This is what i love about FOG (or not)

[fogman]

happens more often than seems possible

bauge.JPG (52.86 KiB) Viewed 4433 times

can easily be dealt with by preventing the die function from repeating a value after 1 or 2 repetitions per set, thus sparing players from many frustrations.

[voskarp]

I think it's just the random number generator that is broken.

In the mac version, if you pick up a challenge first thing after starting multiplayer the initiative roll will always be 3-6, to your opponents advantage. To avoid this you'll have to play a turn in an ongoing game first... (I wonder if the first die roll will be random in that game? Maybe there isn't any randomness at all in the game...) That's why you want to issue the challenges rater than answer them as a mac player.

I don't think the answer is to make rules for what kind of die roll outcome is allowed, just make the die rolls random!!!

[fogman]

i don't have a problem with limiting randomness. It's just too silly to lose when hitting some units from behind.

[voskarp]

Well, I certainlly don't want the outcome to be random, just that the die rolls should be.

[fogman]

Problem is that the rules are not random since 5 and 6 are automatic hits and 1 and 2 are automatic misses. Leaving it to randomness alone will result in many impossible outcomes like a knights unit losing to skirmishers it just hit from behind. Generally speaking, restricting die outcomes is akin to bell curving and eliminating outliers; and in a game where advantage is derived from accumulating positive POA, it is important that the effort put in to accumulate that advantage through skillful manoeuvre not be thrown away by mere bad luck.

[fogman]

This is what I'm talking about, excessive automatic hits and misses. A +4 POA and still losing by 2 hits. 33% (2 out of 6) is too good an odd when you're completely outmaneuvered. It's just bad design. and easily fixable but slitherine has never even admitted there was a problem and that the problem was driving players away in frustration.

plus 4 loss.JPG (36.25 KiB) Viewed 4166 times

[IainMcNeil]

I don't agree that it is bad design, its by design. The point is you have to make a plan that deals with things going wrong as they did in real life. It models that heroic soldier who fought on against eh odds and rallied his men around him. It models that rocky patch of ground that was too small to see that disrupted the cavalry charge at the last minute with catastrophic effects. Contingency planning is what a game like FoG is all about. Not everyone likes that but its a key part of the gameplay and taking away that uncertainty would make it a completely different game and not a real wargame.

One thing that might be nice is to give some feedback when a result that is well away from that predicted occurs. E.g. in your situation below it would mark it as unexpected outcome and if you wanted to take it a step further you could add a flavour message to explain the cause, for example one of the things I mentioned above.

[stockwellpete]

I fall half way between fogman and Iain's position here. Most of us don't want FOG to be like chess (I'm not saying fogman does either) and we accept a certain amount of randomness, but armoured pikemen coming downhill onto an enemy's flank should not be losing heavily. Maybe, there should be a small chance for them to draw so the charge did not have the intended effect - that would be OK.

[MikeMarchant]

I have to agree with StockwellPete.

I can't remember the number of times I've had average protected MF with light spear charge across flat open ground to impact an equal number my superior cataphracts only to see my super heavy horse fragmenting and disrupting and then routing after a turn or two of melee. Of course there needs to be a random element, but sometimes the results in FoG are just silly.

History does have examples of great heroism, where a small band can overcome enormous odds to win out, but these occasions are remembered precisely because they are so incredibly rare. In FoG they seem utterly commonplace.

I think the random factor needs toning down a little.


Best Wishes

Mike

[fogman]

I don't agree that it is bad design, its by design. The point is you have to make a plan that deals with things going wrong as they did in real life. It models that heroic soldier who fought on against eh odds and rallied his men around him. It models that rocky patch of ground that was too small to see that disrupted the cavalry charge at the last minute with catastrophic effects. Contingency planning is what a game like FoG is all about. Not everyone likes that but its a key part of the gameplay and taking away that uncertainty would make it a completely different game and not a real wargame.

The issue is not that unexpected things happen, that I agree, but rather the frequency that such events is allowed to occur under the current rule. I would be very happy if automatic hit was reduced to just 6 and not 5,6; automatic miss can similarly be restricted to 1 instead of 1,2 but it's not as crucial. Overwhelmed forces should be able to may be get a draw in some circumstances but not a win big.

[IainMcNeil]

Its really not that frequent and it does average out but people only notice when things go against them. It's human nature unfortunately to notice bad luck more than good, and luck really has very little affect on the overall result as good players will rarely lose games.

[fogman]

This may be anecdotal but I've gone through this stage. And many other undoubtedly have.

"Re: To Forge an Empire

Postby keyth » Thu Jul 26, 2012 8:24 pm

I've had enough of FoG for the moment. I know Dan and NewRoSoft are working on the Unity version and will hopefully address the casualty issue, but I'm not going to play on while waiting for that. There are too many games where one either cannot win or cannot lose regardless. Slitherine seem unwilling to admit that something is screwy (cf. Ian's posts on 'the good players always win'). I want to enjoy the game and I don't at the moment - it is frustrating beyond belief."

