I feel like cheating

[jonno]

I'm not sure what the status of the new version is...

I just playing a game where I charged a bunch of light foot with knights - two hexes in from of the knights. these are some heavy foot to the left with a one hex gap. My thought process was charge the lights - and my followup will take me past the heavy foot so i then threaten thir rear. Instead my knights move TWO HEXES and end up giving a rear to the heavy foot.

Knowing about the "cheat" is is very tempting. Basically I could restart and not charge. And the only reason I have ended up like this is this game is basically broken!!!! There is so much wrong with this game I dont envy who ever is attempting the re-write. But I hope it fixes the game to make it more sensible - and less random.

It is times like this that I wonder why I bother with this game. Or wish there was someting else with a decent PBeM system.

[batesmotel]

This is the game working as intended and will probably stay the same in the new version. When the BG being charged evades, there is a chance that the charger will go one hex more or one hex less than its normal move. This is similar to the variable move die roll used in the TT rules when the target of a charge evades. IT means some times you can catch a BG that would usually get away and it some times means you go short and might leave your rear exposed. It's one more thing you need to consider when charging a BG that may evade.

Chris

[Turk1964]

Gday Jonno
It is tempting to restart and im sure plenty are still doing it but at opertune times. I hope the new developer stops a player having 3 bad turns in a row and makes some sense of melees where you have a huge advantage and lose big time. I have watched players roll 5s and 6s whilst the highest i roll is 2 or 3 for a whole turn. Will Cythoso fix this i dont know i think the whole game needs to be re done as there are in my opinion too many bugs and too much temptation to do something abot it. My method is not too cheat but too resign the game as you can see where its heading if you constantly get bad "Dice". Is there a way to get away from the whole dice consept and make the game better and less one sided?

[jonno]

Hey Chris

Thanks for the reply - as I dont play TT (and based on rules like this I never want to play TT) I didn't know this was intentional.
It would be nice if this was documented - Ie this is a xx% chance that your will move one less etc...

I dont this this rule is particularly realistic - but my main issue is the more "randomness" like this the more the game comes down to luck rather than skill. My view is that the result in any given game is more luck than skill. I know many disagree with this - bit simple logic dictates that the more random results - like the variation in casualties - the larger part luck plays in the game.

[Turk1964]

Youve hit the nail on the head there Jonno!!! Luck is too big a factor and when it goes agaist you its like a plague. I think skill isnt rewarded all that well and luck is the dominant factor. That as i say is why people cheat to alter their luck, the hand of God you might say When you play a certain player and that player is always lucky what do you guys call that? I know what i call it

[stockwellpete]

Everything that I have read from Dan (cothyso), who is doing the re-write of the code for the game, tells me that he is someone who would like to see greater historical realism in the game. Provided he can find ways of achieving this without making the game more complicated then my own feeling is that Slitherine will be supportive of any changes he proposes. Stopping the wild disparities in combat outcomes is certainly one such area that can be modified without adding complications so I would definitely expect that to happen in the new version (people from Slitherine have said on here in the past that they accept the point that is being made by many players about the strange combat results).

[Fedem]

You guys are all right about luck, randomess, etc. Anyway I still feel skill and knowing the rules to perfection is the predominant factor. Of course that when 2 players with almost the same skill level fight each other luck gets more imprtant.
At some point I can still live with that. Had moments of thinking to drop the towell.

I think the most important issue to fix is the redownload capability. Sorry Slitherine but the current anti cheating system doesnt work. As it is it doesnt assure one if you are being cheated or not.

I hope Cothyso finds a solution to this cause if he fixes all the other issues of the game but not this one....Well Im not sure if I will try the new game.

Cheers!

