The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

Then either RBS is not telling us the real calculations or there is a bug in the programming causing this. I personally have not felt the luck to be off. Everyone can get a bad run and everyone can go on a good run. That is the nature of RNG. The best players seem to keep on winning though. Monsters like Pantherboy and Ruski just keep taking trophy after trophy.

ruskicanuk lost a match 49-0 this week where terrain appeared to be the major factor. I'd call that bad luck myself.

My argument is that luck is amplified in matches where players are of a similar standard. In the FOG2DL every effort is made to put players in divisions where they will be competitive, so I think luck is a bigger factor in our matches than in the average FOG2 game. The idea that luck is not much of a factor because pantherboy wins most of his matches is bogus. pantherboy is able to be successful because he is a much better player than most of us and can often still win even if he is suffering some bad luck. I would say that there is only a handful of players who can give him a good run for his money and you would have to analyse those matches separately to see how much luck affected their outcomes.

I think that luck is too much of a factor and it breaks the game for me, so I am stopping. I would say that the outcomes of our matches in the FOG2DL are a result of, on average, 25% skill and 75% luck, although there can be large variations in any given match. The luck factor is comprised of two elements, the die rolls and the terrain generator. If you think the 25% figure is too low then you should appreciate that it represents the difference in skill between the two players in a match. Sometimes one player will be a bit more skilful than the other and sometimes one player will be in better form than the other. So it is a relative, not an absolute measure. In the automated tournament, where there are no divisions, a match involving a veteran and a new player is possible, and in these circumstances the skill factor would be approaching 100% and the luck factor would be near zero.

Cunningcairn has made an interesting suggestion that bigger armies would help to offset the impact of one player getting a sequence of poor die rolls. I will organise a poll next week and if there is general support for the idea then we can trial using larger armies in one section of the tournament in Season 5. We will then have to decide whether to use 1600pts or 2000pts armies.

So what else can be done to minimise the impact of luck in matches in the FOG2DL?

I think that double cohesion drops are sometimes a big problem at the start of a battle. In the Themed Event this time, we have a Frankish war band theme and it is quite common for war band units to fragment on impact when the two battle lines come together. Then, when these fragmented units rout soon after all, the adjacent units have to take cohesion tests, and if they fail some of these then that army is in serious trouble. The battle can be lost when a player has not even made a mistake. The skill quotient is very low here. This shouldn't be happening at all, in my opinion. If you changed the game so that units over 75% strength could not suffer double-drops in cohesion in most 1 v 1 situations then you would remove this issue from the start of battles. Rear attacks, 2 v 1's or situations where superior units fought weaker units (e.g cataphracts v irregular foot, in the open) would still be able to achieve double-drops regardless of the numerical strength of the losing unit.

I do not think there should be an automatic cohesion loss for flank attacks, although they should be retained for rear attacks which should always be devastating. Flank attacks should not be happening in the middle of a melee. Instead a greater reward would accrue to players who achieved 2 v 1 or 3 v 1 combats, a mechanism that is working very well in the game.

The last idea I have may not be possible at all and I am not even sure how to explain it in terms of computer programming. But imagine two players sitting at a table playing a game of TT FOG. Instead of rolling a die each time for combat or rallying etc, they would reach down into a bag that contained 60 discs (10 of them numbered 6, 10 of them numbered 5 and so on, all the way down to 10 of them numbered 1). When the score on the disc was fed into the game the disc would not be returned to the bag. So, if the player pulled out a 6, then there would only be nine 6's left in the bag and so the chance of getting another one for that player would be reduced a bit, and the other player would now have a slightly better chance than his opponent of getting the next 6. And so on. In this way the relative "luck element" between the two players would be moderated, but not removed altogether. Once a player had used 30 discs, the bag would be filled up again. Is anything like this possible?

[General Shapur]

Eh? What? How does that follow?

I would also note that warband vs warband combats have an increased chance of resulting in double cohesion drops at impact, because whichever side loses has an extra -1 CT modifier for fighting Impact Foot.

Thats interesting. I had experienced this a few times and had started to just position my troops for the opponent to attack and take the double frag risk. However, others also seem aware of this and we just face off and look at each other while the malestrom goes on around us.

If the units are the same, the risk is the same to both units, whichever side charges.

I know, but, oddly i only ever notice the double cohesion loss on my own units when i attack. I cant recall seeing it on the enemy (like vs like) . I guess I can't see it for battle rage, or im unlucky at the moment.

