Higher Ground POA

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

Can someone please clarify that you are only supposed to get a +25 POA when your uphill at a level of =>75 greater than your opponent? That is what my version of the rules says unless I'm missing something. In the series of pictures below I decided to chase off a bow armed LF with my legionary as if I followed up into the enemy legionary +50 levels higher than me I would be fighting on equal terms. I would be at a height of 150 and my opponent at a height of 200. Uncharacteristically I checked the combat log after the combat and saw that I was actually at a +25 POA disadvantage as the enemy legionary had been given a +25 POA for being uphill. What am I missing?
Uphill POA 1.jpg
Uphill POA 1.jpg (646.04 KiB) Viewed 1672 times
Uphill POA 2.jpg
Uphill POA 2.jpg (631.23 KiB) Viewed 1672 times
pompeytheflatulent
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by pompeytheflatulent »

25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

pompeytheflatulent wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.
Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?
pompeytheflatulent
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 3:37 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by pompeytheflatulent »

Off the top of my head +50 POA is about 25% win chance ~5% loss, while +100 POA is ~50% win ~2% loss so it's possible. I think you need +200 POA to actually guarantee a win.
Paul59
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Paul59 »

Cunningcairn wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm
pompeytheflatulent wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.
Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?
Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.
Field of Glory II Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, Wolves at the Gate and Swifter than Eagles.

Field of Glory II Medieval Scenario Designer.

FOGII TT Mod Creator

Warhammer 40,000: Sanctus Reach Tournament Scenario Designer.
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

Paul59 wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm
Cunningcairn wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm
pompeytheflatulent wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:54 pm 25 POA for hill of 75 height or less, 100 POA for hill of 100 height or more.
Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?
Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.
Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.
MikeC_81
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 937
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by MikeC_81 »

Yes but only when the normal PoA factors don't give you at least 50 PoA.

Imagine Off Spears charging Impact Foot on a downhill slope of less than 100 height. That is a net -75 PoA from any angle. But if you charge from the rear, the game will see that you have -75 PoA which is less than +50 and then award you +50 PoA as a final result for being a flanker.

If you were to reverse the scenario with Impact Foot charging downhill on Off Spears, that is a net +125 PoA from any angle. The game will see you have +125 PoA and thus not change anything.
Stratford Scramble Tournament

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=494&t=99766&p=861093#p861093

FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

MikeC_81 wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 3:23 am Yes but only when the normal PoA factors don't give you at least 50 PoA.

Imagine Off Spears charging Impact Foot on a downhill slope of less than 100 height. That is a net -75 PoA from any angle. But if you charge from the rear, the game will see that you have -75 PoA which is less than +50 and then award you +50 PoA as a final result for being a flanker.

If you were to reverse the scenario with Impact Foot charging downhill on Off Spears, that is a net +125 PoA from any angle. The game will see you have +125 PoA and thus not change anything.
Mike that makes even less sense. Firstly it is not what it says and secondly how do you get less than +50 POA by charging anything in the flank?
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by rbodleyscott »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am
Paul59 wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm
Cunningcairn wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:59 pm

Aah thanks which means my earlier post on flank charging and fragmenting was at a a +75 POA and not a +50 POA. Is that even possible?
Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.
Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.
Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am
Paul59 wrote: Wed Aug 19, 2020 9:37 pm

Wrong again I am afraid. The +50 POA is the guaranteed minimum Net POA for a flank attack, but you only go above +50 Net POA if the same attack from the front would go above +50 Net POA.
Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.
Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).
It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented.
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.
Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).
It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented. And it happened twice in succesion.
Paul59
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3803
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Paul59 »

Regarding the -75 POA, I think Richard is getting confused with another example that Mike gave in a previous post.

I set up a test scenario to look at your flank attack issue, see the tooltip here;

Image

There is no uphill POA bonus in the Impact phase for the hoplites, but it does kick in for the melee.


cheers
Field of Glory II Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, Wolves at the Gate and Swifter than Eagles.

Field of Glory II Medieval Scenario Designer.

FOGII TT Mod Creator

Warhammer 40,000: Sanctus Reach Tournament Scenario Designer.
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

Paul59 wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:32 am Regarding the -75 POA, I think Richard is getting confused with another example that Mike gave in a previous post.

