Too Many Double Breaks

[76mm]

While I think that FOG2's combat engine is much better than FOG1's, I am growing to dislike one part of FOG2 more and more--the large number of double breaks (ie, immediately from Steady to Fragmented or from Disrupted to Broken) both in combat and as a result of adjacent units breaking. I often get 2-3 double-breaks per turn, and then more in my opponents turn... And these are not no-hoper attacks or defenses, but with decent odds. This is just re-introducing the randomness of FOG1's combat engine via a different mechanism.

I like the concept but I think they should not be so common--maybe half as common as they are now.

Rant over...

[julianbarker]

Personally, I think FoG II breaks units far too slowly. Average units hold out against impossible odds attacked from three sides too often for to long etc. In P&S and SJ if you broke a flank of an army you could often roll up a battle line in a few turns unless there were one or two better units that could stop the rot, as it should be. I have found that impossible in FoG II as units appear far more resilient and almost every single unit needs to be attacked front, flank and rear and ground down before it breaks. For example in the Lysimachus campaign last night I had a unit of standard Thracians hit by two veteran pike phalanxes and an average pike phalanx. It held out for six turns without even dropping to disordered before it autobroke on losses.

[devoncop]

Personally, I think FoG II breaks units far too slowly. Average units hold out against impossible odds attacked from three sides too often for to long etc. In P&S and SJ if you broke a flank of an army you could often roll up a battle line in a few turns unless there were one or two better units that could stop the rot, as it should be. I have found that impossible in FoG II as units appear far more resilient and almost every single unit needs to be attacked front, flank and rear and ground down before it breaks. For example in the Lysimachus campaign last night I had a unit of standard Thracians hit by two veteran pike phalanxes and an average pike phalanx. It held out for six turns without even dropping to disordered before it autobroke on losses.

I would get your Thracians were holding rough ground, had a General and/or the Phalanx units were not all steady? Otherwise I would agree with you.

In general though I veer more to supporting 76mm point. I can see why a steady rabble or maybe even irregular foot would drop a step to disordered if their neighbouring unit routed but dropping to fragmented?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think the balance is good. As for historically, there are plenty of cases of units simply breaking at the sight of fleeing friends, so I don't think the feature is too punishing. I think I lean slightly toward julians view that it is over generous. The calculations are the same as in PnS, but reduced infantry pursuits, flank attacks now only causing automatic cohesion drops on engaged or evaded units, the scarcity of artillery and the overall lower casualties from missile fire make chain breaks less common than in PnS.

[76mm]

hmm, interesting, although I'm not even talking about units that have been flanked--I'm talking about units that attack, or are attacked, head-on. And when adjacent units break, I still think a double-break is too much.

[TheGrayMouser]

I am gonna say if I had to fall off one side of the fence or the other on what I observe to be more common, I would say units are a bit too resilient and I rarely see double drops...( and rarely see units drop from friends routing or generals dying) I want to see more, or at least to my opponents units.

[GiveWarAchance]

I like it as is now. There are occasional catastrophic routing and domino effect morale breaks which I think is historical and adds some big surprises to battle so it feels dynamic and exciting. So I think this feature is quite a good design.

[nikgaukroger]

Current situation seems about OK to me. Certainly don't seem to be too many, and certainly nothing like the number the OP mentioned. My experience is that they are infrequent enough that when they happen they are noticeable because they are a real exception.

[MikeC_81]

They are very infrequent unless we are talking about Raw units. Those units are super unreliable.

[Archaeologist1970]

They seem about right. I wouldn't mind seeing units break earlier and then rally when they get out of trouble.

[julianbarker]

The Alexander Epic Battles play completely unhistorically as Darius can be killed or chased from the field and the army carries on as if nothing had happened. I guess the same is true if Alexander is killed. I would like to see some special rules for some of these commanders as in this period, many armies only existed and fought because of one or more individuals. There should be super bonuses for fighting at their side and defending them, and huge impacts if they die. Generals seem to die without even poor troops nearby being affected much if at all.

[76mm]

I must be playing a different game--I can't see how anyone could call double-breaks "very infrequent"--I frequently get more than one per turn, so I would call it rather common, or certainly not uncommon. Again, I'm not talking about when units are flanked, just head-on attack or defense.

