Casualty Rates too Symmetric?

[76mm]

Ho hum, another boring day in the office, so I thought I'd post this...

While these rules generally feel right to me, the casualty outcomes seem a bit off...

From my reading of ancient battles, it seems like the casualty rates were generally, or at least very often, rather lopsided, with the winning side suffering a couple of hundred casaulties. and the losing side losing thousands.

In this game, however, generally the winning side suffers fewer casualties than the loser, but not by much. I guess it is hard to say, but do the experts consider this "realistic"?

[hidde]

I belive that most casualties occured when one side broke and fled. The real slaughter starts when the game ends so to speak.
Others are more informed, I'm sure and can correct me if I'm wrong

[IainMcNeil]

Yes, we only count casualties up until the point at which one side breaks and runs. Casualties are not necessarily dead - just no longer fighting. It could be injured, unconcious, dazed, or they just run away or panicked. Basuically anyone who is not fit to fight for the rest of the battle.

[76mm]

I belive that most casualties occured when one side broke and fled. The real slaughter starts when the game ends so to speak.

Yeah, this is what I had in mind...it seems like in the game both sides suffer plenty of casualties during the battle, whereas IRL most of these casualties would be sustained as our game ends, as you put it. Although as Ian mentions, in the game the casualties include anybody who is combat ineffective, which I guess could include hordes of fleeing troops.

[deeter]

In the miniatures game, upon which this game is based, there is a chance of losing an entire stand based on how many hits were taken and whether you've won or lost and if it was from shooting, etc. Many combats see no losses. Breaking cohesion is the key. In that respect the TT game is closer to what you have in mind.

Just a thought for those who don't have the TT rules, there is a very nice QRS available for download on this website that does a good job of laying out POAs, numbers of dice, etc. that is applicable to the PC game and much handier I think than the online help.

Deeter

[jamespcrowley]

Just a thought for those who don't have the TT rules, there is a very nice QRS available for download on this website that does a good job of laying out POAs, numbers of dice, etc. that is applicable to the PC game and much handier I think than the online help.

Deeter

Whereabouts is that? Can't see it in downloads or technical support.

[RyanDG]

Just a thought for those who don't have the TT rules, there is a very nice QRS available for download on this website that does a good job of laying out POAs, numbers of dice, etc. that is applicable to the PC game and much handier I think than the online help.

Deeter

Whereabouts is that? Can't see it in downloads or technical support.

This is probably what he's referencing:
http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/Latest ... aylist.pdf

It's for the table top game, but its definitely applicable for the pc game for those who aren't familiar with the tt rules.

[batesmotel]

In the miniatures game, upon which this game is based, there is a chance of losing an entire stand based on how many hits were taken and whether you've won or lost and if it was from shooting, etc. Many combats see no losses. Breaking cohesion is the key. In that respect the TT game is closer to what you have in mind.

Just a thought for those who don't have the TT rules, there is a very nice QRS available for download on this website that does a good job of laying out POAs, numbers of dice, etc. that is applicable to the PC game and much handier I think than the online help.

Deeter

I'm not sure at the moment whether the PC game uses the a flat casualty range based on the number of hits in any type of combat or missile fire, or if it does reflect the TT rules adjustment that reduce the probability of casualites when a BG did not lose a combat or when it suffers hits from missile fire. The V1.03 version on line help discussion of manpower loses seems to imply that it is just a range based on the number of hits suffered, which would definitely lead to loses being closer to even between winners and losers. I've tried watching the Display Window entries for loses but they don't seem to indicate anythiny very helpful other than that BGs always seem to have a 0 roll for strength loses.

Chris

[deeter]

That's the one. Quite useful.

Deeter

[Morbio]

Another, slightly linked oddity I've noticed is regarding the destruction of routed units with nowhere to run. At present, the game just anihilates them with no consequences. However, I find it difficult to believe that a unit that is being put to the sword wouldn't fight to the death and inflict casualties in return. I also find it odd that it all happens in one turn. Surely, it would be more realistic for a percentage, e.g. 25% to be killed per turn until they are gone? Admittedly, this would tie up the attacking units which may be viewed as a negative point, but it's certainly more realistic.

In a similar scenario in Medieval II Total War, the fight continues until the defenders are all killed or the attacker opens up a pathway for the defenders to rout. This would make sense, but it would allow the attacker to be able to disengage from a routing unit, which doesn't seem to be allowed at the moment.

[RyanDG]

Another, slightly linked oddity I've noticed is regarding the destruction of routed units with nowhere to run. At present, the game just anihilates them with no consequences. However, I find it difficult to believe that a unit that is being put to the sword wouldn't fight to the death and inflict casualties in return. I also find it odd that it all happens in one turn. Surely, it would be more realistic for a percentage, e.g. 25% to be killed per turn until they are gone? Admittedly, this would tie up the attacking units which may be viewed as a negative point, but it's certainly more realistic.

