Why detailed combat info sucks, and how to fix it

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, FoG PC Moderator, NewRoSoft

beserko
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:43 pm

Post by beserko » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:15 pm

Thanks Bates, I wonder how many shots I wasted on that gambit !

jamespcrowley
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 12:51 pm
Location: Arundel, U.K.

Re: Just say no ..........................

Post by jamespcrowley » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:37 pm

batesmotel wrote: Leaders can only be killed in combat, not with missile fire.

Chris
Why should leaders be immune to missile fire - what possible justification is there?

In melee combat, a leader is more likely to be 'shielded' by his men but there is not much they can do against missiles. So, if anything, there should be more chance for a leader to be killed by missiles than through melee.

That means there can be no repeat of Harold at Hastings, when that module eventually arrives!

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Just say no ..........................

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:46 pm

jimcrowley wrote:
batesmotel wrote: Leaders can only be killed in combat, not with missile fire.

Chris
Why should leaders be immune to missile fire - what possible justification is there?

In melee combat, a leader is more likely to be 'shielded' by his men but there is not much they can do against missiles. So, if anything, there should be more chance for a leader to be killed by missiles than through melee.

That means there can be no repeat of Harold at Hastings, when that module eventually arrives!
Well, since its relativley easy for one to shoot at a unit, it would be WAY to easy to mass fire against leaders picking them off one by one.... Even if you made it a small chance to hit (since the game uses dice 2 out of twelve is not good odds at all!) Imagine facing a parthian army if leaders can be killed by missles? Or if a CnC in a knight BG died from a javelin :shock:

As for poor Harold, noone really knows if he was killed or injured by an arrow, the scene on the Bauxouix Tapestry might very well just be anecdotal ( I am petty sure losing an eye was symbolic of losing Gods favour or something similar) Plus it was the good housefraus of Normandy that wove the scene.

cothyso
NewRoSoft
NewRoSoft
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:32 pm

Post by cothyso » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:14 pm

that's the main reason leaders remained behind the battle lines, you know? exactly because they could die if fighting in front.

one of biggest problems with FoG's combat system is the fact that there's no limit to the number of volleys a missile troop can fire.

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:31 pm

I keep the combat log on so I can look at it if I see something going on that is unexpected. I still learn a lot about the troop interactions by looking at it.

Even it I look at it 1 or 2 times per game.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 5:54 pm

cothyso wrote:that's the main reason leaders remained behind the battle lines, you know? exactly because they could die if fighting in front.

one of biggest problems with FoG's combat system is the fact that there's no limit to the number of volleys a missile troop can fire.
Did they? Alexander/Philip were alway at the heart of the combat, as were most greek Hoplite leaders, medieval commanders etc. Even Charles the 12th?? , 18th century, died snooping about the front lines :D

Hmm ammo levels... I think the designers have indicated that historically , running out of ammo never really seemed to factor into battles ( in general)

How would you simulate ammo loss anyways? units get only 3?, 5? 10 shots per game? More abstract and say a 10-20% chance of running out very time they shoot?
Would reloads be available? Supply wagons/camels(like the Parthians had at Carrhea

I personally wouldnt mind seeing this simulated, historical relavance or not, just dont think it will happen due to the massive rebalancing that would be required.

CheerfullyInsane
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 291
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:11 pm
Location: Birkerød, Denmark

Post by CheerfullyInsane » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:08 pm

cothyso wrote:(snip)....
- possibility to visually scroll the text (like in a visible scroll control, which is a little bit more complicated)
You can scroll in the combat-window at present.
Just use your mouse-wheel.
I've got two words for ya: Math is hard.

cothyso
NewRoSoft
NewRoSoft
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:32 pm

Post by cothyso » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:16 pm

most of them did (stay away from the fray). alexander was an exception (actually is viewed as the last example of the old heroical leadership style), and you are wrong about Philip.

