Slitherine

I've been studying the combat mechanism again and again from this page:
http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... anism.aspx
and I think that the main problem of FoG close combat is that the adjacent commanders are actually non-factors and that troop quality is not making the difference it should.
The things that influences the chances of winning the melee phase are POA and cohesion.
Troop quality matters less and training and the presence or proximity of a commander DO NOT MATTER AT ALL, which is highly unrealistic.
The commander is only a factor during cohesion test, but that's too late since cohesion tests happen when you lose a fight.

I will explain with an example:
Suppose a battle group of steady, elite, armoured, late republican legionaries are in head-on melee against steady, armoured, average late republican legionaries on open field. Both have lost only 2% of their original strength after the impact combat.
The elites are adjacent to an inspired commander, while the average legionaries are out of command range.

This is like having the famous Tenth (X) Legion of Caesar led by Caesar himself fighting against some of Pompey's recruits cut-off their main army.
All would agree that, in real life, Caesar's legionaries would have annihilated their unfortunate enemies.

What will happen in FoG? Let's calculate.
Since POA = none (same troop types, same armour) and they both are steady, they have 4 attacks each (will roll 4 dice) and will score a hit for every 4, 5 and 6 they get in the die rolls. OK, the elites will re-roll their 1s and 2s, but this doesn't make the difference that you may think.
If my calculations are correct (please correct me if I'm mistaken), the Caesarians have 66% chance of scoring a hit on each die roll (including re-rolls), while their enemies have 50% chance. So the estimated hits are 2.64 for the Caesarians and 2 for the Pompeyans, which means that the Ceasarians have 57% chance to win the melee phase and the Pompeyans have 43%.
57% is ridiculously low, considering that we are talking about the best troops of their era led by the best commander of their era versus some average guys out of command.

I believe that the proximity of a commander and the quality of the troops should be more important during the melee phase.
So, I would humbly propose that the number of attacks is variable and it depends on troop quality and command.
Something like this:
Out of command -> -1 attack
Adjacent a commander -> +1 attack
Adjacent an inspired commander -> +2 attacks
Two or more quality levels difference (Elite vs Average or Superior vs Poor) -> +1 attack

So in our example, the Pompeyans would perform (4-1=) 3 attacks, the Caesarians (4+2+1=) 7 attacks and the melee winning chances would change to 75% for the Caesarians and 25% for the Pompeyans.
I think these chances are more realistic.

Of course my proposal needs excessive testing in various situations and in a lot of battles, but I feel that it would take away some of the frustration caused by a string of unlucky die rolls that can ruin any tactical plan.

What do you guys think?

PS: Sorry for the long post.

Thanks for looking into the mechanics. I had similar thoughts, but didn't have the detailed info you've provided.

To me, better troops have should have two advantages: they can kill the enemy more efficiently, and they are less likely to rout if things aren't going their way.

In this game, as I've previously described, elite legions often go below 50% strength without even being disrupted. This makes them very very hard to eliminate.

Instead, their main advantage should be that they chew through the enemy faster; while they should be slower to rout than an average unit, I don't think that they should be practically immune from disruption as in the current rules.

Although these are valid points, i feel too much emphasis is being placed on the notions of troop quality.. After all it is impossible to state that troop x has such and such an intangiable quality and thus will always behave accordingly each and every time.... History has shown that supposed elite troops have one day performed miracles and the next fled at the drop of a hat. I believe is was Marshal de Saxe that stessed that courage needs to be reborn everyday.
Even if we could go back in time and observed different units in battle it would be impossible to scientically "rate" human beings, especially when dealing w the pychology of men in large goups ie mob/crowd mentality....

In teh above example are cited elite legions fighting average legions... in game the elites should eventually prevail as they will pass coheiosn tests easier , however it should never be a guaranteed win... Also Why should superior troops , considering the rating is really about overall morale , in addition to skill valour etc, kill average troops more rapidly.. After all both legions would have had the same weapons amour and tactics.. The superior troops, in general, will just stick around long (as they likly have more experience knwoing what happens to a broken unit) .

I agree with Graymousers comments and would add that:

Each round the extra 14% chance of winning will, on average, cause more casualties to the weaker troops.

The weaker troops will break much earlier (I forget the exact numbers, but it's at about 50% for Average troops, versus 35% of original strength for Elites).

