Losses and Flank Attacks

[tmoj2000]

Have played a number of games by now...

I cant make out how losses work.. they seem to be anywhere from 0 to over 300...

Among the strange things

1- Flank attacks (at least on the first round) inflict more damage on the attacker than the defender, which is completely counter intuitive

2- Those pesky missile troops when caught should be slaughtered... not so... they take light losses and often manage to inflict significant casualties on the attacker

3- The phalanx seems to take disproportionately high losses, often from 100 to 200 in a single round... which seems strange because the phalanx was all about not taking losses (especially when 2 such units were facing each other)

Can somehow explain the logic of how this all works

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: tomar


Have played a number of games by now...

I cant make out how losses work.. they seem to be anywhere from 0 to over 300...

Among the strange things

1- Flank attacks (at least on the first round) inflict more damage on the attacker than the defender, which is completely counter intuitive

2- Those pesky missile troops when caught should be slaughtered... not so... they take light losses and often manage to inflict significant casualties on the attacker

3- The phalanx seems to take disproportionately high losses, often from 100 to 200 in a single round... which seems strange because the phalanx was all about not taking losses (especially when 2 such units were facing each other)

Can somehow explain the logic of how this all works

Believe me - you are not alone. One reason why I stopped playing (and buying) the games. That - and a complete lack of apparent willingness to introduce some kind of rationale behind the losses figures on the part of the developers. Their choice I guess - but losses in a wargame that seem to defy reason or any kind of consistency dont do it for me.

Explain away - but when a Phalanx of 6 ft hard men fight with a bunch of shepherds I know who is going to get slaughtered - been that way in every wargame I have played for the last 30 years - except this one.

[IainMcNeil]

The combat system abstracts a lot of the small details that turned the tide of battles and represents them in the randomness. People who don't get it are looking at individual combats in too much detail. You need to look at the overall results rather than any one combat. Any single combat can be a big win or a big loss for either side, the % shows you the chance of getting a big win. The overall interactions are very accurate and you have to accept that battles have a significant level of uncertainty and one of the key skills of the general is contingency planning. You hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

There is a huge amount of discussion of this on the Slitherine forum and about 1500 active multiplayer games at any one time so join and have fun.

[Rosseau]

Tomar,

I was of exactly your opinion at first.

But after playing several MP games, the overall "feel" of the final battle results are believable and the games are usually tense contests.

I would find Stuarts destroying Panthers unacceptable in a WWII game. But the design decisions in FoG tend to grow on you.

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

Tomar,

I was of exactly your opinion at first.

But after playing several MP games, the overall "feel" of the final battle results are believable and the games are usually tense contests.

I would find Stuarts destroying Panthers unacceptable in a WWII game. But the design decisions in FoG tend to grow on you.

Well, in Steel Panthers (which is considered to be a reasonably grognardy game) Stuarts can kill Panthers, not at 1500meters but certainly at 150 with flank shots:)
I actually saw a documentary where a US Greyhound (ie armoured car with 37mm gun) took out a panther, albeit it was literally at 10 meters or so, waited til the cat drove by and pulled up behind it and rapid fire away!

Anyways, I like the FOg combat system and feel it is very sound, it is of course a little abstract in some areas but like you say , the flow and outcome of the battles seems about "right", and it is incredibly fun too!

[Rosseau]

I am a rank amateur at ancients, so maybe it's easier for me to ignore some of the combat results that would really bother a student of the period. On the other hand, there are plenty of veterans over at Slitherine that appear to have become comfortable with the system. Hate to see anyone turned off by the game too quickly.

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: tomar


Have played a number of games by now...

I cant make out how losses work.. they seem to be anywhere from 0 to over 300...

Among the strange things

1- Flank attacks (at least on the first round) inflict more damage on the attacker than the defender, which is completely counter intuitive

2- Those pesky missile troops when caught should be slaughtered... not so... they take light losses and often manage to inflict significant casualties on the attacker

3- The phalanx seems to take disproportionately high losses, often from 100 to 200 in a single round... which seems strange because the phalanx was all about not taking losses (especially when 2 such units were facing each other)

Can somehow explain the logic of how this all works

hey Tomar , not trying to convince you of the combat system, but maybe this will help a littel in understanding what is going on

1 there really is no "flank" attak bonus when you charge ( impact in fog terms) an enemy BG , the assumption being is the unit has time to face the charge. Now, you can cause a devastating impact if you hit a unit in the rear, but it must be a "legal" rear charge. Here is where the manual is actually very usefull and accurate as it shows in game examples of what constitutes a successful rear hit
Now there is a flank bonus in melee combat where a Bg could be pinned to its front AND fighting a unit on the flank
Certainly there is no game mechanic though that punishes a rear or flank attacker, except rolling real bad:)

2 Generally a heavy unit should and will clobber a light fight unit, but since this is a dice baced game(as all games are really) there is always a chance of a hero unit. There are players though that feel casualties should be modified for heavey vs light lineups

