combat resolution? Non comprende!

[TimW]

As it happens, I'd be very much in favour of an additional layer of leaders commanding small formations. If the "unit size" were larger in FoG PC I suspect at least some of the apparent anomolies would be greatly reduced - and using commanderless "horde armies" would (hopefully) become inadvisable - though I suppose there's an argument that the Swiss shouldn't really have a senior commander at all .

The prevalence of unhistorical horde armies puts me off multiplayer for pretty much the same reasons that the ahistorical "gamey" approaches (strange army compositions plus ahistorical formations and tactics specifically designed to take advantage of rules loopholes/weak spots) adopted by some players back in the 1980s put me off competitive wargaming.

[mceochaidh]

Iain said "It's true that some things have changed because of the digital adaption. Casualty rates completely different because they are much more ganular on the tabletop. You either lose a base or not (representing about 25% of your battle group strength) when you get a hit. The chance of losing a base is 16.6% per hit. So 3 hits is a 50% chance.

This means the digital version can much better deal with the gradual errosion of battlegroups. The % damage may be off but if we change it there could be serious balance issues. We can certainly have a look at it. Maybe we should make each category have less variance and not overlap. E.g. 1 hit should not go to a max % that is above 2 hits min %. We've already used randonmess to determine the hits so no need to use it again to determine the spread to such a large degree."

I am very encouraged that Iain and his group would be willing to revisit the variability of combat results. The poll I conducted in the fall showed that 2 in 3 players responding were in favor of reducing the frequency of wild combat results. I have suggested a modest change in the form of a bell curve applied to the manpower loss tables. This approach would not change the overall percentage chances of receiving losses, but would reduce the frequency of the extreme percentages. In the example of receiving 2 hits, a manpower loss of 14% may only occur 1 time in twenty (5% of the time) instead of one time in ten (10% of the time). This would result in generally longer combats with battle lines staying intact longer. This change, in my opinion, would not materially affect game balance. The wild results would still occur, just not as frequently.

I do think that the overall ranges should be looked at as well and that the chance of loss is greater in the PC than the TT. I think this discussion is a very positive development. It would be great if such a change would co-incide with the release of "Legions Triumphant." Just dreaming, I guess!

[Blathergut]

>Impact is all up to chance. You may charge in and do no damage and those crappy archers cause you casualties. It is the same with the TT version. You get dice to roll but... When you understand this aspect of the game, and accept it, then you just go with it. Managing rear hits during impact is different.

>Melee>Gang up! Three on one is great! Or, charge in with something, almost anything, because it will help BGs already in combat. Do the ones already in melee last, to reduce enemy dice.

>Cohesion> Turn BGs so something friendly is to their derrieres. Even a +1 can make a lot of difference.

The extreme results may seem odd, but it's what makes the game. If everything ground down at the same rate, the game would soon become boring. You have to accept that you will see 1% to 18% with you on the wrong side of that! Hopefully it doesn't happen 5 times in a row!

[Blathergut]

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%

I wish the game could either record or replay step-by-step because I could swear I've seen 16.6% and such with 2 hits...I will have to watch for this specifically in a game. TGM: post a game and I can have fun slaughtering you whilst watching!!

[stockwellpete]

The extreme results may seem odd, but it's what makes the game. If everything ground down at the same rate, the game would soon become boring. You have to accept that you will see 1% to 18% with you on the wrong side of that! Hopefully it doesn't happen 5 times in a row!

But nobody is asking for everything to be "ground down at the same rate" - we are just asking for the apparent randomness to be reduced a bit.

[omarquatar]

The extreme results may seem odd, but it's what makes the game. If everything ground down at the same rate, the game would soon become boring. You have to accept that you will see 1% to 18% with you on the wrong side of that! Hopefully it doesn't happen 5 times in a row!

