Slitherine

The extensive posts on "Farcical Combat Results" caused me to try to determine exactly how they can occur. I took a simple example of Average Pike charging Average MI, protected with light spear, no support, both in good order and at full strength of 100%.

Pike are ++ due to above 50% and above 75%. Both pikes and MI get 4 attacks. Being ++, pikes need 3 or better for a hit. MI, having no POA advantage, need 4 or better.

Pikes roll 1,2,2,2 and inflict no hits. MI roll 1,4,5,6 and inflict 3 hits. Pikes casualties are from table under "Impact Combat" for a BG that recived more hits. On that table, for receiving 3 hits, pikes can lose 9% to 18% of its initial 100%. MI use table for "Other Results." On that table for receiving 0 hits, MI can lose .01% to 1% of its initial strength. Pikes lose the maximum 18%. MI lose the maximum 1%. Pikes now at 82%, MI at 99%. Pikes test cohesion due to receiving more hits in impact.

Pikes receive a modifier of -1 due to receiving more two or more hits and additional -1 due to receiving two more hits than it inflicted. Pikes roll two dice and get a 1 and a 3, total 4. The 4 is reduced for the two -1 for a net of 2. Pikes drop two cohesion levels, become fragmented. In coming mele, pikes have no POA advantage as they are fragmented and have only 2 attackts for the same reason. MI still have 4 attacks, so pikes are probably toast. In the mele, they could easily lose another 8% and drop below 75%.

My observations are: pikes start with ++ advantage and yet only have a 17% advantage on each die roll compared to MI (67% versus 50%). If the pikes had just a + advantage, the chances are equal. I think this is the first problem. If the combat mechanism used a 10 sided die instead of a six sided die, for example, the ++ advantage could be 70%, a plus advantage could be 60% and no advantage 50%. The same is true of a single minus and a double minus. Both now are at 33%. A single minus with a 10 sided die could be 40% and a double minus 30%.

The second problem is the range of casualties. I assume that the range for 3 hits of 9% to 18% is equally distributed. By this I mean there is an equal chance for the result of 18% or 9%. I think the chance of a large loss should be remote. I would suggest a bell shaped curve in which the chance of an 18% loss and a 9% loss are about 5% each, but the chance of a 13% loss or a 14% loss would be about 10% each, as these are the mid points of the range. This would help to reduce the more extreme examples.

Having said all of this, I am sure the rules authors had good reasons for their design and I still love the bomb, er, game.

You've raised some interesting points that I have thought about a few times. I think, but don't know, that you are correct about the range of damage being linearly spread, which makes the extremes just as likely as the middle numbers.

I think your observations about the virtual dice are equally correct and also contribute to the varied range of results that people find unrealistic.

Personally I think an opportunity was missed when converting the TT game to the PC to move away from "dice rolls" to a more complex, but more realistic, calculation process. I expect the dice are a great solution to quickly calculate results for the TT that gets something that is reasonable for resolving battle results and maintaining playability, which is one of the things that I've read is really good for FoG TT when compared with other games systems, which may be slightly better from a realism perspective but are a lot less playable and thus a lot less enjoyable. With a PC the speed of resolution of the combat rolls isn't a factor. A more complex algorithm can still be resolved in microseconds and could yield better results. Indeed, why limit PoA to a simple ++, +, 0, -, -- system, why not factor in all the different elements that could affect a result which could also be resolved in microseconds. As an example, unprotected foot are just as effective as protected foot, and as armoured foot when receiving a flank melee attack from Cat Lancers, all are -- and this feels wrong to me - surely the foot with more armour should do better.

I can only assume that this was considered but ruled out because it would have required a complete re-engineering of the combat mechanism, whereas simply translating FoG TT was a lot simpler, easier and faster. I understand this and don't disagree with the logic of the decision that was made - I'd guess it's a question of cost versus benefit. The current system might not be perfect, but it's not that bad.

The bottom line for me is that from time to time I see 'quirky' results, but I've learned to live with it because sometimes they work for you and sometimes against. I've also learned that by themselves they rarely tip the scales in a battle, especially the larger the battle. The bigger factors are how poorly or well my opponent or I play. It would be great if a more realistic process was implemented, but I don't expect it will happen and I can live with that.

Overall, I love the game and whatever oddities occur don't ruin the game for me.

Actually in your combat situation
++ Pikes need a 3, VS -- the MI need a 5 to hit.
Unless for some reason the devs decided not to follow the table top hit numbers, but I believe they did follow them so those are the proper die scores. It might affect your calculations.

mceochaidh wrote:The extensive posts on "Farcical Combat Results" caused me to try to determine exactly how they can occur. I took a simple example of Average Pike charging Average MI, protected with light spear, no support, both in good order and at full strength of 100%.

Pike are ++ due to above 50% and above 75%. Both pikes and MI get 4 attacks. Being ++, pikes need 3 or better for a hit. MI, having no POA advantage, need 4 or better.

