combat resolution? Non comprende!

[Javolenus]

Hi There,

Bin playing FOG multiplayer for a few weeks. I lost all games I think. I understand the basic principles: watch your flanks, keep cohesion, use troops according to their type and ability etc. What I don't understand is combat resolution. This is a big shame because I like the game's concept and overall design. But I'm finding it impossible to improve my performance because tactics that should work apparently don't. Here are some examples from recent games:

1. Ranged troops: I advance 6 units of missile troops to within 1 hex of the enemy and let fly. I Score 0 hit points each time. And so this tactic has utterly failed. My question is: what use are these troops if they can't inflict ANY damage on the enemy? How close do they have to get?

2. Outflanking plus rear attacks:

a. I attack 1 enemy medium infantry unit with 3 (superior) heavy infantry units, which attack from front, rear, and flank. I score 11% against the enemy unit, which holds and doesn't rout. I sustain a total of 17% damage. What's going on here?

b. I use the same tactic against 1 cataphract unit and score 0% damage against it, while absorbing enough punishment to cause my units to fragment.

3. Cavalry movement: I want to put my horsemen through a nearby gap in the enemy line but no movement option is available: my cav. can either retreat or peel off to the far flank, but, seemingly, they cannot move a few hexes toward the gap in question.

When you add these issues to the fact that multiplayer opponents frequently abandon games they don't like the look of, it just makes me feel like giving up completely. Obviously, as a newcomer I expect to lose; but what gets me is the sheer randomness of the game, which makes it impossible for me to learn the mechanics. I just resigned a multiplayer game on the second move, when my superior veteran legionaries failed to make a dent in a line of enemy velites. I just couldn't see the point of continuing. Basically I see this as a dice game not a tactical game.

Finally, apologies for any typos, but the text box on this website will not autscroll, so I can't actually see what I'm typing.

[76mm]

Similar topics have been raised many many times on this forum. I share your concerns, others seem to love the randomness, apparently it is a matter of taste. The randomness is definitely not to my taste, so I don't play any more, which is a shame, because I enjoyed multiplayer.

[Javolenus]

Hi 76mm and thanks for the reply. Glad it's not just me who's raised this issue. This game wasn't cheap: I had to buy FOG plus ROR; but I thought it would be worth the investment for a long-term gaming experience. I can't make any sense of the game, however. How can 3 superior heavy inf. units (900 men) inflict less damage than 1 average medium inf. unit (300 men)? How can 6 ranged units (1800 men) inflict no damage at all? What's the point of having cav. to exploit gaps when movement isn't permitted in the crucial direction? Meanwhile, I've had 4 multiplayer opponents who accepted my challenge then disappeared without a word. And if I look to accept a challenge, most of them are locked by passwords. If I'd known all this before losing over £50 to Slitherine, I wouldn't have bothered! I really don't have an issue with losing games, as long as I can learn and improve. But this game is too random for that. Consequently I don't see the point of playing. I feel a bit cheated if I'm honest, and resent the money spent.

[Jernau77]

Hi,

I'm kind of a newb, I've only been playing the historical scenarios against the AI so far. What I've found so far is that the game is a bit random, yes, but that is usual for these kind of games, and the randomness tends to even out over the whole combat. The problem comes in when the initial impact for one combat goes very badly and against the odds, and your unit goes fragmented straight away, then it's probably going to rout shortly afterwards. If you're not ready for that, it can really ruin your day, but I guess that's why people usually tell you to have reserves...

About the combat mechanism, the first thing you should do is turn on detailed information (P-key, I think), so you can tell what's going on. Combat is based on dice rolling: usually units roll 4 dice, hitting on 4 or more. Certains types of units give you more or less dice, and then terrain, support, and unit equipment modify the hit number (this is the POA stuff that shows up in the info panel), but I think this is usually at msot +1 or -1. The advantage of superior or elite units is that they get rerolls for low numbers, I think superiors reroll 1s, elites 1s and 2s. The number of hits you do then gives you the percentage of casualties inflicted, but there's variance here and it doesn't scale linearly. Missile fire is less deadly because units roll fewer dice and a hit causes fewer casualties. I think what this all means is that the modifiers aren't all that big: better equiped, veteran units will usually win through, but the advantage isn't that big and it allows for setbacks.

About unit movement, the different thing that took me a couple of games to figure out is that you cannot charge an enemy unit if your unit has to turn during its movement, and you cannot move adjacent to an enemy unit unless your charging it. I'm guessing that's probably why you couldn't move your cavalry through the gap.

