"Can simulated fog of war replace dice?" Topic

You assert that a given unit will fight in a deterministic way during a battle.
You also assert that units will follow orders even during the heat of battle.
Do you actually have any evidence to support those assertions?

Gosh, where do I start? History?

Edit: actually, in the heat of battle a unit is fighting, it's not being given orders. It only ceases fighting and runs for it if it becomes demoralised, and the process of its demoralisation can be quantified, at least enough for a fairly realistic chanceless combat system.

Fine. But note that they underperformed during the entire battle, i.e. they were having an off day and so dropped a notch in unit quality. But they didn't underperform in turn 1 with a die roll of 2, then overperform in turn 2 with a 6, then perform so-so in turn 3 with a 4, and so on.

Why do you say the Gendarmes underperformed the entire battle? We only hear about the Gendarmes at the moment when the move forward (on turn 6 say) at a crisis point in the battle. What they were doing before that is anyone's guess and for the purposes of representing them it probably doesn't matter. Maybe they were having a great day before they were ordered forward. Just like the Middle Guard at Waterloo. I don't think we can adjudicate a unit's performance when they are not performing. Sort of like trying to figure out the status of the batter on deck. We only really care about the batter in the box at his moment of confrontation with the pitcher.

Ok, time for some examples of units routing due to random events:
At Plataea, the commander of the Persian cavalry was killed, leading to several units routing. I imagine that if Pausanias had been killed, which clearly he might have been, the result of the battle would have bee different.
At Granicus, Alexander was about to be decapitated when he was saved by Cletus. Clearly he could have died, and then he Macedonians would have lost.
At Issos, Darius fled when Alexander charged towards him, but Alexander couldn't have known that.
At Raphia, the Seleucid guard cavalry left the battlefield in pursuit, allowing Ptolemy to rally his phalanx.
`at Cynoscephalae, an unknown Roman tribune decided on his own initiative to lead his cohort into a gap in the line of the papal and, winning the battle.
At Sambre, Caesar had to personally fight in the front rank to rally his men; clearly he could have been killed, but he wasn't.
At Ruspina, Labienus unwisely taunted a veteran on the other side and got his horse killed, causing the Pompeians to withdraw
At Hastings, a Rumour went round that William had been killed, causing his men to waver. The death of Harold (clearly a random event) later decided the battle
At Dyrrachium, Sichelguita had to rally the Norman cavalry cowering in the sea.

`there are lots of other examples. You may say these all involve commanders, but that is because the sources only talk about commanders. Clearly, though they are chance events, and if we go forward in time, we find chance events not involving commanders that affected combat between units.
For instance, a French square broken at Garcia Hernandez because a dead horse fell into it.
Even some tactics like feigned flight involve lots of chance. The flight might turn into a real one, the enemy might not take the bait.
But it is not deterministic. Random chance can and often does decide battles

Without dice, cards, or other probabilistic randomizers, you cannot have a true wargame or simulation. The problems when two or more armies or forces fight are not only related to imperfect knowledge (the Clausewitzian fog of war); they are also related to changes in fighting spirit (morale), terror, surprise, unforeseen circumstances (good or bad). Confusion, orders, or lack thereof. So many factors interplay to create the chaos of battle that probabilistic outcomes are the only way to at least try to approach this chaos. How you do this? Well, that is open to discussion and each designer has his/her own (imperfect) solutions. Bottom line, you need a mechanism for probabilistic outcomes that allow for unforseen and even extreme outcomes. Otherwise play chess.

@ Dexter Ward: you raise a very valid point, the extent to which the death or flight of a general affects the entire army. I don't think any ruleset adequately covers this (including mine).

At Plataea the initial engagement consisted of harassment of the Greek position by the Persian cavalry commanded by Masistius. Since he was the overall commander of the Persian horse and only the Persian horse were committed at this stage, he could be considered the general. His death sends the Persians packing.

Alexander was wounded at Tyre (was it Tyre?) and his men thought he was dead, which actually motivated them to fight even harder, so atypically, the death of Alexander gives a morale boost to his troops.

At Issos and Gaugamela, the flight of Darius decides the battle. With the King of Kings gone, the entire Persian army routs.

Raphia is more about Antiochus believing he had won after routing the Egyptian horse and going in pursuit of them. It looks like a bad decision rather than a chance event. In playing terms the Seleucid player believes that routing the enemy cavalry and preventing them from rallying will gain him enough VPs to win the battle, but he miscalculates the extent to which his own phalanx loses the fight.

Cynoscephalae is a unique battle, the only time AFAIK a subordinate Roman commander whose job was to keep the legions advancing according to the orders of his general does something completely different. I don't think we can wargame a unique event except as an historical simulation of the battle itself with special rules for it.

Caesar's death at Sambre would certainly have had a disastrous effect on his men.