[Rosseau]

It's an old debate that has relevance with a new dev stepping in. The OP's subject heading is excellent. Then there are those who say luck evens out and skill eventually triumphs

I'm sure the experts will work it out and come up with the best computer game possible. No need to slavishly follow TT rules if it doesn't improve the computer game. I really like Conflict of Heroes game, but have concerns that the boardgamers will be running things

[IainMcNeil]

As discussed many times before there is luck involved and the skill of a good general is to plan for the worst. But if you take this too far you become too cautious and do nothing. Its all about balance. There is a good reason the same players always win and its because luck is not that big a factor. Skill is by far the biggest factor and will never make a bad player beat a good player. At most luck can make the difference between 2 evenly matched players.

In battle these upsets occur. We are not making a game of chess!

[Turk1964]

Certain players are luckier than others there is a difference between luck and skill. I play a lot of skillfull players and they have there share of luck as do i and i accept that. I also accept the fact that i play against people who have a much better understanding of the game than me.If i dont understand whats happening i ask and i learn from that. What is annoying is when someone simply rolls better computer generated dice for a complete turn then another then another.

[jonno]

I am sorry Iain - but I completely disagree ...

I have made some rudamentry notes on my games - and in its current form OVER HALF of my games against relativly matched opponets are decided by luck.
Again there is too much randomness in the game so that luck is a bigger factor than skill. And the skill of a good general planning for the worst - sorry it sounds as silly in this post and it was the first time I read it in this context. When my 6 roman legionaries charge a line of German heavy foot (at 60/40 chance to win) And lose every combat - including 4 disrupted, it is basically game over. I have lost rougly 1/4 of my army to no damge on the other side. There is no backup plan for this.

I love your play by eMail system. My wish is that the game lived up, and made the most of what can be achieved by using a computer to generate the results.I admit I would love to have the game more complex. DO add more depth - and make skill more of an advantage.

[davouthojo]

I have made some rudamentry notes on my games - and in its current form OVER HALF of my games against relativly matched opponets are decided by luck.

Isn't this what you would expect? I enjoy the evenly matched games most for exactly this reason. The other half are decided by terrain, army match-up and deployment.

[IainMcNeil]

Exactly - and from many many years of experience I know wargamers only remember their bad luck. Their good luck gets put down to good generalship. Bad luck can result in them thinking their opponent is cheating. One player even ran tests as he believed he was so unlucky. He recorded every die roll in every game. What do you think he found? Yes, the dice average out.

[todd645]

I think that when I honestly look at games I've played, victory was almost never decided by luck. I get smashed by really good players and I smash really new players. The most fun games come down to a really close last few BP's. Unless you're playing a tournament, it really doesn't matter anyway. We all like to win, but in the end it is just a game. I love this game (as shown by my 700 completed games in the year that I have been playing). I win a good portion of my games now, but there are players that I've never beaten and some that I rarely beat (those are the sweetest, though). Sometimes you get really bad army matchups or terrain and the chances of winning are nearly none. I have never resigned a game, no matter how bad. Sometimes my goal is to just get into the double digits in BP's before losing.

If you have the time - play lots of games. I used to have 20 going at the same time. Experience is the key. Of course maybe I'm just used to my really bad TT dice rolling. The computer cannot be worse than that...

Todd

[CheerfullyInsane]

Exactly - and from many many years of experience I know wargamers only remember their bad luck. Their good luck gets put down to good generalship. Bad luck can result in them thinking their opponent is cheating. One player even ran tests as he believed he was so unlucky. He recorded every die roll in every game. What do you think he found? Yes, the dice average out.

All due respect Iain, but there is perhaps a reason this subject keeps cropping up.
Hell, I've been gone for more than a year, and I can come back reading exactly the same points stated by 'new' players.

And lest people should have forgotten, dice do NOT have memory. Not even digital ones.
The basic problem is that the FoG battles are so short, and involve such a (comparatively) small number of troops that you can't expect to get anything even remotely resembling a decent sampling-base.

Besides, even if the die-rolls evens out over the course of a series of games, it doesn't mean any game will be anything even close to balanced luck-wise.
Nor does equal luck during a game (as in same average die-roll) create an equal game, since not all die-rolls are equally important.

