bizarre. Have you see the image posted in this thread of the pike that turned after chasing off the LH? That just should just not happen.

Ah, yes, now I have. Yes, that is outrageous, I will look into it.

The simplest solution would be to stop them from turning to face the final position of the evaders. This might still lead them to exposing their flank, but only if they did so during their pursuit rather than at the end of it.

How does that sound?

Absolutely brilliant!

[Cunningcairn]

The thing is it cannot be considered as the results are bizarre. Have you see the image posted in this thread of the pike that turned after chasing off the LH? That just should just not happen.

Ah, yes, now I have. Yes, that is outrageous, I will look into it.

The simplest solution would be to stop them from turning to face the final position of the evaders. This might still lead them to exposing their flank, but only if they did so during their pursuit rather than at the end of it.

How does that sound?

Absolutely brilliant!

I thought this just had to posted as well. In the image link below the pike marked in Blue routed the Thracian unit, circled in Blue, after initiating melee combat. The Thracians fled one square and the pike did not follow up. The war band element marked in green was in melee contact with another enemy unit in the green square. This unit broke on seeing the Thracians break and fled to its rear and then off the table. The war band pursued and then did an about turn in front of the enemy. I'm not harping on this point but thought this was another good example.

https://imgur.com/a/HH4Z0Ec

[76mm]

... I appear to immediately drop morale when I'm charged in a flank when in frontal combat while I'm in a BUA. I have been charged by the element I am facing frontally and have not charged out of the BUA in these cases. Occupied BUA's used to give me great flank protection but this is no longer the case...

I don't think that this is how it is supposed to work--AFAIK according to the rules troops should not suffer a cohesion drop from a flank attack while in a BUA.

I also think it very odd that troops in a BUA don't get any kind of defensive bonus according to the rules.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't think that this is how it is supposed to work--AFAIK according to the rules troops should not suffer a cohesion drop from a flank attack while in a BUA.

BUA protect the flank of infantry units, but not mounted units.