[stockwellpete]

I wrote,

"The last idea I have may not be possible at all and I am not even sure how to explain it in terms of computer programming. But imagine two players sitting at a table playing a game of TT FOG. Instead of rolling a die each time for combat or rallying etc, they would reach down into a bag that contained 60 discs (10 of them numbered 6, 10 of them numbered 5 and so on, all the way down to 10 of them numbered 1). When the score on the disc was fed into the game the disc would not be returned to the bag. So, if the player pulled out a 6, then there would only be nine 6's left in the bag and so the chance of getting another one for that player would be reduced a bit, and the other player would now have a slightly better chance than his opponent of getting the next 6. And so on. In this way the relative "luck element" between the two players would be moderated, but not removed altogether. Once a player had used 30 discs, the bag would be filled up again. Is anything like this possible?"


Richard replied,

Yes.

But we have to be wary of changing the paradigm of the vanilla game to suit a minority of players, so I look forward to seeing the mod.

[stockwellpete]

I wrote,

"The last idea I have may not be possible at all and I am not even sure how to explain it in terms of computer programming. But imagine two players sitting at a table playing a game of TT FOG. Instead of rolling a die each time for combat or rallying etc, they would reach down into a bag that contained 60 discs (10 of them numbered 6, 10 of them numbered 5 and so on, all the way down to 10 of them numbered 1). When the score on the disc was fed into the game the disc would not be returned to the bag. So, if the player pulled out a 6, then there would only be nine 6's left in the bag and so the chance of getting another one for that player would be reduced a bit, and the other player would now have a slightly better chance than his opponent of getting the next 6. And so on. In this way the relative "luck element" between the two players would be moderated, but not removed altogether. Once a player had used 30 discs, the bag would be filled up again. Is anything like this possible?"


Richard replied,

Yes.

But we have to be wary of changing the paradigm of the vanilla game to suit a minority of players, so I look forward to seeing the mod.

How would that change the paradigm of the game? Players would not be aware of any change at all, would they? As you know, I am not capable of making a mod.

[stockwellpete]

Here are my matches in the FOG2DL this season and how I feel luck has been a factor. This is just my view and my opponents may feel differently.

Themed Event
1. Won v hidde - moderate good luck
2. Won v Triarii - balanced game
3. Lost v jjaquemond - balanced game
4. Lost v rexhurley - very bad luck
5. Lost v rexhurley - very bad luck

Biblical Division A
1. Won v ahuyton - very good luck
2. Won v paulmcneil - balanced game
3. Won v nyczar - balanced game
4. Won v harveylh - very good luck
5. Lost v klayeckles - very bad luck
6. Drew with rbodleyscott - balanced game
7. Lost v markwatson360 - very bad luck
8. Lost v ianiow - moderate bad luck
9. Won v Nijis - balanced game

So, out of 14 matches, I feel that luck, either moderate or considerable, affected 8 matches, just over half of the total.

[gamercb]

It is a shame that the computer version of FOG and the TT version have gone off in different directions. I first purchased FOG on the computer in the hope it would help with my table top game. Richard says that FOG II does not replicate the "dice" of the table top game so how are the combat results worked out. And why, when it says you have an 88% chance of winning, 6% chance of drawing and 6% chance of losing does a unit lose a combat. I have benefitted from this when it says my unit has a 0% chance and my opponent has a 100% chance of winning and my unit loses were low enough that it held.

[stockwellpete]

And why, when it says you have an 88% chance of winning, 6% chance of drawing and 6% chance of losing does a unit lose a combat.

What that means is in every 100 such combats you are likely to win 88 times and lose 6 times. So there is about a 1 in 15 chance of losing and it is very bad luck if you do.

[MikeC_81]

Eh? What? How does that follow?

I would also note that warband vs warband combats have an increased chance of resulting in double cohesion drops at impact, because whichever side loses has an extra -1 CT modifier for fighting Impact Foot.

I was being facetious.

My argument is that luck is amplified in matches where players are of a similar standard.

Which is how it should be! Any game that has player driven decisions combined with a non-controlled random element will inevitably have this as a final outcome. Different games will contribute different weightings of skill vs luck as a final outcome. A game like Texas Holdem poker is exceedingly high variance where any individual hand looks like it is totally driven by luck. But we also know that player skill definitely exists because there are professional players who make a living playing Holdem or any variation of poker and win at a rate much higher than mathematical standard distribution would imply. If player skill was not a significant factor, you could not actually make a living at all. Think of how many professional lottery players there are for example. The number is 0.

I think luck is a bigger factor in our matches than in the average FOG2 game. The idea that luck is not much of a factor because pantherboy wins most of his matches is bogus. pantherboy is able to be successful because he is a much better player than most of us and can often still win even if he is suffering some bad luck. I would say that there is only a handful of players who can give him a good run for his money and you would have to analyse those matches separately to see how much luck affected their outcomes.