So, in addition to the better response versus cohesion tests, and the level of cohesion does have a significant effect on the result, then the Elites will win most of the time and fairly quickly too.

The key thing is that in the 1st couple of rounds the Average troops may look like they are doing 'better than expected' versus elites (and luck will have a factor), but because of the cumulative effect of the extra % chance of winning, the cohesion survival and break points then generally the Average units will suddenly deteriorate and break.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Also Why should superior troops , considering the rating is really about overall morale , in addition to skill valour etc, kill average troops more rapidly.. After all both legions would have had the same weapons amour and tactics.. The superior troops, in general, will just stick around long (as they likly have more experience knwoing what happens to a broken unit) .

I agree with many of your points, particularly that nothing should be a sure thing, but don't agree that superior or elite troops would not be able to kill more efficiently, just because less experienced troops have the same "weapons, armour, and tactics". Just because you have these things doesn't mean that you can use them effectively, much less as effectively as another unit that has been fighting together for x years.

EDIT: As an analogy, look at modern day pro sports teams, all of which have the number of men, rules, equipment, etc. But nonethess certain teams just crush others, year in and year out, because they have "something" that clicks. Now picture them with swords and pikes instead of various types of balls, and I think the same principal applies...(and yes, ther are always those exciting upset victories...).

I think that in all combat, but particulary man-to-man combat, experience with your weapons, confidence in your unit and commander, and just "fire in the belly" would make it easier to inflict incremental losses on the enemy, although certainly it would not guarantee a slaughter, for the reasons you suggest, at least until the rookies broke and ran...

I really liked 76mm's analogy of pro sports teams! Very good one!
Elites should win 9 times out of 10. But in FoG I feel it is more like 6 or 7 times out of 10.

Anyway, my first post wasn't only about elite units not being devastating enough.
Maybe Morbio is right and the extra 14% chance is good enough.

It was mostly about the fact that the battle mechanics don't take into consideration the presence of a commander AT ALL!
Commanders matter only AFTER the unit has lost, during the cohesion test.

So many ancient battles where decided at the point where the Commander in Chief was physically present.
Think Alesia, Gaugamela etc.

I certainly agree that the presence and, just as importanthly, the absence of commanders should have greater impact at the time of combat, as opposed to just cohesion tests.

pcaravel's suggestion for doing this has, I think, merit in being an easy and starightforward way of achieving that result without removing the all-important random element - you can still roll six or seven low numbers.

Is there not a choice of how to use commanders in each game - you can send them into combat ala Alex at Gauga or you can have them a couple of hexes back helping bolster morale / cohesion ala Caesar at Alesia. If your commander is fighting in a melee why should BG's several hexes away get any benefit from him?

petergarnett wrote:Is there not a choice of how to use commanders in each game - you can send them into combat ala Alex at Gauga or you can have them a couple of hexes back helping bolster morale / cohesion ala Caesar at Alesia. If your commander is fighting in a melee why should BG's several hexes away get any benefit from him?

They shouldn't. I think what is being suggested is: 1) that BGs adjacent to commanders get positive POAs, relative to the commanders status.
2) that units out of command get a negative POA.

The rationale behind this is that commanders add nothing to a battle (POAs), as such, only to the after effects (cohesion tests)

This would add greater value to commanders, making their loss far more significant than it currently is and encouraging players to think carefully before commiting them to combat.

Peter, just noticed that you come from Gatwick. Just been to a big meeting at a hotel near Gatwick Airport; what a bugger of a place to try and park

Easy when u live near to it though - we let family & friends park here as we are so close to the airport!

petergarnett wrote:Easy when u live near to it though - we let family & friends park here as we are so close to the airport!

Ah! Now where is my list of holiday dates for this year?

petergarnett wrote:Is there not a choice of how to use commanders in each game - you can send them into combat ala Alex at Gauga or you can have them a couple of hexes back helping bolster morale / cohesion ala Caesar at Alesia. If your commander is fighting in a melee why should BG's several hexes away get any benefit from him?

Some thoughts:

1) Troop quality does effect combat. Quality re-rolls apply in combat so Poor troops cause less hits on average and superior and especially elites cause more hits. (A section on quality re-rolls should be added in the on line help if there isn't one in 1.1.2.) This is the same re-roll mechanism that applies in Cohesion tests so that better quality troops are more likely to pass when checking Cohesion.