Sure better players win but when two evenly matched players duke it out, it really stands out and that detracts from the enjoyment of an otherwise fantastic game. You should be concerned as publisher as good players have thrown the towel, some of whom were doing a lot, such as organizing tournaments and writing scenarios. Now I'll admit I'll keep playing because well it's the best game I've ever had; I even consider it superior to pike and shot for early renaissance (from my experience of writing scenarios of the same battle in both games).

The other thing that is frustrating is the casualties level, 2 hits can result in 5% or 15% casualties it seems, and that has a huge impact because of autorout levels. And it's not easy to rationalize that.

[TheGrayMouser]

The dice dont bother me, but on occassion the extremes in casualties do. Example, Last nite I had a 100% catapract charge a enemy cat, both steady, I lost the combat, didnt lose cohesion but lost 20% of the men... Sure , as Ian poinst out, this doesnt happen ALL the time, but it happens enough to be very noticeable.....
I mean you manage the odds (ie tactics) when you pick your combnats , take your chance w the POA dice, get the expected results, but then get crippled on a another round of random teh causalty spread..... Many have pointed this out as something they hate. I flip flop on it...
Sometime I can justify the causalties and "pretend" its a way of tracking battle fatiuge, spent weapons etc, but others times it just make me mad

Auto causalties: This always has bothered me
On the one hand its not realistic. A unit with high morale isnt going to just rout when "1 one more guy bites the dust" from a stray arrow.... Yet since enemy % men left and the non floating auto rout means its a valid and nesesary game tactic to pick pick off "crippled units like this... Unhistoric and unrealistic

On the other hand, not having auto rout in a game that : doesnt allow stacking, doesnt have the ability to merge like units or split them, it would be silly to have 10 men units running about and occupying a full hex of frontage ( and the ZOC it would impose). Specifically to FOG, it would be even sillier to have a 10 man unit have the same impact at , well, impact phase ,as a 100 or 300 man unit....

It would be nice to experiment w compromises, for example, a unit will only autorout from causualties if: its in close combat, unsteady, and LOSES a combat, or if it fragged already and a missle attack causes it to dip below AR level...


Anyways, if some of the game play was moddable, we would have a lot more happy campers. I think there was some sort of vibe originally that there would be a unified player base, involved in tourneys, soem official etc with ONE rule set to rule them all ( kind like TT games) I think this game is well past that stage....

[cothyso]

Code: Select all

DebugConsole.Log("add random anomalies filtering", "DBG_ToDoDisplay()", DMT.TD0);

[stockwellpete]

Lest we forget . . .

Post by stockwellpete » 04 Sep 2011 13:06

BATTLE OF BONKERS, (Stockwell, London 2011)

I set up two armies of Swiss halberdiers (two lines of 8BG's each with a C-in-C BG behind them) on open ground.

Turn 1 (the lines come together 8 separate melees)

Results 12-1, 4-20, 15-1, 2-13, 3-13, 15-2, 5-2 and 4-12.

So 7 results were "bonkers" and 1 was "normal".

Turn 2 (a further 8 separate melees. (D) indicates that unit was "disrupted" prior to melee)

4-3, 0-11, 1-(D)2, 3-14, 13-4, 4-(D)16, 14-1 and 2-11.

so 5 results were "bonkers" and 3 were "normal" (including the two involving "disrupted" units)

By turn 3 quite a few units were getting "disrupted" but the basic ratio of "bonkers" results remained steady through the next few turns. By turn 6 the battle was over. Side A had won by 0/9 to 9/9. A truly "bonkers" result considering the sides were evenly matched at the start.

Conclusion?

The combat system is broken in my view, but will anyone fix it?

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... me#p344222

ENDS

[stockwellpete]

Its really not that frequent and it does average out but people only notice when things go against them. It's human nature unfortunately to notice bad luck more than good, and luck really has very little affect on the overall result as good players will rarely lose games.

Iain, it is a long time ago now but you did discuss this with us about 5 years ago. I have found the really excellent thread "Best Ideas for FOG" (April 2011) that was started by mceochaidh. His first post refers back to an earlier exchange between the two of you . . .

Iain said "It's true that some things have changed because of the digital adaption. Casualty rates completely different because they are much more granular on the tabletop. You either lose a base or not (representing about 25% of your battle group strength) when you get a hit. The chance of losing a base is 16.6% per hit. So 3 hits is a 50% chance.