Then clearly there is a better standard of play for the vast majority of us to work towards agreed? Why worry so much about luck when we could instead try to be more like pantherboy? The beauty of competitive games. Not everyone can be the best, but there is a degree of satisfaction that can be derived from improving. And should two players of equal skill meet in the game and give their best go, one of them will still go off as the loser of the match. Both parties should nonetheless be happy to shake hands and have enjoyed themselves. If luck being the deciding factor is no good to you, then there are many games out there that have 0 luck involved. Millions still play chess, a 100% player driven outcome with time pressure. It also happens to be exceedingly dull with professional Masters and Grand Masters drawing the vast majority of their games in tournaments.....because their skill is so equal and there is no luck involved.

Sometimes one player will be a bit more skilful than the other and sometimes one player will be in better form than the other.

Which is why we play the game! To continually test ourselves against the opposition to see what form we are in and whether there is any improvement! What fun would it be if the Premiership just handed out the trophy based on pundits and analysts evaluating the roster and just telling us who *should* end up winning??? One of your news post this season was congratulating several players on having *improved their play* to rise up the ranks and are now competing in Division A and B whereas they started out in Divisions C and D. They should be lauded and you were correct to point them out. Don't marginalize their accomplishments now by saying it might have all been based on a run of good luck.

I just lost a game vs harveylh in Div A. He had expressed some trepidation as we opened the game. A player who should be my inferior by all standards in rating and past accomplishments and I basically told him not to worry about it. There are many factors that I could attribute to this loss. It could have been that his Zealot army is ridiculously strong and matches up well vs my own Arab City. It could have been the two patches of rough terrain on either flank and a hill with Forest that backstopped his line that effectively squeezed the battlefield and prevented me from utilizing the one advantage I did have in having a strong mounted element. I could focus on either of those two elements but instead, I will focus on the poor handling of my left flank where I had tried to envelop his Zealot line only to misjudge the timing, spacing, and terrain that resulted in his Irr Foot counter flanking to pin my forces down and keeping his Zealot push safe from interference. I could have focused on the things that were outside my control. Instead of worrying about things outside my control, I am going to assign this loss to my poor play, which is how it should be.

You might be right about games between middling players being 75% luck. You are assigning that 75% to in-game RNG. The reality is that the 75%, or whatever that number is, should be assigned to player errors. When both sides are making error after error and not maximizing the odds of success and maybe not even realizing what they could be doing is suboptimal, it invariably turns into a game where the luck is not in the game, but who *unknowingly* makes the lower number of critical mistakes. Because they do not even understand or recognize the errors being made, it gets chalked up to luck. Another possibility is that that they simply mash battlelines together without examining all the possibilities in which case the players simply surrender player agency and leave RNG to decide the battle for them.

They could also be picking the wrong units at the wrong price point to deal with their opponent's army. They could also not have a good foundation for math in this game. That is where I arguably earn the majority of my wins and this is a skill too! I don't pick crap armies, I don't pick armies which don't do well against a large portion of the field for that Section. I always take the time to sit down, examine my opponent's army and possible choices and counter pick the anticipated choices my opponent will make. I don't buy crappy units and I know which units punch above their weight in the point buy system and I actively avoid the ones that don't pull their weight unless it is for something I don't have a choice and is terrain or opponent dictated.

I always harp on players who try to say they lost to bad luck, in any game, not just FoG2, and I ask them the following. I know that plan works 75% of the time, the math says so, but what happens the other 25% of the time. What was your plan of action in that case? I rarely get a good answer other than 'well it shouldn't be thus'. Similarly, I have often seen players fail to make the Hail Mary move that might have worked only 15% of the time but in reality, was their only real option at winning. Every point you spend, every action, every move adds or subtracts to the overall odds of victory. Nothing is every assured since there is RNG. But I always choose to look at the things I could have done differently, versus the things I cannot control. If at the end of the day, if you can justify every move you made in a particular game and still came up as the loser, then you can happily wash your hands of that game and chalk it up to luck.

Cunningcairn has made an interesting suggestion that bigger armies would help to offset the impact of one player getting a sequence of poor die rolls. I will organise a poll next week and if there is general support for the idea then we can trial using larger armies in one section of the tournament in Season 5. We will then have to decide whether to use 1600pts or 2000pts armies.

So what else can be done to minimise the impact of luck in matches in the FOG2DL?

Larger armies will change nothing because the fundamental problem is still player driven imo. I am certain people's rankings and win rates won't change with it is an 800 pt army or a 2000 pt army.

