Done With This Game

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

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:08 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote: Is it impossible to believe that a cavalry squadron that wins a tough combat(3-2 hits) vs another equal opponent might not suffer any losses while the loser suffers 18 men hors de combat? Doesnt seem to fanatstical to me and not only that , this is an extreme example.
I am sure that it would happen very, very occasionally, but not 20 or 30 times in every battle. If you recall . . .

BATTLE OF BONKERS, (Stockwell, London 2011)

I set up two armies of Swiss halberdiers (two lines of 8BG's each with a C-in-C BG behind them) on open ground.

Turn 1 (the lines come together 8 separate melees)

Results 12-1, 4-20, 15-1, 2-13, 3-13, 15-2, 5-2 and 4-12.

So 7 results were "bonkers" and 1 was "normal".
Winners: B, A, B, A, B, B, A, B = 3 A, 5 B
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4.
Nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.
Turn 2 (a further 8 separate melees. (D) indicates that unit was "disrupted" prior to melee)

4-3, 0-11, 1-(D)2, 3-14, 13-4, 4-(D)16, 14-1 and 2-11.

so 5 results were "bonkers" and 3 were "normal" (including the two involving "disrupted" units)
Winners: B, A, A, A, B, A, B, A = 5 A, 3 B
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4 for this round but seems to even
up with the previous. B also failed two cohesion tests so now seems to be on the losing end overall.
Still nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.
By turn 3 quite a few units were getting "disrupted" but the basic ratio of "bonkers" results remained steady through the next few turns. By turn 6 the battle was over. Side A had won by 0/9 to 9/9. A truly "bonkers" result considering the sides were evenly matched at the start.
IMO simply changing the ranges so its noticable is going to stale up combat and make each combat a fixed loss. You will know almost exactly how long every single combat will last before an autoroute which isnt realistic at all.
No, no - we still want the chance element in the game and we still want the occasional extreme result (one or two per battle would be enough for me).
Did the 0/9 result versus the 9/9 result occur primarily due to auto-breaks from casualties or due to cohesion drops? The results after turn 2 with two B uits disrupted would certainly indicate A was favored at that point.

So were the remaing results due to casualties primarily or due to accumalating cohesion loss due to failed cohesion tests? I suspect the former but would to seem more turns of combat results to be able to better judge. (I don't remember how many turns Pete originally posted in this example.)

While I think the game would be improved by having a bell curve probability for the distribution of casualties within each range rather than what appears to be a unfirm distribution, I'm not generally convinced that the uniform distribution is in general a really big determinant in game outcomes with the current version.
....where life is beautiful all the time

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:28 pm

davouthojo wrote:If anyone wants to play around, I have added the spreadsheet I used to the wiki site.
http://fog-pc-wiki.wikispaces.com/FOG+Analysis

It has been mentioned before that the key trade-off is between staying close to the TT rules, and coming up with rules that use the power of the PC more (e.g. ability to track small casualty increments)

I remember cothyso was a supporter of reduced casualty volatility, so am optimistic that will be coming in FOG 2
The odds of failing a cohesion test look like they are too high in your table. A steady BG with no modifiers passed on a 7 or higher so should fail less than 15/36 (42%) of the time, not 58% as your table shows. At one point I think the help said that you needed >7 to pass but this is incorrect and not how the game actually seems to work.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

cptkremmen
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 11:16 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by cptkremmen » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:42 am

2 points.

1) I honestly think the results are too random. Too many losses when it looks like an easy win and vice versa.

2) More psychological - "it feels wrong" when we keep winning or losing battles we should not be. That is a very difficult one to deal with. Perhaps something more visible about the dice being rolled? Nice big shiny 2D6 or something, not some confusing numbers in the corner....

Some of you will remember a similar problem when battle academy was first launched, tigers were getting killed occassionally when they seemed as though they shouldn't that kind of thing. There was a lot of bitching. The problem was largely solved, not sure technically how but something simillar may be a good idea...

