Slitherine

This is a report from a match just completed in LOEG season 8 and it is the sort of one-sided game that I was thinking of a bit earlier in this thread. It seems to be quite an extreme example but the question remains just how often does this sort of thing happen (as I said before I think the dice probably decide about one game in five or six) . . .

Iversonjm (Romans) 10/42 v. Ianow (Bosporans) 53/52

I won initiative, and just about every other die roll since. Ianow had perhaps the worst run of luck I've ever seen. I don't know which was my favorite moment, the time both of his generals died in combat on the same turn, or the time his disordered cavalry unit charged my evaded light foot unit in the rear . . . and broke.

Have to agree Pete i saw this report and thought how unlucky. Its ok for the guy winning but when you get a constant string of losses in even or with odds in your favour by a lot then it is simply not enjoyable.There is a problem and to say the other player is simply better when they roll round after round of better dice is not dealing with the problem.Honestly if the random generator was toned down and extreme results also evened out it wouldnt be so bad.No one wants the game to be boring but we also dont want it to be lopped sided.

I got the feeling sometimes the dice is not only lopped sided for combat results but also for cohesion tests. I found it sometimes more disturbing . Winning combats and having no effect on the cohesion of the enemy. And you loosing mostly all cohesions.

Cheers!

stockwellpete wrote:This is a report from a match just completed in LOEG season 8 and it is the sort of one-sided game that I was thinking of a bit earlier in this thread. It seems to be quite an extreme example but the question remains just how often does this sort of thing happen (as I said before I think the dice probably decide about one game in five or six) . . .

Iversonjm (Romans) 10/42 v. Ianow (Bosporans) 53/52

I won initiative, and just about every other die roll since. Ianow had perhaps the worst run of luck I've ever seen. I don't know which was my favorite moment, the time both of his generals died in combat on the same turn, or the time his disordered cavalry unit charged my evaded light foot unit in the rear . . . and broke.

The best post on this is Cheerfully Insane's.
If the options are decided by 1d6 then there are only 6 potential outcomes therefore even an unlikely event has a 16.67% chance of happening.
So at the point of decision we can expect 16 or 17 'unlikely' events in any hundred.
This is what, to me, is the basis of the flaw, that many of us feel is wrong intuitively; because we restrict to 1d6 to decide there are only 6 options therefore there are too many unlikely events.

We have focussed upon combat but cohesion is always a 1d6 decision as Fedem pointed out.
Finally the argument that die rolls balance out is a bit of a canard - these are independent events any time you 'throw' a dice odds for any given number are the same as last time you threw that dice.
I have just had two consecutive games proving that very point - I am sure they will not mind meme mentioning and may be good enough to endorse it.
vs ericdoman - he could not pass a cohesion test
vs sharkall - he just could not fail one.

This is a great game but there are too many unlikely outcomes too frequently.

Events in the game are normally the results of multiple D6's, not just a single, so most outcomes have a much finer granularity than 16.67%. Cohesion and Anarchy CMTs are all 2D6, and combat is normally four D6 for impact/melee and 2-3 for shooting. It would be nice if there was some way to track the numbers over a course of a game to see how much the results have departed from the average. I don't know how the random numbers are generated in Real Basic so it is possible that there is a source of error there. The re-implemntation based on Unity ought to fix that if there is a problem in the current random number generation.

Chris

One Rudolf Wolff threw a die 100 000 times and he got the following outcomes:
1: 16 632 times
2: 17 700 times
3: 15 183 times
4: 14 393 times
5: 17 707 times
6: 18 385 times
Even though the events are independent, in a way, they do even out, although not strictly.
In his book "The Theory of Gambling and Statistical Logic", R.A. Epstein calculated that the number of times
a particular outcome occurs should be 1000 +/- 50 times 91.9% over 6000 throws. (p. 177)

For 2D6, the outcomes are not equally probable as 7 is the most common result and the odds decrease
uniformly as one moves towards 2 and 12.
http://wizardofodds.com/gambling/dice/
That means that if the code is for generating a random number between 2 and 12, it would be wrong.

