Less Health Less Damage

[DeletedUser]

This less health less damage system.
There is a boundary to making a game realistic, you know.

Actually, that is NOT realistic. Principles of realistic wargame design state that a combat unit (sure you don't think of them as a single man, do you? ) when taking losses does NOT loose strenght, as men in the back ranks replace losses in the front, so the unit gets thinner but offers the same combat front to the enemy. That until, at the very end, unit morale fails and it breaks and runs (you didn't think that it was the last man diying, did you? )

This thing of units loosing strength as they fight is a (halas very widespread) unrealistic misconception.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, that is NOT realistic.

While I concur with your wargame design assertion, I don't think they are going for realism in FoE. There is very little about FoE's design that indicates an attempt towards realistic simulation. Its a game designed for entertainment, pure and simple. For future discussions, I believe we need to cast aside the realism ideas and merely focus on what yields the best entertainment value.

 

[DeletedUser]

Actually, that is NOT realistic. Principles of realistic wargame design state that a combat unit (sure you don't think of them as a single man, do you? ) when taking losses does NOT loose strenght, as men in the back ranks replace losses in the front, so the unit gets thinner but offers the same combat front to the enemy. That until, at the very end, unit morale fails and it breaks and runs (you didn't think that it was the last man diying, did you? )

This thing of units loosing strength as they fight is a (halas very widespread) unrealistic misconception.

Perhaps I'm missing an element of sarcasm here, if so I apologise. The word 'troop', however, is plural. Yes we have in English the word 'troops' which has fallen into common usage, but it's inaccurate. Even the Romans considered a troop to be ten men. (cf. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/troop )

 

[DeletedUser]

Perhaps I'm missing an element of sarcasm here, if so I apologise. The word 'troop', however, is plural. Yes we have in English the word 'troops' which has fallen into common usage, but it's inaccurate. Even the Romans considered a troop to be ten men. (cf. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/troop )

There was no attempt at sarcasm for sure. Some irony for a post lost somewhere that complained about an "eight men army" .

Apart from that, with the reference to "troop/s" you lost me, as I used the word "unit"... am I missing something?

(And I am really from Rome, so I might loose some sublety of english).

 

[DeletedUser]

While I concur with your wargame design assertion, I don't think they are going for realism in FoE. There is very little about FoE's design that indicates an attempt towards realistic simulation. Its a game designed for entertainment, pure and simple. For future discussions, I believe we need to cast aside the realism ideas and merely focus on what yields the best entertainment value.

I do agree, I just feel the need to clear out confusion about what's realistic and what's not... you know, "plate mail & 2-handed swords" and such.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm trying not to be patronizing, while at the same time pointing out that troops, or combat units as you put it, are always considered to be plural. The singular version would be 'soldier' or some variation of that. So... that would mean in regards to the topic of the thread, that it makes sense that as soldiers in the unit die, their offensive power drops.

 

[DeletedUser]

I'm trying not to be patronizing, while at the same time pointing out that troops, or combat units as you put it, are always considered to be plural. The singular version would be 'soldier' or some variation of that. So... that would mean in regards to the topic of the thread, that it makes sense that as soldiers in the unit die, their offensive power drops.

You didn't read throughfully my post, did you?

Watch this. There are X's and O's fighting:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

although there are 24 men per troop, only the front 8 are really fighting. So it's not 24 vs. 24, it's 8 vs. 8.

Now, X's take a beating:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

X X X
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

you'd espect it to be 8 vs. 3... but hey presto!, 2nd rank advances and closes the gaps of 1st rank (and so does 3rd to 2nd):

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXX

so it's still 8 vs. 8.

That goes on until:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX

when X's have no more 2nd rank to fill the gaps. Then (and only then) X's start to shrink in width instead of depth, and it starts to be 8 vs. 7, 8 vs. 5 etc. But usually, at this point, X's morale fails and surivivors surrender, break or flee.

Now, consider that a troop deployed in line was 3 rows deep at minimum (usually a lot more), you can see by yourself that it makes no sense any dropping of offensive power until, at least, 2/3 of the troop "hit points" are depleted. "At least" means that 7/8 or 9/10 would be more accurate, so any minus becomes negligible, and the unit, being FoE battle system coarse as it is, could stay full strength untill its last breath.

That is, from a realism-oriented point of view.

P.S. unless all of this is just a misunderstanding due to my bad english.

 

[DeletedUser]

I did read your post, but thanks for the graphics. I'll be sure to let my troops know, the next time they are fighting, that they should refrain from spreading out through the terrain to engage the enemy, but instead stay in neatly ordered lines and patiently wait their turns to die. I mean, no sense in being a rush for that now is there? And I'm sure the opposing forces won't ever push through a gap in the front lines to cause a general melee... that could be quite messy. Wouldn't do at all... no no, I'm sure you've got it right. Much more civilized way to do battle for certain.



