Slitherine

Here here SRW1962. You hit the nail right on the head. I couldnt have put it better myself!!!

well, FoG has become a style of life for many of us, I use to spend 1-2 hours every day playing it...this notwithstanding, it could and should be made better. and the wildly disparate combat results one gets in totally identical situations are IMHO a fault to be corrected

Why does anyone believe that any two combats should pan out according to a steep bell curve? Nothing in history suggests combat was not an extremely chancy business. None of the ancients seem to have believed that chance was not a significant factor. At first I thought the odds were very stranfge in the game. But now I think they're about right. And making them more predictable would be a bad thing - not least because it would favour armies with higher quality troops unduly (they are already quite good enough).

if chance must have such a significant role, why have better commanders and better armies consistently beaten their opponents?

Well it is my experience that, on the whole, the general who makes the best dispositions and the best tactical choices usually triumphs in the game. Not always, certainly. But then the best general did not always win historically as Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Caesar, Philip of Macedon, etc could vouch for.

I'd regard myself as a fairly average player of FoG. When I win, it's usually because my initial set up has given me an advantage or because my army has outclassed the opposition. My tactical choices often seem to go awry.

All those wanting less randomness are basically saying 'Good troops should win'. Well in the game, armies of good troops (superiors and above, like Romans) usually do - unless the opposing general is a Pantherboy... and has used terrain or tactical choices better.

it's also a game...I like that my little velites just might hold up against those cataphracts or pikes...but it's just a game...the dice/luck make it interesting and fun and unpredictable...keep it that way

Yes, quite.

I won a game recently where a unit of disrupted, full strength average javelinmen routed a unit of undisrupted, full strength superior light chariots with what was literally the last click of my turn (and I'd have lost next turn for certain). Was I lucky? Hell yes. Is that occurence usual in the game? No. I've never seen it happen before and clicked the button without hope. Should my opponent feel hard done by? Hell yes! I would (in a sporting way) but the fact is both armies were virtually worn out. If the opposing army had not been within two points of its break limit, the unlikely victory of my javelinmen would not have mattered. Superficially it decided the game. But actually it didn't. the game was decided by all the combats, not just that one.

Sometimes one does get a run of bad luck. I've seen it happen to people I've beaten. But there are several players who have suffered astonishing bad luck and still beaten me...

well, it's of course a matter of taste
i'm more comfortable with more average less unpredictable combat results

Like many people I've seen a few very unlikely combat results - the most extreme being when, in close combat, a unit of average LF slingers inflicted 35% casualties in three turns against superior cataphracts. The cataphracts took 17%/13%/5% over the same turns, were fragmented and useless. To try to remedy the situation, in turn 2 I'd charged the slingers in the rear with two units of horse archers, both of which took higher casualties than they inflicted and became disorderd - the slingers also disordered, but clobbered the now fragmented cataphracts once more before taking enough casualties to break them from the LH. THe cataphracts only caused about 6% casualties on the slingers throughout.

A very surprising occurence, but it's by far the most extreme event I've seen in well over 100 games against the AI. Surprise one-off results are much more commmon, but on average I see the kind of results I expect (I've not played the TT game by the way, nor do I own a copy). In general the effect of combat is pretty consistent with the TT rules I've used over the years (WRG 5th and 6th ed., DBA). Fights I expect to win I generally do in the end, and historically even the best troops could go into sudden panics and get swept away.

I ignore the percentage "chances" shown before combats, as I don't find them reliable or useful (in fact I think they're very often misleading). I work by what my historical knowledge (and, I suppose, experience of other rulesets) leads me to believe is likely to happen, and averaging out over many combats I think my expectations are pretty much met.

I've had the same happen on the table. A BG of LF held up and beat Companions. We still talk about that one around Caesar's table!

In the end, you can end up rolling all misses and the LF even just one hit each time. That's what makes it a game worth playing.

The problem with random factor is that when you win is fun but when you loose battles by dices isnt funny, for me see 2 attacks with 75% of win and loose THE TWO assaults is not funny, is frustrating because you search a tactical advantage only to see dices doing their job. In a game with more than 50% of luck factor things like bonus or malus are innecesary because HEY!!! if dices decide the final result even when you have all bonus in your side dont use a bonus system is waste CPU time!!!

The problem for me are in the unrealistic casualties system, i dont understand why a unit in D status can inflict 10 or more casualties when are attacked by superior units in quality and steady, is more logical that D units in the best situation can inflict 1 or 2 % extra casualties to attacker in the average situation suffer 2-3% more causalties than attacker and in F more casualties not a unrealistic 1% VS 15% because this things for me break the game.