3 This is a tough one to answere without knowing more specifcs . In the latest patches , all units now have 300 men (atleast for the DAg battles) It is impossible for a unit to take 67% losses from one combat alone (your example losing 200 out of 300)..., although of course a unit surrounded by 4 or more enemies could litterally be annhilated in that matter in 4 or 5 combats.
basically though a units combat power is derived by it weapon and unit type ie at impact "pike" heavy infantry When this unit engages in combat it will get (most units do) 4 dice. What a unit needs to get a hit per dice is based of the relative power that unit has vs its opponent which is the POA sytem.
Units can have a great advantage ie ++, advantage + or no advantage (also if a bg has ++ it means its oppoent has --)
What can modify this roll, amongst other things, is the units Quality ie Elites reroll 1, 2's Superiors 1's poors 6's...
The goal is to 'win" the conbat ie sscore more hits than recieve because this will force the loser to take a cohesion test , ie drop from steady to disorder to fregged and then rout. Casualties , although important long term are somewhat secondary

Now causalties are the likly hottest /most controversial part of the game. Basically after hits are determined, there is a second roll that determines what percent of the hit unit is lost . These charts are in the manual, so if you took four hits your unit will lose (example, dont have in front of me) 23-26% of its ORIGINAL # of men) View it as a percent because that is what it is and this confuses even long time players. It is a little counter intuitive becase most games will derive casualties directly off the # of men in the attacking unit. FoG doesnt do this , at least not directly. What fog does do , is if a unit is below its nominal strength it can lose POA advantages and or dice, which means statistically it will lose combats more(because it will cause lets hits on its opponent) and take more casualties
Pike are very tough units in FOG, but once they lose a cohesion level and or they lose a moderate amount of men they go down hill fast....

Sorry for blathering on , the game system is at once and the same deceptively simple and very complex, even after playing alot over the last year i find myself relearning many principles and mechanics.

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: rosseau

I am a rank amateur at ancients, so maybe it's easier for me to ignore some of the combat results that would really bother a student of the period. On the other hand, there are plenty of veterans over at Slitherine that appear to have become comfortable with the system. Hate to see anyone turned off by the game too quickly.

It botherd me a little in the beginning (not because Im any kind of student) now not really

The only thing i would like to see is the ability in the scenario editor to place units that start at LESS than their nominl strength... that way you can create battle with units that are smaller than other equivilent Bg's ( to simulate march attrition etc or to simulate a unit that really was a lot smaller[:)]) You really cant do this now since a Bg of 500 men is the exact same as a Bg of 1500 men , all other things being equal.

[DBeves]

OK - I am going to give this another try as inherently its one of the most attractive and well programmed wargames I have seen in a while - its just the combat results I dont really get. Its one of those games I really want to like ...

One question though - I have all the modules and the base game - but have also just bought Swords and Scimitars ... I also have about a million separate patches saved after installing at some stage..

given I have basically everything - how do I resinstall the game and end up with the most up to date version ?

[IainMcNeil]

The early version of Rise of Rome installer had v1.1.0 built in to it. If you have this one it will be marked with this version number. When youinstall it it reverts you to v1.1.0 - a big oversite on our part. We fixed it soon afterwards but a few people have this. If you want an updated installer we can supply it, just let us know. If you have this you need to install FoG, then RoR, then you can do Swords & scimitars to bring you completely up to date - v1.4.0. The other army packs can be installed in any order.

If you dont have the RoR1.1.0 installer then install FoG then Swords & Scimitars, and then the other army packs in any order.

We are adding a way to make this much easier ASAP as we understadn thigns have gotten horribly complicated and we can only apologise

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

The early version of Rise of Rome installer had v1.1.0 built in to it. If you have this one it will be marked with this version number. When youinstall it it reverts you to v1.1.0 - a big oversite on our part. We fixed it soon afterwards but a few people have this. If you want an updated installer we can supply it, just let us know. If you have this you need to install FoG, then RoR, then you can do Swords & scimitars to bring you completely up to date - v1.4.0. The other army packs can be installed in any order.

If you dont have the RoR1.1.0 installer then install FoG then Swords & Scimitars, and then the other army packs in any order.

We are adding a way to make this much easier ASAP as we understadn thigns have gotten horribly complicated and we can only apologise

My FOG installer file says ... Field_Of_Glory_1.0.exe - I bought the game on release day - I presume this is the problem one ? and I dont need any of the patches anymore ?

Edit ... my mistake - you were talking about rise of rome ... but just to confirm - I dont need any of the patches anymore if I do as you say ?

[IainMcNeil]

Swords & Scimitars has the latest patch built in so all you need is that to get up to date.

[tmoj2000]

Guys, thanks for your responses but this is still not enough explanation for me.....
 
I mean the fact that it may all average out is all nice and well, but that still does not provide the right feel and does not allow one to plan out strategy and tactics for a battle...
 