also, the statement that running out of ammo was the usual outcome of missile volleys during a battle is a false one. do you think the romans at Carhhae were stupid to wait for something wasn't usually occurring during a battle? or that the same romans developed the pilla because they were bored?

the number of missiles in the exchanged volleys were constantly thinning out during the missile troop skirmishes. as in, after exhausting the available spares, the skirmishers would scavenge for and then use the (still usable) missiles thrown by the enemy in the previous volley. as soon as they would start showering non-skirmishing troops, they would run out of ammo fast. this, coupled with the advance of the battlelines which prevented them go back recover the usable missiles, would lead to skirmishers having no more influence over that point in the battles.
CheerfullyInsane wrote:
cothyso wrote:(snip)....
- possibility to visually scroll the text (like in a visible scroll control, which is a little bit more complicated)
You can scroll in the combat-window at present.
Just use your mouse-wheel.
I know, that's exactly why I was talking about a visual scroll control (to be added to the summary screen) :roll:

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:31 pm

cothyso wrote:most of them did (stay away from the fray). alexander was an exception (actually is viewed as the last example of the old heroical leadership style), and you are wrong about Philip.

also, the statement that running out of ammo was the usual outcome of missile volleys during a battle is a false one. do you think the romans at Carhhae were stupid to wait for something wasn't usually occurring during a battle? or that the same romans developed the pilla because they were bored?

the number of missiles in the exchanged volleys were constantly thinning out during the missile troop skirmishes. as in, after exhausting the available spares, the skirmishers would scavenge for and then use the (still usable) missiles thrown by the enemy in the previous volley. as soon as they would start showering non-skirmishing troops, they would run out of ammo fast. this, couple with the advance of the battlelines which prevented them go back recover the usable missiles, would lead to skirmishers having no more influence over that point in the battles.
CheerfullyInsane wrote:
cothyso wrote:(snip)....
- possibility to visually scroll the text (like in a visible scroll control, which is a little bit more complicated)
You can scroll in the combat-window at present.
Just use your mouse-wheel.
I know, that's exactly why I was talking about a visual scroll control (to be added to the summary screen) :roll:

Hmm didnt Phillip leave a piece of himself (literally!) after almost all his battles? Doesnt sound like he was playing it safe behind the line...
What about all the mediveal commanders that almost exclusevely lead from the front, even in the Diadochi wars time period , look how many notables (ie kings generals) were killed in combat.

Was Crassus stupid to wait for the Persians to run out of missles ? NO because it was the only option he had at that point(he was stupid to get into the position he was in) . I dont think any general has a strategy to take fire until the enemy runs out of missles:)

Anyways, i was not arguing the historical nature of running out of missles, just describing how I think the developers interpret it.
So, I again ask, how would you simulate missle depletion within the FOG system?

hidde
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Post by hidde » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:35 pm

Even Charles the 12th?? , 18th century, died snooping about the front lines :D
Karl 12th is correct.
Inspecting siege trenches can be dangerous even if it's in Norway...
Image

By the way...from Wikipedia:
"Gustavus Adolphus was killed at the Battle of Lützen,1632 when, at a crucial point in the battle, he became separated from his troops while leading a cavalry charge into a dense smog of mist and gunpowder smoke".
I read somewhere it's the last time a reigning king died in battle.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 7:49 pm

Oye, nice gruesome photo, did they put him under glass?

Didnt realise that about G Adolphus(last European monach to die in battle)
I think his head likly looked the same as Charles, I think after being dismounted he was shot in the head by one of the Imperialist croats

I think the last british Monarch to actually lead troops into battle was George I, course i dont think he lead from the front like the Swedish kings.

Triarii
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:58 pm

Post by Triarii » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:24 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:Oye, nice gruesome photo, did they put him under glass?

Didnt realise that about G Adolphus(last European monach to die in battle)
I think his head likly looked the same as Charles, I think after being dismounted he was shot in the head by one of the Imperialist croats

I think the last british Monarch to actually lead troops into battle was George I, course i dont think he lead from the front like the Swedish kings.
Sorry GM no coconut this time.

