Page 3 of 3

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 8:14 am
by frankpowerful
my simple mind would be happy with a fixed percentage of losses per hit (maybe a bonus for the winner, if one absolutely wants it). The chance factor is already built in the first die rolls, giving the hits. That's all.

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:08 am
by CheerfullyInsane
TheGrayMouser wrote:Lars, I think most people would say that YES, the winner should take less causalties, and i think history shows in battles, both macro and mirco that is the case more often than not. BTW, why do people insist on saying that in the current system, the winner can take higher casualtes than the loser? its NOT possible! If you dont believe me, look at chart in the manual.

This is what you propose where the winner And loser takes a flat 6 % per hit: I dont like it at all, BG's wouldnt last more than a round or two without succombing to autoroute which would defeat the primary purpose of the game which is to cause cohesion loss.... Maybe if a bg only had one combat a turn it would be ok, but as you know a bg might be attacked 2, 3 or more times in one turn!
First of all, I've never claimed the winner can take higher casualties than the loser.......Not to my knowledge at any rate.
Second, I'm not suggesting anything. :mrgreen:
All I'm saying is that it doesn't make much sense to me to have a separate randomization just for casualties, when you could just as easily make it dependant on the number of hits inflicted. Whether this should be 4% or 6% or (2/pi)*turn-number% is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

If you really wanted to get creative, you could make the casualties dependant on the number of men left in the attacking units.
So that an attacker at 70% strength only inflicts 70% of the normal casualties per hit.
But as I've said, the casualties, however abnormal at times, isn't the problem. Annoying at times, yes but not a game-breaker. The D6/2POA system is basically flawed, especially since there is no longer any base 'death-rolls' to mitigate the attrition.
Turk1964 wrote:The result was 0 hits to 0 my opponent lost 0% i lost 4%. Now there were no hits so both sides should lose nothing am i missing something here
Maybe 4% of your troops were so dismayed by their ineffectiveness that they went home to sulk?
50 guys just looking at each other, thinking: "Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home!" :mrgreen:

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 11:12 am
by cptkremmen
Winner losing more men than the loser.

Sorry I said that and was mistaken. In melee combat that can't happen. I think i was getting the tables mixed up with the shooting tables.

My understanding is that in shooting the you can inflict higher losses with less hits than another roll. Not sure why the shooting tables need such a high degree of randomness.

Apologies though I think that is where i got confused, perhaps others have seen the same table.

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:08 pm
by batesmotel
Turk1964 wrote:I like the look of your casualty rates list Pete, that to me would be acceptable.Really why cant that be done or something similar? Im playing a game just now and please some one explain what happened here? The result was 0 hits to 0 my opponent lost 0% i lost 4%. Now there were no hits so both sides should lose nothing am i missing something here :roll:
Turk,

The most you should be able to lose with 0 hits is 1% ( 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%). This is the range for 0 hits against missile fire and in a combat where you didn't lose. (The loses are only reported as whole integer %s so your opponent probably did lose a non-zero amount .) One possibility that would change this is if it was impact combat and the opposing BG had support shooting. The hits from this aren't shown in the detailed combat display so you could have actually taken more than 2 hits.

If support shooting wasn't involved and you actually took 4% for 0 vs 0 hits, that is a bug and you should report it as such.

Chris

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:33 pm
by TheGrayMouser
CheerfullyInsane wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote:Lars, I think most people would say that YES, the winner should take less causalties, and i think history shows in battles, both macro and mirco that is the case more often than not. BTW, why do people insist on saying that in the current system, the winner can take higher casualtes than the loser? its NOT possible! If you dont believe me, look at chart in the manual.

This is what you propose where the winner And loser takes a flat 6 % per hit: I dont like it at all, BG's wouldnt last more than a round or two without succombing to autoroute which would defeat the primary purpose of the game which is to cause cohesion loss.... Maybe if a bg only had one combat a turn it would be ok, but as you know a bg might be attacked 2, 3 or more times in one turn!
First of all, I've never claimed the winner can take higher casualties than the loser.......Not to my knowledge at any rate.
Second, I'm not suggesting anything. :mrgreen:
All I'm saying is that it doesn't make much sense to me to have a separate randomization just for casualties, when you could just as easily make it dependant on the number of hits inflicted. Whether this should be 4% or 6% or (2/pi)*turn-number% is a matter of supreme indifference to me.

If you really wanted to get creative, you could make the casualties dependant on the number of men left in the attacking units.
So that an attacker at 70% strength only inflicts 70% of the normal casualties per hit.
But as I've said, the casualties, however abnormal at times, isn't the problem. Annoying at times, yes but not a game-breaker. The D6/2POA system is basically flawed, especially since there is no longer any base 'death-rolls' to mitigate the attrition.
Turk1964 wrote:The result was 0 hits to 0 my opponent lost 0% i lost 4%. Now there were no hits so both sides should lose nothing am i missing something here
Maybe 4% of your troops were so dismayed by their ineffectiveness that they went home to sulk?
50 guys just looking at each other, thinking: "Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home!" :mrgreen:
Oops, my bad if Im putting words in your mouth .