One thing I will say is that you consistently advocate for more RNG in this game and yet you are now complaining about luck being too big a factor in FoG2. You were one of the biggest proponents of limiting push backs from the game, a feature that was controllable, was largely player driven, and rewarded foresight and planning and the judicious use of reserves to punish inattentive players. I hated the fact this change was made and imo, has made the game worse. I have already noticed halfway through this season that battle lines are far more static, making attempts at maneuvering past gaps in lines far more difficult. This directly increases the role RNG plays in the game. You can control maneuver, you cannot control the dice outcome. You cannot control whether RNG terrain allows for your forces to flank an enemy line or have significant play on the flanks.

You are one of the biggest advocates for adding impetuous charges, yet another RNG feature should that be implemented. And now you are advocating that flank charges don't drop cohesion in favour of letting baseline RNG math of 2 and 3 v 1s determine outcome? You are literally asking for one of the most player agency driven mechanics to be stripped from the game and putting it in all in the hands of the RNG gods. I don't understand how you could be advocating those changes when you say FoG2 is too luck driven.

[stockwellpete]

Why worry so much about luck when we could instead try to be more like pantherboy?

I don't know about you, Mike, but I can do both.

If luck being the deciding factor is no good to you, then there are many games out there that have 0 luck involved. Millions still play chess, a 100% player driven outcome with time pressure. It also happens to be exceedingly dull with professional Masters and Grand Masters drawing the vast majority of their games in tournaments.....because their skill is so equal and there is no luck involved.

So you admit luck is the deciding factor? Thank you for making my argument for me. What I didn't say, and what you have invented, is that I want a game with no luck. I have chess already, thanks. What I did do this morning though was to make some suggestions about how the balance between skill and luck might be adjusted. I am departing this game as a player and I wanted to make a contribution on my way out. And Richard has indicated that it is possible to introduce the third of my options, but he is not inclined to do so. If this were my game it would be a no-brainer for me to introduce it, because it would reduce the luck element considerably without making the game less interesting.

What fun would it be if the Premiership just handed out the trophy based on pundits and analysts evaluating the roster and just telling us who *should* end up winning???

Who has suggested that FOG2DL should be like this? A ludicrous "straw man" suggestion on your part.

One of your news post this season was congratulating several players on having *improved their play* to rise up the ranks and are now competing in Division A and B whereas they started out in Divisions C and D. They should be lauded and you were correct to point them out. Don't marginalize their accomplishments now by saying it might have all been based on a run of good luck.

I am not marginalising anything. I was talking about the game in very general terms so why you have made this point about specific players is beyond me. It is a bit nasty if you want my honest opinion.

You might be right about games between middling players being 75% luck.

I wasn't talking about "middling players". I was talking about matches where players were of a very similar standard. But again, it seems as if you might be agreeing with me about the dominance of luck.

You are assigning that 75% to in-game RNG.

No, I am assigning it to both die rolls and the terrain generator and I have clearly indicated that the 75% figure is only a rough average because the circumstances in a match can vary enormously.

The reality is that the 75%, or whatever that number is, should be assigned to player errors.

No, player errors are part of the 25% attributed to skill in my schema. Army selection and battle plans are also part of this 25% figure. This works for me because my 25% figure is a relative rather than an absolute value. It is measuring the possible difference of performance in any given battle in the FOG2DL between two players of a similar standard (i.e defined as players playing in the same division).

Larger armies will change nothing because the fundamental problem is still player driven imo. I am certain people's rankings and win rates won't change with it is an 800 pt army or a 2000 pt army.

That is not the intention. The intention is to slightly re-adjust the balance between skill and luck in the game.

One thing I will say is that you consistently advocate for more RNG in this game and yet you are now complaining about luck being too big a factor in FoG2. You were one of the biggest proponents of limiting push backs from the game, a feature that was controllable, was largely player driven, and rewarded foresight and planning and the judicious use of reserves to punish inattentive players. I hated the fact this change was made and imo, has made the game worse. I have already noticed halfway through this season that battle lines are far more static, making attempts at maneuvering past gaps in lines far more difficult. This directly increases the role RNG plays in the game. You can control maneuver, you cannot control the dice outcome. You cannot control whether RNG terrain allows for your forces to flank an enemy line or have significant play on the flanks.

I disagree. The change in the push back rule has improved the game considerably. The fact that battle lines are locked together for longer allows for the development of genuine flanking moves on the flank (where they should be). I supported this change on the basis of historical realism. Historically, individual groups of soldiers (called units in FOG2) were not regularly pushed back out of melees by the enemy leaving groups of soldiers either side of them still in place. A whole flank or centre might be pushed back and at a certain point it would break, but the bizarre form of line dancing that regularly took place in the earlier versions of FOG2 is certainly not missed by me.

