Slitherine

I have been playing wargames now since WRG 5th edition and played a lot of sets of rules. As a concept I like FoG on the computer as I dont have time to get figures out these days. However the game has what I will call bugs in an attempt to get someone to take some notice. It seriously effects game play and makes me just want to pack it in.

1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.
2. Archery light infantry or horseback is better than foot based massed archery.
3. Light infantry can destroy heavy infantry. When did this ever happen historically. True it is rare in FoG but has happened in on in four games.
4. Regular elite troops will charge to their deaths impetuously
5. Pike and spear suffer from charging. I am not sure if this is true or not... but every time I charge pikes or spears they suffer
6. In a challenge it is possible for a person to select an army that will automatically kill another... ie Samatians versus Pikes. The challenger who is the person who generates games suffers while a hoard of people are waiting for others to stick challenges up so they can reply with armies that are designed to take that one apart. It gets boring issuing challenges.
7. Medium infantry useless. Thracians with Romphia should cause problems for heavy foot... they don't. Generally troops that are armed with heavy weapons are useless.
8. Marching causes irregular patterns. If I am moving a line of infantry forward there will always be one or two elements in the middle that can't move as fast as the rest. It breaks up the line or means that to be safe I have to move everything slowly.
9. Camels are not good at taking apart horses which was historically their only use. Cav fighting elephants and Cam should automatically be disordered on contact.
10 Elephants are too erratic. I have been in games where they are deadly against ordered spear or pikes and others where they have died in buckets. Historically elephants were tough and when they died there was trouble for what ever was behind them. The successors used them to break up pike blocks in a wild charge,,, however if they failed they would hang around (unlike scythed chariots which don't)
11. Terrain effects are weird. It is hard to work out who is disordered... I think it works out that if you attack something in scrub (for example) you are disordered (fair enough you have to go into the scrub) but if you are attacked from scrub your rivals are not disordered because you are in the open. I am not sure of this but i have had some strange games because of it
12 Charging often causes more harm than good... I have mentioned the spear and pike problem... but there does not seem to be any advantage in charging and chargers are more likely to be disordered than defenders.
13. The turning thing gets stuck and troops end up facing the wrong way... you cant correct this because there is no way to undo a move. This has got worse since the left click also allowed you to say if your troops evade or not.
14. Luck seems to have too much influence in combat results. I blame DBM for this but there is no way that a unit of elite spartans are not going to kill someone while lose 48 in the same go. What ever random element is being used here has too much influence and prevents anyone coming up with tactics.
15 Troops who charge foot in the flanks and rear can loose so badly that they become disordered or fragmented. Being charged in the flank or rear was a killer to units... generally the effects of doing this in FoG are correct (on the victim) but are silly on the person charging.
16. You can't shoot routers. Why not? The buggers can rally turn around and in a couple of turns be useful. If you can charge them you should be able to drop their fighting ability by shooting.
17. The lists do not scale up for big point games. This means that the only way you can play some armies is by filling them full of allies or junk which unbalances them. Changing to 800 points should double the size of the maximums and minimums.
18 There are odd glitches in the factor calculations... I remember in one game two perfectly even happy troops were slugging it out... I saw that I had a 1 per cent chance of winning! It has happened to me in several games now where I have had to resign because my troops were given a low reading... seemingly at random.
19. Light infantry should be allowed to break off from combat. At the moment they will fight to the death against heavy infantry if they get caught.

That is enough for now... The actually structure of the game is good but something about those factors needs to be sorted out

Well, all game-systems have their quirks, some more than others. Anyone that tries to tell me that DBA is historical will get laughed out of the room for example
Any game will have to make sacrifices for playability, and FoG is no exception.
I've only read through the TT rules, never played it due to space-constraints, but I think it's a pretty good set of rules.
However, the PC conversion has made some changes that leave something to be desired.
So, a few comments....

magus007 wrote: 1.Warband automatically destroying high quality troops in good order. Historically the best warbands managed to do was surround and disorder regular troops which fell apart only after a hard slog. A thin line of Galatians will always beat Spartans in one turn. Romans will die to warband.