Andy

frankpowerful
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:45 am

Re: Done With This Game

Post by frankpowerful » Wed Aug 15, 2012 1:34 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: The latest example given is what about losing a combat w 3 hits and giving two hits to the winner

Sure, the most xtreme casualty possible is .5% to the winner and 18% to the loser
Lets think abot that and assume each BG has 100 men ( easier to think about rather than coverting from 300 , and besides the engine cares about % not #'s of MEN)

Is it impossible to believe that a cavalry squadron that wins a tough combat(3-2 hits) vs another equal opponent might not suffer any losses while the loser suffers 18 men hors de combat?
Doesnt seem to fanatstical to me and not only that , this is an extreme example.
this is exactly the core of the problem for me. how can you mean that a "tough combat" gives no losses? where are the 2 losses given by the loser gone? lost due to the vagaries of the silly second "combat die"... :(
it's an extreme example that happens all the time

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:18 pm

frankpowerful wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote: The latest example given is what about losing a combat w 3 hits and giving two hits to the winner

Sure, the most xtreme casualty possible is .5% to the winner and 18% to the loser
Lets think abot that and assume each BG has 100 men ( easier to think about rather than coverting from 300 , and besides the engine cares about % not #'s of MEN)

Is it impossible to believe that a cavalry squadron that wins a tough combat(3-2 hits) vs another equal opponent might not suffer any losses while the loser suffers 18 men hors de combat?
Doesnt seem to fanatstical to me and not only that , this is an extreme example.
this is exactly the core of the problem for me. how can you mean that a "tough combat" gives no losses? where are the 2 losses given by the loser gone? lost due to the vagaries of the silly second "combat die"... :(
it's an extreme example that happens all the time
Have you ever read accounts of napoleonic cavalry "charging" into eachother? The losses from the loser were often a dozen or two of men in a squadron of 150 with negligible casualties from the winner..... Of course a squadron attacking a infantry squqre would be decimated with out a scratch on a single infantryman....
Yet these were "tough combats" both physically and MENTALLY exerting .....

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Wed Aug 15, 2012 3:52 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
frankpowerful wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote: The latest example given is what about losing a combat w 3 hits and giving two hits to the winner

Sure, the most xtreme casualty possible is .5% to the winner and 18% to the loser
Lets think abot that and assume each BG has 100 men ( easier to think about rather than coverting from 300 , and besides the engine cares about % not #'s of MEN)

Is it impossible to believe that a cavalry squadron that wins a tough combat(3-2 hits) vs another equal opponent might not suffer any losses while the loser suffers 18 men hors de combat?
Doesnt seem to fanatstical to me and not only that , this is an extreme example.
this is exactly the core of the problem for me. how can you mean that a "tough combat" gives no losses? where are the 2 losses given by the loser gone? lost due to the vagaries of the silly second "combat die"... :(
it's an extreme example that happens all the time
Have you ever read accounts of napoleonic cavalry "charging" into eachother? The losses from the loser were often a dozen or two of men in a squadron of 150 with negligible casualties from the winner..... Of course a squadron attacking a infantry squqre would be decimated with out a scratch on a single infantryman....
Yet these were "tough combats" both physically and MENTALLY exerting .....

Remember that casualties aren't necessarily physical casualties. It represents a degradation in the overall unit effectiveness, so it reflects things like men who have run away or are cowering or "helping an injured comrade", increasing fatigue in the unit, etc, not just those who are physically killed or wounded. So a losing unit may well come off much worse than a winning one when all these factors are considered.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

frankpowerful
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:45 am

Re: Done With This Game

Post by frankpowerful » Wed Aug 15, 2012 7:49 pm

the scene that you both have in mind would be a 0:3 or 0:4 loss, not a 2:3 loss. i repeat my question: if the loser gives 2 hits to the winner and the winner gets no losses, where are those hits gone? and why?
to take TGM's example, a squadron charging a steady square would obviously give NO hits...