You are one of the biggest advocates for adding impetuous charges, yet another RNG feature should that be implemented. I don't understand how you could be advocating those changes when you say FoG2 is too luck driven.

That is because you either haven't fully understood my argument or you are deliberately misrepresenting it. I will repeat it for you - I am suggesting ways in which the balance between skill and luck might be adjusted in the game. Impetuosity charges are historically accurate for certain types of soldiers so it would get my support on that basis alone. In FOG1 players with those sorts of units quickly learned how to use them. So, for example, there was definitely a skill involved in delivering a charge of mounted knights, or lancers, to the flank of the enemy. It only became a matter for RNG if you deployed your impetuous units too close to the enemy, or if you expected them to stand patiently in a defensive position on a hill while being pelted with missiles. So there was real skill involved in using these sorts of units. It was not luck-driven at all.

[rbodleyscott]

And why, when it says you have an 88% chance of winning, 6% chance of drawing and 6% chance of losing does a unit lose a combat.

Because it has a 6% chance of losing, so 6 times out of 100 it will lose.

[harveylh]

Here are my matches in the FOG2DL this season and how I feel luck has been a factor. This is just my view and my opponents may feel differently.

Themed Event
1. Won v hidde - moderate good luck
2. Won v Triarii - balanced game
3. Lost v jjaquemond - balanced game
4. Lost v rexhurley - very bad luck
5. Lost v rexhurley - very bad luck

Biblical Division A
1. Won v ahuyton - very good luck
2. Won v paulmcneil - balanced game
3. Won v nyczar - balanced game
4. Won v harveylh - very good luck
5. Lost v klayeckles - very bad luck
6. Drew with rbodleyscott - balanced game
7. Lost v markwatson360 - very bad luck
8. Lost v ianiow - moderate bad luck
9. in progress with Nijis - balanced game

So, out of 14 matches, I feel that luck, either moderate or considerable, affected 8 matches, just over half of the total.

Pete, in our game, even though I griped about the double drop combat loss that unhinged my line and hurt my chances to win, it was only one combat result. If I put myself in a spot where one combat loss early in the game defeats me, I have not been a very good general. In hindsight, I should have deployed the end of my line back a hex or two. Actually, your skillful response to my counterattack won you the game. I agree completely with MikeC_81 in the long run luck does not decide that many games. As I mentioned in a previous message, I stand by my personal observation based on nearly 200 FOG2 multiplayer games about two out of ten games between players of approximately equal skill are decided by luck.

Pete, I agree with you the change in the push back rule has improved the game considerably and to me improves the historical accuracy.

It was mentioned ruskicanuk’s recent 49-0 loss was due to terrain bad luck. This is a different issue than combat/morale luck. Here the key is army selection as the more balanced armies can better handle different terrain maps better and have usually done better in our league competitions. The Carthaginians are the perfect example of that.

In the 49-0 loss, ruskicanuk’s Arab City army was playing my Sassanid Persians. The Arab City is a good army but its major weakness is a constrained map with a lot of rough/difficult terrain. They only have three non-bow medium infantry and two superior units (lancers) in the entire army. The Persians have two superior medium infantry and elephants. I was able to dominate the rough terrain in the center and my elephants screened by my bow cav controlled the open flank where we both had deployed our cav. On this map between players of approximate skill, the Persians are going to won most of the time. However, change either army and it becomes a completely different situation. In fact, if our armies had been reversed, i.e. deployed on the opposite side, the terrain would have been more balanced.

I love the random map generator in FOG2 as it makes every game unique which keeps FOG2 from getting stale. We should not change that in my opinion. The more balanced and flexible army you take, the less likely the battlefield terrain hinders you. However less balanced armies, if you are willing to take the chance on unfavorable terrain, can be quite effective and we have seen that too.

Finally, Pete and Mike, I respect you both so please argue “nice.”

[stockwellpete]

Pete, in our game, even though I griped about the double drop combat loss that unhinged my line and hurt my chances to win, it was only one combat result. If I put myself in a spot where one combat loss early in the game defeats me, I have not been a very good general. In hindsight, I should have deployed the end of my line back a hex or two.

I was thinking more of the constant barrage of arrows that I faced throughout the entire game, Harvey. I think I was very lucky not to suffer more cohesion drops. On another day I would have lost as I had 3 fragmented units at the end. The initial double-drop was huge as well. I think those sort of results at the beginning of a game can often be decisive. I certainly felt very lucky at the end, anyway.