Not necessarily true. But one of the biggest changes from TT is the lack of battle-groups. That is, a number of units having to work together as a formation. The PC version has all the bases working independantly, and unfortunately it gives the cheaper more numerous units the ability to do outright ballet-moves that are out of touch with reality.

2. Archery light infantry or horseback is better than foot based massed archery.

That depends entirely on what you want them to do. Having been at the receiving end of a line of massed english MF archers, I'm pretty convinced that they have their uses, especially for holding terrain. Now, I'd agree that missile-troops are generally rated too low.

3. Light infantry can destroy heavy infantry. When did this ever happen historically. True it is rare in FoG but has happened in on in four games.

Tue, it can happen. Just like I've had troops in ASL advance right down a bridge covered by a machinegun firelane.
These things happen. Arguably it happens a little more often in FoG due to the combat system, and perhaps it happens too often.

4. Regular elite troops will charge to their deaths impetuously

By this I assume you mean that there should be a modifier to CMTs due to troop-quality?
If so, I whole-heartedly concur.

5. Pike and spear suffer from charging. I am not sure if this is true or not... but every time I charge pikes or spears they suffer

They don't suffer, they're just not as good as in melee.
But I agree that this is a weird rule. I can understand that spears/pikes are less effective when they charge someone, what with the formation suffering from all that running. What I can't understand is that defending spears are less effective in Impact than in Melee.....

6. In a challenge it is possible for a person to select an army that will automatically kill another... ie Samatians versus Pikes. The challenger who is the person who generates games suffers while a hoard of people are waiting for others to stick challenges up so they can reply with armies that are designed to take that one apart. It gets boring issuing challenges.

That's more a problem of the players than of the game itself. Sure, there are players out there with armies tailored to specific opponents, although whether there are actually hordes of them is another matter.
Two ways around this though. First, don't state the army-name in the challenge. You can't tailor an army if you're not sure what you'll run in to.
Second, use the boards to set up games instead of using open challenges.
Basically, I don't see this as a problem.

7. Medium infantry useless. Thracians with Romphia should cause problems for heavy foot... they don't. Generally troops that are armed with heavy weapons are useless.

Absolutely not. IMO MF are probably a little over-rated in the game. They're faster, can make use of terrain, have the same armor as HF, and the only drawback is that they're more likely to disrupt if they're fighting in the open. I can't tell you how often I've had my battle-line hammered into the ground by MF. Sure, if they happen to fight on a pool-table then they're in trouble, but otherwise not. As for the heavy weapons.......If you think they're useless, take a look at the SOA Irish with their masses of Galloglaich. HW is a great equalizer to remove any armor advantage.

8. Marching causes irregular patterns. If I am moving a line of infantry forward there will always be one or two elements in the middle that can't move as fast as the rest. It breaks up the line or means that to be safe I have to move everything slowly.

So.....Your problem is that to keep a line, you have to adjust the speed to the slowest moving units?
I don't see how you'd be able to get around that one whichever rule-set you use.

9. Camels are not good at taking apart horses which was historically their only use. Cav fighting elephants and Cam should automatically be disordered on contact.

They are

10 Elephants are too erratic. I have been in games where they are deadly against ordered spear or pikes and others where they have died in buckets. Historically elephants were tough and when they died there was trouble for what ever was behind them. The successors used them to break up pike blocks in a wild charge,,, however if they failed they would hang around (unlike scythed chariots which don't)

Not sure about this one. I don't know enough about the subject of pachyderm warfare to say either way.
I will say that elephants feels wrong to me.....Far too brittle. But that's a hunch, nothing more.

11. Terrain effects are weird. It is hard to work out who is disordered... I think it works out that if you attack something in scrub (for example) you are disordered (fair enough you have to go into the scrub) but if you are attacked from scrub your rivals are not disordered because you are in the open. I am not sure of this but i have had some strange games because of it

Totally agree. The terrain system is a bit wonky. One of my pet peeves is that it makes absolutely no sense game-wise to try and defend a stream.
Once locked in melee your own troops will attack across the same stream and end up disordered.