I think at this point we've more or less beat this one to death, people have their own opinions and tastes and I doubt they'll be changed by what's in this thread (I know mine haven't!).

But one thing which is think is just completely goofy in this game is combat resolution in woods. Whatever troops of whatever type that I put in woods are regularly turfed out by whoever attacks them, including cavalry. Sometimes, inexiplacably, the odd unit will make a stand in the woods (slinger vs legion), but I have absolutely no confidence that anyone in the woods will stick around.

To me this seems completely illogical--whoever is in woods should in general be difficult to push out, especially by cavalry. I am the only one with this experience, and this reaction?

Assuming that I have understood the rules what you describe may happen.

If both units have 4 attacks (a usual amount but it can vary) then that is 4 die-rolls.
The D status unit loses 1 dice for being disrupted. The superior unit gets to re-roll any '1's

However is the D unit rolls 5,5,6 that is 3 hits and the S units may roll 2,3,3,1 & reroll the 1 as 5 - that's one hit & they lose the combat. It is unlikely but it can happen. Then the % losses are based on how many hits taken so the S unit takes more.

We are also in the roles of army commanders not unit commanders - how do you know that your S unit did not get beaten because the unit commander, beloved by his men, was cut down at the start of the combat & his men lost faith. Or there was a small ditch they could not get around easily. Is this not why we have the die-rolls?

Apologies if I has misunderstood the rules though.

petergarnett wrote:We are also in the roles of army commanders not unit commanders - how do you know that your S unit did not get beaten because the unit commander, beloved by his men, was cut down at the start of the combat & his men lost faith. Or there was a small ditch they could not get around easily.

I agree with these comments to a certain extent, that's why wargames always feature an element of chance. But what's the rational for the fact that the casualty ratio can then be (and very often is) wildly different for the same units the next turn, when they haven't moved? we can pile up hypothetical situations all we want, but at some point the results just seem odd.

I'm intrigued that many of hte people defending the role of luck are TT gamers and wonder if TT games might rely more on dice and complex combat resolution tables than the many board wargames that I have played over the years...

76mm wrote:I'm intrigued that many of the people defending the role of luck are TT gamers and wonder if TT games might rely more on dice and complex combat resolution tables than the many board wargames that I have played over the years...

That seems to sum it up, yes. We (tabletop players) are used to a significant element of luck, and regard it as a realistic part of the simulation. We make our plans accordingly, and do not rely too much on our good troops always winning.

As has been said, it is a matter of taste, but also of what one is accustomed to.

If anything, FOG PC has less luck than FOG TT, because although it uses the same dice rolls, 400 point PC armies have more than twice as many units than are typical in the TT game, which mitigates the effects of the wildest results over the course of the battle.

rbodleyscott wrote:If anything, FOG PC has less luck than FOG TT, because although it uses the same dice rolls, 400 point PC armies have more than twice as many units than are typical in the TT game, which mitigates the effects of the wildest results over the course of the battle.

Very interesting...and I don't like playing the 400 pt PC games because they are too luck-dependent!

In your average board wargame (at least the ones I play), there are often hundreds, sometimes thousands, of counters and while unlucky die rolls certainly occur, they generall don't result in the sudden and catastrophic collapse of your entire line...

The % lost is based upon how many hits you take (& if you take more than your opponents it's higher anyway).

In the example I gave above the S unit took 3 hits & more than the D unit so it loses 9 - 18%. The D unit only too 1 hit so only loses 0.25 - 3%.

Taking more hits, i.e. losing the combat, makes a big difference from what I can see.

In the next combat the S unit may inflict 2 hits & only suffer 1 hit itself. That would mean it won the 2nd combat & only lost 0.25 - 3%. However the D unit would now take 5 - 14%.

This assumes that they both pass any cohesion tests & that is where the losses are used again for a modifer - if you lose a combat you get a minus on the test.

As Richard says TT version is a lot more involved than many boardgames (GMT's GBoH uses a couple of charts & then 1 die roll for a single combat).

TimW wrote:Like many people I've seen a few very unlikely combat results - the most extreme being when, in close combat, a unit of average LF slingers inflicted 35% casualties in three turns against superior cataphracts. The cataphracts took 17%/13%/5% over the same turns, were fragmented and useless. To try to remedy the situation, in turn 2 I'd charged the slingers in the rear with two units of horse archers, both of which took higher casualties than they inflicted and became disorderd - the slingers also disordered, but clobbered the now fragmented cataphracts once more before taking enough casualties to break them from the LH. THe cataphracts only caused about 6% casualties on the slingers throughout.

