Slitherine

I don't wish to sound petulant here but I've reached my wits end with this game. My greatest concern is the inordinate amount of times a 'held firm' message comes up after too many combat results, even when the odds outcome indicate 100% chance of winning! I can't count the number of times(literally) this has come up in each and every game I play. I don't want people commenting that they feel the frequency of this happening is just fine. I don't care. This problem has ruined countless games where measured decisions by myself and finely executed attacks have all been for not due to this. In FOG1, the game was ruined by the utter randomness of the combat results(again, don't care to have others refute this). FOG 2 is ruined by the algorithms that incessantly keep producing this result. I would request that the developers revisit this issue in their next DLC if they can. I will no longer squander my hard earned money on this franchise and further DLC's. I will honor the multiplayer games I presently have, and so to honor the tournaments I'm presently in. This game has such potential and was a joy to play. I'm done with this game. If this issue can be fixed, I will revisit playing again.
Alex

Sorry you're unhappy with the game, as I understand it you don't get a % chance of cohesion drop, just a % chance of winning a combat or not. Not quite sure what you mean by "held fast" message after too many combats.

Mark, sorry I meant 'held firm'. You are correct it is % chance of winning...typed this message when I was angry and utterly disheartened...

If you were to run a completely logical computer calculation on the odds of a single company of the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem in 1944 being able to hold a bridge single handed for 96 hours that was the job of the entire Division for 48 hours....?

There are many many examples of similar totally improbable feats through history. Rorkes Drift anyone ?....

Just saying.

Perhaps your digital troops have found your “finely executed attacks” lacking relative to the realities of the games mechanics and rules?

We've all had that game where we felt we did everything right and the dice go against us. Particularly in even matches between opponents of equal skill, it can feel like the dice are almost being vindictive sometimes. I can say with some embarrassment I have been reduced to almost screaming at the computer screen when I see a unit of my finest soldiers disrupt in the face of some raw recruits or skirmisher rabble.

The general rule is that unless you absolutely have to, don't take a risk. Even if it is a small one, you want to minimise random chance from cropping up as much as possible. A 1% chance of loss may not seem like much, but I have seen plenty of occasions where either myself or my opponent has suffered it, and at least one where someone has suffered it and taken a double drop or a general's death in the same breath. I think of these as 'lightning bolts', bolts from the blue where something goes badly and unexpectedly wrong which can totally change the course of the battle.

You can minimise them as I said, but you can't always avoid them. Unless you are exceptional at weighting flanks or picking good battles, at some point, you are going to face some risk that things will go against you. The best players I've seen are the ones who set things up so well that these risks never occur; they either get that flank or artillery strike in before it matters, or they put themselves in such a strong position that even a sudden double drop doesn't matter. Yeah, go ahead and disrupt my infantry Ludendorf; I'll just flank you next turn and be done with it.

We wanted to simulate losing units taking one single cohesion test at the end of all combats in a turn (which is what happens in the tabletop game). If units took completely independent cohesion tests for each combat in a turn, the overall failure rate would be much higher than we intend.

As the game has no way of knowing whether a unit will be engaged in further impact close combats during the turn, instead each unit has one single random roll for all close combat cohesion tests during a turn.

If it passes the first such test it takes in a turn, the only way it can fail a subsequent one is if it gets additional modifiers, and these tip it below the fail threshold while still using the same random score. If it fails a close combat cohesion test, the only way it can fail a subsequent one in the same turn is if additional modifiers bring it down to the threshold for a double cohesion drop.

So what you are seeing is not units miraculously passing multiple cohesion tests in a turn, in defiance of probability, but a simulation of one single cohesion test. Multiple tests are taken using the same random score, with only the single worst result counting.

(Note that tests by Fragmented units for being charged use a freshly rolled random score, so charging fragmented units is always worthwhile, even if they have already dropped cohesion this turn. If they pass the test for being charged, however, the test for losing the impact combat will use the close combat cohesion test dice roll for the turn).

i think Alex may have a lack of understanding in the game mechanics...a 100% chance at a "win" means THE OPPONENT WILL HAVE A 100% CHANCE TO MAKE A CHECK FOR COHESION DROPPING...NOT YOU!. And just as important a "check" for a cohesion drop only means that, and it is generally less than a 50% chance it will occur. If you put your brain in the mode of..."i have a 100% chance of causing a check for cohesion drop that will occur 37% of the time..." then you might enjoy the game. i.e. 100% means 37% or so.

