Slitherine

I do not know whether this forum is the right place to raise such a point, but I have found the combat resolution mechanism paradoxical and unfair, especially because I roll an awful lot of 1! Let me explain. Imagine BG A vs BG B, both counting 6 bases - it does not matter with type or quality for my purposes. IMPACT PHASE: A scores 3 hits, B scores 5 hits. B wins. A passes the CT and rolls a 6 as saving roll. No loss of bases. B - me!!! - rolls 1 as "saving roll" and loses 1 bases. COMBAT PHASE. B has "won" the impact but he's now fighting at disadvantage. A scores again 3 hits, B - lucky him - again 5 hits. A passes again the CT and rolls again a 6 as saving roll. No loss of bases once again. B - unlucky boy! - rolls again 1 as "saving roll" and loses another base. There’s no point in me carrying on, sure you understood what I'm trying to say. BG B has "won" twice but it's now fighting 4 vs 6 bases and is very close to its breaking point.

I do not like saving rolls, I must admit. A battle field - you know - is a very democratic place. If a peasant from a mob swings efficiently his club on the head of a beautiful equipped knight, the knight is lost. No space for quasi-immortal "High Elf" on a battle field. No magic on a battle field. Once you are hit you are very likely a dead man. Sorry about this exhibition of evil.

I have a proposal for an amendment of FoG rules. Instead of allowing a +2 bonus to the winning party, why not instead allocating a +2 malus to the losing party? Go back to my example now. Impact phase: A loses 1 base automatically (5+2=7 hits) and he has to roll to save the extra casualty. He manages rolling 6. B has now to save rolling a 4+ (he underwent 3 hits). He fails and loses 1 base. Combat phase: A loses 1 base automatically (5+2=7 hits) and he has to roll to save the extra casualty. He manages rolling again 6. B has now to save rolling a 4+ (it underwent 3 hits). He fails and loses again 1 base. After two phases both BGs have lost 2 bases and they are close to their breaking points. FAIR MUCH FAIRER!!!!! With the actual mechanism, BG A might undergo 10 hits with no lose of bases at all!! With the amendment proposed it would pay at least with two loses. BG B would not be better off but at least it would fight against a weakened opponent:evil:

Giuseppe

FOG is by design a low-casualty game. Adding +2 malus would make melee more deadly and more decisive.

The situation you're describing, where one side loses massive amounts of troops while the other consistently loses morale, is highly unlikely and describes an outlier scenario. Rules are designed towards probabilities, and you can't redesign the system around exceptional circumstances. Yes, it's possible to lose troops to casualties and still win in terms of morale, but it's not as likely as the system working "like it's supposed to".

To provide an explanation for what you're describing, let's say that BG A is uniformly trained to an "Average" level, while half of BG B is trained particularly poorly trained while its core troops are hardened veterans, yielding an overall "Average" rating like BG A. When the two BGs battle, the poorly trained troops of BG B will die off or scatter quickly once their individual skirmishes go badly, but the troops from BG A will start to waver as a whole because of the core of veterans carving swaths through their lines with little retaliation. An attentive captain will see that, even though BG B is faring well in battle, they've lost half their number and should be withdrawn or risk annihilation if they press their luck.

Or you could stop rolling 1s so much! Dice are inherently fair, regardless of how the short-term appears.

"I base my calculations on the expectation that luck will be against me " attributted to Napoleon Bonaparte

"I do not want a good General, I want a lucky one" attributted to Napoleon Bonaparte

"Get some new dice" attributted to me



Alan

Well if you keep rolling 1s no set of rules will feel fair ... ours are nicer thn most as we let you re-roll some of them
Yes indeed one of those impressive achievments that requires some tactical readjsutoment to deal with.


Your basic problem is that you are suffering too many hits while winning, and the rules are designed to differentiate this from a safe win by putting you at some risk. If you want to avoid base losses entirely you need to have opponents hitting less than 3 times on average. This means having 6 dice on a "-" needing 5s against you for 2 hits on average and no test at all. The rules are set up to create risk in situations where you have expensive wins. The rules are designed to make you deal with risk and shocks as a real general had to, more realistic than excessive micro predictability IMHO.

So you lost on this occasion - admitedly against the odds. Note the no of hits is just an intemedaite mechanic - there are no prizes for this per se.

You had to do it twice to have much effect as 1 base loss is pretty minor.
So the odds are roughly
1 in 36
x by the odds of suffering 3 hits both times - which will be roughly 35% on evens and much less on +/- = about 1 in 300
x by odds of other guy not coming off even worse as this is really what matters and is very bad if you get ++/--
I would guestimate about 1000-1 against.

Happens to us all at times - but its only 1 BG and as I have said before a theme of FOG is "battles are not won or lost by a single BG".

If it keeps happening to you keep posting it up and take a prize as the most unlucky Fogger on the system.!

Si

"especially because I roll an awful lot of 1!"
No you don't. Well, not unless you're using weighted dice. You don't roll any more 1s than the rest of us.

