The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

1) Warbands have a tendency to double drop in order to simulate their nature - aggressive and unreliable. If you pick Warbands for your army, you are taking a calculated risk - fearsome Impact and large unit size, but a tendency to chain rout if things start going wrong.

We have used warband armies a lot in the Themed Event this time. The quarter-final match-up sees Frankish war bands take on Burgundian war bands and, so far, the four results in have been very one sided (one was 70-6!). I designed the scenarios we are using myself and the Franks have an extra war band, that's about it, so RNG is playing a very big part in these results.

2) I really don't see winning margins as a good measure of how close a match was. Most often, the battle opens with indecisive skirmishing before the melee begins. At this point, both armies might be relatively close in rout % (say, 5%-15%), yet the battle will hang in the balance with casualties mounting, disrupts and frags occurring, and one side or another attempting to wheel their victorious cavalry in from the flank. At that point, one side often suddenly collapses. Not only does this make for exciting gameplay, it captures what I feel is the essence of battles in the era.

I really disagree here. Sometimes what you are saying is true, but certainly not always. A third of the winning margins in my sample were huge, over 30 points. They were not close games at all. But equally, if you lose a match, say, 42-17, then that might be the sort of match you describe or it could be a match in which the losing player gets a couple of late routs to make it look respectable.

3) I strongly disagree that flank attacks shouldn't cause an automatic cohesion drop. It's one of the main mechanics of the game that maneuvering centers around, and is key to several unit interactions, and, finally, is realistic; hell, if the game wanted to be more realistic, the mere presence of foes on the flank should cause a cohesion test every turn. The simple rumored presence of enemies to the rear, which were in reality friendlies, caused men to flee! Troops in FoG2 already stick around to fight much more tenaciously than their historical counterparts, who, being human, tended to be rather skittish.

If 2 v 1's or 3 v 1's had been the key mechanism for getting on top in a melee from the start then I think you might be feeling a bit different about flank attacks causing cohesion drops now. I vaguely remember this issue being discussed before somewhere and there were supporters on both sides of the argument. And btw, yes, some real battles were over very quickly (particularly if the C-in-C was killed e.g. Bosworth), but others went on all day (e.g. Hastings, Towton).

4) If you stick a general in your unit and he dies, well... that was also a calculated risk. That +50POA isn't free, and if your whole battle plan collapses because of one lost combat, you probably screwed up the maneuvering anyway.

I am not sure what this point refers to. It is nothing to do with what I have written, anyway.

5) Terrain is sort of a legitimate point; but I think this is more a weakness of the Digital League format, in which players choose an army to fight with in a variety of possibly unsuitable battlefields/matchups. This form of bad luck wouldn't be a factor anyway if the league could find a way to incorporate mirror matches, which is mostly what I've been playing of late (Potluck armies (Geographcial filter off), Potluck terrain, 1200 pts, Open Battle, Mirror Match) - if I roll Cappadocians vs Romans, well, I get to see if I can outperform my opponent in getting massacred.

In the FOG2DL, I think players need to pick more balanced armies than what might be called "one-trick pony" armies so that they can mitigate the worst effects of a difficult map. So something like the Carthaginians that offers a good balance of HF, MF, skirmishers, and cavalry/chariots will usually do better than a list such as the Spartans, who are predominantly HF. So that is a "skill" as far as I am concerned. Knowing the terrain is "pot luck", you need to pick an army that can perform on many types of terrain.

6) Rallies are a very common source of complaints regarding luck. And, yes, luck is a factor. You know what else is? How many units were broken at once, how many have generals attached, unit quality of said units, and how many casualties those units took before breaking. It's common for many units to be broken earlier in a battle with relatively light losses in rapid succession, due to chain breaks or flank charges. The fact that a few of these will rally around the same time makes sense.

I wasn't specifically focusing on rallies, although they can have great influence on the outcome of a battle, particularly if routed units rally on their fifth opportunity right down near their baseline so that the other player cannot reach them. But when you get a match where your opponent gets far more rallies than you, even with the variations of situation you have indicated, then you are toast, even when you might be playing as well as them. So it can be a very big influence in a game.

7) Battle size. I personally really dislike playing Large battles any more than once in awhile. It makes everything take longer, and I don't have infinite free time. I suspect it might change the balance between certain army types, but that doesn't particularly bother me.

This is an idea from Cunningcairn. I will poll it to see if people want to try it out. But I am not going to impose it, or anything draconian like that. Maybe 1600 pts, rather than 2000 would be the place to start.