12 Charging often causes more harm than good... I have mentioned the spear and pike problem... but there does not seem to be any advantage in charging and chargers are more likely to be disordered than defenders.

Well yes....I mean, if two blocks of men armed with sharp, metal implements run into each other, surely there will be disorder on both sides?!?

13. The turning thing gets stuck and troops end up facing the wrong way... you cant correct this because there is no way to undo a move. This has got worse since the left click also allowed you to say if your troops evade or not.

True, to a point. One could argue that simply taking ones time to do ones move will mitigate this problem. Using the hotkeys instead of relying entirely on the mouse also helps. Finally, you could simply play with FOW off. The battle-fields are so small that any tactical surprise you might gain from hidden units is soon lost.
However, I do think that there should be the option of taking back your move even if FOW is on, *if* the unit being moved hasn't discovered anything new about the enemy.

14. Luck seems to have too much influence in combat results. I blame DBM for this but there is no way that a unit of elite spartans are not going to kill someone while lose 48 in the same go. What ever random element is being used here has too much influence and prevents anyone coming up with tactics.

A resounding YES to that one. This is the biggest flaw in this game. The D6 system simply doesn't cut it.
I can understand the need for it in TT for simplicity sake, but using it in a PC game is simply criminal.
And I know the argument.....Over the course of a game, the odds will even out, and everybody has the same luck.
Bollocks.
First of all, dice do not have a memory. They can't tell if you're 'due' a string of 6s to raise your average.
Second, not all rolls are equally important. A 6 on a CMT due to anarchy might not be as important as rolling a 6 while attacking.
I have several times been close to simply chucking this game out the window due to the luck-factor. One memorable LoEG game had me lose 21 out of 44 break-points in one turn, mainly because 7 of my units decided to double-disrupt......(btw, I still haven't seen an official statement as to what 'losing badly' means).
Here's what truly puzzles me....Why would you use a D6 system for combat, and yet switch to a 2D6 when it comes to Cohesion-tests and CMTs?!?
A 2D6 combat system would have two great advantages; First, it would even the odds luck-wise, since 2D6 results in a bell-curve. Odd things would still happen from time to time, but not with the unnerving regularity it does now.
Second, it would free up the modifier-system to have bigger differences in units and tactical situations.
As an example, a unit attacking at +1 will suffer exactly the same losses as when attacking at +2. No difference to the attacker whatsoever.
Using a 2D6 would allow e.g. having a +2 for Impact Inf charging, and add another +1 for being Roman, reflecting the legions training.
(Just an example, so don't bite my head off if it's ahistorical )

15 Troops who charge foot in the flanks and rear can loose so badly that they become disordered or fragmented. Being charged in the flank or rear was a killer to units... generally the effects of doing this in FoG are correct (on the victim) but are silly on the person charging.

Agree. See above.

16. You can't shoot routers. Why not? The buggers can rally turn around and in a couple of turns be useful. If you can charge them you should be able to drop their fighting ability by shooting.

True, I suppose. But I don't see it as a major flaw. My archers usually have better things to do than shooting at already fleeing elements.
Besides, in my experience the number of times a unit actually manages to rally, and go on to do something worthwhile are very few.

17. The lists do not scale up for big point games. This means that the only way you can play some armies is by filling them full of allies or junk which unbalances them. Changing to 800 points should double the size of the maximums and minimums.

Probably. Personally I rarely play with armies larger than 600-700pts anyway, so this is kinda moot for me.
However, I can't see why the max/mins for an army shouldn't follow the max-points

18 There are odd glitches in the factor calculations... I remember in one game two perfectly even happy troops were slugging it out... I saw that I had a 1 per cent chance of winning! It has happened to me in several games now where I have had to resign because my troops were given a low reading... seemingly at random.

I think that might be simply to the randomness of the combat-system itself, or there could be other factors chipping in.
Hard to tell without a screenie.

19. Light infantry should be allowed to break off from combat. At the moment they will fight to the death against heavy infantry if they get caught.

Yep. At the very least they should be able to disengage if the enemy unit is also engaged by another unit.