2) The commander does effect the combat ability of the BG he is with. This BG will re-roll as one troop quality better than that of the BG. This is consistent with the TT rules and the commander is only able to influence one BG at a time this way. For an elite BG including a commander this means they would re-roll 1s, 2s and 3s instead of just 1s and 2s.

3) I believe that if the Commander's BG is in combat then his command radius is reduced to one hex while he is in combat. (I haven't verified this but I believe it was mentioned in another thread in the forum.) A commander must be with or adjacent to a BG to affect it's Cohesion Test if the BG testing is in combat or is trying to rally from rout. (I think this is required for any check to regain cohesion.)

Chris

batesmotel wrote: Some thoughts:

1) Troop quality does effect combat. Quality re-rolls apply in combat so Poor troops cause less hits on average and superior and especially elites cause more hits. (A section on quality re-rolls should be added in the on line help if there isn't one in 1.1.2.) This is the same re-roll mechanism that applies in Cohesion tests so that better quality troops are more likely to pass when checking Cohesion.

2) The commander does effect the combat ability of the BG he is with. This BG will re-roll as one troop quality better than that of the BG. This is consistent with the TT rules and the commander is only able to influence one BG at a time this way. For an elite BG including a commander this means they would re-roll 1s, 2s and 3s instead of just 1s and 2s.

1) I already mentioned that quality effects combat with the re-rolls. It's just that it doesn't seem enough benefit having an elite unit instead of having an average unit during close combat (in my example 57% chance of winning instead of 50%). These elite guys should be a real menace in the battlefield, especially against troops that are so inferior in quality.

2) What I proposed is a way for the commander to influence the outcome of close combat of adjacent battlegroups, without having to commit his battlegroup in combat. Something like boosting their morale be being behind the battleline and encouraging them or making them try even harder not to let him down.
Actually the battle mechanic designers must had something similar to their minds when they introduced modifiers for the commander presence in cohesion tests.
I think that the commander should have the same effect to his adjacent units not only AFTER they lose a melee phase, but also WHILE they are trying to win it.

If elites end up so good, 9 times out of 10 winning...I don't think I'd bother playing. Everyone will have them. I much prefer the poor warbands who have a chance to stomp. Admittedly the combat percentages look weird...and I like the idea of decreasing the casualty amounts from the extremes on the ends so the battles range for 2 or 3 more turns instead of 1...disrupt...1b (2nd attack on said unit in same turn) frags...in next turn routs. It would be interesting and make the flanks more critical if things held out a bit longer. I find I can pass those cohesion tests with some care, but anything average soon hits auto break.

I certainly wouldn't want superiors and elites to be any better than they currently are (in fact I tend to think elites are a little underpriced at present).

My elite legions tend to stomp any opposing average troops - unless the averages are lead by Pantherboy of course...

Blathergut wrote:If elites end up so good, 9 times out of 10 winning...I don't think I'd bother playing. Everyone will have them. I much prefer the poor warbands who have a chance to stomp. Admittedly the combat percentages look weird...and I like the idea of decreasing the casualty amounts from the extremes on the ends so the battles range for 2 or 3 more turns instead of 1...disrupt...1b (2nd attack on said unit in same turn) frags...in next turn routs. It would be interesting and make the flanks more critical if things held out a bit longer. I find I can pass those cohesion tests with some care, but anything average soon hits auto break.

One thing to remember is that you are playing with the equivalent of 4 stand BGs for the TT rules. Given that, it isn't that surprising that an average BG can get to the auto-break point fairly quickly. I haven't found this to be an issue in general with the PC game.

One thing I have noticed is that it does seem to be somewhat too easy in the PC game to reduce a BG to auto-break purely with missile fire given the ability to concentrate many BGs (5-10 or more) of fire on a single BG in a turn due to moving and shooting one BG at a time combined with the generous interpenetration rules which have no affect on the ability to fire. I've recently defeated (or am close to) two opposing Seleucid forces primarily due to losses caused by missile fire using Bosporans and Parthians. For the Parthians, the missile fire has mostly made up for my relatively ineffective use of the cataphracts. This is a definite difference from the TT rules where missile fire is much more likely to cause temporary cohesion loss to an enemy BG than it is to just auto-break it due to casualties.

