Combat power replacement suggestion

[LDiCesare]

Currently, each unit displays a figure called 'combat power'.
I think the combat power currently hurts the game more than it helps.

In fact, this figure cannot be used to guess the outcome of a fight.
As a result, I've seen a lot of complaints about the AI cheating or the game being bad because when you've got a force ratio of 2:1 you should win (never mind Cannae, Pharalos and the like).
What about, instead of shwoing a 'combat power' which is rather useless, you showed probabilities of battle outcome (both offensive and defensive) when you gave an order to attack an enemy army?

Example:
I select I.Exercitus and right click on IX.Stratos. I.Exercitus is on a plain, IX.Stratos is in a forest. In an info window somewhere, I could see an odds calculator: Provided the army composition remains the same, the generals remain the same, if I. attacks IX. on IX's terrain, I.Exercitus's probability of victory/draw/defeat are 40/50/10%, and if IX. attacks of I.'s terrain, I.Exercitus's probabilities are 15/25/60%.

This requires actually computing the probabilities, which may not be easy at all, or may be too computation-intensive to run in a tooltip-display time, so maybe a simplified version could be used (such as showing useful attack strength vs. defense, with abstracted bonuses from support, experience, leaders).

[Geffalrus]

Currently, each unit displays a figure called 'combat power'.
I think the combat power currently hurts the game more than it helps.

In fact, this figure cannot be used to guess the outcome of a fight.
As a result, I've seen a lot of complaints about the AI cheating or the game being bad because when you've got a force ratio of 2:1 you should win (never mind Cannae, Pharalos and the like).
What about, instead of shwoing a 'combat power' which is rather useless, you showed probabilities of battle outcome (both offensive and defensive) when you gave an order to attack an enemy army?

Example:
I select I.Exercitus and right click on IX.Stratos. I.Exercitus is on a plain, IX.Stratos is in a forest. In an info window somewhere, I could see an odds calculator: Provided the army composition remains the same, the generals remain the same, if I. attacks IX. on IX's terrain, I.Exercitus's probability of victory/draw/defeat are 40/50/10%, and if IX. attacks of I.'s terrain, I.Exercitus's probabilities are 15/25/60%.

This requires actually computing the probabilities, which may not be easy at all, or may be too computation-intensive to run in a tooltip-display time, so maybe a simplified version could be used (such as showing useful attack strength vs. defense, with abstracted bonuses from support, experience, leaders).

Um, generally when you do have a combat power disparity of 2-1, you do win. I honestly don't understand where people are coming from when they make this complaint about the battle system. The combined combat power of the army gives a decent approximation of the combat values, general level, experience, and numbers of the units in the army. A well put together army will have a high combat power. That army then proceeds to win most battles. However, there will be situations and exceptions that buck that trend.

For example, heavy infantry tend to have lower defense values. Combine that with plains terrain, a general with low defense rating, and an enemy with a high attack rating, and you can have a "weaker" army beat a stronger one.

Honest question: do people not actually use the "View Battle" button? That's honestly the only explanation I have for people confused by a weaker army beating a stronger one. Watching the battle play out using View Battle will show you exactly how a general with a good Att/Def value allows a "weak" unit to beat a stronger one if they get a good roll. It's very straightforward. Do you sometimes get undone by lucky rolls? Sure, but if you have experienced troops and a good general, you have up to 4 chances to roll a 10, and each time, you will re-roll results that are below your experience + stamina threshold. It makes a big difference.

Are people just roaming around with 36 units of heavy infantry and then getting confused when 12 infantry units and some skirmishers ruin their day?

[FrenchDude]

I agree with Geffalrus, understanding how the battle system works is honestly not that complicated, and even if the player does not understand everything at first glance, seeing the battle play in FOGE (via the « View Battle » option) is enough to understand most of it. The combat power system is fine as it is in my opinion, but perhaps that more « in game » explanation (a tooltip before the battle perhaps ?) could be added. But everything’s in the manual though, the player just has to read it

[LDiCesare]

Um, generally when you do have a combat power disparity of 2-1, you do win.

All others things equal, yes, but that's hardly ever the case.
e.g. Armies 200 vs 100. 100 is warships. 200 is land armies. Odds of the 2vs1 army of winning: Around 0%.
Army 200 is without a general, made of clumsy heavy infantries with 0 skirmisher backup. Army of 100 is regular infantry defending in forest with a 2 general and support of skirmishers. Odds of 200vs100 winning: Almost none, because the superior numbers of 200 won't be taken into consideration due to the small front size, plus their power is actually diminished by 2 (clumsy) while the defenders get +2 AND a general to reroll twice.