Lars

Call me statistically challenged , but is there that much difference of 1 die vs two? One in 6 chance to roll a six with one die, 5 in 36 chance to roll a six(combo) with 2 die. Hmm 1 in 11 to roll a 12 etc....( ah ok i see where the bell curve come in at the extreme ends) However how would quality rerolls effect this?

TheGrayMouser wrote:Call me statistically challenged , but is there that much difference of 1 die vs two? One in 6 chance to roll a six with one die, 5 in 36 chance to roll a six(combo) with 2 die. Hmm 1 in 11 to roll a 12 etc....( ah ok i see where the bell curve come in at the extreme ends) However how would quality rerolls effect this?

Okay, you're statistically challenged

2D6 system:
2,12= 1 in 36
3,11= 2 in 36
4,10= 3 in 36
5,9 = 4 in 36
6,8 = 5 in 36
7 = 6 in 36


To roll 7+ results in 21 in 36 (or about 58%)
A +2 increases that to 30/36 (83%)
A +1 increases that to 26/36 (72%)
A -1 decreases that to 15/36 (42%)
A -2 decreases that to 10/36 (28%)

The D6 system:
4+ equals 50%
+2 mod 84%
+1 mod 67%
-1 mod 34%
-2 mod 17%

My point is that not only do you get a graded set of results (bell-curve again) you also get a larger spread of possibilities that you can use to differentiate between units/situations using more modifiers.
It would of course also increase the difficulty, but IMO not unduly so.

But you're right re. the quality re-rolls.
In fact, introducing 2D6 would require a complete overhaul of the entire system.
You can't just apply a 2D6 system, make the odds equivalent to the D6 system, and say that's it.
There'd be little sense in introducing 2D6 without using it to include more modifiers.
Which in turn would affect the points for each unit, which affects army max/min etc. etc.
So I'm not holding my breath here *LOL*

But the more I think about it, the more I think I'm not really in the target-group for this kind of game.
It's easy, colorful, and gives you a hint of tactical combat. But it's not really a simulation as far as I'm concerned.
Too random for that to happen.
And there's nothing wrong about that as such. Hell, I'm all for introductory wargames to attract younger/inexperienced players from 1st person shooters and RTS click-fests.
But personally I would e.g. rather play Combat Mission than Battlefield Academy, and War in the East instead of the Commander Series.
To each his own.

Not that I expect FoG to leave my HD anytime soon. For all its flaws it's still a gem of a game as far as I'm concerned.
The challenge system alone is grounds for keeping it, not to mention the stable of online opponents with whom I've enjoyed many a senseless banter.
In this regard it's a bit like Down in Flames. Not a 'serious' wargame, but the whole thing is so much fun and looks so damn good that it's never been off my HD since I bought it, even if I might go months between playing it.

Lars

Well i did get some of the odds right

I hear what you are saying Cheerfully Insane. i guess it comes down to if you prefer a comparative combat system(FOG, GMT pc games) or an absolute combat system(total war, HPS Napoleonic/ Ren or Ancient Wars games) I like both and dont hesitate to say that i wish when playing the one that it should have some mechaincs that the other has (and vice versa)

In fog units either have a big adavantage, small advantage over their foes... In Abslote games combat values generally can have a wider spread which on the surface indicates more complexity and or realism but isnt in practice always the case.

Example is the Ren/Napoleonic) engine... combat power is 100% revolved around the # of men in the unit, sure there are modifiers that becomes a multiplier of the men in the unit(20% bonus for hitting a disrupted, 10% for having a leader stacked etc etc), but in the end for all that it still resolves combat in a comparative way ie 600 men(modified) vs 1200(modified) equals, yep, 2-1 odds which is very reminiscent of all those boardgames we used to play...... In the end for all the additional "complexity" it still boils down to a comparative.

I suppose a perfect wargame would allow one to have Roman legions behave realistically in situation A where they are wearing their tradional amour but have the combat results accurately relect how they would behave in situation B if they were wearing 14th century plate and mail and situation C where they are in full Gothic harness.....
Of course you would be limited by what/how the authors of such a game would value such things...