Pikes roll 1,2,2,2 and inflict no hits. MI roll 1,4,5,6 and inflict 3 hits. Pikes casualties are from table under "Impact Combat" for a BG that recived more hits. On that table, for receiving 3 hits, pikes can lose 9% to 18% of its initial 100%. MI use table for "Other Results." On that table for receiving 0 hits, MI can lose .01% to 1% of its initial strength. Pikes lose the maximum 18%. MI lose the maximum 1%. Pikes now at 82%, MI at 99%. Pikes test cohesion due to receiving more hits in impact.

Pikes receive a modifier of -1 due to receiving more two or more hits and additional -1 due to receiving two more hits than it inflicted. Pikes roll two dice and get a 1 and a 3, total 4. The 4 is reduced for the two -1 for a net of 2. Pikes drop two cohesion levels, become fragmented. In coming mele, pikes have no POA advantage as they are fragmented and have only 2 attackts for the same reason. MI still have 4 attacks, so pikes are probably toast. In the mele, they could easily lose another 8% and drop below 75%.

My observations are: pikes start with ++ advantage and yet only have a 17% advantage on each die roll compared to MI (67% versus 50%). If the pikes had just a + advantage, the chances are equal. I think this is the first problem. If the combat mechanism used a 10 sided die instead of a six sided die, for example, the ++ advantage could be 70%, a plus advantage could be 60% and no advantage 50%. The same is true of a single minus and a double minus. Both now are at 33%. A single minus with a 10 sided die could be 40% and a double minus 30%.

The second problem is the range of casualties. I assume that the range for 3 hits of 9% to 18% is equally distributed. By this I mean there is an equal chance for the result of 18% or 9%. I think the chance of a large loss should be remote. I would suggest a bell shaped curve in which the chance of an 18% loss and a 9% loss are about 5% each, but the chance of a 13% loss or a 14% loss would be about 10% each, as these are the mid points of the range. This would help to reduce the more extreme examples.

Having said all of this, I am sure the rules authors had good reasons for their design and I still love the bomb, er, game.

Hmm i dont know about the example you just gave:

Ist the pikes get POA++ The Lights spears would have a POA+
this NETS to pikes (+) , Light Spears( - ) ( this is an odd concept but remember for a unit to have ++, its opposition has --, there is no such thing as ++ vs a +

so in impact between the two units:
Pikes 50% to hit per dice (4 or higher)
Light Spears 33% to hit per dice (5 or higher)
*still 17% differance PER ROLL but it drastically changes the probobility of whom will win....

if both rolled 4 dice:
There is a 93.75% chance that the pikes will score one hit
Light spears an 80.24% to score one hit.......

as you can see the chances of the pikes not getting any hits like your example is quite low, 6.25%

to score more than one hit(i think I have the % right)
pikes 25% to get 2 hits, 13% to get 3 and 6% to get 4 hits (.50^2 , .50^3, .50^4)
the spears would be 11%, 4% and 1% respectively.... (.33^2, .33^3, .33 ^4)

EDIT my above % example is inaccurate because it presumes the chance to get 2 hits I am rolling only two dice,, 3 hits 3 dice and not 4 dice , oops ( it is , I believe accurate for your % chance to get 4 hits though since you ARE presumed to be rolling 4 dice..... I am stumped, what are the odds (the formula) off getting TWO hits if you roll 4 dice and need a 4, 5 or 6 to get a hit???
I mean i can see in my head 36 possible combos of dice (if you roll 2 dice) but i cant see 1,296 (The # of combos with 4 dice!)

howver, winning a combat is a comparative value, ie who gets MORE hits.... Anyone know how to calculate the probobobilty of the Pikes winning in the above example??

(edit again) a;lthough I cant figure this out with my poor statistical skills, the game does do it for you , the little shild icon( x key)... in the above example the pikes have a 56% chance to win, the spears 20%.... just wish I could back into those #'s)

Thanks for the clarification. If I understand it correctly, if the pikes are +, the MI must be - for the die roll. Makes me feel better about the mechanism. Pikes would need 4,5 or 6 or 50% chance. MI would need 5 or 6 or 33% chance. If both have 4 attack rolls, Pikes would have 200% chance, on average to inflict casualties (50%+50%+50%+50%), so on average should have 2 hits. MI would have 132% (4 x 33%), so, on average would have 1 hit.

If the pikes would be ++, the MI would be -- and the pikes would have 4x67% chance or 268%, so on average would inflict 3 hits. The MI would be the same 132% (4x33%).

Thanks again!

I think HI get an addition +1 vs MF in the open.

Morbio wrote: Personally I think an opportunity was missed when converting the TT game to the PC to move away from "dice rolls" to a more complex, but more realistic, calculation process.

I hope they do incremental feature improvements and use computers for what the computer does the best. FOG PC should move out from FOG TT in areas where the computer can make things better. There is a lot what computer can calculate without adding any micromanagement.

I think the main concern when changing the rules is, will it change the balance of the game to an undesirable direction.

Xiggy wrote:I think HI get an addition +1 vs MF in the open.

There is no combat modifier for HF vs MF. The MF do get a -1 on their cohesion test if they lose to HF in the open, so their morale is more likely to drop than the HF would be if it lost.

Chris