I have to agree with Mike that the vast majority of the time people see bad luck, they are minimizing their own good luck, either in that battle or earlier ones, or not seeing that being put in a situation where bad luck loses you the battle is often your own fault.

But I have been very careful not to do this. Please see my analysis of my own matches in the FOG2DL this season (earlier in this thread) where I have indicated where I feel either good luck or bad luck has influenced the result. To be perfectly clear, I do not think that I am an unlucky player, or have been hard done by this season. But I have been keeping a close eye on the way RNG works out in my matches and sometimes there have been massive imbalances that have made the result inevitable. This is not skill, it is luck.

I really only remember a single occasion clearly in which bad luck lost me a battle, and I really hadn't done anything wrong. I was facing RBS in a Hellenistic phalanx slugging match. In the first round of combat, my C-in-C, embedded in a central unit of Veteran Pikes, got stabbed in the face and died, causing a ripple of unease in my line. RBS's phalangites pressed the advantage, and my line collapsed. But let's face it - I took a risk putting my general there, and I didn't have a backup plan. I deemed the risk acceptable, and, well... it didn't work out. Things usually didn't for armies when their general got stabbed in the face, so I accepted that "these things happen" and moved on.

Well, I find this claim remarkable. Just one match out of all the dozens you have played? Really? In my sample this season, I would say around half the matches were affected either moderately or severely by the whims of the RNG.

There is still a HIGH skill ceiling in this game. I consider myself pretty good, but not in the top tier, and there are a number of players who regularly demolish me. Against those who I tend to break even against in the long run, initial army comp, deployment, who has the better plan, skill at maneuvering and skirmishing have generally played a larger role in who comes out alive than luck. In my opinion, the luck factor is in a good place, and I would not want to see it altered. I think you want this to be a different game than it is, with a different design philosophy; if that game existed, it's possible I would play it and enjoy it, but I don't want FoGII to substantially change in its approach.

Yes, skill is an important part of the game, but it can be completely overwhelmed by the RNG. I have suggested ways in which the balance might be shifted towards skill a bit more. I would like to see FOG2 modified once more, in the same way that it has undergone many modifications already. It would still be FOG2.

[stockwellpete]

This is basically what they do in Civ. Every time you roll bad, the subsequent roll has less chance of being bad. You roll good, the next roll has less chance of being good. Sid Meier did an interesting talk about it many years ago and its basically his way of mitigating players entirely false perceptions and understanding of what randomness actually is. It also means he's manipulating the gameplay in a way that would get him crucified by most serious wargamers. He's changing the results of a dice roll in ways that have nothing to do with game mechanics and if done deliberately by the player would be classed as cheating.

I can't be doing with Civ but I've seen the same technique used in some board game conversions and when done to extreme it becomes obvious and ruins it. When you know the odds of winning are improved simply by rolling more often, it kills the tension as thats just not how it works in real life.

Is it? I didn't realise that. I do enjoy pottering about in Civ from time to time.

I don't get the rest of your argument though. Players have a false understanding of what randomness is? Surely randomness can be measured and modified like anything else? The suggestion that I made would reduce randomness, not eliminate it completely. There would still be a luck factor in the game. No-one has argued that there shouldn't be. I have no idea what you mean by your reference to cheating. If the game designer is setting the parameters for everything that is affecting the game then I don't see any problem at all. And I don't get your point about "rolling more often, it kills the tension" either. How does a player in FOG2 decide to roll more often? How is tension killed when the luck factor is still very much part of the game?

[stockwellpete]

Pete, I am not saying that luck is never a factor. But risk management definitely is a skill and FoG2 is all about risk management. Every correct move you make in this game forces your opponent to need better dice roll to beat you. Every mistake you make does the opposite. It is entirely possible for two players of equal skill play each other and the winner is not determined solely, or largely, or even marginally by luck but rather by their specific actions in the game.

Yes, I have never said anywhere that this cannot be the case. My figures of 25% skill, 50% RNG, 25% terrain were indicated as rough averages across a large number of matches, where the variations in what might happen in a game are enormous. And I subsequently indicated in my own roster of matches that RNG had a moderate, or pronounced, effect in around half of them. In the other half, that extra bit of skill on the day was decisive.

Even in games where luck may have played a significant role, it is unlikely that the player on the losing end could not have made better moves to improve the odds, even if luck was so extreme the final result would have been defeat. Those games where luck was so bad nothing could have changed the end result are exceedingly rare in my opinion.

Well, I think these sort of games occur far more often than that. I have been watching my matches very carefully this season and I was sawn off at the knees at least 3 times in 14 matches. I also won 3 matches that I really had no right to.