Essentially, your visualization of the battle is just that: yours. It's not wrong... it's just full of it's own preconceptions. Perhaps some battles are fought like that... the only one I comes to my mind was when the British attacked the colonists at the beginning of what we call the War for Independence. Didn't work out so well for the British though... pesky ragamuffin colonists all hiding behind rocks and trees and disdaining any sense of proper order. Shameful!

[EDIT]

And I'm sorry, I let myself get distracted. My point in this thread is only that troops is plural. Whether that was in defense of your argument or not I was unsure because I couldn't quite figure out if you were being sarcastic or not with the way you stressed NOT thinking of them in terms of single men.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ok: what I was talking about is NOT the eight poor sods strolling around the battlefield, it was about what appens INSIDE any one of them.

Wargame means "a game in wich any single game token (tin soldier/plastic figure/computer sprite) represent MANY real man".

A UNIT: squad, company, bataillon, regiment, division, whatever. Like in Risk! there are NOT single tanks, there are ARMIES.

You DIN'T read my post, after all.

 

[DeletedUser]

Essentially, your visualization of the battle is just that: yours. It's not wrong... it's just full of it's own preconceptions. Perhaps some battles are fought like that... the only one I comes to my mind was when the British attacked the colonists at the beginning of what we call the War for Independence. Didn't work out so well for the British though... pesky ragamuffin colonists all hiding behind rocks and trees and disdaining any sense of proper order. Shameful!

It isn't just his conception, he's explaining how historical combat formations worked. Almost all formations were in ranks, so first line casualties were replaced by 2nd rank soldiers. The strength of a formation was in remaining cohesive, permitting holes in the front line, breaks up cohesion, thus why ranks were used.

In your reference to the American War for Independence, while guerrilla tactics were used, the major field battles were fought in formations. In "Line" formation, there were ranks behind the first, to fill in holes from casualties. Failing to do so would have reduced firepower and no capable general would permit that.

I'm currently designing an AWI (American War for Independence) table top and online computer game. I have studied those battles and tactics ad-nausea. However, I won't turn this thread into an AWI discussion and will end this one here.

 

[DeletedUser]

requesting mods to watch this thread and perhaps consider locking it? This may turn into a wargame that's too hot and not too entertaining (I agree with Gugliandalf's idea about units and their behavior in formation though..)

 

[DeletedUser]

perhaps consider locking it?

Why would you feel the discussion thread needs closed? The discussion of battle mechanics, etc, even references to war games are certainly relevant to the topic. I've not observed any flaming posts or anything wildly off topic. As long as there are discussions pertinent to the topic, any individual wayward posts should be dealt with, not the entire thread.

 

[DeletedUser180]

I see no reason to close it, children need to simply learn their boundaries AND STAY IN THEM....

 

[DeletedUser]

Right, I'm not trying to derail the thread. I do think that the metric of having heavily damaged units inflict less damage is a good one; it makes sense to me despite any talk about orderly rows and filling in ranks. The randomness factor is too large IMHO, and my largest complaint about the system is that it is much too hard to predict. Including my favorite pet peeve in which infantry appear to move farther than the preview displays. I say 'appear to' because I'm hoping I'm wrong on this, and have just been putting my troops a hex to far forward now and then... I admit that's within the realm of the possible.

However, the range of damage is either too broad, or subject to some other variable that I haven't figured out yet. Case in point: Yesterday I had two archers face off against a Knight. Knight has 9 health due to infiltration. First archer, standing on flat ground from five hexes away does 5 damage. Second archer from 3 hexes away, standing on rocks, does 3 damage leaving the knight with 1 health, who then decimates the archer on the rocks leaving him with 1 or two health in one hit. I find this very... disconcerting. Lacking a good adjective here LOL.

I haven't got time today to post all my thoughts on this encounter, or how I'd like to see the battle mechanics work, but I'm still left with this impression that whatever the mechanic is... it's skewed to the point of being not fun. As if I'd just be happier to press the Auto button and not bother myself trying to beat the dice.

 

[DeletedUser]

You didn't read throughfully my post, did you?

Watch this. There are X's and O's fighting:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

although there are 24 men per troop, only the front 8 are really fighting. So it's not 24 vs. 24, it's 8 vs. 8.

Now, X's take a beating:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

X X X
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX

you'd espect it to be 8 vs. 3... but hey presto!, 2nd rank advances and closes the gaps of 1st rank (and so does 3rd to 2nd):

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXX

so it's still 8 vs. 8.

That goes on until:

OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOO

XXXXXXXX

you never been to real middle-age battle, do you? :-P

 

[DeletedUser17]

I think I will pull the break on this one folks. Normally all Innogames employees are marked. I apologize for the confusion in the thread, it should not have happened.