[keyth]

I’m with 76mm on this one. For my taste, there are far too many two-step losses in straight up, nothing fancy, head-on combat.

[76mm]

Just finished a straight up phalanx-on-phalanx battle during which I had 8-10 double-breaks caused by head-on attack/defense, including two in a row at one point. With this kind of result, a battle line disintegrates very quickly and irretrievably. I would call once or twice a battle "infrequent" or "occasional", not 8-10. Some players seem to like these type of results, but at the risk of repeating myself, personally I don't find playing with this high degree of randomness very enjoyable.

At the very least, could we have more information about the mechanics for these results? Most of my double-breaks come after what otherwise look like decent, if not excellent, attack/defense odds, not something like phalanx vs slingers.

[nikgaukroger]

Just finished a straight up phalanx-on-phalanx battle during which I had 8-10 double-breaks caused by head-on attack/defense, including two in a row at one point. With this kind of result, a battle line disintegrates very quickly and irretrievably. I would call once or twice a battle "infrequent" or "occasional", not 8-10. Some players seem to like these type of results, but at the risk of repeating myself, personally I don't find playing with this high degree of randomness very enjoyable.

At the very least, could we have more information about the mechanics for these results? Most of my double-breaks come after what otherwise look like decent, if not excellent, attack/defense odds, not something like phalanx vs slingers.

Basics are covered in the Cohesion Test section of the manual. Basically if you lose a round of combat significantly you have a chance of a double drop if the cohesion test dice roll is very poor - using the table top game as a guide (and only a guide) a final CT score of 2 following a significant combat round loss would cause a double drop. Combat odds are not a direct factor, it is the actual combat result that matters - so for an example even if you only had a 1% chance of losing the combat, if you did get really unlucky and lose it you could still possibly double drop.

[rbodleyscott]

if you only had a 1% chance of losing the combat, if you did get really unlucky and lose it you could still possibly double drop.

Probably not, as a 1% chance of losing the combat would probably equate to a 0% chance of losing it badly.

[nikgaukroger]

if you only had a 1% chance of losing the combat, if you did get really unlucky and lose it you could still possibly double drop.

Probably not, as a 1% chance of losing the combat would probably equate to a 0% chance of losing it badly.

Fair.

Mind you, knowing wargamers there'll be somebody out there who will say it has happened to them a few times

[vakarr]

Personally, I think FoG II breaks units far too slowly. Average units hold out against impossible odds attacked from three sides too often for to long etc. In P&S and SJ if you broke a flank of an army you could often roll up a battle line in a few turns unless there were one or two better units that could stop the rot, as it should be. I have found that impossible in FoG II as units appear far more resilient and almost every single unit needs to be attacked front, flank and rear and ground down before it breaks. For example in the Lysimachus campaign last night I had a unit of standard Thracians hit by two veteran pike phalanxes and an average pike phalanx. It held out for six turns without even dropping to disordered before it autobroke on losses.

Woo-hoo! Always nice to hear about Thracians doing well for a change. Thracians are the most completely average unit in the game, you can never tell what they will do. I think there should be a few superior Thracians in the Thracian list so it balances out more (but I also put in the less reliable hillmen/javelinmen). I've done a new version of the Lysimachus campaign with an extra battle which will be uploaded soon; how do you like the existing version??

[76mm]

Basics are covered in the Cohesion Test section of the manual. Basically if you lose a round of combat significantly you have a chance of a double drop if the cohesion test dice roll is very poor - using the table top game as a guide (and only a guide) a final CT score of 2 following a significant combat round loss would cause a double drop.

Thanks for this explanation. So a double drop only occurs is you roll snake-eyes (more or less)? If so, I must be having an incredible run of bad luck over many games... I see most of these on impact, but some during ongoing melees and some after adjacent units break.

Probably not, as a 1% chance of losing the combat would probably equate to a 0% chance of losing it badly.

Not sure about 1%, but I definitely had a phalanx double-break when attacking an irregular foot unit in open ground--with a 2% chance of losing the impact.

[julianbarker]

Vakaar, I enjoyed the Lysimachus campaign.Having played several of your campaigns, I would never have guessed you had a liking for Thracians! Really enjoying the Agesilaus campaign BTW. A solid veteran Spartan hoplite force supported by a cloud of skirmishers seems to fare well.