Ruspina was not decided by the death of Labienus' horse. Caesar finally drove him off by forming a long line and rushing his Numidians. Straight battle tactics.

The death of the general appears to affect the army very differently depending on which army. For the Persians it's game over (Alexander always went for Persian commanders or Darius himself since he knew this). For Macedonians it would probably enable them to win the battle. For Greeks it seems to stop the battle, but the side that lost its general hasn't necessarily lost the battle – 2 Mantinea as an example. For early and mid-Republican Romans the general may have to die to encourage the troops, the famous devotio. So how do we wargame this?

Why do you say the Gendarmes underperformed the entire battle? We only hear about the Gendarmes at the moment when the move forward (on turn 6 say) at a crisis point in the battle. What they were doing before that is anyone's guess and for the purposes of representing them it probably doesn't matter. Maybe they were having a great day before they were ordered forward.

All we know is that the Gendarmes underperformed that day. So I think we can safely conclude – no evidence to the contrary – they would have underperformed at any time during the battle. My points stands: whatever makes a unit perform below or above its average rating doesn't fluctuate during a battle to the extent dice make it do. You have a bad day; you don't have a bad quarter hour, followed by a good quarter hour, followed by another bad quarter hour, followed by a so-so quarter hour, and so on. Human psychology just doesn't work that way.

Every set of rules I've played makes the death of a general a big deal. WRG, DBA, DBM, Field of Glory, To the Strongest. In all those rules losing a general can turn the tide of battle. So if you are not modelling that, maybe you need to think again

Every set of rules I've played makes the death of a general a big deal. WRG, DBA, DBM, Field of Glory, To the Strongest. In all those rules losing a general can turn the tide of battle. So if you are not modelling that, maybe you need to think again

Oh I do model that, and I've played plenty of DBA, DBM, FoG besides Legion and MeG. My point is that rulesets either don't penalise an army enough for losing its general (If an Achaemenid general is killed then it's automatically game over) or penalise it too much (the death of a Republican Roman general either should make no difference or should give the troops a morale boost).

Then there was the Spanish unit fighting for the Carthaginians which routed back to camp, rallied and then defeated their pursuers.

They appear to have fought badly, then well shortly after.

Then there was the Spanish unit fighting for the Carthaginians which routed back to camp, rallied and then defeated their pursuers.

They appear to have fought badly, then well shortly after.

Can you give the source for that? It would be interesting.

Bolingar, I note that your criticism of dice always seems to circle back to rolling a 1 and a 6 on successive combat resolutions. Surely you're acquainted with ways to have a less extreme result without being 100% predictable?

I'm not retracting my earlier statement that diceless combat resolution is defensible in large ancients battles, but such things do sometimes strike me as a solution in search of a problem. Is there a reason your discussion group would like to eliminate dice?

How do you model random events like generals dying without dice?
I notice you moved the goalposts. You said that fights between units are predictable; I provided some counter examples where units lost unexpectedly due to random events, at which point you said the outcome of the battle was not affected. That wasn't what was being discussed and also we don't know if a different random event would have changed the outcome of the battle.
So I don't think you have defended your point of view.

All we know is that the Gendarmes underperformed that day. So I think we can safely conclude – no evidence to the contrary – they would have underperformed at any time during the battle. My points stands: whatever makes a unit perform below or above its average rating doesn't fluctuate during a battle to the extent dice make it do. You have a bad day; you don't have a bad quarter hour, followed by a good quarter hour, followed by another bad quarter hour, followed by a so-so quarter hour, and so on. Human psychology just doesn't work that way.

Sports certainly proves your basic point incorrect. Lots of teams have a bad quarter or half and turn it around. I watched my nephew's high school basketball playoff game recently. His team dominated the first half and then the opposition came back and won the game in a very convincing manner.

I don't think we can safely conclude anything about the Gendarmes at Blenheim other than at that particular moment in the battle they underperformed. It is pure conjecture on your part to extrapolate from the Gendarmes melee during Blenheim to other potential events during the battle. Further, your time horizons seem quite arbitrary to me. Why one day and not a week or a year. If not a day, why not half a day or one hour? As others have stated there are simply too many variables to take into account in representing units in a wargaming scenario and using dice is a simple way to show the performance distribution of a unit.

actually, in the case of routing elephants, I wouldn't mind a random movement mechanism

There is a reasonably good, but dice-based, system. However, for pure randomness grab a spinner (ie the "spinning arrow on a card" type similar to that in a game of Twister). Place it near the elephant with the arrow pointing at the elephant and flick it. The arrow will give you the direction the elephant moves and, if using a spinner from Twister, the different colours the distance- eg blue may equate to half a move.

The main problem with using linear categories like green, line, veteran, elite, etc. is that every unit is rated the same- no allowance for having a bad day, hunger, thirst, tired, etc. Such factors DO come into play in real life. Unit ratings could be variable based on a myriad of factors- good scenario designers should make the call.