Woah what a ton of bugs and non working parts. But this one:

6. In a challenge it is possible for a person to select an army that will automatically kill another... ie Samatians versus Pikes. The challenger who is the person who generates games suffers while a hoard of people are waiting for others to stick challenges up so they can reply with armies that are designed to take that one apart. It gets boring issuing challenges.

I been tellin them there were no challenges listed everytime I went to the MP page and NOW I KNOW WHY!! Players don't want to put up challenges because the game is UNBALANCED and it's an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to be able to accept a challenge than to create one.

When I post an open challenge, I state my army name. You go into that knowing/accepting that someone may want to run medieval Swiss against your Ancient Spanish. If you don't like that possibility, pm someone and ask them if they'd like a game fighting such with sach. Or post a note here saying, "Would like to fight my this against these..."

That way you will post a passworded game and get what you like.

As for posting, an open challenge usually lasts about 10 minutes before someone nabs it. So it's not that no one is posting them. They simply get snapped up instantly.

Also you can just hide your army when you post a challenge... There is always the chance of a mismatch but at least you can say your opponent didnt do it on purpose

But one of the biggest changes from TT is the lack of battle-groups. That is, a number of units having to work together as a formation. The PC version has all the bases working independantly, and unfortunately it gives the cheaper more numerous units the ability to do outright ballet-moves that are out of touch with reality.

I reckon that might be the biggest bug because on the TT the Roman seems to be way stronger than the Barbarians.

Igorputski wrote:.......I been tellin them there were no challenges listed everytime I went to the MP page and NOW I KNOW WHY!! Players don't want to put up challenges because the game is UNBALANCED and it's an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to be able to accept a challenge than to create one.

Oh, for the love of gawd.........
Will you give it a rest?
I know you think there aren't any challenges posted in FoG and now you're also complaining about it in the BA forum.
I'm not even going to go into why you'd buy yet another game based on the same challenge system when you're apparently so disappointed in he first one, nor will I comment on why you're so eager for challenges if you think the game is unbalanced in the first place.
But nobody else seems to have any problems getting games.

So, once more for the hard of hearing......
The reason there's a lack of open challenges is that they get picked up very quickly(!)
If you seriously think there's an advantage to be gained from accepting a challenge instead of posting one, then don't state the army you're using in the challenge. Problem solved.

Lars

Igorputski wrote:Woah what a ton of bugs and non working parts. But this one:

6. In a challenge it is possible for a person to select an army that will automatically kill another... ie Samatians versus Pikes. The challenger who is the person who generates games suffers while a hoard of people are waiting for others to stick challenges up so they can reply with armies that are designed to take that one apart. It gets boring issuing challenges.

I would put money on the pikes in that battle. Just spread out and slowly march forward, encompassing them entirely. Won a big battle recently in S&S, but unfortunately the battle can be rather boring, too. Have a roman v mongol one that is neck and neck, but I let him through my flanks so I don't think it's going to end well.

I been tellin them there were no challenges listed everytime I went to the MP page and NOW I KNOW WHY!! Players don't want to put up challenges because the game is UNBALANCED and it's an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE to be able to accept a challenge than to create one.

... I don't find the game unbalanced. I find horse archer armies to be pretty boring and tedious to fight, but otherwise it's all a lot of fun and I've won with a diversity of army types. Balance has never been a factor in whether or not I post a challenge.

Have you tried putting up a challenge yourself? Challenges get snatched up within 20 minutes of being posted, generally. I have never had a challenge last more than a few hours before being taken, and i post my challenges in big batches.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Well i did get some of the odds right

I hear what you are saying Cheerfully Insane. i guess it comes down to if you prefer a comparative combat system(FOG, GMT pc games) or an absolute combat system(total war, HPS Napoleonic/ Ren or Ancient Wars games) I like both and dont hesitate to say that i wish when playing the one that it should have some mechaincs that the other has (and vice versa)

In fog units either have a big adavantage, small advantage over their foes... In Abslote games combat values generally can have a wider spread which on the surface indicates more complexity and or realism but isnt in practice always the case.