A couple of specific examples
 
Bagradas: the lybian spearmen get cut down by the roman and allied troops.. Every round they take 200 to 300 losses, inflicting less than 50... Why is that ?
 
Crimissos: the Syracusan phalanx units take high losses, the skirmishers take very low losses ?
 
I just had an example in another battle of a skirmisher already engaged by roman troops is charged in the back by a hastati unit.... What do you think happened ? The hastati took 160 losses, the skirmisher 7......What they all stumbled and fell on their swords ?
 
And what do the projected percentages mean anyway ? I have often a situation where i have like 70%+ in my favor and 20%- for the ennemy, then my troops get into combat, get whacked and inflict little or no losses.....
 
This whole loss thing is really diminishing the enjoyment from the game

[IainMcNeil]

It is by design that you cannot predict every combat. A key skill is planning for when things go wrong. This is not chess and in real life things never went to plan.

[TheGrayMouser]

ORIGINAL: tomar

Guys, thanks for your responses but this is still not enough explanation for me.....

I mean the fact that it may all average out is all nice and well, but that still does not provide the right feel and does not allow one to plan out strategy and tactics for a battle...

A couple of specific examples

Bagradas: the lybian spearmen get cut down by the roman and allied troops.. Every round they take 200 to 300 losses, inflicting less than 50... Why is that ?

Crimissos: the Syracusan phalanx units take high losses, the skirmishers take very low losses ?

I just had an example in another battle of a skirmisher already engaged by roman troops is charged in the back by a hastati unit.... What do you think happened ? The hastati took 160 losses, the skirmisher 7......What they all stumbled and fell on their swords ?

And what do the projected percentages mean anyway ? I have often a situation where i have like 70%+ in my favor and 20%- for the ennemy, then my troops get into combat, get whacked and inflict little or no losses.....

This whole loss thing is really diminishing the enjoyment from the game

I thought I kinda explained the combat mechanism in my prior post but I have to emphasie that the # of men killed is just a percenatge of the original men in the unit (which can be any # you want) The scenarios you are citing are the original ones where heavies were given 1500 men and lights 500. When a heavy takes 10% losses in combat w a light that takes 10% , the display will show 150 men killed vs 50 , which I can undertsnd can lead to confusion but for all intents and purposes , both units suffered the same. Amonst other reasons , I beleive this misconception is why they changed it so all units now have 300 men regardless of type..
As an fyi, you can change the display to record loss as a % and not the actual # of men kia

You cite Bagradas, why do you think Lybyan spearmen would last long against legions? In that scenario, the Romans are superior and armoured wheres the spears are average quality and protected. Actually, the POA's (the heart of the combat system) they are equal in impact and melee, of course the romans will be more likly to win as they will reroll 1's on combat rolls and cohesion tests which means statictically they will come out a head.... Once one of those spears gets disrupted and or has suffered badly, they will start getting a POA disadvantage and crumble pretty quickly..

Those percent odds are somewhat confusing but simply read as side A has a 70% chance to win a combat (ie roll more hits) and B has a 20% chance to win. Hmmm, imagine sticking you favourite body part into something and being told theres a 70% chance this will be awsome, but a 20% chance that it will turn out to be very very bad.. Makes you think twice about what good odds really means:)

I disagree that there are no tactics or strategies one can plan... How can this be true considering how many people are enjoing MP. There is a player that has NEVER lost a battle, he clearly is using tactics, noone coud be lucky that many times.

So in Bagradas, once you get a feel for the game system you should come to the conclusion that engaging your spears againt the legions as quickly as possible is a very bad idea. What you need to do is attempt to win on the flanks with your cavalry and hopefully, if you time it right , pin the legions with you inferior spears and allow you cavalry to strike in the rear... Anther option might be an echelon attack, massing as much force against a thin part of the Romans while holding back your other flank. Easy to say but harder to do, especially vs a human .

Anyways, I'd be glad to play a game or so with you, if you saw or felt something seemed odd in game, it would certainly be easier to give explanations or suggestions "realime" (ie the chat function) while playing. Feel free to pm me a challenge over on the Slitherine forum, cheers!

[tmoj2000]

Thanks Mouser... happy to play an MP game (its the only way I play)...... my nick is tmoj in the system.. I am still having fun with the game, but the seeming randomness is frustating me
 
>>>> You cite Bagradas, why do you think Lybyan spearmen would last long against legions? <<<<
&nbsp;
well they dont last at all... they take 200 to 300 losses almost everytime there is a combat so in a couple of rounds they are gone.... and that makes them pretty useless.....
&nbsp;
&nbsp;>>>> pin the legions with you inferior spears and allow you cavalry to strike in the rear <<<<<
you wont pin them for long, as the spears are quickly gone
&nbsp;
>>>> There is a player that has NEVER lost a battle, he clearly is using tactics <<<<<<
&nbsp;
well there are tactics that work better than others...&nbsp;still how many games has that player played ? not losing a single battle is suspicious I would say