But nobody is asking for everything to be "ground down at the same rate" - we are just asking for the apparent randomness to be reduced a bit.

not true, maybe i'm the only one asking for a fixed casualty rate per hit received...but it's not properly "nobody"
as it was already said, the randomness of combat is already present in the first dice (to hit) throws, don't see why players need to be exposed to lady luck's caprices a second time (percentage losses per hit)

[jamespcrowley]

not true, maybe i'm the only one asking for a fixed casualty rate per hit received...but it's not properly "nobody"
as it was already said, the randomness of combat is already present in the first dice (to hit) throws, don't see why players need to be exposed to lady luck's caprices a second time (percentage losses per hit)

Absolutely agree and, hopefully, this is the area that Iain is going to look at.

[stockwellpete]

not true, maybe i'm the only one asking for a fixed casualty rate per hit received...but it's not properly "nobody"
as it was already said, the randomness of combat is already present in the first dice (to hit) throws, don't see why players need to be exposed to lady luck's caprices a second time (percentage losses per hit)

What I mean, Frank, is if you look at that table of hits a couple of posts above, I don't think that there should be overlaps of percentage losses between the various numbers of hits, but I don't mind a bit of variation within each hit range, so for example, something like this would suit me . . .

1 hit 1-5% losses
2 hits 6-10%
3 hits 11-15% and so on.

So would you prefer a much more uniform scale instead?

1 hit 4% losses
2 hits 8%
3 hits 12% and so on.

[CheerfullyInsane]

>Impact is all up to chance. You may charge in and do no damage and those crappy archers cause you casualties. It is the same with the TT version. You get dice to roll but... When you understand this aspect of the game, and accept it, then you just go with it. Managing rear hits during impact is different.

Too right it is up to chance.....Which is one of the things that bothers me.
Why on earth would impact-combat not be affected if the unit is already engaged in melee?!?
What, do the archers call a time-out before receiving the next charge?
Ridiculous.

>Melee>Gang up! Three on one is great! Or, charge in with something, almost anything, because it will help BGs already in combat. Do the ones already in melee last, to reduce enemy dice.

True again, but the basic problem is the same as above.
Melee is affected by multiple units, impact isn't.
The logic underlying that particular design-feature completely eludes me.

>Cohesion> Turn BGs so something friendly is to their derrieres. Even a +1 can make a lot of difference.

Yep, the old '2 up, 1 behind' should become second nature to anyone who's played this game for while.
But it does bring up another question......
Why is the cohesion-system a 2D6, while the combat-system is D6?
Introducing the 2D6 to the combats would alleviate a lot of the problems re. wild swings in results. While it might be cumbersome to roll 10+ dice for every combat in TT, it's not exactly a logistical nightmare on a computer.
When you have what seems to be a conscious design-decision that no combat should ever be a sure thing, you really need a larger span of possible results than what a D6 roll can provide.
I don't mind weird results cropping up every now and then, but in FoG it happens with maddening frequency.

The extreme results may seem odd, but it's what makes the game. If everything ground down at the same rate, the game would soon become boring. You have to accept that you will see 1% to 18% with you on the wrong side of that! Hopefully it doesn't happen 5 times in a row!

I'd agree that the randomness is particular to FoG.
So the question becomes whether the individual player wants that kind of game.

Lars

[omarquatar]

not true, maybe i'm the only one asking for a fixed casualty rate per hit received...but it's not properly "nobody"
as it was already said, the randomness of combat is already present in the first dice (to hit) throws, don't see why players need to be exposed to lady luck's caprices a second time (percentage losses per hit)

What I mean, Frank, is if you look at that table of hits a couple of posts above, I don't think that there should be overlaps of percentage losses between the various numbers of hits, but I don't mind a bit of variation within each hit range, so for example, something like this would suit me . . .

1 hit 1-5% losses
2 hits 6-10%
3 hits 11-15% and so on.

So would you prefer a much more uniform scale instead?