This means the digital version can much better deal with the gradual erosion of battlegroups. The % damage may be off but if we change it there could be serious balance issues. We can certainly have a look at it. Maybe we should make each category have less variance and not overlap. E.g. 1 hit should not go to a max % that is above 2 hits min %. We've already used randonmess to determine the hits so no need to use it again to determine the spread to such a large degree."

mceochaidh then wrote,

"I am very encouraged that Iain and his group would be willing to revisit the variability of combat results. The poll I conducted in the fall showed that 2 in 3 players responding were in favor of reducing the frequency of wild combat results. I have suggested a modest change in the form of a bell curve applied to the manpower loss tables. This approach would not change the overall percentage chances of receiving losses, but would reduce the frequency of the extreme percentages. In the example of receiving 2 hits, a manpower loss of 14% may only occur 1 time in twenty (5% of the time) instead of one time in ten (10% of the time). This would result in generally longer combats with battle lines staying intact longer. This change, in my opinion, would not materially affect game balance. The wild results would still occur, just not as frequently."

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... best+ideas

I don't think any of us are asking for there to be no randomness in the game, just that it should be toned down a bit. The ideas in this post from 2011 would certainly help. Might you reconsider them at some stage?

[MikeMarchant]

Its really not that frequent and it does average out but people only notice when things go against them. It's human nature unfortunately to notice bad luck more than good, and luck really has very little affect on the overall result as good players will rarely lose games.

You're right to say that we remember the bad luck against us much more than the bad luck in our favour. It is human nature. It doesn't follow from that though, that the random factor in FoG isn't too great. I have played in games where I have lost very badly as a result of the dice being absolutely nonsense all game. I have also won games in the same way. There is more at play here than the subjective experience of luck.

And, of course, it doesn't even out. I've never understood that concept to be honest. It's the kind of silliness that football commentators come out with all the time. I agree that I might win by luck one day and lose by luck the next. But one game might be an inconsequential friendly, while the other is a critical competitive battle. And, quite apart from that, I don't really want to win or lose by luck. I want to win or lose as a result of the quality of my play and quality of my opponent's.

I love FoG. I play every single day. I hate the undue influence that luck can have on the game.


Best Wishes

Mike

[JocaRamiro]

On the other hand, I think some level of random outcome is necessary to provide a bit of the flavor of an actual battle.

[TheGrayMouser]

Lest we forget . . .

Post by stockwellpete » 04 Sep 2011 13:06

BATTLE OF BONKERS, (Stockwell, London 2011)

I set up two armies of Swiss halberdiers (two lines of 8BG's each with a C-in-C BG behind them) on open ground.

Turn 1 (the lines come together 8 separate melees)

Results 12-1, 4-20, 15-1, 2-13, 3-13, 15-2, 5-2 and 4-12.

So 7 results were "bonkers" and 1 was "normal".

Turn 2 (a further 8 separate melees. (D) indicates that unit was "disrupted" prior to melee)

4-3, 0-11, 1-(D)2, 3-14, 13-4, 4-(D)16, 14-1 and 2-11.

so 5 results were "bonkers" and 3 were "normal" (including the two involving "disrupted" units)

By turn 3 quite a few units were getting "disrupted" but the basic ratio of "bonkers" results remained steady through the next few turns. By turn 6 the battle was over. Side A had won by 0/9 to 9/9. A truly "bonkers" result considering the sides were evenly matched at the start.

Conclusion?

The combat system is broken in my view, but will anyone fix it?

viewtopic.php?f=84&t=36562&p=344222&hilit=done+with+this+game#p344222

ENDS

Wow , what a blast from the past Pete. Although I never agreed with your analysis the Battle of Bonkers was in itself indicative of a flaw... You took 100% of tactics out of the equation by lining up 8 replica units vs 8 other and charged them into each other. The average casualties by both sides is roughly equal. (8 vs 7.5 in the ist round) Either side had a 50% of winning or losing... So, you had 100% chance of the "battle" come down to luck... :0 Why then surprised? I don't believe the winner should suffer massive casualties simply because both sides are equal...

[stockwellpete]

Hello TGM. There are some fantastic old threads to re-visit from 2011/2012 where we were all discussing ways to improve the game. A lot of what was written then is still very relevant now. There really is no need for us to "re-invent the wheel", although some ideas may have evolved further since then. I seem to remember you and me spending a lot of time compiling lists of players' requests with regards to various aspects of the game.

As regards the "Battle of Bonkers", I think it was my intention to show what I regard as the bizarre nature of many melee results even when units were evenly matched. There were very few 10-10 or 8-6 or 8-10 sort of results in the battle, which I think you might have expected between evenly matched troops. If there were more of these "drawn" combats I think it would help to create the sense of more attritional fighting (which was quite common if you think of, say, Towton 1461 in the War of the Roses). I think it would mean that melees would last slightly longer than they do at the moment and this would allow a little more time for flanking attacks etc. The other very important point is that more equal combat results between evenly matched troops would mean that players who had used their archers (or other missile troops) skilfully to whittle down some enemy units would get greater reward for their skilful play. At the moment such skilful whittling down can be completely negated by the sort of melee results that I was getting all too often at the Battle of Bonkers.