How many games of FOG have you played to come to the conclusion that the combat mechanism is unfair ?
It sounds like you've had one or two unlucky combats that have led you to a wrong conclusion. The combat mechanism is "fair" in that the troops with the advantage will, on average win, and the bigger the advantage (POAs, numbers, quality) the more likely you are to win and the quicker you will do so.

Thank you all for your kind and comforting replies, especially to Alan with his witty quotations. I'll definitively get some new dice!

Giuseppe

Polkovnik wrote:"especially because I roll an awful lot of 1!"
No you don't. Well, not unless you're using weighted dice. You don't roll any more 1s than the rest of us.

How many games of FOG have you played to come to the conclusion that the combat mechanism is unfair ?
It sounds like you've had one or two unlucky combats that have led you to a wrong conclusion. The combat mechanism is "fair" in that the troops with the advantage will, on average win, and the bigger the advantage (POAs, numbers, quality) the more likely you are to win and the quicker you will do so.

Not meaning to sound bad, but try only to fight when you have an advantage. I know it sounds daft but don't fight were your opponent wants you to fight him. I like the aspect and feel of FOG yes there are times when the dice go against you but any rules are like that. Enjoy the games and let the dice sort themsleves out.

Thank you all for your kind and comforting replies, especially to Alan with his witty quotations. I'll definitively get some new dice!

Giuseppe

And I hope you will come and repost when that string of 6s passes you Death Rolls with 5 hits and results in a late recogery ....

Most of all have fun with the game.

Si

The way I look at FoG combat is that all that matters is the end result i.e. did either side lose cohesion or either side lose a base.

The hits in the middle of a combat are nice and exciting but when your opponent rolls 12 for the CT and 6 for the death roll it all becomes accademic. Yes it gives you a tale for the bar when you are bemoaning your luck but in the end what matters is for example that you hit the enemy BG in the flank with your lancers and the shrugged it off not that you managed 4 hits, then they had a CT with -1 for disrupted, -1 for lancers, -1 for 1 hit per 3 and they would have had another -1 if they hadn't rolled 5+ on all three dice so they should have been rolling a CT with a -4 on it but then they rolled a 12 anyway.

The end outcome is exactly the same as everyone missed with every combat dice and in practice about as likely.

Is the combat system fair? Yes
Are there a wide range of outcomes? sort of
Are the chances of each outcome complex to calculate? you bet

abal wrote: "Get some new dice" attributted to me



Alan

From the man who rallies LF in close combat vs non-LF from "Frag'd" to "Lovin' It" not once, but twice!!

Steve P

Can we introduce a rule like "If your opponent has exaggerated and repeated stroke of lucks you automatically win the game"? I remember at least a couple of games I played well and lost orribly.

And so few remember the games they played badly and won!

Si

marioslaz wrote:Can we introduce a rule like "If your opponent has exaggerated and repeated stroke of lucks you automatically win the game"? I remember at least a couple of games I played well and lost orribly.

What Simon said.

And then again perhaps you only think you played well.

Could it be that smaller BG's have less chance of losing bases in the system.

Assuming the enemy is equal in numbers and PoA;

If a 4 base BG wins and takes 2 hits (4 enemy dice at 4+ scoring 2 hits) it cannot lose a base.

An 8 base BG wins and takes 4 hits (8 enemy dice at 4+ scoring 4 hits) , losing a base on a 1 or 2.

A 12 base BG wins and takes 6 hits (12 enemy dice at 4+ scoring 6 hits), losing a base on 1 to 5.

Are smaller BG's better at absorbing damage ?

Yes but they lose out on cohesion tests. -1 for shooting at 1 per 2 and -1 for melee at 1 per 3 hits. They are more manouverable though, which I think is a bigger advantage.

philqw78 wrote:Yes but they lose out on cohesion tests. -1 for shooting at 1 per 2 and -1 for melee at 1 per 3 hits. They are more manouverable though, which I think is a bigger advantage.

And, of course, once they do lose a base, they are immediately on -1 for all CTs therafter, and only need 1 hit from shooting to trigger a test.

There are pros and cons, but I would generally use all mounted troops (except undrilled cataphracts) in 4s by preference. Foot are a different matter - small BGs are useful for drilled troops but not for undrilled. Only a few lists allow BGs of 4 HF or MF - they are generally those who were renowned for their small unit flexibility, such as the Romans.

The big dissadvantage of 4 base BGs is the impact of a base loss.

Average quality 4 base BGs are also rather brittle. Lose one base and you are only one base loss from autobreak. It happens a lot with average quality knights, so much so that if I use average knights now I field them in 6s.

stenic wrote:From the man who rallies LF in close combat vs non-LF from "Frag'd" to "Lovin' It" not once, but twice!!

Steve P

Clearly said by the opponent who failed to ask said man to put his dice in a glass of water to test for weightedness

Ian