I set up a test scenario to look at your flank attack issue, see the tooltip here;

Image

There is no uphill POA bonus in the Impact phase for the hoplites, but it does kick in for the melee.


cheers
Thanks Paul. I understand RBS' confusion as I created a lot of confusion in getting my POA's confused in the first place. Right now I'm not arguing that there is an uphill bonus. I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added. This all started when one of my hoplites with what I accept as a +50 POA fragmenting when it charged another hoplite on lower ground in the flank. It was steady and without casualties and in a magnificently dominant position.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by rbodleyscott »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 2:44 am

Now I am confused. The rules say Final Minimum Overall Net POA when the opponent is not engaged which implies it can be more. I charged from an uphill position into an unengaged opponent. So +50 for the flank and +25 for uphill.
Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).
It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented.
Sorry, thought you were talking about the charging impact foot in the flank downhill case.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:12 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:23 am
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 7:24 am

Paul and Mike are right. The Minimum Overall NET POA is exactly what it says, a guaranteed minimum overall Net POA, it isn't an additive POA in its own right.

You only get more than the Minimum Overall NET POA for a flank attack if the net POA without the flank attack would be more than the Minimum Overall NET POA.

So your unit would have been on a net +50 POA, not +75 POA. (Which, of course, is a lot better than the net -75 POA they would be on without the flank attack).
It was a hoplite charging a hoplite and I was uphill. How on earth would I get a -75 POA? I was uphill, charged another hoplite in the flank and fragmented.
Sorry, thought you were talking about the charging impact foot in the flank downhill case.
My bad as they say in the USofA. I created a lot of confusion in my posts so understand how you could have got it mixed up.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by rbodleyscott »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.
You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.
You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.
The actual question concerns the hoplite fragmenting from a magnificently dominant position. The risk averse might just crawl back into their shell if this type of result can be expected. The shifting sand is this situation as my question was never actually answered and became this confusion which I've actually created.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by rbodleyscott »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 am
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 8:53 am I accept what you say although it isn't what I'm reading in the rules. It is the shifting sand that is now my issue. The rules say "Minimum Net" so what is the Maximum Net? It implies other factors can and are added.
You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.
The actual question concerns the hoplite fragmenting from a magnificently dominant position. The risk averse might just crawl back into their shell if this type of result can be expected.
A flank attack on an unengaged unit is not meant to be a "magnificently dominant position", and this is reflected in the net POA of only +50.

Whatever the exact chance of your hoplite fragmenting was, it was certainly very small. Such events are meant to model the great variety of unexpected (and otherwise unmodellable) events that can often happen in warfare. e.g. The unit commander was killed and the unit panicked.

This is how the game works, and it is how it is intended to work. If you don't like the game design philosophy, there are other games. This game is not going to adopt a philosophy of predestination.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Cunningcairn
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
Posts: 1723
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by Cunningcairn »

rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:52 am
Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 am
rbodleyscott wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:15 am

You find the rules ambiguous on this point. Others don't. There is no "shifting sand".

The actual meaning has been explained to you by Paul, Mike and myself.

There is really no need to discuss it further.
The actual question concerns the hoplite fragmenting from a magnificently dominant position. The risk averse might just crawl back into their shell if this type of result can be expected.
A flank attack on an unengaged unit is not meant to be a "magnificently dominant position", and this is reflected in the net POA of only +50.

Whatever the exact chance of your hoplite fragmenting was, it was certainly very small. Such events are meant to model the great variety of unexpected (and otherwise unmodellable) events that can often happen in warfare. e.g. The unit commander was killed and the unit panicked.

This is how the game works, and it is how it is intended to work. If you don't like the game design philosophy, there are other games. This game is not going to adopt a philosophy of predestination.
You tell that to my hoplites who thought it was a magnificently dominant position. Yes it was apparently 0.16% and it happened twice in succession.

There have been a lot of ways the game has worked that are no longer the same. I understand your reluctance to want to change things because any change can affect other parts of the game and it is never obvious what they will be. This game has plenty of predestination and it has nothing to do with the philosophy of the game. There are numerous situations where units cannot lose a combat and certainly cannot fragment. All I am saying is that this should be one of those situations.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28014
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Higher Ground POA

Post by rbodleyscott »

Cunningcairn wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2020 9:35 amThe shifting sand is this situation as my question was never actually answered and became this confusion which I've actually created.
I assume you are referring to the question in the other thread?

If so:

Your unit's chance of losing the combat at +50 POA was about 5%. In order to double drop it would have to lose badly, the chances of which are not easily quantified, but probably about 1%.

At that point, if no other CT modifiers apply, your unit would be testing at -2. That means that a score of 4 or less on 2d6 would result in a double drop. That is a 1 in 6 chance.

So the chance of your unit double-dropping was perhaps about 1 in 600.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”