Thats very interesting reading Frogman and really to throw dice 100,000 times and put it down on paper he must have a lot of time on his hands :lol:Ok so in FOG we are generally rolling between 3 to 4 D6. This is todays homework pick up 4 dice roll them 20 times and record the out comes.So thats 4d6 x20. Everyone will have some thing different and i will start the ball rolling and record in just a tick.

Ok here are my results
Roll 1 5 3 2 1 Roll 15 5 6 3 3
Roll 2 2 4 2 4 Roll 16 6 5 3 1
Roll 3 2 2 3 4 Roll 17 4 5 6 3
Roll 4 4 3 1 4 Roll 18 4 6 1 2
Roll 5 4 5 6 2 Roll 19 5 4 3 2
Roll 6 6 6 4 3 Roll 20 4 5 2 3
Roll 7 6 3 1 1
Roll 8 4 3 1 1
Roll 9 6 2 1 1
Roll 10 5 4 6 3
Roll 11 5 4 2 2
Roll 12 4 5 1 1
Roll 13 3 2 1 1
Roll 14 5 5 2 1
Bear with me everyone there is a method to my madness

Yu got 15 1's and 15 4's.
8 6's and the other ones in between

Ok now you try it and see how many 6ss you throw you will be suprised

batesmotel wrote:Events in the game are normally the results of multiple D6's, not just a single, so most outcomes have a much finer granularity than 16.67%. Cohesion and Anarchy CMTs are all 2D6, and combat is normally four D6 for impact/melee and 2-3 for shooting. It would be nice if there was some way to track the numbers over a course of a game to see how much the results have departed from the average.

Er, no.
'Multiple' D6 is misleading in this case. Since each hit is determined by a single D6, the results are dependant on a single die.
Throwing a D6 twice isn't the same as using a 2D6 system.

Granted, the granularity IS finer than 16.67% since you also have to compare with the defender, and there's the quality-rerolls to consider.
On the other hand, the entire range of the D6 isn't used, since +2POA means you still miss on 1,2 and -2POA hits on 5,6.
Someone smarter than me will have to do the exact math, but a little mental arithmetic makes me think somewhere around 10% is the limit of a guaranteed win/loss. Still far too high for my taste.
Even if you're willing to accept that as an OK limit, you still have the problem of severely limiting the number of modifiers applicable due to the POA system. If no combat should be a sure thing, you can't go much higher than +2POA, and were back to the problem of e.g. Impact Inf getting no added bonus from rear-attacks since they're already at +2.

It's true that Anarchy and Cohesion is decided by 2D6, and I'm still puzzled as to why you'd employ two different systems in a computer-game.
Actually, here's an idea:
Instead of using a D6 for each combat-roll, use 2D6, needing a 7+ to hit (maybe 8+ for a slower paced game) and using the POA mods as direct modifiers to the dice-roll.
A natural 2 is a miss, and a natural 12 is a hit, regardless of modifiers.
Finally, scrap the +2 POA limit, and let every applicable modifier count.
This way a skirmisher charged in the rear by cataphracts (yes, I DO love that example ), isn't a guaranteed thing, but successive 12's and 2's (defender and attacker respectively) would lower the odds to around 2%.

Whether or not there's a flaw in the random engine of Real Basic is, at least to me, beside the point.

Lars

CheerfullyInsane wrote:It's true that Anarchy and Cohesion is decided by 2D6, and I'm still puzzled as to why you'd employ two different systems in a computer-game.
Actually, here's an idea:
Instead of using a D6 for each combat-roll, use 2D6, needing a 7+ to hit (maybe 8+ for a slower paced game) and using the POA mods as direct modifiers to the dice-roll.
A natural 2 is a miss, and a natural 12 is a hit, regardless of modifiers.
Finally, scrap the +2 POA limit, and let every applicable modifier count.
This way a skirmisher charged in the rear by cataphracts (yes, I DO love that example ), isn't a guaranteed thing, but successive 12's and 2's (defender and attacker respectively) would lower the odds to around 2%.

Whether or not there's a flaw in the random engine of Real Basic is, at least to me, beside the point.