FoG2 has many facets and hidden depth. There are players, even very good players, who still have very little idea how to approach certain matchups. Everyone still makes mistakes. Every game I am still learning something new. I can only suggest that you change your mindset when viewing outcomes in this game. You seem to feel that luck is what is causing you to not play this game actively anymore which is a shame since you run the only regular player-organized event. While it is not easy to reproduce game states since FoG2 is very primitive in that area, I have always found that taking a few screenshots during the opening phases, and having a few more as the battle progresses is very useful for post-game review. Having screenshots also means you can post on the forums and have an AAR discussion on alternatives in unit picks, and overall strategy and improve.

This is where you start to annoy me. You seem to be suggesting that I am making this argument because I am feeling hard done by. You are completely wrong. I have actually done a bit better this season than I expected to, because I have hardly played at all in the last 6 months and I only entered because players dropped out of Biblical and the Themed Event just before the start. To win 7, draw 1 and lose 6 playing at the A level is quite a reasonable return, in the circumstances. The reasons I have stopped playing are threefold. Firstly, I am not that interested in ancient warfare and I was hoping that a medieval DLC would have appeared by now, because that is my main area of interest (I understand why this has happened though). Secondly, some of the game mechanics are not to my liking and often lead to chaotic, or just plain daft, situations (e.g. flank attacks, rallies far away from the main fighting, cavalry pursuits through enemy primary ZOCs and so on). Thirdly, RNG can obliterate skill far too often for my liking. So I am not looking at this situation just as a player, but also as a tournament organiser and as a (medieval) scenario designer.

I also will repeat what I said before about larger armies, it won't do much to reduce variance. But it will make the games take way longer than before and that is something not very appealing to me.

This is why the FOGDL has always used medium-sized battles so that players can fit their matches in. It might seem logical that bigger armies will take longer, but is it true? I don't actually know because I do not play larger battles. Would 1600 point battles take that much longer given the armies might be 7 or 8 units bigger? I doubt it would be a significant difference myself.

[stockwellpete]

This sort of discussion is precisely why we need a replay feature, to analyze each other's games.

Yes, that would be great. Richard, is it possible?

[rbodleyscott]

This sort of discussion is precisely why we need a replay feature, to analyze each other's games.

Yes, that would be great. Richard, is it possible?

It is on the wishlist but there are technical difficulties. Even if it was implemented, it wouldn't work for old games after a game update.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The point about generals was something others have mentioned on past occasions, so I thought it relevant to the discussion.

I think 2v1s etc ARE a key mechanic in the game. I certainly take it into account regularly, particularly when handling lower quality troops vs Superior foes.

And yes, I can only remember the one battle in which luck was the sole deciding factor. I'm sure there were others, as I've played hundreds of matches, but IMO it's not all that common an occurrence. And without a replay feature, we're relying on anecdote, memory, and broad statistics - none of which are really helpful IMO. It's also possible that what we see as a decisive amount of luck simply differs. The thing we can agree is true is that some people enjoy the current system, and some don't, and RBS certainly can't please us all...

[Patrick Ward]

This is basically what they do in Civ. Every time you roll bad, the subsequent roll has less chance of being bad. You roll good, the next roll has less chance of being good. Sid Meier did an interesting talk about it many years ago and its basically his way of mitigating players entirely false perceptions and understanding of what randomness actually is. It also means he's manipulating the gameplay in a way that would get him crucified by most serious wargamers. He's changing the results of a dice roll in ways that have nothing to do with game mechanics and if done deliberately by the player would be classed as cheating.

I can't be doing with Civ but I've seen the same technique used in some board game conversions and when done to extreme it becomes obvious and ruins it. When you know the odds of winning are improved simply by rolling more often, it kills the tension as thats just not how it works in real life.

Is it? I didn't realise that. I do enjoy pottering about in Civ from time to time.

I don't get the rest of your argument though. Players have a false understanding of what randomness is? Surely randomness can be measured and modified like anything else? The suggestion that I made would reduce randomness, not eliminate it completely. There would still be a luck factor in the game. No-one has argued that there shouldn't be. I have no idea what you mean by your reference to cheating. If the game designer is setting the parameters for everything that is affecting the game then I don't see any problem at all. And I don't get your point about "rolling more often, it kills the tension" either. How does a player in FOG2 decide to roll more often? How is tension killed when the luck factor is still very much part of the game?