A very surprising occurence, but it's by far the most extreme event I've seen in well over 100 games against the AI. Surprise one-off results are much more commmon, but on average I see the kind of results I expect (I've not played the TT game by the way, nor do I own a copy). In general the effect of combat is pretty consistent with the TT rules I've used over the years (WRG 5th and 6th ed., DBA). Fights I expect to win I generally do in the end, and historically even the best troops could go into sudden panics and get swept away.

I ignore the percentage "chances" shown before combats, as I don't find them reliable or useful (in fact I think they're very often misleading). I work by what my historical knowledge (and, I suppose, experience of other rulesets) leads me to believe is likely to happen, and averaging out over many combats I think my expectations are pretty much met.

First off, those darn slingers! The little buggers keep turning up like a mythical beast to plague unsuspecting wargamers! And after they have done the business they disappear in a puff of smoke! I encountered them once, it was not pretty they were disguised as peasants and my noble knights were unhorsed and sticked like pigs!

Seriously though, if we look at that specific example it is very easily explained and hopefully will explain why skirmishers in general seem to do better than they should against close formation melee troops. Close formation troops that are designed to physically engage in combat need to close to contact, but skirmishers are not in any soet of formed body, so this presents a problem to the melee troops. Picture this, the cataphracts are trotting forward trying to skewer or bash the slingers, meanwhile the slingers are trying to avoid getting up close and personal so they dart about and presumably use their slings at extremely close range! (slings were the missile weapon of choice against cataphracts as they were so damn effective against the armoured men, whether this is taken into account in the rules I'm not sure though). Now, if the cataphracts corner the slingers as it were, they will kill them for sure, but if by luck or cunning the slingers avoid the cataphracts then they could do a lot of damage at such short range. Picture it like a featherweight boxer vs a very slow heavyweight in a very big ring or better still David vs Goliath!

In wargames it is accepted that melee is a very complex affair that may not actually even be physical blows as such, but may simply be a very close range firefight especially with troops that have range weapons. In the case of missile troops vs melee troops the missile troops will desperately try to use their range weapon for as long as they can whilst the melee troops must close to within arms length to use their weapon. So, when your melee troops enage some skirmishers and seem to do badly try to picture what is actually being represented by the combat, it may not take they pain away, but it will make you realise why you are hurting.

Scutarii wrote:The problem with random factor is that when you win is fun but when you loose battles by dices isnt funny, for me see 2 attacks with 75% of win and loose THE TWO assaults is not funny, is frustrating because you search a tactical advantage only to see dices doing their job. In a game with more than 50% of luck factor things like bonus or malus are innecesary because HEY!!! if dices decide the final result even when you have all bonus in your side dont use a bonus system is waste CPU time!!!

The problem for me are in the unrealistic casualties system, i dont understand why a unit in D status can inflict 10 or more casualties when are attacked by superior units in quality and steady, is more logical that D units in the best situation can inflict 1 or 2 % extra casualties to attacker in the average situation suffer 2-3% more causalties than attacker and in F more casualties not a unrealistic 1% VS 15% because this things for me break the game.

The thing about games is sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, it comes to all of us and its how you cope with the losing part that defines you. I have just as much fun win or lose, in fact so long as its a good hard fought battle it doesn't matter if your attitude is good.

As for realistic casualty systems, well I must admit this is not anything like realistic, as its a game, nobody gets hurt (lest you count pride) and everyone gets to play another day. It is a game, its a good game, but nonetheless its a game. The designers have read their books, and played their games and have come up with something they feel gives a good game of ancient warfare with toy soldiers. I like it, and I think I am well read in ancient history and tactics, and I find it a good representation in an enjoyable game form of ancient warfare.

Before making claims about 50% luck you really should do the math! Where on Earth you got that figure from other than picking it out of thin air is beyond me!

If you want a game that is about the good troops always winning then you need to stop playing wargames as that doesn't always happen in my experience, and if it did it would become incredibly tedious in next to no time at all.

Well, i never talk about better troops allways win, i say that units that are in a bad situation at least dont do a 15% caualties to attackers, i repeat the same example, HF scutarii average in D status attacked flank by heavy cavalry superior steady charging enemy flank, result 15 scutarii dead vs 181 enemies.... for me here all the bonus i have dont do nothing because dices decide and this result is a mixture of a bad casualties system and excesive luck factor.

Yoy say that luck prevents superior allways winning.. yes but it work in the 2 sides and average troops can suffer bad dices