As for death of leaders on the battlefield: Just how long would it take for the word to get around that the big guy just got kacked? In most games, the effect takes place as if it was broadcasted to everyone at the same time! Heck, at Gettysburg the confederate right wing commander was killed early on but the next in command did not even know it till hours later that he was in charge!

I think more game designers need to keep the mechanics simple yet allow the gamers to modify values based upon how the scenario designer wants them to perform in todays battle. There are examples of "green" units performing better than veterans a lot in history. In my 30 years of researching why "games" seem to turn out the way they do is why I have moved away from number counting of men and looked at the effects had on unit effectiveness (I tagged it "Unit Cohesion".) Unit cohesion can be lost and regained but never to the point the unit was at the beginning of the game.

A word about linear and non-linear elements: Linear- time , distance and instances where certain events ALWAYS produce the same results (like jumping out of an airplane without a chute will always result in death, 99.9999% of the time. Non -linear means that any number of variables can (and 99.999% of the time) change the outcome. The use of command radius instead of using the 5 elements of what constitutes "Command and Control" does not even come close to modelling real life. (1. Commanding element; 2. Commanded element; 3. Downward flow of communication; 4. UPWARD flow of communication; 5. Friction at all points above.) How many rules sets allow instant order sending every turn without any delays for staff work? An example of a non-linear situation having a linear mechanic to represent it.

All in all, this has been a good exchange of beliefs and views. We need such discussions to occur if we desire to arrive at new ideas to replace the those mechanics that haven't changes since the 60's. Also, simulations do NOT have to be complex if you are only interested in results. Focus upon the effects of results is what we are after. We do that in every game we play on the tabletop.

Sometimes we cannot see the forest because of those leafy green thingys obscuring our view….

At Blenheim the Gendarmes uncharacteristically underperformed at the battle. They had an off day. It happens.
Fine. But note that they underperformed during the entire battle, i.e. they were having an off day and so dropped a notch in unit quality. But they didn't underperform in turn 1 with a die roll of 2, then overperform in turn 2 with a 6, then perform so-so in turn 3 with a 4, and so on.

Dice are simply no good for simulating off days.

The Gendarmes (and other French and Bavarian cav units) sure gave Eugene a run for their money all day long! Good examples of declining capabilities due to making charges then regrouping just to charge again, and repeat yet staying in the fight. (Fatigue and disorder taking their toll on all involved). To say the elite units did not perform well falls short of understanding what happened. On the opposite spectrum, what about the 5 "green" French battalions in Marlborough's wing holding their ground and literally dying in formation? A performance not expected from "green" troops!

@robert piepenbrink:

Bolingar, I note that your criticism of dice always seems to circle back to rolling a 1 and a 6 on successive combat resolutions. Surely you're acquainted with ways to have a less extreme result without being 100% predictable?

I'm not retracting my earlier statement that diceless combat resolution is defensible in large ancients battles, but such things do sometimes strike me as a solution in search of a problem. Is there a reason your discussion group would like to eliminate dice?

My problem is that dice give a result that is too arbitrarily variable to be put down to any real historical causes on the the battlefield. My take is that a diceless combat system in which combat factors are affected by known modifiers that – unlike chess – are impossible to calculate any distance ahead, is more historically accurate than a variation coming from pure randomness. No gaming system is entirely accurate of course.

My discussion group is me BTW :-). Every wargamer out there swears by dice since wargaming has been dominated by them from word go. Virtually nobody has experience of a diceless system so, naturally, nobody thinks much of one. We support what we are familiar with.

@Dexter Ward:

How do you model random events like generals dying without dice?
I notice you moved the goalposts. You said that fights between units are predictable; I provided some counter examples where units lost unexpectedly due to random events, at which point you said the outcome of the battle was not affected. That wasn't what was being discussed and also we don't know if a different random event would have changed the outcome of the battle.
So I don't think you have defended your point of view.

Let me clarify my point of view. I think for individuals there is a genuine unpredictability since there are too many factors affecting what happens to an individual to quantify as modifiers. You are obliged to use dice to sort of represent them. For a large body of men the variation in individuals evens out and it is possible to give their combat performance a determinate rating that is affected by a limited number of known modifiers. No need for dice.

With armies, you have a combination of large bodies of men led by individual commanders, so there is room for dice – just that they are applied to the commanders. In my own system the individual commanders always run the risk of being wounded and killed from one combat to the next, which involves throwing dice. The units however just fight it out with combat factors affected by a limited number of modifiers (makes combat resolution really fast BTW).

Your examples all concerned what happened to the individual commanders and only really applied to Plataea, Issus and Gaugamela, and I agree with your point about dying leaders affecting their men. In my system their death can have a very adverse affect.