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Wed Aug 15, 2012 8:24 pm

frankpowerful wrote:the scene that you both have in mind would be a 0:3 or 0:4 loss, not a 2:3 loss. i repeat my question: if the loser gives 2 hits to the winner and the winner gets no losses, where are those hits gone? and why?
to take TGM's example, a squadron charging a steady square would obviously give NO hits...
The winner will take non-zero loses although they may be minimal. In the case where they are minimal it presumably means that the winner did not incur much fatigue or serious physical loses from the 2 hits. The combat mechanism is an abstract model and it doesn't make much sense to try to determine the difference between the winner suffering 0 hits and light losses and 2 hits but with light losses. With 2 hits versus 0 hits for the winner, the winner is more likely to suffer more than with 0 but in the end it may not make any difference in the final state of the winner when the combat is done. Really what you have with this combat model is a range of possible final states for the winner and for the loser with a given probability that the BG can end up in each. Beyond the probability of ending in each final state, the exact combination of die rolls and number of hits and cohestion test results is just an artificial mechanism to generate the probabilities. (Sorry, I think my degree in Physics is showing ;-).)

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9450
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Done With This Game

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Aug 15, 2012 9:57 pm

batesmotel wrote: Winners: B, A, B, A, B, B, A, B = 3 A, 5 B
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4.
Nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.

Winners: B, A, A, A, B, A, B, A = 5 A, 3 B
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4 for this round but seems to even
up with the previous. B also failed two cohesion tests so now seems to be on the losing end overall.
Still nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.
Overall that may be so, but I was clearly pointing to the number of individual combats in the sequence where the results were (in my opinion) very strange inasmuch as one side lost very heavily. There were no 8-8 or 10-10 results in the sequence, for instance.
Did the 0/9 result versus the 9/9 result occur primarily due to auto-breaks from casualties or due to cohesion drops? The results after turn 2 with two B uits disrupted would certainly indicate A was favored at that point.

So were the remaing results due to casualties primarily or due to accumalating cohesion loss due to failed cohesion tests? I suspect the former but would to seem more turns of combat results to be able to better judge. (I don't remember how many turns Pete originally posted in this example.)

While I think the game would be improved by having a bell curve probability for the distribution of casualties within each range rather than what appears to be a unfirm distribution, I'm not generally convinced that the uniform distribution is in general a really big determinant in game outcomes with the current version.
I cannot honestly remember as it was quite a while ago but I think cohesion drops may have been decisive. Yes, the bell curve idea is OK and would reduce "extreme results" by as much as 50% I believe was said.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9450
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Done With This Game

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:14 pm

Here is the Battle of Bonkers scenario download. Test it out and post your data . . .

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/15461007/Battle ... 202012.rar

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:17 pm

Despite the number "extreme" casusalty results you were seeing that you would also see that would still average out after a few turns for combats so that the comparable losses will be about what you would expect with more "average" and fewer "extreme" results.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9450
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Done With This Game

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:37 pm

batesmotel wrote:Despite the number "extreme" casusalty results you were seeing that you would also see that would still average out after a few turns for combats so that the comparable losses will be about what you would expect with more "average" and fewer "extreme" results.

Chris
Sorry, but I cannot understand this sentence.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Aug 15, 2012 10:38 pm

frankpowerful wrote:the scene that you both have in mind would be a 0:3 or 0:4 loss, not a 2:3 loss. i repeat my question: if the loser gives 2 hits to the winner and the winner gets no losses, where are those hits gone? and why?
to take TGM's example, a squadron charging a steady square would obviously give NO hits...

What are you talking about? The hits arnt "gone" Its in the manual:

Loser: Hits Recieved plus losses Winner: Hits recieved and losses
3 hits : 9% to 18%----------------------------------->2 hits : 0.5% to 5%

I guess you could say the mean range is loser 14% winner 2.5% aprox?? in this example or a 5-1 ratio? 5-1 sound big but on such a small scale though does it matter that much? I could understand if it was like you lost 50% vs 10% in one combat!

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3386
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by batesmotel » Wed Aug 15, 2012 11:33 pm

Rewritten to be more coherent for Pete:

Despite the number of "extreme" casusalty results you were seeing in a single turn, I think that over a few turns you would see these average out to be about the same as you would also see with more "average" and fewer "extreme" results in each turn.