[stockwellpete]

I have just done a quick stat this morning on how the marginal victory rule is working. For those who are new to the FOG2DL, this is the first season where the loser of a match who has scored 50% or more gets one point and the winner of the match gets three points instead of four. The number of times these marginal victories have occurred are as follows (using the latest league tables and charts) . . .

Classical Antiquity - 8 out of 118 matches
Late Antiquity - 11 out of 112
Early Middle Ages - 10 out of 88
Biblical - 7 out of 85
Themed Event 2 out of 27

So the total so far is 38 out of 430, which is around 8.8% (or 1 match in 12). My own view is that this is working perfectly.

[stockwellpete]

Another statistic for you. I have looked at the winning margins in matches in Classical Antiquity from the start of the season up to the tables I posted yesterday. Not included are drawn matches, or matches where one player surrendered before the end.

Winning margin (pts)............Division A...........Division B...........Division C.........Division D.................Totals
41+.....................................2......................1.....................5....................1.........................9
31-40..................................4.......................6....................,7...................12........................29
21-30.................................10......................15...................13...................13........................51
=================================================================================================below this line are close matches, above it are the more one-sided matches
11-20..................................4.......................4.....................3....................5........................16
01-11..................................3.......................2.....................1....................1.........................7

Of the 112 matches in the sample, 89 were above the line and can mostly be considered as very comfortable wins, while just 23 (representing less than 25% of the total) can be considered "close matches". It is quite a surprising statistic given that the FOG2DL tries to put players in divisions with opponents of a similar standard. I think what it points to is that many of the games reach a "tipping point" quite early on in proceedings and if one player then has 2 or 3 extra melee units it is relatively easy for them to get flank attacks and destroy the opponent's army.

I will complete this statistic at the end of the season and I will also post it in the beta testers forum.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Well Pete, since you invited us to comment, I will comment -

I do not see luck as the big problem you do. I basically agree with Mike, except that I am a big fan of the reduced pushbacks, for the reasons you cited.

1) Warbands have a tendency to double drop in order to simulate their nature - aggressive and unreliable. If you pick Warbands for your army, you are taking a calculated risk - fearsome Impact and large unit size, but a tendency to chain rout if things start going wrong.

2) I really don't see winning margins as a good measure of how close a match was. Most often, the battle opens with indecisive skirmishing before the melee begins. At this point, both armies might be relatively close in rout % (say, 5%-15%), yet the battle will hang in the balance with casualties mounting, disrupts and frags occurring, and one side or another attempting to wheel their victorious cavalry in from the flank. At that point, one side often suddenly collapses. Not only does this make for exciting gameplay, it captures what I feel is the essence of battles in the era.

3) I strongly disagree that flank attacks shouldn't cause an automatic cohesion drop. It's one of the main mechanics of the game that maneuvering centers around, and is key to several unit interactions, and, finally, is realistic; hell, if the game wanted to be more realistic, the mere presence of foes on the flank should cause a cohesion test every turn. The simple rumored presence of enemies to the rear, which were in reality friendlies, caused men to flee! Troops in FoG2 already stick around to fight much more tenaciously than their historical counterparts, who, being human, tended to be rather skittish.

4) If you stick a general in your unit and he dies, well... that was also a calculated risk. That +50POA isn't free, and if your whole battle plan collapses because of one lost combat, you probably screwed up the maneuvering anyway.

5) Terrain is sort of a legitimate point; but I think this is more a weakness of the Digital League format, in which players choose an army to fight with in a variety of possibly unsuitable battlefields/matchups. This form of bad luck wouldn't be a factor anyway if the league could find a way to incorporate mirror matches, which is mostly what I've been playing of late (Potluck armies (Geographcial filter off), Potluck terrain, 1200 pts, Open Battle, Mirror Match) - if I roll Cappadocians vs Romans, well, I get to see if I can outperform my opponent in getting massacred.

6) Rallies are a very common source of complaints regarding luck. And, yes, luck is a factor. You know what else is? How many units were broken at once, how many have generals attached, unit quality of said units, and how many casualties those units took before breaking. It's common for many units to be broken earlier in a battle with relatively light losses in rapid succession, due to chain breaks or flank charges. The fact that a few of these will rally around the same time makes sense.

7) Battle size. I personally really dislike playing Large battles any more than once in awhile. It makes everything take longer, and I don't have infinite free time. I suspect it might change the balance between certain army types, but that doesn't particularly bother me.

I have to agree with Mike that the vast majority of the time people see bad luck, they are minimizing their own good luck, either in that battle or earlier ones, or not seeing that being put in a situation where bad luck loses you the battle is often your own fault.