Its easier if I just point you to the talk.

https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY

Cheating because it is outside the expected parameters of the game rules. He's changing the results of a die roll, not because of a game related modifier, but purely to make the player feel better.
If you rolled a 5 twice in a row and decided to change a third 5 to a more favourable 6 as it upsets you because of a mistaken belief that the odds of rolling a 5 again should be less than previously, then yes, I'd call you a cheat. Sid Meiers philosophy is it doesn't matter so long as the player is happy, but when I see it happening it infuriates me. Its fine for certain games and a certain audience but personally it feels patronising in a war game. (Sid Meiers explanation is more subtle than that but feels like he's patting me on the head saying 'there, there, never mind, poor lamb didn't get the result you expected so here, let me fix it for you' )

No where did I suggest getting rid of randomness. Its essential.

And my comments about ruining the tension and rolling more often was specifically about the board game conversions I'd mentioned in the previous sentence. The tension is killed if I'm given the opportunity to roll many times and I know the more I roll the more chance I have of success. I may not be guaranteed a win becasue there is still randomness but it'll happen far more often than it should becasue the result is not entirly random, its deliberately manipulated to make it easier to win. Its not the same as adding modifiers.

Your suggestion is subtly different in that its more like a chit pull system. But thats deliberately built into a game and is completely visible, known and understood by the player. In that respect I could be on board at a pinch, but absolutely not if its as opaque as Meiers.

I suppose its a good job I just push pixels and have no input into game design.

[MikeC_81]

One way to mitigate luck would be to use a system that worked reasonably for Games Workshops's Lord of the Rings game. It has been over a decade since I played that game but the iteration I experienced uses a system where a player could use a specific and limited number of "might points" on rolls hero units to push the dice rolls by one. It was used so that heroic units like Aragorn or Legolas would not be ignobly cut down by common orcs.

Maybe you could tie it the game but it feels rather out of place in a historical setting. I feel most players in the game think that luck is not wildly out of control and determining the out comes of a disproportionate number of games.

Pete, Iapologize of you feel I attacked you for complaining that you had bad results because of luck. I simply believe that such a belief is misplaced.

[Morbio]

2) I really don't see winning margins as a good measure of how close a match was. Most often, the battle opens with indecisive skirmishing before the melee begins. At this point, both armies might be relatively close in rout % (say, 5%-15%), yet the battle will hang in the balance with casualties mounting, disrupts and frags occurring, and one side or another attempting to wheel their victorious cavalry in from the flank. At that point, one side often suddenly collapses. Not only does this make for exciting gameplay, it captures what I feel is the essence of battles in the era.

I really disagree here. Sometimes what you are saying is true, but certainly not always. A third of the winning margins in my sample were huge, over 30 points. They were not close games at all. But equally, if you lose a match, say, 42-17, then that might be the sort of match you describe or it could be a match in which the losing player gets a couple of late routs to make it look respectable.

I think the large margin can support both arguments.
One one hand: If you get a lot of luck then your margin for winning is going to be better.

On the other hand: The margin can be wide without significant luck. I've often seen a close match turn with one breakthrough, a unit collapses maybe disrupting one or more nearby neighbours, the pursuing units get a flank charge causing the neighbours to break and maybe some more disrupt. What was a good steady defence is now wide open and the enemy enter and the flank attacks begin... the game soon ends with a wide margin with no exceptional luck involved.

My observation is that for a lot of battles that are close in the start have fairly wide gaps at the end. It may be because my tactics, or maybe my opponents, are flawed, but when the collapse comes it's often big.

[stockwellpete]

Its easier if I just point you to the talk.

https://youtu.be/bY7aRJE-oOY

Cheating because it is outside the expected parameters of the game rules. He's changing the results of a die roll, not because of a game related modifier, but purely to make the player feel better.
If you rolled a 5 twice in a row and decided to change a third 5 to a more favourable 6 as it upsets you because of a mistaken belief that the odds of rolling a 5 again should be less than previously, then yes, I'd call you a cheat. Sid Meiers philosophy is it doesn't matter so long as the player is happy, but when I see it happening it infuriates me. Its fine for certain games and a certain audience but personally it feels patronising in a war game. (Sid Meiers explanation is more subtle than that but feels like he's patting me on the head saying 'there, there, never mind, poor lamb didn't get the result you expected so here, let me fix it for you' )

No where did I suggest getting rid of randomness. Its essential.

And my comments about ruining the tension and rolling more often was specifically about the board game conversions I'd mentioned in the previous sentence. The tension is killed if I'm given the opportunity to roll many times and I know the more I roll the more chance I have of success. I may not be guaranteed a win becasue there is still randomness but it'll happen far more often than it should becasue the result is not entirly random, its deliberately manipulated to make it easier to win. Its not the same as adding modifiers.