@Dye4minis:

The main problem with using linear categories like green, line, veteran, elite, etc. is that every unit is rated the same- no allowance for having a bad day, hunger, thirst, tired, etc. Such factors DO come into play in real life. Unit ratings could be variable based on a myriad of factors- good scenario designers should make the call.

Agreed.

As for death of leaders on the battlefield: Just how long would it take for the word to get around that the big guy just got kacked? In most games, the effect takes place as if it was broadcasted to everyone at the same time! Heck, at Gettysburg the confederate right wing commander was killed early on but the next in command did not even know it till hours later that he was in charge!

Agreed. At Gaugamela the flight of Darius did not immediately affect the performance of Persian troops further away from the Great King. After sending him packing, Alexander still had to come to the aid of Parmenion on his left flank that had been enveloped by the Persian cavalry. I'm not too sure what to do about this in a way that doesn't unnecessarily complicate the rules.

I think more game designers need to keep the mechanics simple yet allow the gamers to modify values based upon how the scenario designer wants them to perform in todays battle. There are examples of "green" units performing better than veterans a lot in history. In my 30 years of researching why "games" seem to turn out the way they do is why I have moved away from number counting of men and looked at the effects had on unit effectiveness (I tagged it "Unit Cohesion".) Unit cohesion can be lost and regained but never to the point the unit was at the beginning of the game.

Agreed. In my system, after a certain number of enemy stands have been routed off the board, any subsequent rout of enemy units gives a small morale boost to all friendly units within 2 squares of the routers. But don't you think that a victorious unit may perform better than at the beginning of the game, when it realises: "Oh, what a beautiful mornin', Oh, what a beautiful day, I've got a beautiful feelin', Everything's goin' my way"?

A word about linear and non-linear elements: Linear- time, distance and instances where certain events ALWAYS produce the same results (like jumping out of an airplane without a chute will always result in death, 99.9999% of the time. Non -linear means that any number of variables can (and 99.999% of the time) change the outcome. The use of command radius instead of using the 5 elements of what constitutes "Command and Control" does not even come close to modelling real life. (1. Commanding element; 2. Commanded element; 3. Downward flow of communication; 4. UPWARD flow of communication; 5. Friction at all points above.) How many rules sets allow instant order sending every turn without any delays for staff work? An example of a non-linear situation having a linear mechanic to represent it.

Agreed. I don't have any orders system in Ancients, other than the orders assigned at the beginning of the game (represented by a simple mechanism whereby commanders can change the direction they move a limited number of times after which they may range only so many squares from their last change of direction). To be in command, units must be physically connected to a general or commander by being part of a battleline or column where he shares a square with one of the units. No command ranges and no messengers.

All in all, this has been a good exchange of beliefs and views. We need such discussions to occur if we desire to arrive at new ideas to replace the those mechanics that haven't changes since the 60's. Also, simulations do NOT have to be complex if you are only interested in results. Focus upon the effects of results is what we are after. We do that in every game we play on the tabletop.

Sometimes we cannot see the forest because of those leafy green thingys obscuring our view….

Agreed!

@Marcus Brutus:

Sports certainly proves your basic point incorrect. Lots of teams have a bad quarter or half and turn it around. I watched my nephew's high school basketball playoff game recently. His team dominated the first half and then the opposition came back and won the game in a very convincing manner.

This is a squad level contest where individuals are everything and I've already agreed that that kind of contest has a genuine unpredictability since there are so many factors affecting the performance of an individual. In your example however, I suspect your nephew's game can be quantified: his team won some points which increased the determination of the opponent team. They tried harder and were able to score better in the second half, winning the game. So you need a combat modifier: if the squad has taken some losses, this galvanises it, giving it a + modifier. However the chance factor still remains in that shots at the basket can hit or miss for a variety of reasons.

I don't think we can safely conclude anything about the Gendarmes at Blenheim other than at that particular moment in the battle they underperformed. It is pure conjecture on your part to extrapolate from the Gendarmes melee during Blenheim to other potential events during the battle. Further, your time horizons seem quite arbitrary to me. Why one day and not a week or a year. If not a day, why not half a day or one hour? As others have stated there are simply too many variables to take into account in representing units in a wargaming scenario and using dice is a simple way to show the performance distribution of a unit.

I maintain that for a formation much larger than a basketball team, the factors that affect the performance of the formation act much longer on that formation and are quantifiable. The variation in the mood or enthusiasm of the individual doesn't matter so much, since it evens out in the mass, producing an average degree of performance that doesn't alter from one quarter hour to the next. And if the formation is having an off day, that in itself means a big modifier affecting all or most of the individuals that can be quantified: bad breakfast (or no breakfast), no pay, conviction that the battle is already lost – something that is pretty stable for the duration of the battle and doesn't come and go.

