Double-Breaks Far too Frequent

[Cunningcairn]

Does the RNG always generate a number between 1 and 6?

[rbodleyscott]

Does the RNG always generate a number between 1 and 6?

No, it generates whatever (integer) range you tell it to. 1 to 6 rolls are only used for Cohesion Tests.

[Cunningcairn]

Does the RNG always generate a number between 1 and 6?

No, it generates whatever (integer) range you tell it to. 1 to 6 rolls are only used for Cohesion Tests.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What range is used in FOGII for combat resolution or any other test besides CT?

[rbodleyscott]

Does the RNG always generate a number between 1 and 6?

No, it generates whatever (integer) range you tell it to. 1 to 6 rolls are only used for Cohesion Tests.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What range is used in FOGII for combat resolution or any other test besides CT?

It depends on which part of the code.

For combat resolution, there is an internal "damage" variable for each side, calculated from the relative POAs, combat strength, cohesion state, terrain disorder etc.

This is then randomised between a minimum value (min) of 50% of the mean value and a maximum value (max) of 150% of the mean value, "rolling" two min-max "dice" to produce an approximately bell-shaped distribution favouring results closer to the mean.

Code: Select all

result = (Rand(min,max) + Rand(min,max))/ 2;

The RNG code above is applied to each side, which further moves the overall combat result towards the mean.

The relative values of the "damage" variables for both sides then decides whether one side "wins" the combat round (in which case the other side takes a cohesion test), or whether it is a draw.

[Cunningcairn]

No, it generates whatever (integer) range you tell it to. 1 to 6 rolls are only used for Cohesion Tests.

Sorry I wasn't clear. What range is used in FOGII for combat resolution or any other test besides CT?

It depends on which part of the code.

For combat resolution, there is an internal "damage" variable for each side, calculated from the relative POAs, combat strength, cohesion state, terrain disorder etc.

This is then randomised between a minimum value (min) of 50% of the mean value and a maximum value (max) of 150% of the mean value, "rolling" two min-max "dice" to produce an approximately bell-shaped distribution favouring results closer to the mean.

Code: Select all

result = (Rand(min,max) + Rand(min,max))/ 2;

The RNG code above is applied to each side, which further moves the overall combat result towards the mean.

The relative values of the "damage" variables for both sides then decides whether one side "wins" the combat round (in which case the other side takes a cohesion test), or whether it is a draw.

Thanks! I am a bit uncertain now about the process. Where does the major/minor victory get calculated? i.e. lost by x or >x. Also the min/max dice are 6 sided?

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks! I am a bit uncertain now about the process. Where does the major/minor victory get calculated? i.e. lost by x or >x.

Well it won't leave you much the wiser, but a (minor) loss is when the difference between the final "damage" scores is > 16, and a major loss is when the difference between the final "damage" scores is > 33.

Note that "damage" is an internal variable with no real-world equivalent, and is just a surrogate for how well the unit did in the combat. It is not directly proportional to casualties. Casualties are calculated after the victor for the combat round has been decided, with a losing unit taking heavier casualties. (This is because the model is fundamentally psychology/morale-based rather than casualty based, and because ancient troops took more casualties once they started to lose).

Also, the "major loss" calculation is based on the overall difference between the total "damage" inflicted and received in all the unit's close combats during the turn so far, not just the one that triggered the test.

I am sorry if the above is incomprehensible, but the process is in fact very complex, and hence it really isn't possible to explain it in any relatively simple way. You would need to read and understand the code to fully understand how it works.

The advantage of using a computer is that it can instantaneously do calculations that would be far too complex to be suitable for use in a manually adjudicated tabletop game. Having made use of this capability to do complex calculations, however, with the aim of making a system that is both more nuanced and less subject to extreme fluctuations of luck than the tabletop system (which FOG1 reproduced more or less exactly), it may then become impossible to explain the details of their internal workings as if they were (much simpler) tabletop mechanisms.

Also the min/max dice are 6 sided?

There are no dice!

However, if you must think of it in terms of dice, then the dice has (max - min)+1 sides.

So if, for example, min is 26 and max is 78, the "dice" has 53 sides, and has an equal chance of producing any integer value from 26 to 78 inclusive.

"Rolling" two of these "dice" and dividing the result by two results in a value between 26 and 78, but with a distribution weighted towards the mean (52).

Doing this for both sides in a combat results in the approximate win:draw:loss ratio for exactly equal units of 14:72:14.

[Cunningcairn]

Thanks! I am a bit uncertain now about the process. Where does the major/minor victory get calculated? i.e. lost by x or >x.

Well it won't leave you much the wiser, but a (minor) loss is when the difference between the final "damage" scores is > 16, and a major loss is when the difference between the final "damage" scores is > 33.