1 hit 4% losses
2 hits 8%
3 hits 12% and so on.

i understood what you mean and you understood fully what i mean. it must not be 4%, could be 2, 3 5%...seems rationale that if a hit gives say 3% losses, 2 hits should give 6, or not? Then, there is the absurdity og adjudicating losses realtives to the steenght of the receiving and not the giving unit, but that's another matter (it forces to make units of equal strength irrespective of type, which is almost impossible in historical scenarios as you should well know, being our princeps custom scenario builder)

[TheGrayMouser]

If you fixed the causalties as 5% or 10% per hit wont the game turn into Panzer General? The game is already being accused of being light or not a "real" wargame(whatever that means) by new players as well as old hands.
Just give each unit 10 strength "Pips" and be guranteed to know exactly how long it will take to destroy it.

No thank you.

(If they would allow us to use the scenario editor to place 'understrength' units this would solve your size problem)


@ Cheerful
BTW #'s do count in impact although not directly... If you impact a unit and disrupt it (or cause enough casualties to have it lose a size POA), you do have a choice to charge another BG into it and reap the POA benefits etc. Isnt this enough, especially as yu get to control the order in which you charge units?

I do agree though that a archer unit already engaged in melee ( ie the end turn button has been pressed) and then the next turn you impact charge it frontally it SHOULD NOT get the additional two dice.

So much for a consensus ( not that 50-100 active posters is a consensus of likly thousands of players anyhoot)

[Blathergut]

Think of how many versions of the game we'd have!

Ah, all in all, if you accept the couple quirks, it's a good game. We're all still playing it and waiting to spend more on the next installment!

[76mm]

On the historial accuracy we are sure this is one of the best models of ancient warfare...They can give you battle reports to back up every decision that has been made in the design.

Our research is extensive and overthrows many common misconceptions about what did or didn't happen in ancient battles. Did the best equipped troops always win - no. Did it vary by as much as our results vary - yes.
...
I understand that some people would prefer each combat to have less randomness and this is fine, but to suggest it is not realistic is not backed up by the research we have conducted and the evidence we have found.

Ian thank you for your comments. You and the original designers, and many of the members of this forum, are certainly more knowledgeable about ancient warfare than myself, but I have a couple of comments and questions:

1) The kind of issues you are describing begged to be fleshed out in a "designer notes" section of a manual. And of course the manual itself begs updating/improvement. What "common misconceptions" were overthrown? I'd certainly be interested, is there a single source for this kind of info, rather than hunting through the TT forum?

2) Sure, the best troops didn't always win, but often there was some identifiable reason for it--some unusal terrain or tactic, or mistake by the losing general, etc. Those factors are presumably part of what happens in FoG battles, but of course combat is abstracted to such a degree that we just see the result, and not the "why". No real way to fix it, I don't think, but I think this is a source of some player frustration. However, I would like to understand the rationale for capping POAs at two, which does seem to gimp better troops.

3) I have the definite feeling that some things in the game were designed to accomodate TT play rather than because it is "realistic". For instance, the way that "double moves" are implemented, and the whole die-based comabt system. Totally appropriate for a TT gaming system, but for me and perhaps other players that don't use/know the TT rules, this is also a source of frustration. I don't play TT, but the rules seem to work better in that context.

4) I would like a dev's thought on casualties--they really seem awfully high, but maybe this is one of the misconceptions you referred to above?

[omarquatar]

If you fixed the causalties as 5% or 10% per hit wont the game turn into Panzer General? The game is already being accused of being light or not a "real" wargame(whatever that means) by new players as well as old hands.
Just give each unit 10 strength "Pips" and be guranteed to know exactly how long it will take to destroy it.

No thank you.

strange concept indeed...i don't even understand what you're meaning exactly...are you aware that to cause a hit you need "good enough" dice rolls? how can they be "guaranteed"?

[TheGrayMouser]

If you fixed the causalties as 5% or 10% per hit wont the game turn into Panzer General? The game is already being accused of being light or not a "real" wargame(whatever that means) by new players as well as old hands.
Just give each unit 10 strength "Pips" and be guranteed to know exactly how long it will take to destroy it.