Chris

batesmotel wrote:I've recently defeated (or am close to) two opposing Seleucid forces primarily due to losses caused by missile fire using Bosporans and Parthians. For the Parthians, the missile fire has mostly made up for my relatively ineffective use of the cataphracts.
Chris

I can attest to this...


kilroy

pcaravel wrote:I will explain with an example:
Suppose a battle group of steady, elite, armoured, late republican legionaries are in head-on melee against steady, armoured, average late republican legionaries on open field. Both have lost only 2% of their original strength after the impact combat.
The elites are adjacent to an inspired commander, while the average legionaries are out of command range.

This is like having the famous Tenth (X) Legion of Caesar led by Caesar himself fighting against some of Pompey's recruits cut-off their main army.
All would agree that, in real life, Caesar's legionaries would have annihilated their unfortunate enemies.

What will happen in FoG? Let's calculate.
Since POA = none (same troop types, same armour) and they both are steady, they have 4 attacks each (will roll 4 dice) and will score a hit for every 4, 5 and 6 they get in the die rolls. OK, the elites will re-roll their 1s and 2s, but this doesn't make the difference that you may think.
If my calculations are correct (please correct me if I'm mistaken), the Caesarians have 66% chance of scoring a hit on each die roll (including re-rolls), while their enemies have 50% chance. So the estimated hits are 2.64 for the Caesarians and 2 for the Pompeyans, which means that the Ceasarians have 57% chance to win the melee phase and the Pompeyans have 43%.
57% is ridiculously low, considering that we are talking about the best troops of their era led by the best commander of their era versus some average guys out of command.

I was curious to test out this example and so I set up a scenario with the troop types exactly as the example , this is the result:

1st round/impact = Average Legionaries 20 % v Elite Legionaries 56% - Result every time was Average Legionaries become Disrupted with horrific casualties.

2nd round = Average Legionaries 5% v Elite Legionaries 83% - Result every time was Average Legionaries become Fragmented with horrific casualties.

3rd round = Average Legionaries 2% v Elite Legionaries 90% - Result every time was Average Legionaries become Routed with yet more horrifc casualties.

The Elites won every time I played this with exactly the same odds and survived with hardly a scratch. It did not matter which side initiated combat these were the results.



I think its a case of a mistake in your calculations based upon reading the stats, in practice it is simply a case of the Tenth is just as good as they were in real life.

1st round/impact = Average Legionaries 20 % v Elite Legionaries 56% - Result every time was Average Legionaries become Disrupted with horrific casualties.

My calculations seem to be mistaken on the chances of success of the Average Legionaries, since the chances of Elites where calculated correctly (I actually calculated 56,89655). I don't understand how this 20% is calculated.

Three things may happen:
1) I'm total crap in calculations.
2) I don't understand the rules correctly.
3) There is some factor that influences chances and it is not documented in the rules.

Maybe the fact that your 1st round is an impact has something to do with this 20%, even though, according to the combat mechanism
(http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... anism.aspx), the same calculations should have been made in both impact and melee.

Maybe a game designer or someone with tabletop game experience can enlighten us on this issue.

pcaravel wrote:

1st round/impact = Average Legionaries 20 % v Elite Legionaries 56% - Result every time was Average Legionaries become Disrupted with horrific casualties.

My calculations seem to be mistaken on the chances of success of the Average Legionaries, since the chances of Elites where calculated correctly (I actually calculated 56,89655). I don't understand how this 20% is calculated.

Three things may happen:
1) I'm total crap in calculations.
2) I don't understand the rules correctly.
3) There is some factor that influences chances and it is not documented in the rules.

Maybe the fact that your 1st round is an impact has something to do with this 20%, even though, according to the combat mechanism
(http://www.hexwar.com/field-of-glory/he ... anism.aspx), the same calculations should have been made in both impact and melee.


The Elite legionaries get to re-roll any initial 1s and 2s in their impact attack. This means that on average 1/3 of their misses (2/3 of misses * 50% chance to hit on re-rolls) should become additional hits. Once it gets to melee, the elite legionaries are Skilled swordsmen (Sword+ POA) so are at a +POA versus the average Legionaries in addition to the advantage of re-rolls. I think these are the factors you overlooked.

Chris