Your suggestion is subtly different in that its more like a chit pull system. But thats deliberately built into a game and is completely visible, known and understood by the player. In that respect I could be on board at a pinch, but absolutely not if its as opaque as Meiers.

I suppose its a good job I just push pixels and have no input into game design.

I have just finished listening to the talk, and while it was very interesting, it was not addressing directly the issue I am raising. He seemed to be talking mainly about the single player experience and how players interacted with the game, which player psychologies were involved and how some players did not realise that odds of 20 v 10 were the same as 2 v 1. I certainly do understand how odds work and I have answered one such query from a player about it during the course of this discussion. He did say that "randomness has to be treated with a lot of care" otherwise it can lead to player paranoia.

What I am talking about is the way in which luck (randomness, if you like) generally impacts on FOG2 and, in some instances, overshadows the skill aspect completely, thereby lessening the enjoyment for both players (although the winning player tends not to mind so much). So it is not about my luck with the game, which I believe is the same as everybody else's over the longer term. I used my recent matches as an illustration of what I think is happening.

And the question I am raising is whether it is possible to reduce randomness and shift the balance further towards skill. The "chit pull system" (your description) that I have suggested would seem to do that. I gave the example of a bag with 60 chits in it that would be re-filled after 30 chits had been drawn. That would still allow for a great deal of variation because the chits could be pulled for all sorts of reasons - impact, or melee rolls, rallies, cohesion tests etc - and it would be the same for both players (I only play multi-player really). I honestly cannot see any objection to it other than from those players who think luck is not as much of a factor in the game as I am suggesting.

[stockwellpete]

I feel most players in the game think that luck is not wildly out of control and determining the out comes of a disproportionate number of games.

Well, none of us knows that for sure. I know a few players agree with me to a certain extent and few others mostly disagree with me. We don't know any more than that.

Pete, I apologize of you feel I attacked you for complaining that you had bad results because of luck. I simply believe that such a belief is misplaced.

That's OK, Mike.

I do have some bad results because of luck, just like everybody else, and sometimes I have good luck that lets me win a game when really I shouldn't. Again, just like everybody else. But my point in this discussion is to suggest the balance between luck and skill is a bit off at the moment and that it needs to be adjusted.

[markwatson360]

I feel most players in the game think that luck is not wildly out of control and determining the out comes of a disproportionate number of games.

Well, none of us knows that for sure. I know a few players agree with me to a certain extent and few others mostly disagree with me. We don't know any more than that.

Sounds like a good idea for a vote on this question.

[Cunningcairn]

I feel most players in the game think that luck is not wildly out of control and determining the out comes of a disproportionate number of games.

Well, none of us knows that for sure. I know a few players agree with me to a certain extent and few others mostly disagree with me. We don't know any more than that.

Sounds like a good idea for a vote on this question.

Yes that is a good idea. Let's see if the majority of players believe there is a lot of luck involved.

[Geffalrus]

I'd hazard a guess that luck becomes more important the closer two players are in natural/learned skill to one another. If you're more skilled/experienced than your opponent, you'll know how to lessen the impact of bad luck and accentuate the impact of good luck. So it makes sense that this is seeming more luck based to Pete who's rolling with other high-experience/skill players. Such players will be good at reading the terrain, picking suitable army lists, choosing suitable unit combinations, and formulating a plan to exploit all variables at play in the battle. In other words, they won't make as many mistakes as new players will. At that point, the deciding factor really can only become one of luck - either the map fundamentally suits one army better than the other, or one army gets the first set of good rolls and is ready to capitalize on them.

Additionally, I'd argue that some armies are more luck dependent than others (though all are in one way or another). I'm starting to learn that pike armies rely heavily on their few, but powerful units to maximize the extent to which they can take beneficial 1v1 melee combats. A 75 point pike needs to start chewing through 30-40 point medium foot pretty quickly to earn its keep. So getting some of those 10-20% results where it's Indecisive or (gasp) a Loss can be really stressful or game losing. On the other hand, an army like the Bretons where your infantry is all 30 points is one where you don't necessarily intend to defeat other units 1v1. Either you're swarming better units, in which case you're fine with Indecisive or Hold Firm, or you don't care what happens to them because your cavalry units are off doing the real work.

