PoA/Percentages and Outcomes just don't match up

[keyth]

Played a lot of FoG I, even did a few scenarios that got released. Not saying I'm any good, just saying

Picked up FoG II earlier and have been running Dacians against AI Romans to check out the lie of the land. In every game so far, there has been little to no resemblance between the predicted % win/draw/loss and the actual outcome. I've also had numerous two step losses on my side and many HELD FIRM by fragged units for both me and the AI... a lot more than feels right. Anyone else experiencing the feeling that the 'dice' are a bit bent?

[hjc]

Anyone else experiencing the feeling that the 'dice' are a bit bent?

I recently played a game where I felt hard done by, with several extreme bits of bad luck, which in the end I reckon cost me a victory.

However, I've also had times where I was lucky, and the AI copped the brunt of unlucky rolls. I haven't been keeping records, but the more games I play, the more it seems that the combat results table is able to throw out the occasional extreme "upset" result. As players we really notice these if it swings the tide, but no I don't believe the dice are bent or adjusted to favour one way or the other.

[Cheimison]

Anyone else experiencing the feeling that the 'dice' are a bit bent?

I recently played a game where I felt hard done by, with several extreme bits of bad luck, which in the end I reckon cost me a victory.

However, I've also had times where I was lucky, and the AI copped the brunt of unlucky rolls. I haven't been keeping records, but the more games I play, the more it seems that the combat results table is able to throw out the occasional extreme "upset" result. As players we really notice these if it swings the tide, but no I don't believe the dice are bent or adjusted to favour one way or the other.

D&D players are always complaining about low rolls, especially on stats. Damn entitled casuals!

[jomni]

The odds are calculated in the same way as resolving combat. The dev said it runs simulation 1000s of times. After several game plays (thousands of combat resolutions) you will notice thing do add up.

Also maybe you’re not reading the percentages right.

[Jagger2002]

I doubt it but I must admit I have been wondering if the AI gets some sort of morale bonuses after seeing fragged units hold out for far longer than I expected.

[76mm]

heh, while we're talking about AI "bonuses" it has seemed to me that AI units rally much quicker than mine.

[jomni]

As the dev said, the only thing that the AI gets is more purchase points. Everything else is the same.

[keyth]

This isn't about 'the nasty AI beat me, the dice must be cheating' It was late so I was not as clear as I may have been! I was trying to make two separate observations:

i. Win/Draw/Loss percentages as displayed on screen do not seem to be reflected in the actual outcomes.
ii. In ALL cases, both for the AI and me, fragged units seem to hold firm too often.

Now these could both just be statistical anomalies that will straighten out over time, but I wanted to get other opinions hence the forum post.

[rbodleyscott]

The Win:Draw:Loss % are calculated by going through the actual combat routine and then running the random part 1000 times, adding up the wins, draws and losses and dividing by 10. There really isn't any possibility that they are inaccurate, except by a small variation due to the sample size (1000!) being relatively small.

Of course winning or losing a round of combat does not necessarily mean that anything dramatic happens. It just means that the loser takes a Cohesion Test. If they pass it, then nothing much happens.

In answer to the subsequent posters: It is quite usual for players to perceive that their "luck" seems worse than it should be, or that the AI's "luck" seems better than it should be. That is human nature. This happens with every game, and all strategy games gets threads like this in their forums, whether or not the game actually "cheats". Some games even cheat in the player's favour in an attempt to remove this perception. FOG2 does not cheat for or against the player.

To reiterate - the game gives the AI no bonus to random throws, combat factors, rallying or any mechanism at all.

[hjc]

... and stating the obvious - even if you only have a 1% chance to lose a melee, then with the number of melees resolved each turn there's a good chance of losing "a winning fight" at least once per game.

[76mm]

In answer to the subsequent posters: It is quite usual for players to perceive that their "luck" seems worse than it should be, or that the AI's "luck" seems better than it should be. That is human nature. This happens with every game, and all strategy games gets threads like this in their forums, whether or not the game actually "cheats".

Sure, I'm well aware of this phenomenon and your previous statements that the AI has no advantages, that's why I prefaced my post with a "heh"...