Hope that was useful.

[TheGrayMouser]

When you add these issues to the fact that multiplayer opponents frequently abandon games they don't like the look of, it just makes me feel like giving up completely. Obviously, as a newcomer I expect to lose; but what gets me is the sheer randomness of the game, which makes it impossible for me to learn the mechanics. I just resigned a multiplayer game on the second move, when my superior veteran legionaries failed to make a dent in a line of enemy velites. I just couldn't see the point of continuing. Basically I see this as a dice game not a tactical game.

.

It sounds like you are complaining about something that you do yourself, end the game when things dont go your way?

Anyway, if you really want to learn the game, post in the multiplayer/leaugue area that you would like to play against someone you can teach you the ropes. I am sure there are plenty of players who would be willing to do so.

[76mm]

Yeah, multiplayer is quite good, and most opponents don't disappear. Most posted challenges that you see are locked because the open ones are accepted quickly. Try posting some challenges yourself, and always play a game to the end, as luck will often even out over the course of a game, and you can generally learn something even in a losing battle. I also found that in larger games (800 pts) luck seems to be less of a factor because there are more individual battles involved.

[Javolenus]

Many thanks for the replies - much appreciated.

I just want to say to TheGrayMouser that I resigned my game (thus letting my opponent know I'd finished), whereas the opponents I mentioned above said nothing, leaving games hanging for weeks without an update of any kind.

Meanwhile, I take onboard the info and advice re. dice rolls and hanging on even when things are going wrong. But I stand by my original post because, well, that's how things look to me, based on my experience of the game.

[IainMcNeil]

The luck is a factor but it will only make a diffrence between two equally matched players. What you have to do is allow for bad luck - this is a key part of generalship.

Understadn that impact combats get no benefit from superior numbers. Only melee combats benfit from outnumbering your opponent. Once you understand teh mechanisms you'll understand the results.

The randomness is key for realism as you cannot get realsitic results with a determinate system. Combat does not work like that. Real combat is too complex to simulate perfectly and you get down to chaos theory where you are far better off using a random element than trying to imperfectly model some behaviour.

The luck takes account of factors you don't see, a heroic fight from a units commander, the officer being wounded by a stray arrow and morale collapsing, a small piece of terrain too small to see that gives an advantage to one side or the other. The panic when a friendly unit retires, looking like a rout, a man triping over and causing disorder in a phalanx. The list is almost infinite.

[TheGrayMouser]

Many thanks for the replies - much appreciated.

I just want to say to TheGrayMouser that I resigned my game (thus letting my opponent know I'd finished), whereas the opponents I mentioned above said nothing, leaving games hanging for weeks without an update of any kind.

Meanwhile, I take onboard the info and advice re. dice rolls and hanging on even when things are going wrong. But I stand by my original post because, well, that's how things look to me, based on my experience of the game.

That stinks, I think you are victom of unluck in opponents for those game. Every once in a while youll get an opponenet who only can only manage a turn or so per week but usually not an issue when you have multiple games going on and a slow burn isnt a problem here or there.

Thing is with luck: there are quite a few dozen players out there that likly win 95% of their games. You cannot tell me that they are just lucky , so tactics definaletlyare part of the game. I think Iain expressed it well when he advised generalship is partially placing yourself in a position where even bad luck shouldnt be a disaster to you.
BTW are you usng IE 8? I find now that my work upgraded to same, i can no longer see what I am typing either....

[Javolenus]

Thanks for the reply - I assumed that superior numbers would make all the difference to impacts, so I learned something useful there!

I also take your point about luck and of course that is perfectly reasonable.

As I hope I've made clear, it's not the losing that's bugging me, it's understanding how best to formulate a good plan when, seemingly, combat resolutions appear (and I stress 'appear') to be random. My original post was prompted by a mix of frustration and bewilderment. But I guess much of my angst is caused by not understanding the game mechanics properly . . .

[Javolenus]

Hi TheGrayMouser and thanks for this. Yes, I updated to IE8 recently, so maybe that's the problem with seeing what you type.

[76mm]

The randomness is key for realism as you cannot get realsitic results with a determinate system. Combat does not work like that. Real combat is too complex to simulate perfectly and you get down to chaos theory where you are far better off using a random element than trying to imperfectly model some behaviour.

After all of the debates on this topic on this forum, I am kind of amazed that people are still making this kind of straw man statement...no one is asking for a "determinate system," just one where luck plays a smaller role. Obviously there should be some random element, just a smaller one.