Lars

I've said it before and I'll say it again..... Why limit the system to virtual d6! If the game isn't to replicate the TT and you want more 'realism' then use the power of computers to generate whatever you want. This could be using lookup tables for whatever combination of facors you want (very realistic), or use percentages (1-100), or even random numbers as alarge as you want (1-1,000 or bigger).

Lookup tables could base the cance of winning and significantly winning based on; number of troops, class of troops, quality of troops, armour class (with whatever granularity you want from no armour, shield only, light, armour.... heavily armoured), weapon type, terrain, direction of attack, etc.

Morbio wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again..... Why limit the system to virtual d6! If the game isn't to replicate the TT and you want more 'realism' then use the power of computers to generate whatever you want. This could be using lookup tables for whatever combination of facors you want (very realistic), or use percentages (1-100), or even random numbers as alarge as you want (1-1,000 or bigger).

Lookup tables could base the cance of winning and significantly winning based on; number of troops, class of troops, quality of troops, armour class (with whatever granularity you want from no armour, shield only, light, armour.... heavily armoured), weapon type, terrain, direction of attack, etc.

Two reasons for keeping the virtual D6 system, both of them inter-locked.
One, while I suspect most of us couldn't calculate the binomial distribution of each combat (even with a slide-rule and a running start), we have an innate sense of the odds when it comes to six-sided dice. Or in other words we can make quick judgement-calls re. each situation without resorting to calculators.
Two, having look-up tables might make sense to those of us used to board-games (especially SPI and AH vintage games), but it's a bit of a bugger when you try and introduce them into a computer-game. It makes little sense to have to open a separate screen trying to figure out whether an attack is worthwhile.

Let's not forget that this is supposed to be a quick-playing, easy to learn, tourney game.
It was (far as I know) never meant to be a hard-core simulation of ancient battles. It's WargamingLite at its finest.

Lars

It's too late in the evening for me to do the maths, but what are the odds of two separate units surviving 4 hits to 0 without cohesion loss, one after the other?

CheerfullyInsane wrote:

Morbio wrote: I've said it before and I'll say it again..... Why limit the system to virtual d6! If the game isn't to replicate the TT and you want more 'realism' then use the power of computers to generate whatever you want. This could be using lookup tables for whatever combination of facors you want (very realistic), or use percentages (1-100), or even random numbers as alarge as you want (1-1,000 or bigger).

Lookup tables could base the cance of winning and significantly winning based on; number of troops, class of troops, quality of troops, armour class (with whatever granularity you want from no armour, shield only, light, armour.... heavily armoured), weapon type, terrain, direction of attack, etc.

Two reasons for keeping the virtual D6 system, both of them inter-locked.
One, while I suspect most of us couldn't calculate the binomial distribution of each combat (even with a slide-rule and a running start), we have an innate sense of the odds when it comes to six-sided dice. Or in other words we can make quick judgement-calls re. each situation without resorting to calculators.
Two, having look-up tables might make sense to those of us used to board-games (especially SPI and AH vintage games), but it's a bit of a bugger when you try and introduce them into a computer-game. It makes little sense to have to open a separate screen trying to figure out whether an attack is worthwhile.

Let's not forget that this is supposed to be a quick-playing, easy to learn, tourney game.
It was (far as I know) never meant to be a hard-core simulation of ancient battles. It's WargamingLite at its finest.

Lars

Lars , do you play w the combat % odds on? No seperate table and you dont need to look anything up. For example , 2 exactly equal units, average quality engage in a combat , you will see 36% 36 % (they dont bother displaying the remaining 28%)
so you KNOW you have a 36% to win, a 36 % chance to lose and a 28% chance to tie.... The only thing you dont know is how much, once the dice are rolled, you win by or how much you lose by: ie 4 hits to 0, 4-4 or 0-4

BTY the best combo possible: elite troops with a ++POA attacking poor troops is 97% to win, 0% to lose....(since i suppose its mathmaticaly possible my guess its less than 1% to lose so the dont even bother showing)
I didnt test but i imagine a superior catapract hitting a slinger in the rear, the example you like to quote a lot, isnt really that farther off odds wise....