Example is the Ren/Napoleonic) engine... combat power is 100% revolved around the # of men in the unit, sure there are modifiers that becomes a multiplier of the men in the unit(20% bonus for hitting a disrupted, 10% for having a leader stacked etc etc), but in the end for all that it still resolves combat in a comparative way ie 600 men(modified) vs 1200(modified) equals, yep, 2-1 odds which is very reminiscent of all those boardgames we used to play...... In the end for all the additional "complexity" it still boils down to a comparative.

I suppose a perfect wargame would allow one to have Roman legions behave realistically in situation A where they are wearing their tradional amour but have the combat results accurately relect how they would behave in situation B if they were wearing 14th century plate and mail and situation C where they are in full Gothic harness.....
Of course you would be limited by what/how the authors of such a game would value such things...

Well, any wargame will be comparative to some extent.
Even if you include the number of people with a cold in a division (adjusted for rates of infection based on the local humidity), you will at some point end up with one number compared to another. You can diversify that by using several comparisons to each combat (e.g. a roll for armor vs. AT, Inf vs. Inf and Air vs. AA). Even in 'skirmish' games like CM you still need to compare numbers for a hit with regards to terrain, movement, limited LOS and so on.

In the case of HPS' Nappy games the argument could be made that the comparison is of less importance, since there's a very select number of troop-types.
19th century infantry is 19th century infantry no matter what the nation (more or less), and so a direct numbers-comparison makes some sense in that respect.
There are several problems with 'absolute' wargames, not least of which is programming an AI to take all the factors into account.
I love the details available in the Panzer Campaign series, but the AI is truly dreadful simply because it can't digest all the possibilities. Same thing with TW. You can win almost every battle with a line of spearmen backed by archers. All you need to do is use some light cav to lure the enemy away from charging the line. Insert cav, run away, repeat ad nauseum while the archers whittles the enemy down to a bloody stump.
Second problem is making the game too hard to get a grasp for the player.
Case in point would be SSG's Decisive Campaigns series. I love the games, but they sport an indecent amount of details.
Every terrain type has its own CRT, with its own modifiers and odds-limits on overruns. Add to that leaders, artillery, separate armor/AT combat and you got a game that I can only play a turn or two in a row before my head starts to hurt

But one of my objections to casting FoG as a serious wargame is that there simply isn't enough diversity in the system.
One thing is the limit of +-2 on the POAs, but the worst part is the lack of classifications for the different units.
4 kinds of armor, 4 kinds of missiles, and maybe 10 kinds of melee weaponry isn't enough to make the armies different.
I was a little disappointed in the SOA and S&S modules, not because they don't look good (because they surely do), but simply because the factors are the same as in the ancients battles.......It doesn't feel medieval.
If that makes any sense at all.

Finally, you're right in saying that a game is ultimately limited to what factors the designers have chosen to calculate.
Any system on morale and leadership will be open to all kinds of discussion, simply because it is literally impossible to quantify.

Lars

Hmm, on a macro scale though how much differnce (ie how many more weapons/poa's would you need) ? i can see if a game was smaller in scope ie squads or even individual soldiers being portrayed the differnece of a estoc vs a gladius, a halberd and a bill would likly need to be explored.
I guess most games that have an "abslulte" value on weapons types do so in a very unsatisfactory manor ie most use a number value : pikes do 5 point of damages , short swords 3 lances 8 etc etc ... Feels very Dungeons and Dragonie
The Ren engine has this problem, you just dont FEEl the differences between a pike block and a unit of sword and buckler men....

I do agree on the arnour, perhaps a 5th class of armour would be in order? This has been brought up before but perhaps a reduction in casualties based on the degree of armour class: Fore example heavy amour facing HA take the default %, HA vs A default *90%, ha vs Protected default*80% or something like that?

I would like to see a second melee weapons slot for cavalry Perhaps mounted sword + ? Would only apply vs other cavalry units , that way medieval Knights would be relaistically more effective vs say cataphracts.