@ Dal Gavan:

There is a reasonably good, but dice-based, system. However, for pure randomness grab a spinner (ie the "spinning arrow on a card" type similar to that in a game of Twister). Place it near the elephant with the arrow pointing at the elephant and flick it. The arrow will give you the direction the elephant moves and, if using a spinner from Twister, the different colours the distance- eg blue may equate to half a move.

How's this for an idea: you throw a D6. 2-5 and the routing ellie goes where the owning player wants it to go but it must move as far as possible in the direction of the nearest board edge it is able to advance the most towards (choose a board edge if more than one qualifies) and without moving adjacent to friendly or enemy troops if possible. It doesn't attack any troops.

A 1 and the ellie charges friendlies if they are in range. If they are not in range it goes where the owning player wants it to move as for 2-5.

A 6 and the ellie charges enemy units within range. If there aren't any enemy units in range it moves as for a 2-5.

The ellie always moves its full distance or as far as possible.

If the ellie is surrounded by enemy and/or friendly troops such that it cannot move at all it must attack whoever is most to its front regardless of the die throw.

This simulates the ellie's overarching desire to get away from these mad humans, punctuated by the desire to hurt the maniacs who are making its life a misery.

This simulates the ellie's overarching desire to get away from these mad humans, punctuated by the desire to hurt the maniacs who are making its life a misery.

From what I've read the animal is just as likely to attack the things which it sees as attacking it, as it is to break and run, mate. That method's simple, but it makes the elephants too predictable and safe- there's a 67% chance (rounded) that the elephant will do as the player wants. Most animals are not so obliging if you lose control of them (ask my horse- and he's usually as laid back as Willie Nelson on Vallium). It also ignores the immediate action of the mahout if the elephant does get out of control- get off and away, or attempt to spike it using the hammer and spike carried for that purpose.

If you're not totally averse to dice then try this- it reinforces the unpredictability of the animal and makes it worth protecting, as there's now a 50% chance it will decide to leave over the bodies of nearby friendlies:

D12 needed (2D6 won't work):

1 or 2 the elephant goes straight ahead

3 or 4 the elephant goes half right front (45°)

5 or 6 the elephant goes half left front

7 the elephant goes right (90°)

8 the elephant goes left

9 the elephant goes half right rear (135°)

10 the elephant goes half left rear

11 the elephant goes straight back

12 the mahout spikes the elephant- exit Jumbo.

You could sort out how far it goes (D6 inches or cm, sort of thing) or have a set distance.

You say that dice give too much variability, but that surely depends on how you use them. If the dice just add or subtract a small amount of randomness to an otherwise deterministic combat result, what is the problem?
I think that all combat outcomes have a deterministic element; that long list of factors in many rules, but that there is always an element of chance even in battles between large bodies of men. There are numerous small random events in every combat which can swing its outcome. We know that because in later,better documented periods, they are described. There is no reason to suppose ancient combat was any different. So I think that dice should not dominate the outcome, but they should affect it.
I hope that your rules model fatigue, because that was definitely a huge factor in pre-gunpowder warfare. Combat is exhausting and even an elite unit is going to lose when tired and faced with fresh enemy. The trouble is that tracking fatigue is a chore, so it is simpler, and arguably just as accurate, to inject a random element.
What matters is whether the end result is plausible; the process does not need to be an accurate simulation. The same is true of command and control, where PIPs or activation rolls get the same end result much more simply than trying to model the chain of command, which we also know has many random events. Unit commanders mistaking one unit for another, moving the wrong way, getting confused.
I guess the issue for me is that much of ancient combat is unknowable. We don't know how much effect being hit in the flank, or seeing friends routing, or fatigue, or seeing a friend die in front of you, or being charged by cavalry actually had. We cannot quantify these things because we do not have enough information. All we have are the outcomes, so rules should try to model the outcome, not the process, because we don't know enough to model the process.

@Dal Gavan:
Well, yes….but I want the routing ellies to actually exit the battlefield, not just move around randomly, pretty much staying in the same area and sowing mayhem for the rest of the battle.

@Dexter Ward:

I hope that your rules model fatigue, because that was definitely a huge factor in pre-gunpowder warfare. Combat is exhausting and even an elite unit is going to lose when tired and faced with fresh enemy. The trouble is that tracking fatigue is a chore, so it is simpler, and arguably just as accurate, to inject a random element.

I think it's an urban legend that combat was exhausting. An infantry line was generally at least 8 men deep, usually more, and only the first and maybe second rank did any fighting. The other ranks just stood by as spectators cheering the front men on. Those front men weren't busy with a tree-chopping endurance contest: they engaged in cautious sparring punctuated with pauses (check out Vegetius on Roman combat training techniques). Some like Gauls did go in for furious slashing of their opponents but these were the exception – and, again, involved only the front rank or two. The Romans for their part were familiar with the Gallic hammer-and-tongs approach and kept up a defensive posture until the Gauls were exhausted, after which they were able to dispatch them with ease. You don't read of Romans becoming exhausted by combat.