I guess I dont get why a % system is better
Ok , so you go with a d100 100 variable but when/what "range" do they take effect? is 1-33% a miss, 34-60% a average hit, etc etc ? Our are you proposing realism on the macro scale needs 100 outcomes? I rolled a 1 on my d100, I hurt one enemy soldiers feelings, I rolled a 2: , wounded , slightly, 1 enemy soldier, I rolled a 15 , 10 enemy soldiers kia, a 68: 56 enemy killed, 7 wounded and enemy BG has mild disruption?... etc etc

Using a 600 point army as an example. There are what 5000 + rolls per game. I think that evens out the bad and the good. We still have people that win 90 percent of their games against humans. Luck is in the game, but not to the degree the digruntled few suggest.

I wish they called casualties, permanent cohesion loss, since supposedly ancient combat did not have a lot of deaths until a unit routed. (medieval battles excepted) If they had, maybe the numbers would be more pallitable. I have resigned myself to the fact, that bad things can happen. I try to mitigate them by army choice and tactics. The current system does not bother me.

TheGrayMouser wrote: Lars , do you play w the combat % odds on? No seperate table and you dont need to look anything up. For example , 2 exactly equal units, average quality engage in a combat , you will see 36% 36 % (they dont bother displaying the remaining 28%)
so you KNOW you have a 36% to win, a 36 % chance to lose and a 28% chance to tie.... The only thing you dont know is how much, once the dice are rolled, you win by or how much you lose by: ie 4 hits to 0, 4-4 or 0-4

I don't play at all any more.
But I was trying to explain why I didn't want to introduce a ton of modifiers, making look-up tables a necessity.
While you could theoretically have them all listed in the Detailed Combat, you'd need another screen. *LOL*

BTY the best combo possible: elite troops with a ++POA attacking poor troops is 97% to win, 0% to lose....(since i suppose its mathmaticaly possible my guess its less than 1% to lose so the dont even bother showing)
I didnt test but i imagine a superior catapract hitting a slinger in the rear, the example you like to quote a lot, isnt really that farther off odds wise....

Yep, that's the best combo, and the number of times I've fielded or faced Elite troops can be counted on one severely mangled hand.
But let's take a look at the odds..........What can I say, I was bored.
(These are all without quality re-rolls of any kind. No idea how to factor those into the equations)
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/455/fogdw.jpg
(Tried posting it as an embedded image, but the forum-engine kept cropping it in half, so you'll have to open it in a separate window)

Taking a 'normal' +2POA 4attack/2Defend, you end up with 90% of winning the combat.
Meaning that for each ten cataphracts charging skirmishers, you end up with 1 turned back (as in draw/lose).
I don't know 'bout anyone else, but 10% is far too high for my taste. This sort of thing should happen once or twice in a full LoEG season.
Even worse (and it doesn't appear in the above tables, only in the spreadsheet I used to do them) is that in every one of those attacks, win or lose, the defender has a 55% chance of inflicting casualties on the attacker.
Bear in mind that these are heavily armored horsemen riding down skirmishers, and yet there's a 1 in 2 chance of the cavalry suffering up to 5% casualties in the process..........
So theoretically, you could defeat the 10 cataphracts with skirmishers alone, assuming you have enough of them. They won't even have to shoot, they just have to stand there and wait for the attrition to work its magic.
(And yes, I realize that's an out-there example. Merely illustrating a point.)
And while I haven't done the math on multiple-unit scenarios, my gut still tells me that quantity will beat quality in this game, everything else being equal.

I guess I dont get why a % system is better
Ok , so you go with a d100 100 variable but when/what "range" do they take effect? is 1-33% a miss, 34-60% a average hit, etc etc ? Our are you proposing realism on the macro scale needs 100 outcomes? I rolled a 1 on my d100, I hurt one enemy soldiers feelings, I rolled a 2: , wounded , slightly, 1 enemy soldier, I rolled a 15 , 10 enemy soldiers kia, a 68: 56 enemy killed, 7 wounded and enemy BG has mild disruption?... etc etc

The problem is the limited range of the system, and thus the number of modifiers applicable.
The 90% win for a +2POA would be fine for e.g. Impact Inf charging into formed spearmen. But due to the +2 limit, that's as bad as it gets.
It has absolutely no bearing on the odds whether the Impact Inf is charging skirmishers, spearmen, or deaf, dumb and blind quadriplegics.
You could send them against a flock of sea-gulls, and there's still a 55% chance the infantry would take losses.
Does that really sound right to you?