George II at Dettingen in 1743 - from nowhere near the front line it is rumoured.

Triarii
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:58 pm

Post by Triarii » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:30 pm

Oh and while on trivia - though not reigning, and I suppose technically not lined up to become a monarch, any advance on 1879 for the death of an heir apparent of a ruling house in battle - actually a tiny skirmish but just as fatal.
Prince Imperial Louis Napoleon in Zululand?

cothyso
NewRoSoft
NewRoSoft
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:32 pm

Post by cothyso » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:33 pm

please do not take my posts as personal, they don't have the slightest intention to offend.

stating some exceptions of leaders throwing themselves into the fray doesn't make them all behave the same. you mentioned greek phalanx leaders for example, yet, even if they were in the first row indeed, being part of a phalanx row wasn't so dangerous. and it was done at a time the tactics of the battle were just line up and move forward.

successors are examples imposed over them by the way Alexander won and maintained the respect of his soldiers. they were forced to do it, both from practical and heartily reasons.

always when debating something, go to the primary sources. there are so few battles in which the leaders of an involved party fought into the melee's frontline and even fewer died during this fight (and not during the rout), that they are indeed exceptions, and not a rule.

Philip was indeed hurt many times, but mostly outside of frontline combat situations (for example his eye wound was taken while inspecting a siege situation).

At Carhhae, the romans tried many times to get a grip with their attackers, but concluded that even broking their ranks wouldn't help. at that point, the sources are clearly stating that romans endured patiently the grevous missile wounds with the hope that once out of them, the parthians would have to get into melee to kill them, and it would have been their chance to win in a style of combat well suited for them. the sources also stated the roman's despair at the sight of the camels carrying missiles replenishing archers' quivers..

please read the sources first. always.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:50 pm

Triarius wrote:Oh and while on trivia - though not reigning, and I suppose technically not lined up to become a monarch, any advance on 1879 for the death of an heir apparent of a ruling house in battle - actually a tiny skirmish but just as fatal.
Prince Imperial Louis Napoleon in Zululand?
Well at least I had the ist name and century correct :D All those Georges Charles and James', gets confusing!

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:15 pm

cothyso wrote:please do not take my posts as personal, they don't have the slightest intention to offend.

stating some exceptions of leaders throwing themselves into the fray doesn't make them all behave the same. you mentioned greek phalanx leaders for example, yet, even if they were in the first row indeed, being part of a phalanx row wasn't so dangerous. and it was done at a time the tactics of the battle were just line up and move forward.

successors are examples imposed over them by the way Alexander won and maintained the respect of his soldiers. they were forced to do it, both from practical and heartily reasons.

always when debating something, go to the primary sources. there are so few battles in which the leaders of an involved party fought into the melee's frontline and even fewer died during this fight (and not during the rout), that they are indeed exceptions, and not a rule.

Philip was indeed hurt many times, but mostly outside of frontline combat situations (for example his eye wound was taken while inspecting a siege situation).

At Carhhae, the romans tried many times to get a grip with their attackers, but concluded that even broking their ranks wouldn't help. at that point, the sources are clearly stating that romans endured patiently the grevous missile wounds with the hope that once out of them, the parthians would have to get into melee to kill them, and it would have been their chance to win in a style of combat well suited for them. the sources also stated the roman's despair at the sight of the camels carrying missiles replenishing archers' quivers..

please read the sources first. always.

Not offended at all, other wise i would have put some :evil: or :cry: thingies on here....