A line would buckle, not because the men were exhausted, but because the front men – the best fighters in the line – were getting outfought and were giving ground (the men behind them would give ground in unison to allow the front men fighting depth). When a formation gives ground it signals more clearly than anything else that it is losing the fight, and once the men get the message that their formation is losing the fight they are soon ready to break and run. This is how battles were lost or won.

So for me the unit gradually (or quickly) loses morale until it routs. I model that in my system.

but I want the routing ellies to actually exit the battlefield,

So only roll the dice for direction once, mate? :-)

One of the problems is that die do not reflect real world variability in many populations. Most real world variability is close to a normal distribution. Throwing a single D6 does not create a normal distribution. Lobbing say a dozen D6 and using the total score gives you a much more credible solution but its a faff.

We found particularly with small unit assaults which tended to be very random and not as you would expect, results being similar to a normal distribution. Not being obsessed with D6 and using D20 we produced a distribution that was somewhat similar to a Normal distribution in that most of the time the result was close to the expected but there was a small chance of an extreme. This seems reasonable as it reflects much of reality.

What has not come out of any of the discussions is the distribution of randomness. Not having sufficient data is not an excuse. Looking at the process it seems reasonable to make some judgements about how the process works and what shape of distribution is most likely valid.

The comments about variability of troops is interesting. We have 2 parameters with a relatively limited range. One reflects both skill level and leadership. The other the point at which troops cannot function effectively, i.e the point at which losses, ammunition usage and fatigue render the troops to fight effectively.

While we could vary the troops of a given type so there were no "standards" we do not. It does have an influence but playing 50 plus games a year, trying to remember what level they are this week vs last week deflects from the more critical aspects of the simulation so generally it is not seen as an advantage.

As pointed out more randomness is not a credible solution to this problem. If you roll a one you run out of ammunition on the first turn is not a credible. If you general was that incompetent it needs to modeled much better than that he would be making far more telling errors than that.

There were 1358 Victoria cross awarded in its inception in 1856.

link

This guy did an incredible job but is it even an extremum you would ant to model. Since 1856 armies are massively larger than any ancient armies that have only horses and small ships for logistics. On that basis such folk would be very very rare the probability is too high to be usefully modeled, perhaps an event once in 100 battles, not worth the effort. . The question is it even useful to be bothered with such events. Where is variability really useful in any war game. Is there a cut off probability where randomness is not "cost effective" use of a players time.

So only roll the dice for direction once, mate? :-)

Better to have him stop and tusk a soldier or two whilst leaving the board, no?

Better to have him stop and tusk a soldier or two whilst leaving the board, no?

I'm sure they'd find something with which to amuse themselves as they stroll off the table, mate.

I'm sure they'd find something with which to amuse themselves as they stroll off the table, mate.

I suppose so. An odd splat of cranial puree from the occasional soldier who wanders across their path.

Where is variability really useful in any war game? Is there a cut off probability where randomness is not "cost effective" use of a players time.

Since squad level combat very much has to take into account the truly unpredictable performance of individuals, hence needing dice, and big battle combat where individual performance averages out doesn't need dice, at least as far as historical simulation is concerned, the question becomes at what scale dice should be introduced. This doesn't include the individual performance of commanders (they always need dice). I would suggest that any fight with more than a few hundred individuals per side can dispense with dice. So Dark Ages combat with champions would be on the borderline.

I say that knowing perfectly well that there isn't a single poster on this forum (with one possible exception) who would dream of doing without dice at any scale, since dice are the wargaming status quo. Whatever is established is right, and dice are fun.

I like dice. Thee pro-dice, pro-unpredictability, comments above sounds good to me. Reality is chaotic.

But I also have been surprised by how well dice-less wargames work. I have played some wargames from the 19th century, and they almost never used dice back then. Almost all had hidden setup, but after that most games had no randomness and rarely any hidden units or information either.

I suspect it can be painful if players use too much time to think. If you try to play fast and improvise it ends up pretty random and the feel is similar to playing a modern game with dice.

Or maybe it is just me. I was never good at playing chess either. But I think with sufficient complexity it becomes difficult for most people to plan ahead beyond the next turn anyway so the outcome of some attack becomes for practical purposes random. Doesn't really matter if the outcome of some action is decided randomly using a die-roll or if I just can't tell for sure how it is going to end because there are too many variables in the game to consider to know for sure.

But I think with sufficient complexity it becomes difficult for most people to plan ahead beyond the next turn anyway so the outcome of some attack becomes for practical purposes random. Doesn't really matter if the outcome of some action is decided randomly using a die-roll or if I just can't tell for sure how it is going to end because there are too many variables in the game to consider to know for sure.