Note that "damage" is an internal variable with no real-world equivalent, and is just a surrogate for how well the unit did in the combat. It is not directly proportional to casualties. Casualties are calculated after the victor for the combat round has been decided, with a losing unit taking heavier casualties. (This is because the model is fundamentally psychology/morale-based rather than casualty based, and because ancient troops took more casualties once they started to lose).

Also, the "major loss" calculation is based on the overall difference between the total "damage" inflicted and received in all the unit's close combats during the turn so far, not just the one that triggered the test.

I am sorry if the above is incomprehensible, but the process is in fact very complex, and hence it really isn't possible to explain it in any relatively simple way. You would need to read and understand the code to fully understand how it works.

The advantage of using a computer is that it can instantaneously do calculations that would be far too complex to be suitable for use in a manually adjudicated tabletop game. Having made use of this capability to do complex calculations, however, with the aim of making a system that is both more nuanced and less subject to extreme fluctuations of luck than the tabletop system (which FOG1 reproduced more or less exactly), it may then become impossible to explain the details of their internal workings as if they were (much simpler) tabletop mechanisms.

Also the min/max dice are 6 sided?

There are no dice!

However, if you must think of it in terms of dice, then the dice has (max - min)+1 sides.

So if, for example, min is 26 and max is 78, the "dice" has 53 sides, and has an equal chance of producing any integer value from 26 to 78 inclusive.

"Rolling" two of these "dice" and dividing the result by two results in a value between 26 and 78, but with a distribution weighted towards the mean (52).

Doing this for both sides in a combat results in the approximate win:draw:loss ratio for exactly equal units of 14:72:14.

Thank you for the explanation. So if I'm understanding in a particular turn when charging more units into a melee against a unit that has been losing yet passing the cohesion test it can add additional negative modifiers to the unit's cohesion test causing it to fail?

[MikeC_81]

Thank you for the explanation. So if I'm understanding in a particular turn when charging more units into a melee against a unit that has been losing yet passing the cohesion test it can add additional negative modifiers to the unit's cohesion test causing it to fail?

Yes but that is unlikely and almost certainly not the best use of your extra manpower. You would need to both trigger an additional -1 modifier in combat somehow AND the unit that passed the CT needs to have passed it by only 1 for the excercise to have been useful that immediate turn. This is a result that is hidden from the players so you have no way to know how much they passed the test by.

[rbodleyscott]

Thank you for the explanation. So if I'm understanding in a particular turn when charging more units into a melee against a unit that has been losing yet passing the cohesion test it can add additional negative modifiers to the unit's cohesion test causing it to fail?

Yes. Although, as Mike says, the chances of causing a fail are statistically not high.

However, if it is Fragmented, the test for being charged while Fragmented uses a separate random roll each time, so it is always worth charging a Fragmented unit with a fresh unit.

[Cunningcairn]

Thank you for the explanation. So if I'm understanding in a particular turn when charging more units into a melee against a unit that has been losing yet passing the cohesion test it can add additional negative modifiers to the unit's cohesion test causing it to fail?

Yes but that is unlikely and almost certainly not the best use of your extra manpower. You would need to both trigger an additional -1 modifier in combat somehow AND the unit that passed the CT needs to have passed it by only 1 for the excercise to have been useful that immediate turn. This is a result that is hidden from the players so you have no way to know how much they passed the test by.

I understand but sometimes the delay caused by that unit can be dramatic and waiting another round won't help. I think it explains why players do charge additional units into these melees against single units who are defending an entire flank. Intuitively when you see an inferior, fragmented unit fighting two or more of your units you think one more charge will break them. I see know it is possible but there is little predictability of success.

[Cunningcairn]

Thank you for the explanation. So if I'm understanding in a particular turn when charging more units into a melee against a unit that has been losing yet passing the cohesion test it can add additional negative modifiers to the unit's cohesion test causing it to fail?

Yes. Although, as Mike says, the chances of causing a fail are statistically not high.

However, if it is Fragmented, the test for being charged while Fragmented uses a separate random roll each time, so it is always worth charging a Fragmented unit with a fresh unit.

Yes I understand and agree and that is exactly why AlexDetrojon did so in his post about "struggling to like the game". Thank you Richard for the numerous answers to what might have been seen to be silly questions. I now have a better understanding of how the calculations are made which for me is important. If a bit more detail could be added to the new manual it would be of great help.

[MikeC_81]

There is a wave of memes going out on unfair game difficulty and Xcom2 is another game that generates a ton of discussion like this on what is or isn't RNG. If you ever want to really understand proper move sequencing and risk management in a turn-based environment, Xcom and Xcom 2 is where it's at. This one gave me a good chuckle.

D3_Kl5QXsAI17zG.png (227.01 KiB) Viewed 1583 times

As did this one for any save scummers out there

https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1116793 ... 69056?s=20


For context, in Xcom 2, quite often aliens with high defence ratings mean that there are many times when even a point-blank shot will not be a 100% result. Many an Xcom player has had entire squads wiped out because they gambled on a 95% shot but failed.