[deve]

I am relatively new to FoG2 but i will try to make my input on luck in FoG2

1) Cohesion double-drops: I can see how double-drops may have happened in real warfare. But i think they should be limited so certain type of units/engagements. I can see warband being on both sides of dounle-drop during impact phase (it is nature of Warbands: high risk and high reward and good general should have plan B likewise opposite general should have plan on mitigating successful warband charges that punch whole in his formation). But i do not think double drops should be happening when low-impact units engage. Especially when heavy foot spear double drops while engaging inferior medium spear unit. Moreover I had situations when pike double-dropped on initial engagement vs citizen hoplite - you never expect this type pf outcome since pikes are hard counter against spear infantry. This type of cohesion double-drops should never happen because 1) they are not realistic/ahistorical and 2) bad for gameplay since player can never prepare for them (no matter how good player is).

I would suggest to eliminate double-drops from certain type of engagements to make battle line a little bit more controllable/predictable.

2) Rallies: I get the idea of unit rallying while in melee. They are still part of structured battle, they play their role in either holding enemy or being able to create new engagements. These rallies are fine. But rallies that happens to already routed unit somewhere on opposite side of the map is that thing that caused me to stop playing this game (and only season of Digital League brought me back). Why these type of rallies are bad:
- From realism sandpoint: routed units that rally on opposing side of the map affect battle result by means of buying more time for player who was supposed to lose due to FoG battle result beaing based on artificial condition of reaching 60% (+25%).
- From gameplay point of view: routed units that rally make battle less structured and often prolong it for no reason. In most cases those units will stay fragmented and play no role other than digits on "scoreboard" (unfortunately that scoreboard affects battle outcome directly). And again rallies of already routed troops are unpredictable and can not be mitigated by a player.
I won and lost a few battles because of that: a few units close to redline rallied and gave either me or my opponent time to turn battle around or at least make it a draw. When I benefited from rallies I did not enjoy such victories at all since I felt they were not deserved and when I lost battles because of that I was mad at my opponent even though I realized that it was not his fault that game engine designed this way. Either way this type of rallies add nothing but frustration.

I would suggest to either not to allow routed units to come back or if it feels to harsh of a change just make them rally less often than units that are still "alive" or maybe allow only routed units with a General being able to rally.

3) Terrain generation: this part is actually excellent. It is random but at least you know your terrain before you make and deploy army so you can adopt to this type of luck.

PS: I and 4 friends of mine (competitive Total War players) started playing FoG2 a few months ago (in December). Initially we all loved the balance and historical realism but then 3 of them stooped playing FoG2 because we all experienced excessive effect of luck on battle outcomes. I stopped playing a little after but then came back because of Digital League (the nature of league reduces effect of luck since player play multiple battles and if player is good he will find its way to the top despite bad luck in certain battles unlike knock-out tournaments - those seems to be bogus for the game that empathizes RNG that much)

[stockwellpete]

1) Cohesion double-drops: I can see how double-drops may have happened in real warfare. But i think they should be limited so certain type of units/engagements. I can see warband being on both sides of dounle-drop during impact phase (it is nature of Warbands: high risk and high reward and good general should have plan B likewise opposite general should have plan on mitigating successful warband charges that punch whole in his formation). But i do not think double drops should be happening when low-impact units engage. Especially when heavy foot spear double drops while engaging inferior medium spear unit. Moreover I had situations when pike double-dropped on initial engagement vs citizen hoplite - you never expect this type pf outcome since pikes are hard counter against spear infantry. This type of cohesion double-drops should never happen because 1) they are not realistic/ahistorical and 2) bad for gameplay since player can never prepare for them (no matter how good player is).

I would suggest to eliminate double-drops from certain type of engagements to make battle line a little bit more controllable/predictable.

Yes, I think you are on the right track here. Regarding war bands, I agree that their ferocity should give a chance to cause double-drops in certain circumstances, particularly if they are involved in 2 v 1 combats, but maybe not right at the start of the battle when enemy units are at full strength. A disrupt result would be sufficient in most cases. But should war bands fighting war bands (e.g. Franks v Burgundians in one of my scenarios) lead to double drops on impact, or should they cancel each other out so that double drops do not occur?

I agree that players cannot often prepare for double drops. I actually think this idea that a good general should always make contingency plans is a bit over-stated myself. If your opponent puts everything in the front line then you are really forced to do the same thing unless you want to face a number of 2 v 1 combats. Then, if a double drop occurs unexpectedly, there is not much you can do, because you are not able to have a contingency plan.