That's exactly how my own system (Optio) works. It's not really chess – there are too many possibilities to be able to calculate several moves ahead. You have to rely on general tactical principles and intuition, and you need to see and seize opportunities as they arise. Every advantage you gain you keep since there aren't any bad dice rolls to wash them away. You are entirely in control but you can't foresee the end of the battle which swings one way then the next.* This creates a gameplay that has a very different feel to anything else I know.

*It does create one big problem. If you lose it's still your own fault. You can't blame a string of 1's. (:-0

One general comment that is partly on-topic. Creative originality in Ancients game design reached a dead end some decades ago. "Newer" rulesets like ADLG merely rehash the same ingredients of older systems like DBx and FoG. There's been nothing really original for ages. A shame, but there it is (of course one mustn't forget that most Ancients wargamers – like myself – are grumpy (middle) aged men who don't like being taught new tricks).

This is meant as an observation, not a punt. Well, not too much of a punt, maybe…

BTW would anyone be interested in knowing more about my system? ;-)

I maintain that for a formation much larger than a basketball team, the factors that affect the performance of the formation act much longer on that formation and are quantifiable….

I think it would be near impossible to quantify a battalion size unit's specific conditions on the day of battle. Not only are there too many variables but how would anyone weight them in advance into anything useful. With that said, I don't have a problem giving a unit that has marched 25 miles the day before specific minuses for the day's scenario. But beyond a handful of conditions what else would we need.

Bolingar, re exhaustion of troops in battle, adrenaline by itself causes exhaustion after a period of time. You don't need physical exercise to become exhausted.

and dice are fun

You have to be kidding! You have no infuluence on the result. It is neccessary but how is it fun? You can't influence it so its like gambling, a fools errand. Random is REQUIRED as even in the real world to characterise "populations" of the real world, but though ststistics are vital even in my game they could never be called fun.

Don't get me started on the Idots who spend ages shaking their dice as if they could influence it then throwing irrtionaly and disturbing the game. However that is only a limited exposure, they are not invited back,its an anti social activity, they slow the game and inevitable they fail to concentrate on the game.

Die are an inevitable part of the picture where statistics of small popuklations are involved, they are proably not ideal. A system that actually randomly sampled from a defined population distribution would be far better but I don't own a phone that could be programmed for that.

@UshCha:

You have to be kidding! You have no influence on the result. It is necessary but how is it fun? You can't influence it so its like gambling, a fools errand. Random is REQUIRED as even in the real world to characterise "populations" of the real world, but though statistics are vital even in my game they could never be called fun.

Dice are fun because all wargamers are closet sado-masochists. Dice games have been around since cave men – the human race is perverse. You just have to live with it.

C'mon, admit it: nothing quite replaces that dread thrill of shaking the cube, knowing you have to get a 5 or better or the game is over, and you get a 6.

So you don't model fatigue?
A unit keeps fighting at full effectiveness no matter how many melees it has fought? The horses and men never tire?
That is surely at odds with reality. In every period of history, the intervention of fresh reserves is critical. If nobody ever got tired, a fresh unit would be no better than one that had been fighting for hours, especially as in ancient combats there were very few casualties until one unit broke.
Cavalry in particular are very vulnerable after a charge or pursuit when the horses are blown.
Not just combat, either. Shooting bows or throwing javelins is tiring.
I think any sort of diceless system has to have fatigue in it or any claim to simulation is lost.

@Dexter Ward:

Looking at your examples:

In every period of history, the intervention of fresh reserves is critical.

The intervention of reserves can be critical, not because they are fresh, but because the units they are supporting have become demoralised. Hence the Roman practice of putting the green troops in the Hastati line, the more experienced troops in the Principes line, and the veterans in the Triarii line: each supporting line is not dismayed by the demoralisation of the line before it since the supporting line is composed of superior troops who will look down on the lower-quality troops in front of them.

Cavalry in particular are very vulnerable after a charge or pursuit when the horses are blown.

Yes they are when pursued but not when charging – unless they have charged over a long distance (which usually isn't the case).

Shooting bows or throwing javelins is tiring.

How many arrows or javelins does the individual shooter have? Certainly not enough to tire him. And do all the shooters shoot at the same time? To keep up sustained missile fire only some shooters in the formation actually shoot at any one time. For a massed volley however everyone shoots, but AFAIK not arrow after endless arrow.

The only case I know of combatants getting physically tired from fighting are Gauls.

Bolingar,
I think you are vastly under appreciating the physical and mental exhaustion that comes quickly from combat. Not specific to ancient period, but consider boxing/MMA….a few minutes of extreme exertion can quickly lead to combat ineffectiveness.

Fresh reserves are more important than just replacing demoralized forces…even victorious (or winning) troop tire and become disordered….the fresh troops can extend the point of culmination of an engagement.