[keyth]

Thanks for all the responses

[MikeC_81]

This isn't about 'the nasty AI beat me, the dice must be cheating' It was late so I was not as clear as I may have been! I was trying to make two separate observations:

i. Win/Draw/Loss percentages as displayed on screen do not seem to be reflected in the actual outcomes.
ii. In ALL cases, both for the AI and me, fragged units seem to hold firm too often.

Now these could both just be statistical anomalies that will straighten out over time, but I wanted to get other opinions hence the forum post.

I am not sure if you know this but there are 2 W/D/L displays when there is Impact involved. Being brand new to the game I was perplexed like you that sometimes outcomes didn't match the combat predictor. I am pretty disciplined about these things since I have or continue to play tons of card games and strategy games with odds based outcomes so I was kind of annoyed. Then I noticed that the game generates a non-impact W/D/L table even when Impact PoAs apply and displays it on the bottom of the predictor window, presumably, to help you gauge whether you can win in the long haul. Screwed me up for the longest time since I didn't really care about the nuts and bolts of why my unit was advantaged or disadvantaged, I just wanted to know if I could win.

As for units holding firm, or rallying, Mixed and Heavy foot are inherently more likely to pass checks with a +1 modifier. Also having a general in combat also adds a +1 modifier. FoG like any other "luck-skill" game involves using strategies to force your opponent to repeatedly make luck based checks they don't want to make while minimizing the number of checks you have to make yourself and whenever possible tilting the odds in your favour before hand.

[jomni]

Also W/D/L predicts the probabilities for the combat round but not the cohesion roll results of the losing side. The OP may be comparing at the outcomes after the cohesion test. So those outcomes (including the cohesion effects) may vary based on the quality of the opposing sides.

Observing just who wins or loses the combat roll (side who takes the 'red' casualties and forces the cohesion roll) will be in line with W/D/L percentages.

[keyth]

It is based on W/D/L rather than step loss, which I accept is a different beast altogether.

[Jagger2002]

Maybe my post should be in a separate thread but for the moment it is here. I just had a fragged, superior Triari unit attacked from 3 sides pass a minimum of 6 hold tests over 2 turns. Note that is a minimum-may have been as high as 7-9 holds. I haven't attempted to determine what are the odds for failing a hold test for a fragged, superior, heavy foot unit but I am scratching my head and wondering what are the statistical odds of passing that many straight tests while fragged. Something just doesn't quite smell right. I know that is an extreme example but many times, fragged units hold on and on and on-unlike P&S. I guess I am going to have to look closely at the morale system to figure out odds as it is producing results quite a bit different from P&S.

[w_michael]

D&D players are always complaining about low rolls, especially on stats. Damn entitled casuals!

I used to grumble to myself after a series of bad rolls in miniatures wargaming, so I bought half a dozen precision backgammon dice. It didn't appreciably change my luck, but I stopped grumbling.

[rbodleyscott]

Maybe my post should be in a separate thread but for the moment it is here. I just had a fragged, superior Triari unit attacked from 3 sides pass a minimum of 6 hold tests over 2 turns. Note that is a minimum-may have been as high as 7-9 holds. I haven't attempted to determine what are the odds for failing a hold test for a fragged, superior, heavy foot unit but I am scratching my head and wondering what are the statistical odds of passing that many straight tests while fragged. Something just doesn't quite smell right. I know that is an extreme example but many times, fragged units hold on and on and on-unlike P&S. I guess I am going to have to look closely at the morale system to figure out odds as it is producing results quite a bit different from P&S.

See this:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... =735499412

The difference would be due to Heavy Foot getting a +1 modifier.

Otherwise the system is pretty much the same.

Triarii are Elite which will also significantly increase their chance of holding on.

[Jagger2002]

Thanks for that link of probabilities. And yes, Triari are elite vs superior. That explains a lot. Looking at the stats, clearly they had a run of good luck but not statistically improbable. I think the higher morale of the Roman army vs most P&S armies is why we are seeing more resilience with disrupted and fragged units in FOG2 vs P&S.

[76mm]

The Romans were just as resilient in FOG 1; unless hit from the flank, they often won't lose cohesion at all until they autobreak from their cumulative losses, and that's not even the elite triarii.