TheGrayMouser wrote:I guess most games that have an "abslulte" value on weapons types do so in a very unsatisfactory manor ie most use a number value : pikes do 5 point of damages , short swords 3 lances 8 etc etc ... Feels very Dungeons and Dragonie

Even systems based on points for weapons is imperfect unless all the factors surrounding its use are taken into account. In a 1:1 matchup on good ground a guy with a broadsword would probably beat a guy with a gladius more often than not - the longer reach and more damage being 2 important factors, however put the same 2 guys in a line of melee with friends and foes in close proximity all around and then the gladius has the edge because you just can't swing a broadsword in a crowd.

I do agree that the current system is imperfect, but it's taken what I understand (I don't play FoG TT) to be a quick and easy TT game and made a quick and easy PC game. So long as people take it for what it is and don't expect it to mirror perceived reality then all is fine.

A PC game could aim for perfection by mapping all the different factors affecting a battle, quantifying, summing and comparing them, to generate a battle result. On the TT it would be a logistical, unplayable nightmare, but on a PC it would be a few microseconds. However, it would be a much different game from FoG and you think it's hard now to determine if a combat result is being worked out correctly.

TheGrayMouser wrote:Hmm, on a macro scale though how much differnce (ie how many more weapons/poa's would you need) ? i can see if a game was smaller in scope ie squads or even individual soldiers being portrayed the differnece of a estoc vs a gladius, a halberd and a bill would likly need to be explored. ......

......I do agree on the arnour, perhaps a 5th class of armour would be in order? This has been brought up before but perhaps a reduction in casualties based on the degree of armour class: Fore example heavy amour facing HA take the default %, HA vs A default *90%, ha vs Protected default*80% or something like that?

The number of weapon-classifications is obviously a matter of personal choice, and I'd agree that on a macro scale the differences are perhaps negligible.
It's a different thing altogether with the number of POAs.

From what I can gather, there seems to be a design decision that *NO* combat should be a given victory.
Which is fine to a point, given the vagaries of hand to hand combat, and the inherent confusion in these kinds of battles.
I do however think that they've carried it a bit too far.....A skirmisher unit locked in melee with two enemy HFs and then being charged in the rear by a cataphract can still turn back the attack.
Admittedly, if they're a skirmish unit entirely manned by Charlton Heston clones, and using the sling-straps to trip the horses as they charge, then use their loincloth to strangle the riders, whilst their buddies keep the HF busy with a rousing speech of defiance (and a bit of a sing), then it might be possible.
Otherwise those cataphracts should be scraping bloody skirmisher-goo off their hooves in a few seconds.
The limit of +-2 on POAs is a killer. Not only does it make certain situations completely irrelevant (doesn't matter if impact inf charges from the front or rear since they already get a +2), it also means that superior troop-types are at a distinct disadvantage.
A combat system that not only limits the number of advantages they can gain, but also ensures that they will take a fair number of casualties no matter who they fight means you're better off with semi-clad rabble than fully-armored knights.
At this point one should note that the current system assigns exactly the same chances of attacker-casualties to a +POA attack as to a ++POA attack, since the defender will hit on 5,6 in either case.
So not only are the number of casualties independent of whether you're winning or losing, the added POA makes no difference to casualties whatsoever.
So again, all things being equal, quantity will beat quality any day of the week.

If you want to use a D6 system, and you want to keep all combats non-certainties you're limited to a small number of POAs.
As soon as you get into +-3, the combat has been decided already.
Singing the praises of 2D6 once more (I know I'm getting repetitive here), you could still maintain the design-theory of no certain victories, and simultaneously lower the frustration-level of the players who gets screwed by the dice.
Taking the above cataphract/skirmisher example, a higher number of POAs (for rear-attacks, armor, mounted combat etc.) could e.g. mean that the cats miss only on a 2, while the skirmishers hit only on a 12. It's not a certain victory, but Charlton Heston will have to pull something very special out of his bag (or loincloth) to ensure his head doesn't end up as a decorative fruitbowl.

Morbio wrote:I do agree that the current system is imperfect, but it's taken what I understand (I don't play FoG TT) to be a quick and easy TT game and made a quick and easy PC game. So long as people take it for what it is and don't expect it to mirror perceived reality then all is fine.