2) Rallies: I get the idea of unit rallying while in melee. They are still part of structured battle, they play their role in either holding enemy or being able to create new engagements. These rallies are fine. But rallies that happens to already routed unit somewhere on opposite side of the map is that thing that caused me to stop playing this game (and only season of Digital League brought me back). Why these type of rallies are bad:
- From realism sandpoint: routed units that rally on opposing side of the map affect battle result by means of buying more time for player who was supposed to lose due to FoG battle result beaing based on artificial condition of reaching 60% (+25%).
- From gameplay point of view: routed units that rally make battle less structured and often prolong it for no reason. In most cases those units will stay fragmented and play no role other than digits on "scoreboard" (unfortunately that scoreboard affects battle outcome directly). And again rallies of already routed troops are unpredictable and can not be mitigated by a player.
I won and lost a few battles because of that: a few units close to redline rallied and gave either me or my opponent time to turn battle around or at least make it a draw. When I benefited from rallies I did not enjoy such victories at all since I felt they were not deserved and when I lost battles because of that I was mad at my opponent even though I realized that it was not his fault that game engine designed this way. Either way this type of rallies add nothing but frustration.

I would suggest to either not to allow routed units to come back or if it feels to harsh of a change just make them rally less often than units that are still "alive" or maybe allow only routed units with a General being able to rally.

Yes, I think units that are beyond a certain distance from a general still active in the battle should not attempt to rally at all. Maybe 6 squares is a reasonable limit. The only exception would be that if you have got a general in a routed unit then that could continue to attempt to rally for 5 turns regardless of how far away it was from the battle line. And then if it did eventually rally, it would then restore rallying ability to any other friendly unit within 6 squares.

[General Shapur]

I am relatively new to FoG2 but i will try to make my input on luck in FoG2

1) Cohesion double-drops: I can see how double-drops may have happened in real warfare. But i think they should be limited so certain type of units/engagements. I can see warband being on both sides of dounle-drop during impact phase (it is nature of Warbands: high risk and high reward and good general should have plan B likewise opposite general should have plan on mitigating successful warband charges that punch whole in his formation). But i do not think double drops should be happening when low-impact units engage. Especially when heavy foot spear double drops while engaging inferior medium spear unit. Moreover I had situations when pike double-dropped on initial engagement vs citizen hoplite - you never expect this type pf outcome since pikes are hard counter against spear infantry. This type of cohesion double-drops should never happen because 1) they are not realistic/ahistorical and 2) bad for gameplay since player can never prepare for them (no matter how good player is).

I would suggest to eliminate double-drops from certain type of engagements to make battle line a little bit more controllable/predictable.

2) Rallies: I get the idea of unit rallying while in melee. They are still part of structured battle, they play their role in either holding enemy or being able to create new engagements. These rallies are fine. But rallies that happens to already routed unit somewhere on opposite side of the map is that thing that caused me to stop playing this game (and only season of Digital League brought me back). Why these type of rallies are bad:
- From realism sandpoint: routed units that rally on opposing side of the map affect battle result by means of buying more time for player who was supposed to lose due to FoG battle result beaing based on artificial condition of reaching 60% (+25%).
- From gameplay point of view: routed units that rally make battle less structured and often prolong it for no reason. In most cases those units will stay fragmented and play no role other than digits on "scoreboard" (unfortunately that scoreboard affects battle outcome directly). And again rallies of already routed troops are unpredictable and can not be mitigated by a player.
I won and lost a few battles because of that: a few units close to redline rallied and gave either me or my opponent time to turn battle around or at least make it a draw. When I benefited from rallies I did not enjoy such victories at all since I felt they were not deserved and when I lost battles because of that I was mad at my opponent even though I realized that it was not his fault that game engine designed this way. Either way this type of rallies add nothing but frustration.

I would suggest to either not to allow routed units to come back or if it feels to harsh of a change just make them rally less often than units that are still "alive" or maybe allow only routed units with a General being able to rally.

3) Terrain generation: this part is actually excellent. It is random but at least you know your terrain before you make and deploy army so you can adopt to this type of luck.

PS: I and 4 friends of mine (competitive Total War players) started playing FoG2 a few months ago (in December). Initially we all loved the balance and historical realism but then 3 of them stooped playing FoG2 because we all experienced excessive effect of luck on battle outcomes. I stopped playing a little after but then came back because of Digital League (the nature of league reduces effect of luck since player play multiple battles and if player is good he will find its way to the top despite bad luck in certain battles unlike knock-out tournaments - those seems to be bogus for the game that empathizes RNG that much)

I think a possible solution for the rally issue would be that the routed unit still counts as lost in % points even if it rallies; perhaps until it rallies to green.