About the "a BG @ 70% should only inflicts 70% losses"
Makes sence ONLY if you assume EVERY man in the unit can cause damages, which is not the case in ancient and medieval warfare where only the 1st 2 ranks could actually fight....

Cheers!

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:21 pm
by batesmotel
cptkremmen wrote:Winner losing more men than the loser.

Sorry I said that and was mistaken. In melee combat that can't happen. I think i was getting the tables mixed up with the shooting tables.

My understanding is that in shooting the you can inflict higher losses with less hits than another roll. Not sure why the shooting tables need such a high degree of randomness.

Apologies though I think that is where i got confused, perhaps others have seen the same table.
The casualty range table for shooting is the same as that for non-losers in combat. Losers in combat (impact and melee) suffer a higher range of losses than non-losers (won or tied) or shooting targets do.

Chris

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 2:26 pm
by batesmotel
If you want to make any change to reflect the % of strength remaining in calculating losses, it would make more sense to make losses a % of the units remaining strength rather than a % of its initial strength. When attacking, the current "strength" is already taken into account in a rough way with the reduction in shooting and melee attacks when strength drops below 75% and 50%. (Even more noticeable for pikes and to a lesser degree spears with PoA reductions as well.)

Chris

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:51 pm
by TheGrayMouser
batesmotel wrote:If you want to make any change to reflect the % of strength remaining in calculating losses, it would make more sense to make losses a % of the units remaining strength rather than a % of its initial strength. When attacking, the current "strength" is already taken into account in a rough way with the reduction in shooting and melee attacks when strength drops below 75% and 50%. (Even more noticeable for pikes and to a lesser degree spears with PoA reductions as well.)

Chris

But then units would GAIN resilience the smaller they got..
Although at a very small amt.....

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:23 pm
by CheerfullyInsane
TheGrayMouser wrote:Oops, my bad if Im putting words in your mouth .
No worries. I did allude to it earlier, but I was merely pointing out that removing the randomness from the casualty-generation would silence the people that think the winner can take higher casualties.
At any rate, I've certainly been accused of worse things in my life. :wink:
About the "a BG @ 70% should only inflicts 70% losses"
Makes sence ONLY if you assume EVERY man in the unit can cause damages, which is not the case in ancient and medieval warfare where only the 1st 2 ranks could actually fight....

Cheers!
True, and it wasn't a serious suggestion per se.
I just think it would make more sense to have a fairly simple set of mechanics, instead of delving into graduated tables, percentile ratings based on ranks, the average air-speed of an unladen swallow, and so forth. :mrgreen:

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 16, 2012 10:28 pm
by TheGrayMouser
Unless its an unladen African Swallow, then it does matter :wink:

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:13 am
by Turk1964
[quote="batesmotel"][quote="Turk1964"]I like the look of your casualty rates list Pete, that to me would be acceptable.Really why cant that be done or something similar? Im playing a game just now and please some one explain what happened here? The result was 0 hits to 0 my opponent lost 0% i lost 4%. Now there were no hits so both sides should lose nothing am i missing something here :roll:[/quote]

Turk,

The most you should be able to lose with 0 hits is 1% ( 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%). This is the range for 0 hits against missile fire and in a combat where you didn't lose. (The loses are only reported as whole integer %s so your opponent probably did lose a non-zero amount .) One possibility that would change this is if it was impact combat and the opposing BG had support shooting. The hits from this aren't shown in the detailed combat display so you could have actually taken more than 2 hits.

If support shooting wasn't involved and you actually took 4% for 0 vs 0 hits, that is a bug and you should report it as such.

Chris[/quote]

Gday Chris
Maybe it is a Bug in the system but its not the first time this has happened to me. To me 0 hits to 0 should be,well zero. Next time it happens i will take a note of conditions etc and post it as a bug. I think what most people would like to see is an end to A massive loss for 1 side and nothing to the other.If its 2 hits to 0 fair enough or 3 0r 4 hits to 0.At the momment the game is becoming quite unbelievable at times and hopefully the new version will address this.

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2012 6:28 am
by stockwellpete
batesmotel wrote: If support shooting wasn't involved and you actually took 4% for 0 vs 0 hits, that is a bug and you should report it as such.
There is no point in reporting bugs now though, Chris. We have to wait for the new version and then we will have a brand new set of bugs to discover. :wink:

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Mon Aug 20, 2012 9:21 am
by IainMcNeil
All I would say is wait till the Unity version comes and we can see if these issues still occur. It is always possible there is a big somewhere in the randomness but its is extremely unlikely that bug would be replicated as the code is completely new - not a line is taken from the existing code.