I honestly don't understand where people are coming from when they make this complaint about the battle system. The combined combat power of the army gives a decent approximation of the combat values, general level, experience, and numbers of the units in the army. A well put together army will have a high combat power. That army then proceeds to win most battles. However, there will be situations and exceptions that buck that trend.

You're correct that it's a good approximation of the combat value, but you acknowledge that some people do complain. The point is they think that this figure, alone, will give them odds. It doesn't. Showing a single factor is very misleading.

Honest question: do people not actually use the "View Battle" button? That's honestly the only explanation I have for people confused by a weaker army beating a stronger one.

Maybe, but that's irrelevant as it happens after the fact. Those who complain probably didn't watch any battle, didn't read the manual, but thought genuinely and naively that having a higher figure, they should win. As a result, they are sending a lot of negative feedback on this game. It's a shame, because it's a marvel of a game, but it'll get bad press from people who can't be bothered to read the manual, and ends up with critics like "AI cheats" or "it's a lame RNG". I think the devs need to do a bit of marketing to avoid their game receiving bad critics for bad reasons.

Are people just roaming around with 36 units of heavy infantry and then getting confused when 12 infantry units and some skirmishers ruin their day?

Probably. But then they had twice as much combat power as the enemy, and therefore they can't understand why they lost. Combat power is harming the game more than helping.

[kvnrthr]

I agree that displaying combat power is a bit misleading. They should show "effective" combat power i.e. only the units that will occupy the front/provide support in the terrain you go to, with characteristics taken into account.

Showing the actual odds would be better. The battle system is easy to understand but why should we calculate in our heads when the computer can do it?

[Geffalrus]

Pretty sure that land armies at sea have much lower combat power displayed, but I could be mis-remembering. Additionally, no one with any experience in any type of game like this should expect transport ships to stand up to dedicated warships. This isn't Rome 2.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that people are unfairly complaining about the game, though I have not seen that on Steam as of yet.

I really don't think that victory odds are something that can be implemented. There are too many terrain variables and attack/defense situational variables that come into play when dealing with a simultaneous movement game like this.

I think if you didn't have combat power, you'd instead have army size/unit numbers. Like what Total War games or Paradox games do. However, you'd still have people complaining, because why did my 20 unit stack get defeated by his 10 unit stack? We're always going to have people complaining about a perception of unfairness.

It's just.......the information is RIGHT there. Look at the enemy army. Does it have a good general? Do the units have Exp stars? Are they fresh while yours are fatigued?

I think there's a real danger that any change they make is going to cause more confusion, not less. Plenty of weird results happen in Slitherine games. I'm watching my Veteran Pikes in FoG2 do precisely jack-spit to a unit of raw hoplites while my opponent's warbands charge through my average pikes like a hot knife through butter. Sometimes the dice gods just really hate you.

[USGrant1962]

I agree that displaying combat power is a bit misleading. They should show "effective" combat power i.e. only the units that will occupy the front/provide support in the terrain you go to, with characteristics taken into account.

Showing the actual odds would be better. The battle system is easy to understand but why should we calculate in our heads when the computer can do it?

Combat power is displayed at all times on the map, and for better or worse does not consider frontage, terrain, etc. It can't until you attack/defend. What you are asking for is totally different - some kind of battle preview. I don't think that is necessary.

One suggestion is to display the number of troops (say as strength in 1,000s) instead of combat power. That would be useful for estimating supply and "combat power", but cause most players to better consider leadership, terrain, and unit composition before entering battle. I think it is a better approach than the current "combat power" which is a mathematical formula representing the gross strength of the whole force, but is applied in a vacuum.

[MoLAoS]

Currently, each unit displays a figure called 'combat power'.
I think the combat power currently hurts the game more than it helps.

In fact, this figure cannot be used to guess the outcome of a fight.
As a result, I've seen a lot of complaints about the AI cheating or the game being bad because when you've got a force ratio of 2:1 you should win (never mind Cannae, Pharalos and the like).
What about, instead of shwoing a 'combat power' which is rather useless, you showed probabilities of battle outcome (both offensive and defensive) when you gave an order to attack an enemy army?

Example:
I select I.Exercitus and right click on IX.Stratos. I.Exercitus is on a plain, IX.Stratos is in a forest. In an info window somewhere, I could see an odds calculator: Provided the army composition remains the same, the generals remain the same, if I. attacks IX. on IX's terrain, I.Exercitus's probability of victory/draw/defeat are 40/50/10%, and if IX. attacks of I.'s terrain, I.Exercitus's probabilities are 15/25/60%.