Now, I fully realize that there won't be a revamping of the combat-system any time soon, what with the change to Unity and so on.
But boldly stating that the problem doesn't exist, doesn't really chime with the number of times it is brought up.

Lars

[Turk1964]

Totally agree with Cheerfullyinsane. There is a problem and too many complain about it for there not too be one. Im still encountering games where dice rolls are going terribly one sided. Even if both troop types are the same.This has been going on for awhile now and it is a problem im afraid.

[stockwellpete]

Exactly - and from many many years of experience I know wargamers only remember their bad luck. Their good luck gets put down to good generalship. Bad luck can result in them thinking their opponent is cheating. One player even ran tests as he believed he was so unlucky. He recorded every die roll in every game. What do you think he found? Yes, the dice average out.

All due respect Iain, but there is perhaps a reason this subject keeps cropping up.
Hell, I've been gone for more than a year, and I can come back reading exactly the same points stated by 'new' players.

And lest people should have forgotten, dice do NOT have memory. Not even digital ones.
The basic problem is that the FoG battles are so short, and involve such a (comparatively) small number of troops that you can't expect to get anything even remotely resembling a decent sampling-base.

Besides, even if the die-rolls evens out over the course of a series of games, it doesn't mean any game will be anything even close to balanced luck-wise.
Nor does equal luck during a game (as in same average die-roll) create an equal game, since not all die-rolls are equally important.

Now, I fully realize that there won't be a revamping of the combat-system any time soon, what with the change to Unity and so on.
But boldly stating that the problem doesn't exist, doesn't really chime with the number of times it is brought up.

Lars

Hello Lars. How are you, mate?

Yes, I totally agree with your post. I reckon that I play what I call a "dice game" every 5 or 6 battles. Either I win heavily or I lose heavily and it doesn't really matter what I do in the game, to be honest. It is something that I hope Dan will look at once he has the basic Unity system up and running securely. There needs to be some "luck" in the game, but at the moment there is too much, in my opinion.

Btw, some more of those Baltic Crusade scenarios we play-tested about 18 months ago are now included in the Battle Pack.

[CheerfullyInsane]

Hello Lars. How are you, mate?

Yes, I totally agree with your post. I reckon that I play what I call a "dice game" every 5 or 6 battles. Either I win heavily or I lose heavily and it doesn't really matter what I do in the game, to be honest. It is something that I hope Dan will look at once he has the basic Unity system up and running securely. There needs to be some "luck" in the game, but at the moment there is too much, in my opinion.

Hey Pete,

Same as always. Very busy and a little mad.
Just got curious as to what was happening on the FoG front, and stumbled into yet another die vs. player discussion. *LOL*
Good news re. the change to Unity, but I think a revamping of the combat system is a ways off. If things go as I predict they will, there'll be roving gangs of players carrying torches and pitchforks, clamouring for this and that expansion to be done first.
And since re-designing the combat-system is a monumental task, I suspect it'll be saved for a possible FoG 2.0, perhaps with the introduction of Ren and Nappy, since the engine will need major reworking to do those in the first place.
Too bad really, since I still think this is a small gem of a game. Just not in its present iteration.

Btw, some more of those Baltic Crusade scenarios we play-tested about 18 months ago are now included in the Battle Pack.

So....I assume my royalty-check is in the mail?
Seriously though, kudos for getting your work officially acknowledged.

[deeter]

I don't think fixing the combat system would be that monumental unless you're talking about doing away with the whole POA thing. The problem is with the range of possible casualties caused by the POA-inflicted hits. Hexwar made tit too broad. It shouldn't take much to make it less broad.

Deeter

[IainMcNeil]

The casualty range has been changed so it will never allow you to inflict more casualties if you lose. This was always supposed to be the way it worked but we were only able to get it changed for the new version.