Slitherine

I have not played the game in depth until the last couple of seasons of TDC but here are some of the rather odd mechanisms:

Cavalry/elephants can move backwards 3 squares in one turn yet take a whole turn to about face?

Impossible to actually trap cavalry even with cavalry on either sides, it will escape through any available squares, ignoring zones of control.

On related note, escape paths through multiple zones of control, especially cavalry's, is crazy.

Cavalry pursuit. Ok there are examples in history where they ran off causing the loss of battle. BUT it didn't happen all the times; as a matter of fact there are more examples of the cavalry staying in control than going out of control so it shouldn't be automatic at a minimum. -- and does it need to be EVERY unit in the combat which pursue? Out of control cavalry is out of proportions with historical data.

Infantry lines should be able to advance and simply enter the square enemy skirmishers vacate/escape from, instead of running out of formation. Too much of the game is lights goading heavy infantry or cavalry into pursuit and out of formation.

lights troops have an outsized influence. In historical accounts, you don't hear about them once battle starts or hardly at all.

I remember reading the combat routines are run 100 times. Is that also true for morale checks? I ask because a unit can collapse in 2 turns or 10 and it's just maddening.

fogman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 14, 2025 8:40 pm I remember reading the combat routines are run 100 times. Is that also true for morale checks?

The combat result prediction percentages are formed by running the numbers a number of times. The combat and morale rolls are only done once (the latter is only done once per turn regardless of how many times the unit is shot, charged etc).

I'd rather have morale checks run one hundred times to reduce odd results than combat. Morale checks have a bigger influence on outcome of a fight than combat results. It sure does seem that morale checks results are more 'unexpected.'

fogman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 7:00 pm I'd rather have morale checks run one hundred times to reduce odd results than combat. Morale checks have a bigger influence on outcome of a fight than combat results. It sure does seem that morale checks results are more 'unexpected.'

It seems you misunderstood what MVP7 wrote. It's just the combat results PREDICTION, as seen in the Detailed Tooltips, that is determined by running the combat 1000 times. The actual combat is run just once.

BTW, cavalry and elephants can only move back 2 tiles, not 3.

If the actual combat and morale rolls were averages of 100 the results would be borderline deterministic.

Averaging the results of a very large sample would theoretically be deterministic. On a much smaller sample, not so, since each throw is an independent event. It would attenuate extreme results.

But I was thinking more about bell curving to reduce the likelihood of extreme outcomes. You don't want the game to be chess but you do want your game to reflect the tactical advantage you gain on the field; some of the most annoying aspect of which is raw troops standing up to superior troops for multiple turns [the Rambo effect], attack from behind that result in nothing more than the one automatic cohesion loss. FoG 1 failed in that respect and there are pages and pages of complaints.

fogman wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 7:50 pm Averaging the results of a very large sample would theoretically be deterministic. On a much smaller sample, not so, since each throw is an independent event. It would attenuate extreme results.

But I was thinking more about bell curving to reduce the likelihood of extreme outcomes. You don't want the game to be chess but you do want your game to reflect the tactical advantage you gain on the field; some of the most annoying aspect of which is raw troops standing up to superior troops for multiple turns [the Rambo effect], attack from behind that result in nothing more than the one automatic cohesion loss. FoG 1 failed in that respect and there are pages and pages of complaints.

The biggest complaint about FoG 1 was the brain dead choice of Melee focused troops i.e. higher Armor variants. And the reason is infrequent morale drops during the Impact phase. Calculations weren't as robust as well, so it was harder to get -1 for the lost combat badly modifier.

You want bell curve distribution because otherwise timing aspect wont matter. At high level you have to think through pin scenarious. If combats were super deterministic you couldn't tactically hold wings and/or center while acting on one of the flanks. That way units concentration matters way more i.e. reserves. You have to time to help losing scenarious or push stalled ones.

The most common example is 1v1 cavalry fights the can last 8 turns of melee combat, then 3-4 turns of pursuit, and 3-4 returns to return to the battle. Given that you can see how important are retreats, backward moves and meatshields designed to pin high costed units or threat flanks. Thats why in posted videos you often see missuse of the wide flanking envelopments maneuveres (0 impact) and light horses tactical properties (best pinners) being wasted.