This requires actually computing the probabilities, which may not be easy at all, or may be too computation-intensive to run in a tooltip-display time, so maybe a simplified version could be used (such as showing useful attack strength vs. defense, with abstracted bonuses from support, experience, leaders).

Um, generally when you do have a combat power disparity of 2-1, you do win. I honestly don't understand where people are coming from when they make this complaint about the battle system. The combined combat power of the army gives a decent approximation of the combat values, general level, experience, and numbers of the units in the army. A well put together army will have a high combat power. That army then proceeds to win most battles. However, there will be situations and exceptions that buck that trend.

For example, heavy infantry tend to have lower defense values. Combine that with plains terrain, a general with low defense rating, and an enemy with a high attack rating, and you can have a "weaker" army beat a stronger one.

Honest question: do people not actually use the "View Battle" button? That's honestly the only explanation I have for people confused by a weaker army beating a stronger one. Watching the battle play out using View Battle will show you exactly how a general with a good Att/Def value allows a "weak" unit to beat a stronger one if they get a good roll. It's very straightforward. Do you sometimes get undone by lucky rolls? Sure, but if you have experienced troops and a good general, you have up to 4 chances to roll a 10, and each time, you will re-roll results that are below your experience + stamina threshold. It makes a big difference.

Are people just roaming around with 36 units of heavy infantry and then getting confused when 12 infantry units and some skirmishers ruin their day?

I disagree with this. Combat power is often very misleading. Although when you play the battle in FoG2 its very accurate. Combat power should definitely have an attack and defence split for one, because of high variation provided by generals. But even just looking at attack with a 2-0 general you could have 150 combat power including a reasonable number of skirmishers and cav, plus legions get a ranged attack, and still lose. Game should tell you what a battle result would be if you attacked into another province, given the units that are already there. Obviously not viable to factor in enemies moving in more units. I think this would make things a lot more intuitive for people.

[Geffalrus]

I disagree with this. Combat power is often very misleading. Although when you play the battle in FoG2 its very accurate. Combat power should definitely have an attack and defence split for one, because of high variation provided by generals. But even just looking at attack with a 2-0 general you could have 150 combat power including a reasonable number of skirmishers and cav, plus legions get a ranged attack, and still lose. Game should tell you what a battle result would be if you attacked into another province, given the units that are already there. Obviously not viable to factor in enemies moving in more units. I think this would make things a lot more intuitive for people.

I mean, yes, you could definitely lose in certain situations. But on average, no - having a combat power advantage translates into success more often than not. Unless you're taking those legions into a forest against barbarian units with special bonuses in forest that have the exact right number of skirmishers and a defensive 0-2 general.........then I'm extremely skeptical of that doomstack ever losing against anything but another doomstack.

[MoLAoS]

I disagree with this. Combat power is often very misleading. Although when you play the battle in FoG2 its very accurate. Combat power should definitely have an attack and defence split for one, because of high variation provided by generals. But even just looking at attack with a 2-0 general you could have 150 combat power including a reasonable number of skirmishers and cav, plus legions get a ranged attack, and still lose. Game should tell you what a battle result would be if you attacked into another province, given the units that are already there. Obviously not viable to factor in enemies moving in more units. I think this would make things a lot more intuitive for people.

I mean, yes, you could definitely lose in certain situations. But on average, no - having a combat power advantage translates into success more often than not. Unless you're taking those legions into a forest against barbarian units with special bonuses in forest that have the exact right number of skirmishers and a defensive 0-2 general.........then I'm extremely skeptical of that doomstack ever losing against anything but another doomstack.

I don't think you are really taking heavy infantry combat power into account. 2 legions can have like 50 combat power. An army with 20 combat power could take them down because it could have like 8 units.

[LDiCesare]

I don't think you are really taking heavy infantry combat power into account. 2 legions can have like 50 combat power. An army with 20 combat power could take them down because it could have like 8 units.

Exactly. Flankers aren't very strong, but when the enemy does field them, you suddenly lose your 'wingers' at every battle until you get destroyed, despite advantage in combat power.

[MoLAoS]

I don't think you are really taking heavy infantry combat power into account. 2 legions can have like 50 combat power. An army with 20 combat power could take them down because it could have like 8 units.

Exactly. Flankers aren't very strong, but when the enemy does field them, you suddenly lose your 'wingers' at every battle until you get destroyed, despite advantage in combat power.