A PC game could aim for perfection by mapping all the different factors affecting a battle, quantifying, summing and comparing them, to generate a battle result. On the TT it would be a logistical, unplayable nightmare, but on a PC it would be a few microseconds. However, it would be a much different game from FoG and you think it's hard now to determine if a combat result is being worked out correctly.

I've never played the TT game either, so bear that in mind as you read the following.
But from what I can understand the TT game is actually considered to be fairly harder than other TT systems (such as DBx and Basic Impetus).
Be that as it may, I completely agree that shoving 9 kinds of modifiers into a TT game would be pointless, since nobody would ever get past the first turn. No would I expect anyone to try and shove 20 dice into a dice-tower for each combat in TT. The noise-level alone in a tournament would be staggering. *LOL*
And I can see the merit in translating as much as possible from the TT to the PC as possible to maintain the same 'feel' of the original game, and presumably get the TT gamers interested in this new product (and vice-versa for that matter)
I also understand that this is a game and not a simulation as such.

However, there are already two major changes from the TT version; namely the lack of battle-groups, and the attritional nature of the combat (no kill-rolls for bases), both of which gives an advantage to more numerous, if poorer quality, troops.
So it's already a different game altogether, and I just think that using the inherent advantages of the computer for calculations and info-sampling would add to what I feel is more of a dice-fest than a strategy-game.
I also happen to think that this could be accomplished without an undue increase in the difficulty-level.

But as I mentioned, I'm not holding my breath.
With four more expansions already on the way, the TT version going into Rennaissance (and possibly Nappy from what I hear), there is little chance of a complete overhaul of the system anytime soon. Besides, the system has taken the world by storm with something like 15 different expansions in the TT game.
Kinda hard to argue with success

So I'm not going to sulk and say "I won't play this game until they do as I ask"
Obviously Slith is doing something right in all this, and stomping ones foot would be a bit childish to say the least.
As I mentioned earlier, I actually like this game a lot. I just happen to think it could be better.

Lars

What have you got vs Charlton Heston? "Get you hands off me you filthy stinking Bosphoran"!

Hmm, my experiance is if you run down a light foot you drop em automatically a cohesion level and then they lose another in combat... They will be routed or destroyed on your opponents next turn, but I do undertand where you are coming from when a light holds and can tie up a heavy unit for multiple turns.

perhaps there should be penalties on the CMT for when a light (whose given orders to never evade) when charged by heavier units, maybe a -1 or 2 ? If it fails and tries to run it should also get a penalty on the variable move test to increase their chances of getting caught ( I would imagine this as the unit hesitated just a wee too long trying to reconcile the insane orders their CnC gave, vs the will to not get killed)

More than "bugs" is a design problem. FOG for PC isnt the same as TT game but look like give an independent way for PC game is tabu but try to port things from TT that dont work in PC for scale and engine isnt a problem , they improbe the PC game to slow and i really prefer see a year with no army packs but with hard work in the engine (light units evasion when you want, move units in formation not one by one this in big battles with flat terrain is a good adition, add true and usefull defensive works in editor and DAG... you know, option to define a side as attacker-defender-encounter optional rules...) but improvements dont give money.

FOG is a good game but after the initial games you feel that the game need more things (and dont necessary armies).

PD: i am going to buy next army pack and maybe the next 3 but i expect see a more intesive work in the engine, add more armies is an option to buy expansions but if engine dont have the same evolution in content...

I feel the same way about buying additional armies packs without some additional core features being added, and i think Slitherine recognises that it is needed as well, as they have introduced new features for each one. Sure they might not be what you want/hoped for but still....

I do think they need to ramp up the single player side a little... There should be no reason why we cannot place palisides and camps in the editor, no reason the editor itself is bugged so you cannot create allied leaders (at least not without hand fiddling with the raw data file) etc , especially since the game is over a year old now.

yep, is time for some fix work, first moves maybe in the editor to improve it power with more objects (walls, towers, buildings/villages) after this... well, improve the historical game with optional rules (allways optional, give options is the best solution) and for me a superb adition is multyplayer games but with more than 2 players, think battles 2 VS 2 or more!!! could be epic play with human allies

Yes! team play on multplayer would be fantastic!