As far as I can tell, in the current version of the game the chance of any result in the range listed in the help is equally likely. Given this a result with the minimum in the range for the winner and the maximum in the range for the loser is equally probable as one in the center of the range for both units or one where the winner has the maximum in their range and the loser has the minimum.

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:17 am

Ok, so everyone who says that the current causalties are stupid, bonkers ,unrealistic, that Hexwar had no idea what they were doing etc, one thing is clear: Its clear that yu dont like it. What is NOT clear at all is what you want to actually have the casualties look like. Its not enough to say "less extreme", that means nothing. Noone has made a model on how its "supposed to be" , so i came up with the following to get some kind of a base line.
Ist lets get a base line on being a big winner:. Would everyone agree that scoring 4 hits and recieving 0 is the best you can do ( in normal combat) and that the loser should be punished drastically, the winner suffer lightly?? I do.
So lets agree that the % losses in one combat in the above should be around 24 to 26 %, which is quite harsh but feels right and the game already has 24%, so we'll use it.

Uh oh, we have a problem already. If 4-0 is the best yu can do, how do people feel about winning 4-3? Hmm, should the damages inflicted on the loser have the same magnitude as the 4-0, or should the defenders actually suffer LESS? After all, they barely lost in the 4-3, the 4-0 losers basically dropped their weapons and begged for mercy as they were being slaughtered...
Hmm, i can already see 33% wanting option 1, 33% saying option 2 and the rest saying wtf are you talking about or I dont care.
:)

So I have made two basic models, the Absolute and the Relative
Absolute basically states a hit if you win causes x%/per hit, loser causes y%/per hit. I used arbitray values of 6 and 3% trespectively. BTW Im using fixed amounts as its simple and i supose you could have a tight random ranger ie like 5.5-6.5 for the winner... This is example purposes only.

So below is the Absolute model (sorry for the formatting , real pain to copy from Excel to a message board)
nice and linear hmm?
What SUCKS about it, is look how flat and lifeless the #;s are... Look how many instances of the same result there are... Is this what people want? (even you introduced small ranges the long term effect is likly going to be just as flat.
Also in this model, think of the ramifications with the DAG list armies. With so many combos giving automatically high damages, i do wonder if armies that depend on troops that lose POA's/dice rapidly in melee once below 75%, will fair. Pikes comes to mind...


The second Model is harder to follow but you need to look at the formulas used. I had to toggle the #'s alot to get it to give rational results. Perhaps someone more clever than me can make it better, but the relative model attampts to make it so 4-0 win give max casualties to the loser, minimal to the winner, while 4-3 , well both do suffer
BTW look how the 4-3 losses play out: 14% winner losses vs 15% loser The current game is a range for winner 2-9% and the loser 12-24%
The relative model seems like it has a nice flow and proportion yet something is wrong about it... If feels more like a causalty model for ranged fire, maybe like a WW2 Corp level game, and not like a casualty spread for the chaos and ambiguities of hand to hand combat...
One thing about this second model, in mid line results , both side are attriting eachother closer to the same rate.. Is this what the game should be , relatively equal attrition until auto rout?


Absolute:
Winner gives 6% per hit, Loser gives 3% per hit

A / B / C / D
Winner Dice / Loser Dice / Loser Losses / Winner Losses

4 ….. 0 ….. 24.00% ….. 0.00%
4 ….. 1 ….. 24.00% ….. 3.00%
4 ….. 2 ….. 24.00% ….. 6.00%
4 ….. 3 ….. 24.00% ….. 9.00%
3 ….. 2 ….. 18.00% ….. 6.00%
3 ….. 1 ….. 18.00% ….. 3.00%
3 ….. 0 ….. 18.00% ….. 0.00%
2 ….. 1 ….. 12.00% ….. 3.00%
2 ….. 0 ….. 12.00% ….. 0.00%
1 ….. 0 ….. 6.00% ….. 0.00%