Oh well i guess i cant cite specific sources since I like to discuss history in a general manner and not google small snippets of detail to further a point (not suggesting you are doing that btw) (plus Im at work)
Carhea, since all the survivors likly were sold into slavery, not sure what primary sources from eywitnesses there are.... ( i dont think the Parthians left volumes of histories to read)

Anyways, It is beyond my ability to go thru every battle on record from 800 BC thru 1500 AD and list what % of those the commanders actually joined the ranks to fight... My total guesstimate is at least 40- 50% though, and certainly not isolated occurences.....
Ancient Hoplite commanders did join the rank since as we have both noted, once the line was formed there was nothing else they had to do.
Diodachi: does it matter why they were in the ranks fighting ? They were there and that is what we are discussing

Although Darius didnt fight in the front ranks, his wing commanders did and were killled ( as well as the commander at the Granicus where Darius wasnt present (cant recall the name, Spithrodetes maybe?)
Porus as well .....

Hmm front rank commanders in British history? petty much most of them up thru George the second (as Triari pointed out)

I think the concept of not joining the ranks was something reserved for ultra powerful monarchs steeped with the tradition of being above mortal ken... (by the time where European kings stopped fighting in the ranks, combat had changed where the individuals martial prowess in personal combat likly would have little influence on the battle and was just too risky )
But others come to mind, Persians, I doudt the Ottoman sultans typically joined the ranks as a general rule, and of course notable generals like Hannibal certainly didnt join the ranks.

Uh, I havent scene any sources cited by you either though :wink:

hidde
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Post by hidde » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:17 pm

Oye, nice gruesome photo, did they put him under glass?
No, he's buried under the floor in a church in Stockholm. They dug him up in the early 20:th century for research. Controversy about from where the shot came...enemy lines or friendly lines.

cothyso
NewRoSoft
NewRoSoft
Posts: 1213
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 7:32 pm

Post by cothyso » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:28 pm

then don't go to every battle, just take the most important ones..

or a random selection from the official FoG + addons battles, then look at those percents. you'll be surprised..

about carrhae, you are wrong again: around 10,000 roman soldiers survived and escaped, under Cassius Longinus. consult wiki's article for a resume of the battle, and citations to the primary sources as a first step.

unfortunately, most of the "historical" discussions regarding ancient combat around the net are based on hazy lose "memories" and 3'rd hand or even lower dubious "historical" sources :(

it's pointless to talk about this, as long as the discussion is not based mainly on a good knowledge of the ancient primary sources.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:41 pm

hidde wrote:
Oye, nice gruesome photo, did they put him under glass?
No, he's buried under the floor in a church in Stockholm. They dug him up in the early 20:th century for research. Controversy about from where the shot came...enemy lines or friendly lines.
Yeah i heard about the controversy: the site of the bullet hole does seam odd for someone peering over a trench... Certainly some loyal subjects might have had a bone to pick with the monarch that financially ruined the country as well as lost the Baltic empire , and then is merrilly starting new wars :)

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4673
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:53 pm

cothyso wrote:then don't go to every battle, just take the most important ones..

or a random selection from the official FoG + addons battles, then look at those percents. you'll be surprised..

about carrhae, you are wrong again: around 10,000 roman soldiers survived and escaped, under Cassius Longinus. consult wiki's article for a resume of the battle, and citations to the primary sources as a first step.

unfortunately, most of the "historical" discussions regarding ancient combat around the net are based on hazy lose "memories" and 3'rd hand or even lower dubious "historical" sources :(

it's pointless to talk about this, as long as the discussion is not based mainly on a good knowledge of the ancient primary sources.
Now you are changing the dynamics of the subject which is how often did commanders fight in the front ranks now to only "the important battles'

Ok, so there were sizable surviors of carrhe, how do they 'KNOW' it was Crassu's intent to wait until the parthians ran out of arrows? Perhaps as they were huddled taking fire all day THEY are the ones who had such wishful thinking... Nor am i sure why you keep bringing up this one battle relative to the topic of ammo depletion in ancient warefare i never said it didnt happen or wasnt a factor, just how relativley important it might be IN GENERAL

Where was i "wrong " the ist time btw ? Never mind:

I guess its pointless if one feels they have to 'win' a "debate" as opposed to discussing and or sharing knowledge of a subject we are both clearly interested in :cry:

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”