Slitherine

Blathergut wrote:In the end, as mentioned, it comes down to dice rolls.

that's the trouble with the game

omarquatar wrote:

Blathergut wrote:In the end, as mentioned, it comes down to dice rolls.

that's the trouble with the game

So how else would you resolve things???

Tombstone wrote:

omarquatar wrote:

Blathergut wrote:In the end, as mentioned, it comes down to dice rolls.

that's the trouble with the game

So how else would you resolve things???

more averaged and (relatively) predictable combat results

omarquatar wrote:

Tombstone wrote:

omarquatar wrote: that's the trouble with the game

So how else would you resolve things???

more averaged and (relatively) predictable combat results

So you would flip a coin? I'm not sure what you are trying to say....

He probably means dice but less wildly varying casualties.

Blathergut wrote:He probably means dice but less wildly varying casualties.

it's an old song by now

I guess that my thought is to move your forces and resources in the best way to minimize "Bad" dice! The dice are never going to go your way all of the time. You need the randomness(?) of the dice to make sure that every combat does not end up being choreographed.

Just my thoughts.

No one has a prob with dice and whether they hit or not. Some would suggest the large variance in casualty infliction should be lessened so that combats have a bit more of an "ancient combat feel" instead of a "lucky dice feel."

Blathergut wrote:No one has a prob with dice and whether they hit or not. Some would suggest the large variance in casualty infliction should be lessened so that combats have a bit more of an "ancient combat feel" instead of a "lucky dice feel."

You're probably right with that thought. It seems very bloody during charges and melees. Even winning sides have a pretty high casualty rate.

When you consider that the battle of Towton, as far as can be ascertained, lasted nearly all day and produced maybe 15000 to 30000 casualties out of 60000 to 80000 combatants, the rate at which people *can* drop in FoG seems a bit high sometimes. I am sure that many cases can be selected that 'prove' all perspectives though I get slightly concerned by 20%+ casualties when non-light foot impacts non-light foot, which seems to happen fairly regularly. I guess the effect is magnified in the PC version where attrition becomes a factor and even superior units can hit their auto-rout point very rapidly.

All IMHO, obviously!

Cheers,

The percentage thing in the PC game is an oddity we dont see on the table top. There its loser makes a death roll and hopes he beats it or he loses a base. So it can go bad or if your really lucky like Blathergut is most of the time, you can make your death rolls and your army will just keep on rolling over whatever is in its path.

The devs claimed that shooting is more effective in the PC game opposed to the TT game since every shot knocks a few off, on the TT its hard to cause enough hits to force a casualty roll, well in the ancient period it can be. Just not enough archers in most of the armies. Best I have done is break an enemy unit or two from shooting but I dont think I have ever caused one enemy stand to die yet.

I still don't see crossbowmen doing extraordinarily well in the games I have played. Even in rough terrain, bows do well initially, but after the first round of combat usually go downhill. I take it that there is no difference between crossbow and bow MF?

I haven't used mixed formations very much. Do battle groups like the Persians do well against spears? I played the canned Marathon twice and they seemed to do alright there.

Also, in my opinion, I like the uncertainty that this game has because of the dice rolls. If a Roman HF battle group could always be counted on to defeat their Gallic enemies, the game would get boring pretty quickly. I personally like when, by some huge stroke of luck a desperate group of Light Infantry caught bye charging cataphracts end up giving them a bloody nose, even though 9/10 times they will just be run down. Not only does it make the game exciting, but it gives me hope when I get caught in a bad position.

deadtorius wrote:The percentage thing in the PC game is an oddity we dont see on the table top. There its loser makes a death roll and hopes he beats it or he loses a base. So it can go bad or if your really lucky like Blathergut is most of the time, you can make your death rolls and your army will just keep on rolling over whatever is in its path.

The devs claimed that shooting is more effective in the PC game opposed to the TT game since every shot knocks a few off, on the TT its hard to cause enough hits to force a casualty roll, well in the ancient period it can be. Just not enough archers in most of the armies. Best I have done is break an enemy unit or two from shooting but I dont think I have ever caused one enemy stand to die yet.

Mostly shooting attrition from skirmishers is more effective because of the accumulation of loses and the ability to concentrate many BGs firing on a single target makes it possible to rack up loses continuously. In the TT game it is generally difficult to concentrate shooting from more than one or two BGs on a single target. In the PC game it is simple to get 5 or 6 or even 8 or 10 firing at a single target.

Now that MF and cavalry shooters no longer get a free facing change when shooting at a target, they may well be less effective than their TT counterparts. In FoG TT, missile units can shoot both in their owning player turn and in the opposing players turn while in FoG PC they can only shoot in the owners turn. Since MF and cavalry can no longer easily back up in front of enemy to keep their distance, this generally means that such troops in FoG PC only get half as many shots as they would in FoG TT against opposing troops trying to close to combat with them.

Chris