I really only remember a single occasion clearly in which bad luck lost me a battle, and I really hadn't done anything wrong. I was facing RBS in a Hellenistic phalanx slugging match. In the first round of combat, my C-in-C, embedded in a central unit of Veteran Pikes, got stabbed in the face and died, causing a ripple of unease in my line. RBS's phalangites pressed the advantage, and my line collapsed. But let's face it - I took a risk putting my general there, and I didn't have a backup plan. I deemed the risk acceptable, and, well... it didn't work out. Things usually didn't for armies when their general got stabbed in the face, so I accepted that "these things happen" and moved on.

There is still a HIGH skill ceiling in this game. I consider myself pretty good, but not in the top tier, and there are a number of players who regularly demolish me. Against those who I tend to break even against in the long run, initial army comp, deployment, who has the better plan, skill at maneuvering and skirmishing have generally played a larger role in who comes out alive than luck. In my opinion, the luck factor is in a good place, and I would not want to see it altered. I think you want this to be a different game than it is, with a different design philosophy; if that game existed, it's possible I would play it and enjoy it, but I don't want FoGII to substantially change in its approach.

[Patrick Ward]

The last idea I have may not be possible at all and I am not even sure how to explain it in terms of computer programming. But imagine two players sitting at a table playing a game of TT FOG. Instead of rolling a die each time for combat or rallying etc, they would reach down into a bag that contained 60 discs (10 of them numbered 6, 10 of them numbered 5 and so on, all the way down to 10 of them numbered 1). When the score on the disc was fed into the game the disc would not be returned to the bag. So, if the player pulled out a 6, then there would only be nine 6's left in the bag and so the chance of getting another one for that player would be reduced a bit, and the other player would now have a slightly better chance than his opponent of getting the next 6. And so on. In this way the relative "luck element" between the two players would be moderated, but not removed altogether. Once a player had used 30 discs, the bag would be filled up again. Is anything like this possible?

This is basically what they do in Civ. Every time you roll bad, the subsequent roll has less chance of being bad. You roll good, the next roll has less chance of being good. Sid Meier did an interesting talk about it many years ago and its basically his way of mitigating players entirely false perceptions and understanding of what randomness actually is. It also means he's manipulating the gameplay in a way that would get him crucified by most serious wargamers. He's changing the results of a dice roll in ways that have nothing to do with game mechanics and if done deliberately by the player would be classed as cheating.

I can't be doing with Civ but I've seen the same technique used in some board game conversions and when done to extreme it becomes obvious and ruins it. When you know the odds of winning are improved simply by rolling more often, it kills the tension as thats just not how it works in real life.

[Geffalrus]

Well Pete, since you invited us to comment, I will comment -

I do not see luck as the big problem you do. I basically agree with Mike, except that I am a big fan of the reduced pushbacks, for the reasons you cited.

1) Warbands have a tendency to double drop in order to simulate their nature - aggressive and unreliable. If you pick Warbands for your army, you are taking a calculated risk - fearsome Impact and large unit size, but a tendency to chain rout if things start going wrong.

2) I really don't see winning margins as a good measure of how close a match was. Most often, the battle opens with indecisive skirmishing before the melee begins. At this point, both armies might be relatively close in rout % (say, 5%-15%), yet the battle will hang in the balance with casualties mounting, disrupts and frags occurring, and one side or another attempting to wheel their victorious cavalry in from the flank. At that point, one side often suddenly collapses. Not only does this make for exciting gameplay, it captures what I feel is the essence of battles in the era.

3) I strongly disagree that flank attacks shouldn't cause an automatic cohesion drop. It's one of the main mechanics of the game that maneuvering centers around, and is key to several unit interactions, and, finally, is realistic; hell, if the game wanted to be more realistic, the mere presence of foes on the flank should cause a cohesion test every turn. The simple rumored presence of enemies to the rear, which were in reality friendlies, caused men to flee! Troops in FoG2 already stick around to fight much more tenaciously than their historical counterparts, who, being human, tended to be rather skittish.

4) If you stick a general in your unit and he dies, well... that was also a calculated risk. That +50POA isn't free, and if your whole battle plan collapses because of one lost combat, you probably screwed up the maneuvering anyway.

5) Terrain is sort of a legitimate point; but I think this is more a weakness of the Digital League format, in which players choose an army to fight with in a variety of possibly unsuitable battlefields/matchups. This form of bad luck wouldn't be a factor anyway if the league could find a way to incorporate mirror matches, which is mostly what I've been playing of late (Potluck armies (Geographcial filter off), Potluck terrain, 1200 pts, Open Battle, Mirror Match) - if I roll Cappadocians vs Romans, well, I get to see if I can outperform my opponent in getting massacred.