For a game with good level of simulation its just weird to me that they just add up raw combat power. No distinction for terrain, for defense or attack, for composition. Its not like, aside from armies moving in but then that's on you for no recon, the enemy data is hidden. You can see their CP and unit totals and you know what they can field typically, plus generals and stuff. Just have the game take into account combat width on the territory you are attacking, unit counts, support, etc. Why would you not do this? Not exactly the most complicated aspect of the game. Also they should be more clear on what various stuff does. Like for FoG2 you have unit quality that takes experience and so forth into account and everything. It has a sort of boost for generals as well. Skirmishers are weak as hell in the regular game sadly. That was a real twist from initially using FoG2 resolution. My army comps were trash in FoGE.

Also the promotional materials should have made clearer that FoG2 was not actually balanced. I probably never would have bought it if I had known is annihilated the game's difficulty curve. They wanted their $12 though I guess.

[desertedfox]

Pretty sure that land armies at sea have much lower combat power displayed, but I could be mis-remembering. Additionally, no one with any experience in any type of game like this should expect transport ships to stand up to dedicated warships. This isn't Rome 2.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that people are unfairly complaining about the game, though I have not seen that on Steam as of yet.

I really don't think that victory odds are something that can be implemented. There are too many terrain variables and attack/defense situational variables that come into play when dealing with a simultaneous movement game like this.

I think if you didn't have combat power, you'd instead have army size/unit numbers. Like what Total War games or Paradox games do. However, you'd still have people complaining, because why did my 20 unit stack get defeated by his 10 unit stack? We're always going to have people complaining about a perception of unfairness.

It's just.......the information is RIGHT there. Look at the enemy army. Does it have a good general? Do the units have Exp stars? Are they fresh while yours are fatigued?

I think there's a real danger that any change they make is going to cause more confusion, not less. Plenty of weird results happen in Slitherine games. I'm watching my Veteran Pikes in FoG2 do precisely jack-spit to a unit of raw hoplites while my opponent's warbands charge through my average pikes like a hot knife through butter. Sometimes the dice gods just really hate you.

+1

[PDiFolco]

I think that the problem is not CPs but the lack of any information about the army as a whole.
For example for each army a tooltip may show nr of front rank units, support units, skirmisher, and any terrain bonus/penalties due to some troops and the general.
Thus a typical Roman army may have this:
12 units total
6 front line units
4 support units
6 skirmisher
3 cavalry
Forest/mountain: 3 units with -2 penalty
General : roll 1 more die when attacking, +1 speed
You get the idea..'

[Geffalrus]

I think that the problem is not CPs but the lack of any information about the army as a whole.
For example for each army a tooltip may show nr of front rank units, support units, skirmisher, and any terrain bonus/penalties due to some troops and the general.
Thus a typical Roman army may have this:
12 units total
6 front line units
4 support units
6 skirmisher
3 cavalry
Forest/mountain: 3 units with -2 penalty
General : roll 1 more die when attacking, +1 speed
You get the idea..'

??????

That information already exists and is easy to access...........

Click on the enemy army and you will be able to see all the units, their experience, their exertion, their att/def values, the general and his traits. They even update the combat values if the current region terrain affects it. As the player, there is no information about the enemy army that you're missing.

[PDiFolco]

I think that the problem is not CPs but the lack of any information about the army as a whole.
For example for each army a tooltip may show nr of front rank units, support units, skirmisher, and any terrain bonus/penalties due to some troops and the general.
Thus a typical Roman army may have this:
12 units total
6 front line units
4 support units
6 skirmisher
3 cavalry
Forest/mountain: 3 units with -2 penalty
General : roll 1 more die when attacking, +1 speed
You get the idea..'

??????

That information already exists and is easy to access...........

Click on the enemy army and you will be able to see all the units, their experience, their exertion, their att/def values, the general and his traits. They even update the combat values if the current region terrain affects it. As the player, there is no information about the enemy army that you're missing.

Sure, but you have to examine/click on each unit of each army... Nowhere is a summary to be found.

[Geffalrus]

Sure, but you have to examine/click on each unit of each army... Nowhere is a summary to be found.

You don't need to click each unit to know most of that. The colored triangle in the left hand corner indicates if they're less than fresh. The stars in the right hand corner indicate experience and are extremely easy to see at a glance. The units are grouped into stacks of similar units, so you only really need to check out one each to understand what they're capable of. Plus, there's not - that - much difference between units within a type.