In a similar scenario in Medieval II Total War, the fight continues until the defenders are all killed or the attacker opens up a pathway for the defenders to rout. This would make sense, but it would allow the attacker to be able to disengage from a routing unit, which doesn't seem to be allowed at the moment.

The problem with the comparison to Medieval Total War, is that in the Total War series, while it is true that the soldiers are divided up into groups, each individual soldier is modeled and realized as its own statistic in game. In Field of Glory, this concept is handled a lot more abstractly. The easiest way to view this is that the existence of the battle groups represent less of the individual soldiers making up the group, but rather the representational space that the group takes up. Once a unit routs, if it is able to travel in the same direction, the battle group will maintain its cohesion in the sense that all of the soldiers routing in one direction will still generally take up a ground of space that would ultimately be an issue to try to cross through. If a battle group is surrounded or boxed in with no where to retreat to, the rout would be a lot more chaotic and as a result, the individual soldiers for that group will split into lots of different direction and thusly the space that the battle group would represent would no longer be tactically deterrent at the scale/abstract model that the game uses.

If Field of Glory attempted to represent individual soldiers of units like Total War does, I can see this as being in issue - but since it doesn't - and the battle groups are more about the space that the units represent - its a nonissue for me. Just my thoughts at least.

[deadtorius]

It follows the TT rules int hat sense. If a broken unit would contact an enemy they can't evade around they are instead destroyed and removed from the table. The PC game follows the same principle and removes them. trying to evade around friends and enemies is much easier in the PC game than the TT game, due to the TT game being linear and the PC game being hex based.

[Morbio]

Please forgive me if I've added confusion to this.

I'm not suggesting the game should allow the unit should split and rout in various different directions.

What I am suggesting is that unless the attackers open up a hex for the whole unit to rout through, then the unit should continue to fight, i.e. inflict damage on the attackers, until it is wiped out. This would continue to be an automated attack (as units do when they are persuing routed units) and not need the player to attack.

[neil123]

What I am suggesting is that unless the attackers open up a hex for the whole unit to rout through, then the unit should continue to fight, i.e. inflict damage on the attackers, until it is wiped out. This would continue to be an automated attack (as units do when they are persuing routed units) and not need the player to attack.

You may want to consider the fact the beaten and surrounded units have simply reached the stage where they simply lay down their weapons and surrendered to help rationalise whats happening.

[Morbio]

I must admit I visualised them being killed because it looked like a combat. I guess that's reasonable to think of them as surrendering in the same way as sometime routed units, that reach an impassable object (e.g. river), sometimes take losses even with no unit near - which I now visualise as soldiers leaving the group, going into hiding and becoming dispersed amongst the local area.

I suppose if they were surrendering then there should be an impact on the attackers in terms of having to deploy units into guarding them.... but then I think trying to put too much realism into a game detracts from it

[RyanDG]

Please forgive me if I've added confusion to this.

I'm not suggesting the game should allow the unit should split and rout in various different directions.

What I am suggesting is that unless the attackers open up a hex for the whole unit to rout through, then the unit should continue to fight, i.e. inflict damage on the attackers, until it is wiped out. This would continue to be an automated attack (as units do when they are persuing routed units) and not need the player to attack.

I think there may have been some misunderstanding in what I was trying to explain. The reason why the unit that is surrounded does not continue to take dmg like a single routed unit that has a break off path is because the concept of units in Field of Glory is handled in a more abstract way. The 'unit' is less about the individual soldiers making up the unit, but rather the space that the unit controls. If a unit is surrounded and routed, it is natural and realistic to think that the soldiers would break in multiple directions in order to try to save themselves (or surrender if you choose). The soldiers of the unit no longer control that space and are therefore no longer tactically relevant at the scale we are looking at in this game as opposed to a game like Total War where each individual soldier is given individual consideration about space/attack/defense. Because of this the unit is removed altogether.

The reason why a unit that is surrounded and routs is removed rather than forced to remain in contact until defeated is because a routing unit going in multiple paths will no longer control the space that is being represented in the game. The reason why a broken unit routing in one direction will control that space is as a clear path - generally speaking - if a safe direction is available all soldiers will rout that direction and thusly still actively control the space that they are routing in as an impediment/obstacle.

I wasn't trying to say that you were suggesting that the units are broken into multiple units on split up - I'm just saying that once the unit is routed once surrounded, their tactical consideration is no longer important - because this is a game of controlled/occupied space rather than individual soldiers.