Relative
A / B / C / D
Winner Dice / Loser Dice / Loser Losses / Winner Losses

4 ….. 0 ….. 24.00% ….. 0.00%
4 ….. 1 ….. 21.00% ….. 2.00%
4 ….. 2 ….. 18.00% ….. 8.00%
4 ….. 3 ….. 15.00% ….. 14.00%
3 ….. 2 ….. 12.00% ….. 9.00%
3 ….. 1 ….. 15.00% ….. 3.00%
3 ….. 0 ….. 18.00% ….. 0.00%
2 ….. 1 ….. 9.00% ….. 4.00%
2 ….. 0 ….. 12.00% ….. 0.00%
1 ….. 0 ….. 6.00% ….. 0.00%



Formula for Loser casualties (A*6%)-(B*3%)
Formula for Winner Casualties: ((B*12%)-(A*2%)) *.50

Based on my crude attempts to do this, one thing became clear. I beleive Hexwar certainly put a lot of thought into it the way it is for a reason, even if it from a bottom up perspective doesnt seem logical.

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

Re: Done With This Game

Post by CheerfullyInsane » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:34 am

Triarius wrote:This thread has run before - what I add below a member of the forum called Cheerfully Insane said much more er... cheerfully previously.

The percentage calculator is correct and the "P" key gives very useful information that supports this.
The issue is also not that the random number generator is too random it is that it has too few values.
To have no chance of a hit requires more modifiers than you are likely to accrue.
Therefore the most improbable 'hit' has a 1/6 or 16.66% chance of occurring.
The fact that an improbable result occurrs once does not make it less likely to happen next time you "roll the dice".

So the issue is that the improbable is too probable and therefore occurrs too frequently and of course this is unequally shared between us players as well.
- Probabilty don't you just love it.

Any fix will never be perfect but simply making the virtual dice 10 or 20 sided would help and would probably not (though I do not know) be too technically difficult to script.
Actually, it's a little worse than that.
Since you always miss on 1,2 and always hit on 5,6 (melee only), the lowest probability of a hit is 33%
It's not really a D6, it's a weighted D4.
So a defender with 2 dice at -2POA will still get a minimum of 1 hit (and thus inflict casualties) 55% of the time.
Combine that with the casualty-rates that TGM mentioned, add a swift burst of mental arithmetic, and you end up with an average minimum of around 2-3% loss whenever you attack something.
Doesn't matter what you attack; Lancers, skirmishers, spearmen, a small stand of cacti......... :mrgreen:
TheGrayMouser wrote: .........Hmm, i can already see 33% wanting option 1, 33% saying option 2 and the rest saying wtf are you talking about or I dont care.
:)

So I have made two basic models, the Absolute and the Relative
Absolute basically states a hit if you win causes x%/per hit, loser causes y%/per hit. I used arbitray values of 6 and 3% trespectively. BTW Im using fixed amounts as its simple and i supose you could have a tight random ranger ie like 5.5-6.5 for the winner... This is example purposes only.

So below is the Absolute model (sorry for the formatting , real pain to copy from Excel to a message board)
nice and linear hmm?
What SUCKS about it, is look how flat and lifeless the #;s are... Look how many instances of the same result there are... Is this what people want? (even you introduced small ranges the long term effect is likly going to be just as flat.
Also in this model, think of the ramifications with the DAG list armies. With so many combos giving automatically high damages, i do wonder if armies that depend on troops that lose POA's/dice rapidly in melee once below 75%, will fair. Pikes comes to mind...


The second Model is harder to follow but you need to look at the formulas used. I had to toggle the #'s alot to get it to give rational results. Perhaps someone more clever than me can make it better, but the relative model attampts to make it so 4-0 win give max casualties to the loser, minimal to the winner, while 4-3 , well both do suffer
BTW look how the 4-3 losses play out: 14% winner losses vs 15% loser The current game is a range for winner 2-9% and the loser 12-24%
The relative model seems like it has a nice flow and proportion yet something is wrong about it... If feels more like a causalty model for ranged fire, maybe like a WW2 Corp level game, and not like a casualty spread for the chaos and ambiguities of hand to hand combat...
One thing about this second model, in mid line results , both side are attriting eachother closer to the same rate.. Is this what the game should be , relatively equal attrition until auto rout?
Re. the Absolute model, why would the percentage of casualties inflicted per hit be different between winner and loser?
Surely a hit is a hit. Making the casualties implicitly dependant on the number of hits also neatly circumvents the whole 'winner has higher casualties' problem.
I suppose it is 'flat', but then again so is the whole POA system.
Basically the same objection I have to the Relative model; I can't really see why the number of casualties you inflict should decrease merely because your own losses are higher. Two hits is two hits.