6) Rallies are a very common source of complaints regarding luck. And, yes, luck is a factor. You know what else is? How many units were broken at once, how many have generals attached, unit quality of said units, and how many casualties those units took before breaking. It's common for many units to be broken earlier in a battle with relatively light losses in rapid succession, due to chain breaks or flank charges. The fact that a few of these will rally around the same time makes sense.

7) Battle size. I personally really dislike playing Large battles any more than once in awhile. It makes everything take longer, and I don't have infinite free time. I suspect it might change the balance between certain army types, but that doesn't particularly bother me.

I have to agree with Mike that the vast majority of the time people see bad luck, they are minimizing their own good luck, either in that battle or earlier ones, or not seeing that being put in a situation where bad luck loses you the battle is often your own fault.

I really only remember a single occasion clearly in which bad luck lost me a battle, and I really hadn't done anything wrong. I was facing RBS in a Hellenistic phalanx slugging match. In the first round of combat, my C-in-C, embedded in a central unit of Veteran Pikes, got stabbed in the face and died, causing a ripple of unease in my line. RBS's phalangites pressed the advantage, and my line collapsed. But let's face it - I took a risk putting my general there, and I didn't have a backup plan. I deemed the risk acceptable, and, well... it didn't work out. Things usually didn't for armies when their general got stabbed in the face, so I accepted that "these things happen" and moved on.

There is still a HIGH skill ceiling in this game. I consider myself pretty good, but not in the top tier, and there are a number of players who regularly demolish me. Against those who I tend to break even against in the long run, initial army comp, deployment, who has the better plan, skill at maneuvering and skirmishing have generally played a larger role in who comes out alive than luck. In my opinion, the luck factor is in a good place, and I would not want to see it altered. I think you want this to be a different game than it is, with a different design philosophy; if that game existed, it's possible I would play it and enjoy it, but I don't want FoGII to substantially change in its approach.

That's some wisdom right there. Doesn't make the sour taste of watching the unit you need to break, repeatedly Hold Firm, any sweeter, however. Especially if you've just watched your key unit do a cohesion double drop. Such is the bitter cocktail of an ancient general.......

[MikeC_81]

Firaxis' remake of the XCOM series also did this on 2 of the 4 difficulty settings to help players on the easier difficulties. Pete, I am not saying that luck is never a factor. But risk management definitely is a skill and FoG2 is all about risk management. Every correct move you make in this game forces your opponent to need better dice roll to beat you. Every mistake you make does the opposite. It is entirely possible for two players of equal skill play each other and the winner is not determined solely, or largely, or even marginally by luck but rather by their specific actions in the game.

Even in games where luck may have played a significant role, it is unlikely that the player on the losing end could not have made better moves to improve the odds, even if luck was so extreme the final result would have been defeat. Those games where luck was so bad nothing could have changed the end result are exceedingly rare in my opinion.

FoG2 has many facets and hidden depth. There are players, even very good players, who still have very little idea how to approach certain matchups. Everyone still makes mistakes. Every game I am still learning something new. I can only suggest that you change your mindset when viewing outcomes in this game. You seem to feel that luck is what is causing you to not play this game actively anymore which is a shame since you run the only regular player-organized event. While it is not easy to reproduce game states since FoG2 is very primitive in that area, I have always found that taking a few screenshots during the opening phases, and having a few more as the battle progresses is very useful for post-game review. Having screenshots also means you can post on the forums and have an AAR discussion on alternatives in unit picks, and overall strategy and improve.

I also will repeat what I said before about larger armies, it won't do much to reduce variance. But it will make the games take way longer than before and that is something not very appealing to me.

[SnuggleBunnies]

This sort of discussion is precisely why we need a replay feature, to analyze each other's games.

[rbodleyscott]

I really only remember a single occasion clearly in which bad luck lost me a battle, and I really hadn't done anything wrong. I was facing RBS in a Hellenistic phalanx slugging match. In the first round of combat, my C-in-C, embedded in a central unit of Veteran Pikes, got stabbed in the face and died, causing a ripple of unease in my line. RBS's phalangites pressed the advantage, and my line collapsed. But let's face it - I took a risk putting my general there, and I didn't have a backup plan. I deemed the risk acceptable, and, well... it didn't work out. Things usually didn't for armies when their general got stabbed in the face, so I accepted that "these things happen" and moved on.

Yes, you really were robbed in that battle. Your army had the advantage of terrain (more of your troops reached the hill first), I thought I was going to be defeated, but luck sealed your fate. The fact that I remember it so clearly after a year indicates how few battles really are decided by luck. Mostly when I have "bad luck" I can see what I did wrong to make that "bad luck" have so much effect.