it was common for these types of battles lasted for hours, with multiple clashes and withdraws. the game demonstrates this with cohesion. if 100% meant auto drop, the game would not simulate what actually happened on the field. the solution to your problem, of course, is to make sure you always attack engaged enemies in the flanks... easy game? ...well that's why we play

klayeckles wrote:i think Alex may have a lack of understanding in the game mechanics...a 100% chance at a "win" means THE OPPONENT WILL HAVE A 100% CHANCE TO MAKE A CHECK FOR COHESION DROPPING...NOT YOU!. And just as important a "check" for a cohesion drop only means that, and it is generally less than a 50% chance it will occur. If you put your brain in the mode of..."i have a 100% chance of causing a check for cohesion drop that will occur 37% of the time..." then you might enjoy the game. i.e. 100% means 37% or so.

it was common for these types of battles lasted for hours, with multiple clashes and withdraws. the game demonstrates this with cohesion. if 100% meant auto drop, the game would not simulate what actually happened on the field. the solution to your problem, of course, is to make sure you always attack engaged enemies in the flanks... easy game? ...well that's why we play

Klayecles, I understand the process now, thanks. And I hear what RBS is saying also.

rbodleyscott wrote:So what you are seeing is not units miraculously passing multiple cohesion tests in a turn, in defiance of probability, but a simulation of one single cohesion test. Multiple tests are taken using the same random score, with only the single worst result counting.

That's a really interesting explanation, not sure how I missed this finer point for all this time. Thanks Richard.

All table top game players have experienced that moment of disbelief when the gods mock us: "Ten rolls to hit, they only miss on a roll of one - your unit is dead!" ... rolls ten ones.

Alex, we have talked about this before and how to take advantage of this

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=84921

Also, if you think that winning an attack round = breaking an opponent's unit and are building strategies around that, you are the one at fault.

It is also worth noting that piling multiple units on one enemy unit in frontal close combat is not the most efficient way of defeating them. Yes, your units will probably win eventually, but it won't be anything like as quick as if you engaged them with one unit, then charged them in the flank with another.

See, this makes no sense to me. If I want to concentrate on breaking a unit in a line with three units attacking it at the expense of possibly losing in the other adjacent areas of the battle, that should be a thing. I should be able to burn it down. Its not a bad game overall, but just too many weird game design choices like this for me to hold my interest.

Archaeologist1970 wrote:See, this makes no sense to me. If I want to concentrate on breaking a unit in a line with three units attacking it at the expense of possibly losing in the other adjacent areas of the battle, that should be a thing. I should be able to burn it down. Its not a bad game overall, but just too many weird game design choices like this for me to hold my interest.

Attacking one unit with three will "burn them down", it just isn't usually as quick as attacking them with two and charging them in the flank with the third.

Why is this a weird design choice?

You said piling multiple units on one enemy unit in frontal close combat is not the most efficient way of defeating them. Why not? Raw bodies and the force of three coordinated attacks from the front should be pretty close as effective as one frontal and one flank attack if not more so.

Cannae. etc.

Archaeologist1970 wrote:You said piling multiple units on one enemy unit in frontal close combat is not the most efficient way of defeating them. Why not? Raw bodies and the force of three coordinated attacks from the front should be pretty close as effective as one frontal and one flank attack if not more so.

From a "realism" perspective, I don't think that really stands, because the frontage of units is limited. A unit of soldiers fighting against three times their number from a forward direction is not fighting against three times as much combat strength, because only a fraction of the outnumbering force can actually fight them. Of course, in reality, outnumbering troops would start to envelop the outnumbered unit and fight it on the flanks, which the game doesn't strictly represent. But I think that's a very different scenario to receiving a flank- or-rear charge and I'd argue that the way the game handles things is a reasonable enough abstraction.

From a gameplay perspective, if it were optimal simply to dog-pile units and overwhelm them with numbers, it would make the game less strategic as it would take away key reasons to care about manoeuvre and positioning.

I think it would be fine. The risk/reward is that if you are dog pilling a unit, you, yourself can get counter dog pilled somewhere else in the vicinity. I don't think there was as much maneuver in the ancient period as some might suggest. That stuff evolves later on. The lack of risk/reward in this game really holds it back. I suspect too much reliant on staying with the FOG tabletop mentality versus making a accurate as possible historical military simulator is the primary negative factor. All from my perspective of course, take it with a grain of sand. I really wanted to love this game too. Maybe it will get better with dark ages stuff, but then how are shield walls and siege warfare going to be handled? Abstracted i suspect.

MikeC_81 wrote:Alex, we have talked about this before and how to take advantage of this

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=84921

Also, if you think that winning an attack round = breaking an opponent's unit and are building strategies around that, you are the one at fault.

I am well aware of this. Please don't assume that this is how I plan my strategies. Was using my original example as just that, an example.

MikeC_81 wrote:Alex, we have talked about this before and how to take advantage of this

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=84921

Also, if you think that winning an attack round = breaking an opponent's unit and are building strategies around that, you are the one at fault.

I am well aware of this. Please don't assume that this is how I plan my strategies. Was using my original example as just that, an example.
Pardon for the double post.