Personally, I like the 'flat' aspect of it. Makes it somewhat easier to predict results.
I know some will think there's a certain lack of randomness, and that it signifies a move towards skill-only, but I contend that the result of the combat will still depend on the number of hits inflicted.
Now, if we could only fix that aspect of the game...... :wink:

Then again, I belong firmly among the 33% in here who couldn't care less. :mrgreen:
I've got two words for ya: Math is hard.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Done With This Game

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Aug 16, 2012 3:55 am

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!

Lars Absolute:
A / B / C / D
Winner Dice / Loser Dice / Loser Losses / Winner Losses

4 ….. 0 ….. 24.00% ….. 0.00%
4 ….. 1 ….. 24.00% ….. 6.00%
4 ….. 2 ….. 24.00% ….. 12.00%
4 ….. 3 ….. 24.00% ….. 18.00%
3 ….. 2 ….. 18.00% ….. 12.00%
3 ….. 1 ….. 18.00% ….. 6.00%
3 ….. 0 ….. 18.00% ….. 0.00%
2 ….. 1 ….. 12.00% ….. 6.00%
2 ….. 0 ….. 12.00% ….. 0.00%
1 ….. 0 ….. 6.00% ….. 0.00%

Turk1964
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: Victor Harbor South Australia

Re: Done With This Game

Post by Turk1964 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 5:52 am

So where do the 2 hits disapear to thats the question i think is being asked? Surely if you have 2 hits to 3 some damage should occur?I can see why people get upset and lose interest. What seems to happen is the 2 hits are cancelled out and your opponent gets 3 hits to 0 in extereme cases. I see it more often than i would like and it may even out but you have usually lost by then. It really cant be that hard to fix to make combat more realistic . There are too many hidden equations and factors that arn't shown and new players havent a clue why they are losing big time when there isnt much difference in dice rolls. Is there a death roll as there is in TT? I have gotten used to whatv happens and just shake my head in disbelief at times at some of the crazy results.Like i said i wont stop playing but some of the explenations offered to me make no sense at all.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9450
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Done With This Game

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:40 am

What if hits were 4% for winner and loser alike, instead of 6%? (I really do not think winner hits should be worth twice loser hits - now that is bonkers, TGM! :P )

A / B / C / D
Winner Dice / Loser Dice / Loser Losses / Winner Losses

4 ….. 0 ….. 16.00% ….. 0.00%
4 ….. 1 ….. 16.00% ….. 4.00%
4 ….. 2 ….. 16.00% ….. 8.00%
4 ….. 3 ….. 16.00% ….. 12.00%
3 ….. 0 ….. 12.00% ….. 0.00%
3 ….. 1 ….. 12.00% ….. 4.00%
3 ….. 2 ….. 12.00% ….. 8.00%
2 ….. 0 ….. 8.00% ….. 0.00%
2 ….. 1 ….. 8.00% ….. 4.00%

That looks quite a bit better to me. The melees would last longer it is true, but without the extreme results players would actually get more reward for skilful missile fire than they do now - at the moment this can often be negated by the extreme melee results.

Edit: and perhaps each result could be subject to a random modifier (the luck element) of +1, 0, or -1. So, for example, a melee combat resulting in 3 hits to 2 could be 12-8. or it could be 13-7, 13-8, 13-9, 12-7, 12-9, 11-7, 11-8 or 11-9.
Last edited by stockwellpete on Thu Aug 16, 2012 7:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

Turk1964
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: Victor Harbor South Australia

Re: Done With This Game

Post by Turk1964 » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:56 am

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:

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”