[IainMcNeil]

This is a recurring issue so if people have ideas on how we can better feedback what is happening to the player it would be good to hear.

[76mm]

This is a recurring issue so if people have ideas on how we can better feedback what is happening to the player it would be good to hear.

I just think that people simply have different tastes, as mentioned a lot of people seem to love the degree of randomness, but a lot don't. I'm not sure if you can do much about it.

The one think you might want to consider is including an option to turn off any numeric feedback from combat, so that all players would see is if their units became disordered, fragmented, etc. (maybe both sides would have to use this option to make it fair). I never used numbers of men, always percentages, but even so some of the results just seem kind of mind-boggling. Although of course just hiding the randomness behind a curtain doesn't really resolve the issue, just makes it less obvious.

[grumblefish]

Play a few DAG matches against the AI. You'll stomp them, which should make you happy and also teach you a few of the rules at the same time. The AI stinks, though, so try multiplayer again ASAP.

[deeter]

Javolenus,

I do recommend that you invite on of us to play a few training games with you. The combat mechanics aren't too difficult to understand if you have someone with experience to explain them, but they're very hard to figure out from the online help. I suggest you PM any of us on this thread to set up a passworded training game with you.

BTW, I also dislike the wide swings of luck but still play because the luck factor does average out over time.

Deeter

[76mm]

Javolenus, Deeter is an excellent opponent, you should definitely take him up on his offer.

Hi Deeter

And everyone is right that luck will typically average out--I didn't quit playing because I lost too many games because of bad luck, I just got tired of the randomness of the whole affair, win, lose, or draw...

[Morbio]

I also recommend playing some good players who will generally explain what is going on and offer advice on tactics if you ask. I'm coaching 2 players at the moment and was teaching a 3rd, but he disappeared halfway through the game because he didn't like my tactics (I think)... and I share your frustration when that happens.

Look in the section on Competitions and Looking for opponents and either;
- Post there asking for help (or you could just post here)
- Or look at the sub-Forum 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen'. In the various leagues (RoR, SoA, SaS, etc.) you will see the Divisional structure and that will give you a guide to the competency of the players... Generally the higher the division the better the player.

Regarding luck, then yes it plays a part and it does even out. There are players who participate in the leagues and competitions who rarely lose, e.g. Pantherboy has only recently, to my knowledge, lost a game and that was because he had the worst army from all the lists and even then he only lost a couple of games against all the best players and won more than he lost. If luck was a significant factor, then the best players would lose a lot more.

The biggest factor is, as you post, understanding the game mechanics and there are plenty of us that will help I'm sure. In the example you posted teh MF would struggle in the following melee because it would only get 2 rolls against the HF who would all get 4 rolls wth re-rolling 1s. So it would almost certainly be toast next turn. So, luck helped it survive one attack, but it would go down soon after.

[jamespcrowley]

The biggest factor is, as you post, understanding the game mechanics and there are plenty of us that will help I'm sure.

What would really help is an up-to-date and comprehensive manual that explained them. Not the inadequate mish mash of partially out of date help files and change logs that have been provided, on the premise that there is 'not enough time' to write a proper manual. Slitherine is hardly a tiny indie outfit anymore and that excuse does not hold water , as far as I am concerned. A decent manual should be a right for the purchaser of a game not an optional extra.

FoG, as a whole, is good fun; a very solid game with a reasonable degree of historicity and a MP system second-to-none. But I'm definately in the 'too much luck' camp. Wild swings of fortune should be the exception not the rule, as they appear to be.

As for luck balancing out; it might, over thousands of throws, not the few hundred that occur in most games. As it stands, the posted red/green percentages are mostly meaningless in terms of predicting the likely outcome of a combat.

[hidde]

So, luck helped it survive one attack

I suspect many new players see the example in the first post as three attacks (I did) but this from the "manual" needs to be kept in mind:

A battle group retains the die roll from its initial impact combat in a single player turn, and uses that same die roll in all subsequent cohesion tests from losing an impact combat in a single player turn.

The same goes for missile and melee tests.
I, like so many others, would like to see the most extreme casualty numbers toned down. It does average out so it doesn't much stop me from enjoying the game but I think it would be a good idea to make BG:s last longer. If a BG lose no more than a couple of times but pass the cohesion tests it can be so close to auto rout as to be virtually useless. If it kept more of its "men" it could keep fighting. Cohesion tests would be more of a decisive factor, casualties less so. Would make "horde" armies less attractive for example.