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:33 pm
by the_iron_duke
I've thus far kept out of the "level of randomness in FoG" debate but a book I'm reading on warfare raised some interesting and relevant discussion and so I thought I'd bring it to the table:
History is replete with examples of outstanding commanders who fell victim to what the Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz called 'friction' in his seminal work On War, published in 1832. Although Clausewitz was a student of Napoleon and his campaigns, his appraisal of what has been called the 'fog of war' holds true in any era. Friction refers to the accidents, uncertainties, errors, technical difficulties or unknown factors on the battlefield, and to their effect on decisions, morale and actions in warfare....The great commanders who fought, won and sometimes lost the battles that shaped the history of western civilization understood the repercussions of friction when making war. They understood that the best strategies, bravest soldiers, most modern equipment and ingenious tactics did not always carry the day. [Warfare in the Ancient World, Brian Todd Carey].
Some trawling of the internet provides the following quotes from Clausewitz's book itself:
Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult. The difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is inconceivable unless one has experienced war...Countless minor incidents — the kind you can never really foresee — combine to lower the general level of performance, so that one always falls far short of the intended goal... Friction is the only concept that more or less corresponds to the factors that distinguish real war from war on paper. The military machine — the army and everything related to it — is basically very simple and therefore seems easy to manage. But we should bear in mind that none of its components is of one piece; each part is composed of individuals, every one of whom retains his potential of friction. In theory it sounds reasonable enough: a battalion commander’s duty is to carry out his orders; discipline welds the battalion together, its commander must be a man of tested capacity, and so the great beam turns on its iron pivot with a minimum of friction. In fact, it is different, and every fault and exaggeration of the theory is instantly exposed in war. A battalion is made up of individuals, the least important of whom may chance to delay things or somehow make them go wrong. The dangers inseparable from war and the physical exertions war demands can aggravate the problem to such an extent that they must be ranked among its principal causes...This tremendous friction, which cannot, as in mechanics, be reduced to a few points, is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance." [cited here: http://www.thecornwallisgroup.org/pdf/2 ... o-3Aug.pdf]
I've played a few hundred FoG games now and so have some idea of how the game mechanics pan out in practise. I've never felt that the level of chance in the game is a significant problem. I accept that chance is one of several factors that will influence the outcome of a battle, and that detailed knowledge of troops and weapons, experience and tactical ability are more important. It's no coincidence that I usually beat the newer players and lose to the more experienced ones (eric...). For games against more evenly-matched opponents the effect of chance on the end result is increased. FoG isn't chess and neither is a real battle. At the end of the day, you as commander-in-chief represent one man in an army of thousands of individuals and there will therefore always be events and factors that fall out of your control.

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2012 11:47 pm
by Turk1964
Gday I have played possibly 2000 games and class myself as a good player. Probably winning 70% of my games and i believe there is a problem with loss percentages . My honest opinion is that it is a bug thats crept in and effects 1 in 3 games. If your good enough you can allow for these ridiculous losses but the average player soon becomes disalussioned.I recently played a game where i was personally abused for the losses incured on my opponent and no ammount of explaining could calm the fellow down.It is a problem and as Ian says with the new version its all starting afresh so hopefully the bizarre combat results will be toned down.Everyone is entitled to an opinion but i disagree that nothing is wrong :roll:

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Wed Aug 22, 2012 12:08 am
by the_iron_duke
I'm aware there's a vocal lobby on this issue and so I do concede there is a possibility that I'm just not very perceptive or attuned to it!

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2012 2:19 pm
by cptkremmen
I would like to raise a subject, I have little knowledge of...

cheating!

Is it possible to play a turn, not like what happened and crash it etc to get another go?

Due to my dubious internet connection I have on one occassion finished a turn went to upload it and it refused to as the internet connection had dropped. I ended up having to do the turn again.

Is it possible some people are deliberately crashing turns to get better results?


Interestingly when I started playing this game (quite recently) I thought the randomness was appaling. As I have gotten better at the game the randomness seems to have decreased. (I still lose most games i play against humans). I still think the randomness is excessive, but not quite as appaling as I thought at 1st.


I would certainly say that most people playing the game for the 1st time are going to be annoyed by the "apparent randomness" by the end of their 1st game, and many of those people are not going to play again, and will tell their friends it's a rubbish game.

My friend Darren and I have persevered and gotten past the extreme irritation stage to the mildly amused by some of the results stage. I honestly believe Slitherine are losing a lot of sales because of this though. Think money guys, always a good motivator to fix problems :)

Andy

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 11:52 am
by Morbio
cptkremmen wrote:I would like to raise a subject, I have little knowledge of...

cheating!

...

I would certainly say that most people playing the game for the 1st time are going to be annoyed by the "apparent randomness" by the end of their 1st game, and many of those people are not going to play again, and will tell their friends it's a rubbish game.

...

Andy
Oh, in one post you've probably covered the 2 most emotive areas that the forum covers! :lol:

Yes, there's lots of posts on the cheating aspect, whether it happens, how much and the methods Slitherine have implemented to detect it (but not stop it), and whether it is accurate and works. Here's one of the threads on this topic viewtopic.php?f=91&t=32857&p=314342&hil ... ad#p314342

Re: Done With This Game

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:57 pm
by Fedem
They should stop it....but I do not know if they can...