No thank you.

strange concept indeed...i don't even understand what you're meaning exactly...are you aware that to cause a hit you need "good enough" dice rolls? how can they be "guaranteed"?

Of course I am aware of that. Its not hard to weight the odds when contemplating an attack that you might or are likly to get 1 2 or 3 hits ( and for cryin out loud, the game even tells you this before you commit ) Knowing this and knowing the exact stregth you wil sap from the enemy BG (if damages are fixed) will allow you know pretty much which turn or phase that unit will auto rout. Too predictable for my tastes,

[omarquatar]

Ah, all in all, if you accept the couple quirks, it's a good game. We're all still playing it and waiting to spend more on the next installment!

for sure. which doesn't mean that everyone would not welcome a game system that is more to one's liking.

[omarquatar]

If you fixed the causalties as 5% or 10% per hit wont the game turn into Panzer General? The game is already being accused of being light or not a "real" wargame(whatever that means) by new players as well as old hands.
Just give each unit 10 strength "Pips" and be guranteed to know exactly how long it will take to destroy it.

No thank you.

strange concept indeed...i don't even understand what you're meaning exactly...are you aware that to cause a hit you need "good enough" dice rolls? how can they be "guaranteed"?

Of course I am aware of that. Its not hard to weight the odds when contemplating an attack that you might or are likly to get 1 2 or 3 hits ( and for cryin out loud, the game even tells you this before you commit ) Knowing this and knowing the exact stregth you wil sap from the enemy BG (if damages are fixed) will allow you know pretty much which turn or phase that unit will auto rout. Too predictable for my tastes,

a matter of taste. rolling 1s and 2s instead of rolling 6s still makes a great difference, though

[TheGrayMouser]

Hmm, I dont think FOG is unique in having a hit roll, and then a seperate "damage" roll, many games have this. I do agree having losses be a % of the origina units men is likly very uniquie but I dont assume this was some arbitrary decision slapped into the game but some serious thought went into it. Perhaps its only fault is they didnt contemplate just how much peoples expectations/preceptions would come into play regarding this. Maybe as 76mm pointed out , the developers should roll out a desighn concept treatise in the manual explaining these things.

[omarquatar]

Hmm, I dont think FOG is unique in having a hit roll, and then a seperate "damage" roll, many games have this. I do agree having losses be a % of the origina units men is likly very uniquie but I dont assume this was some arbitrary decision slapped into the game but some serious thought went into it. Perhaps its only fault is they didnt contemplate just how much peoples expectations/preceptions would come into play regarding this. Maybe as 76mm pointed out , the developers should roll out a desighn concept treatise in the manual explaining these things.

i didn't say it is unique, i only said i, for one, don't like this specific aspect of combat resolution...(well, not only this, of course ). maybe it is commonly used in miniatures system, i've seen it rarely, if ever, applied in historical boardgames ; as for the game becoming too predictable in case the second die roll would be eliminated, i don't agree, as we should still roll for combat and cohesion tests.

[TheGrayMouser]

Your right about boardgames, they generally resolve combat on a CRT chart 2-1 odds, 3-1 10-1 etc. These are set in stone with no variabilty, then a dice is rolled to see what the results are on the chart. Of course this mechanic is best for very high level orders of battles ie corps, divisions mabe brigades as it is a very abstract way of resolving (but not necasarily unrelaistic)

BTW I am not discounting the concept of fixed losses JUST because they are fixed and I love randomness, however to "fix" damage soemthing needs to fill in the gap left over. This would mean that unit size actually has to mean something, its not enough to say x unit is "bigger" than another, the size , in order to be relaistic has to be represented somehow either by multi hex units or allowing unit stacking etc... ie the frontage/depth/how many ranks can actually contribute in the unit has to be accounted for, and these are beyond the scope of the PC game. (they are of course part of the TT in the form of bases)