If you want to keep the design-decision that no combat should be a sure thing (which I agree with, btw) you find yourself rapidly running out permutations with a D6. Once you've reached the point where the attacker hits on everything but 1, and the defender hits only on 6, then what?
Introducing a percentile or 2D6 system isn't about graduating the casualty-generations, it's about getting a wider range of permutations so that there would actually be a difference between charging spearmen and seagulls.

.....I rolled a 1 on my d100, I hurt one enemy soldiers feelings........

Yes.....But only if your troops speak the enemy language. For that to happen a subsequent 3D6 is rolled, the result having to be a prime number.
Oh and don't forget, if you're fighting Greeks, the green die has to be higher

CheerfullyInsane wrote:Taking a 'normal' +2POA 4attack/2Defend, you end up with 90% of winning the combat.
Meaning that for each ten cataphracts charging skirmishers, you end up with 1 turned back (as in draw/lose).
I don't know 'bout anyone else, but 10% is far too high for my taste. This sort of thing should happen once or twice in a full LoEG season.
Even worse (and it doesn't appear in the above tables, only in the spreadsheet I used to do them) is that in every one of those attacks, win or lose, the defender has a 55% chance of inflicting casualties on the attacker.
Bear in mind that these are heavily armored horsemen riding down skirmishers, and yet there's a 1 in 2 chance of the cavalry suffering up to 5% casualties in the process..........
So theoretically, you could defeat the 10 cataphracts with skirmishers alone, assuming you have enough of them. They won't even have to shoot, they just have to stand there and wait for the attrition to work its magic.
(And yes, I realize that's an out-there example. Merely illustrating a point.)

Yes, I agree, Lars. In reality, the cataphracts (or mounted knights) would just charge straight through the skirmishers on open ground and disperse them. They might take some casualties though only if they pursued them onto difficult terrain (marsh, steep hills etc).

Iain made the point before about it normally being the same players who will win.

This season in the league has been disastorous for me.

However I really looked into my failings and I came to the conclusion that I played very badly, very very badly. Army builds were wrong, deployment was wrong, initial moves tragic. Attacking impregnable positions badly, WRONG!

Yes luck does come into it but I try and give myself an edge in near enough every combat, unless it is a valiant effort to try and protect a rear of a more important troop type or just to slow down the enemy before they attack my flanks or rears.

The example that jonno came out with about his kn only moving 2 hexes instead of 3 or 4. That is a very rare occurrence in the pc game. The tt rules specifies if a unit rolls a 1 = - 2 inches, a 2 = - 1 inch, 5 = +1 and a 6 = +2. Not sure what is needed to be rolled for it to happen in the pc game.

Also you could never have a game system which covers potentially 4000 years of warfare to be historically accurate. Heavily armoured knights should ride over HCH, just smash through them but you have to give that troop type a chance. Steel (the Roman Gladius was made from X steel) will be much tougher than bronze and even wooden weapons, obviously but once more you have to give some armies an equallish chance.

I have been wargaming ( a few breaks here and there) for probably 35 years now. In other rules systems there has always been the case that some armies will be the super armies. The beauty of this pc game is that there isn't really a super army, most armies can beat other armies.

A very good tt player mentioned to be a top wargamer you have to be skillful but you do need a bit of luck.

A journalist once said to Gary Player (not verbatim). "Gary you do seem to be very lucky?" Gary Player's retort was. "The more I practice the luckier I become".

ericdoman1 wrote: Also you could never have a game system which covers potentially 4000 years of warfare to be historically accurate.

I think this is really what the debate is about here, Eric. A game will never be completely historically accurate. In most circumstances in real life, once a battle had started the commanders seemed to have spent most of the time trying to find out what was happening (particularly as you move towards more modern times). All we can do really is discuss and suggest ways of making things more realistic and removing things that are historically anomalous.