[Geffalrus]

PS: I and 4 friends of mine (competitive Total War players) started playing FoG2 a few months ago (in December). Initially we all loved the balance and historical realism but then 3 of them stooped playing FoG2 because we all experienced excessive effect of luck on battle outcomes. I stopped playing a little after but then came back because of Digital League (the nature of league reduces effect of luck since player play multiple battles and if player is good he will find its way to the top despite bad luck in certain battles unlike knock-out tournaments - those seems to be bogus for the game that empathizes RNG that much)

Yo, you're a Total War cross-over as well? That's awesome. Thing for me is that the maps in this game are like 1,000% better than what I'd find in all the recent TW games. 9 times out of 10 I'd be fighting on a gentle boring down slope against the AI army. Terrain was unimportant. But in FOG2 - so much more dynamic and important. In general I still consider this battle system far superior to the TW system.

As far as the other issues are concerned:

1) Cohesion Double Drops - not gonna lie, they hurt the first few times I saw them happen to my units. At this point, though, I guess I don't mind them as much since I spend a lot of time using heavy infantry against mediums, and oh boy do I rely on those drops to win infantry engagements. That being said, I will call rbodleyscott the worst names imaginable if I see my pikes do a double drop on impact against anything not a super elite Roman cohort.

2) Rallies - sure, when they snatch your 25% margin of victory away, they are the absolute worst. I've also won some battles just because of a timely rally to give me a +25% margin. I took the wins, but it doesn't really result in a great feeling of accomplishment. HOWEVER. That early experience with the awkwardly timed rally definitely caused a change in my tactics and approach to winning this game. First, I tried to do what I could to cause multiple routs in a short space of time. My understanding is that units don't check to rally every turn unless they have a general embedded. It's really only units that you routed early on and then fought for a while, or units that have a general, that are a danger of surprise rallying. Second, and more importantly, it increased the utility of light infantry/cavalry in my eyes. I now try to have a high mobility unit operating near routers specifically to counterattack any Fragmented units that have rallied. Low ammo javelins are GREAT for this.

3) Terrain - I too generally like the maps. I do think, however, that tournament play and terrain possibilities make certain armies less viable than others. One solution is for disadvantaged armies to play more passive, which is hard for me to mentally do (I'm aggressive), and possibly frustrating for other players.

Conclusions: One thing I worry about any changes relating to these issues is that they will further exacerbate the tourney meta towards Medium foot armies and the Carthaginians. Like, seriously, that seems like a strong possibility. Lowering double drops makes Medium foot last longer and more able to outflank heavies. And if you remove rallies of broken units, that's even less incentive to bring skirms and horse. So Medium foot armies become even more optimal because they're sturdy enough to fight in the open, who then become dominant when the terrain is rough. Alternatively, if you only remove double drops from heavy infantry, then the balance shifts a bit towards hoplite armies, where, again, the Carthaginians benefit.

Carthago nerfendum est. (j/k, j/k)

[Cunningcairn]

Conclusions: One thing I worry about any changes relating to these issues is that they will further exacerbate the tourney meta towards Medium foot armies and the Carthaginians. Like, seriously, that seems like a strong possibility. Lowering double drops makes Medium foot last longer and more able to outflank heavies. And if you remove rallies of broken units, that's even less incentive to bring skirms and horse. So Medium foot armies become even more optimal because they're sturdy enough to fight in the open, who then become dominant when the terrain is rough. Alternatively, if you only remove double drops from heavy infantry, then the balance shifts a bit towards hoplite armies, where, again, the Carthaginians benefit.

Carthago nerfendum est. (j/k, j/k)

Double Drops
Can there not be different probabilities of double drops for different troop types? For example Pike has the least probability of double dropping then other heavy foot, then medium foot and finally warband?

Rallying
What about a rallied unit only counting on not been broken when in line of sight of a unbroken friendly unit or within X moves or squares of the nearest friendly steady unit?

Further to this I have found that Raw fragmented units last far too long in combat. On numerous occasions they hold for 2, 3 and sometimes even more turns. I think that really does need a tweek.

[deve]

Conclusions: One thing I worry about any changes relating to these issues is that they will further exacerbate the tourney meta towards Medium foot armies and the Carthaginians.

According to my suggestion effect would be actually opposite since only double-drops that do not make sense would be removed (i.e. mid foot causes double drop on heavy-foot hoplite/pikes/cav etc). Also armies that rely on quantities (usually mid tier spam) benefit from excessive rallies more than armies that rely on quality (Pike armies for example). So these changes would weaken mid-foot meta.