Slitherine

" Units that start the game in woods are hidden to the enemy until they move or shoot or an enemy moves close to them"

How close is close - adjacent or a set number of hexes?

Two hexes, I believe.

Chris

From what I can see using the editor, BGs must be at least two hexes back in woods in order to remain unseen. BGs on the edge of woods (i.e. in a woods hex next to a non-woods hex) are clearly visible.

And two hexes does appear to be the range at which they can be spotted- although the AI charges them out on it's first turn, every time.

That makes perfect sense. Thanks!

However, as a new FOG player, the combat results often do not make sense to me. Two very similar units--one takes few losses, the other takes big losses, under the "same" circumstances.

I find FOG harder to predict than most wargames I have played in 25 years.

That could be a compliment, or not...

What do you think, and where do I go to learn more about tactics?

Thanks again.

All comes down to the virtual dice rolls. I had a recent game where 2 adjacent units attacking the same enemy both went in with 40% chance of success and both ended up losing and disrupted.
I have had lucky rolls where I have hammered superior cavalry in a turn only to get my buttocks handed back next turn.
If your troops are disordered and your not in contact try to rally them first, keep an eye on how many men a unit has left, if its below 70% might not want them in there. If possible hit enemy units that are weak or try for POA advantages in combat.

I am sure others have more advice for you but that is a start anyway.

Thank you, DT.

I assume these virtual dice rolls were designed to simulate the vagaraties of war, and are not overly random and nonhistorical?

I figured it was all about using the right unit mix. Pikemen against Cavalry, etc. But these dice rolls make it either hard to tell or overshadow unit strategies completely?

I appreciate your patience.

The die roll topic was covered pretty extensively in this thread:

viewtopic.php?t=15661

Yes, I am behind the curve. It also seems nothing concrete came out of all the discussion?

"Also, in the PC game I have little confidence that good tactics (or my approximation of them) will lead to good results."

Your quote, 76mm, and that is my concern.

I don't want to just start bashing around with units, and the luck portion makes it feel that way sometimes.

I'm not sure what concrete result to expect: that is how the game is designed, many people, especially TT gamers, seem to like the large role of luck, and the devs had no plan to change anything.

Die rolls can be just as odd on the TT too. I have had a case where a unit of pikes charged a unit of LF javs and I ended up disrupted after lousy die rolls. Actually that has happened in the PC game too It is a game and like real life random things happen and something that should have happened does not happen and things don't always go as planned.
As for how the virtual dice work, I am pretty much certain that some times the virtual dice gods hate you, as I had a campaign game that went south where I couldn't hit anything and my opponent just walked all over me. even he said at the end that the dice did not seem to be working for me. It is a game and games all use dice in some form or another so try to make the best decisions and if it did not work out blame the dice... better than blaming ourselves correct

Luck is a factor but there are so many calcualtiosn it will balance out - the point is a good general plans for the role of luck. A good player will beat a bad player 99% of the time if not more. Luck could decide the fate of a closely matched game.

Players only ever notice their bad luck, not their good luck. They always put good success down to good generalship and blame defeats on bad luck! This is my experience of 30 years of wargaming!

We've already had this argument, and the fact remains that lots of people think that combat results are too random in this game. And lots of people think otherwise....

Anyway, I've found that in larger games (800-1000 points) the luck seems to average out a bit more, and I therefore find it less objectionable. In a 400 pt game a couple of bad die rolls can cost you the battle (at least it seems that way...), but the larger games I generally find that any bad luck on one flank is neutralized by good luck on another.

76mm wrote:
Anyway, I've found that in larger games (800-1000 points) the luck seems to average out a bit more, and I therefore find it less objectionable. In a 400 pt game a couple of bad die rolls can cost you the battle (at least it seems that way...), but the larger games I generally find that any bad luck on one flank is neutralized by good luck on another.

I agree with this, the sole hero unit of course has less impact in a 800 ap game than a 400
I dont see it as a problem though....

I wonder what people would have replace the current combat resolution with? (the peiple that think it is too random)

I'm happy to play anyone who wants a game and see if luck plays a major role

I firmly believe its peoples perception of luck, not the actual role of luck that is the issue.

Rosseau wrote:That makes perfect sense. Thanks!

However, as a new FOG player, the combat results often do not make sense to me. Two very similar units--one takes few losses, the other takes big losses, under the "same" circumstances.

I find FOG harder to predict than most wargames I have played in 25 years.

That could be a compliment, or not...

What do you think, and where do I go to learn more about tactics?

Thanks again.

Well, the fact that two identical units often times have differnt results should not bother you, unless you feel that they should always degrade eachother to mutual destruction?
Think about a squad level WW2 game, panther meets t-34, one tank will be a smoking wreck, the other will be just fine after one "comabt resolution"

The key is dont depend on one vs one lineups or the fact a unit is "better than " its target
If you are trying to crush an enemies flank, and you have 3 cavalry units to your opponents 2, well guess what, it is highly likly your flank attack is going to falter, you really need to apply mass vs your target zone/objective
The more you depend on individual combats, no matter how superior the line up is, the more you will make yourself vulnerable to bad dice

Thanks gentlemen. Sorry I made you trod over old ground, but you have answered my question.

I figure the TT gamers would be the real grognards. So if it doesn't bother them, I won't let it concern me.

It is a fine game and I hope one day we will have campaign options within the game via another expansion!

Thanks again.

Like all generals we need scapegoats for our bad performance, so we blame the dice.

TheGrayMouser wrote:I wonder what people would have replace the current combat resolution with? (the peiple that think it is too random)

This has also been discussed, particularly in the thread linked above. While I can't speak for others, my main complaint is the huge range in combat outcomes (anywhere from the attacker losing 20+% to the defender losing 20+%), as well as a few other issues.