How you you know that reserves are not effective because they are fresh?
All evidence shows that units which have been fighting for a while, and performing fine, can retreat or rout when attacked by fresh enemy.
If that is not down to fatigue, what do you think causes it?
I notice that when I've provided examples of random events affecting unit combats you have dismissed them either because it didn't affect the outcome of the battle (Ruspina), or because it was a one off (Cynoscephalae).
First, that doesn't invalidate the point that random events could and did affect combat between units.
Second, we don't know whether Labienus' mishap at Ruspina affected the battle outcome or not. We know it caused one unit to retreat. Maybe if that had not happened the Pompeians would have won. We can't say; we certainly can't say that it didn't affect the outcome.
Third, dismissing Cynoscephalae as a one off rather misses the point, It's the only case where this was recorded. That doesn't mean it never happened in other battles. In fact there is good evidence that it may have in several other battles (Arbela, Hydaspes, Raphia).
I would contend that far from randomness being the exception, it is the norm. There are always random factors in every encounter between units.
That doesn't mean that the outcome is random; all things being equal the better unit will prevail, but all things are not always equal, and many of the minor events that affect the outcome cannot be predicted.
Therefore the best way to simulate it is a range of outcomes with probabilities for each. Sometimes even the Old Guard will fail.
It's not that I enjoy randomness in games, it is that I think reality cannot be simulated without it.
Obviously you don't agree, but you have not really provided historical evidence to support your view; you seem to argue from first principles, rather than looking at history.

@Tanker11:

I think there is a common misconception about the nature of hand-to-hand fighting, based on contact sports like boxing and Hollywood combat scenes.

Soldiers in Antiquity didn't box each other. Nor did they fence. Vegetius is the best source of Roman fighting techniques. Let me reproduce it here:

THE POST EXERCISE

We are informed by the writings of the ancients that, among their other exercises, they had that of the post. They gave their recruits round bucklers woven with willows, twice as heavy as those used on real service, and wooden swords double the weight of the common ones. They exercised them with these at the post both morning and afternoon.

This is an invention of the greatest use, not only to soldiers, but also to gladiators. No man of either profession ever distinguished himself in the circus or field of battle, who was not perfect in this kind of exercise. Every soldier, therefore, fixed a post firmly in the ground, about the height of six feet. Against this, as against a real enemy, the recruit was exercised with the above mentioned arms, as it were with the common shield and sword, sometimes aiming At the head or face, sometimes at the sides, at others endeavoring to strike at the thighs or legs. He was instructed in what manner to advance and retire, and in short how to take every advantage of his adversary; but was thus above all particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him.

NOT TO CUT, BUT TO THRUST WITH THE SWORD

They were likewise taught not to cut but to thrust with their swords. For the Romans not only made a jest of those who fought with the edge of that weapon, but always found them an easy conquest. A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills, as the vital parts of the body are defended both by the bones and armor. On the contrary, a stab, though it penetrates but two inches, is generally fatal. Besides in the attitude of striking, it is impossible to avoid exposing the right arm and side; but on the other hand, the body is covered while a thrust is given, and the adversary receives the point before he sees the sword. This was the method of fighting principally used by the Romans, and their reason for exercising recruits with arms of such a weight at first was, that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action.

A few things to notice. First, the legionaries spent a considerable time each day – "both morning and afternoon" – building up muscle by using wooden weapons that were twice the weight of real ones. This however was to develop speed, not stamina: "that when they came to carry the common ones so much lighter, the greater difference might enable them to act with greater security and alacrity in time of action."

Secondly, the recruit is taught to stab, not cut, with his sword. The Romans mocked brute force slashing techniques: "A stroke with the edges, though made with ever so much force, seldom kills". They were taught to fight smarter, not harder.

Thirdly, the emphasis on the soldier covering himself with the shield at all times: "particularly cautioned not to lay himself open to his antagonist while aiming his stroke at him". This means an ongoing defensive posture, even when stabbing at his opponent. It wasn't a wild free-for-all. Forget about Hollywood.

Overall one gets the picture of the legionary in a cautious posture behind his shield, backing off if attacked and waiting for the right moment to launch a lightning strike with his sword, stabbing over, beside or even under his shield at his opponent. This does require some effort, sure, but nothing at the level of a boxing match – and don't forget that boxers suffer fatigue from the injuries they receive. A good legionary didn't receive injuries.

All this argues against any kind of excessive combat fatigue, at least in troops who knew what they were doing. A good soldier used his energy wisely and conserved it enough to keep fighting no matter how long the battle lasted. Furthermore the soldiers who actually did the fighting – the front rankers – were experienced men who could fight coolly and not wear themselves out with excessive adrenaline rushes.

What Romans did suggests what others did unless – in the case of Gauls – they were deliberately going for an all-out attack designed to panic their opponents into a rout before they themselves were exhausted.

@Dexter Ward:

How you you know that reserves are not effective because they are fresh?
All evidence shows that units which have been fighting for a while, and performing fine, can retreat or rout when attacked by fresh enemy.
If that is not down to fatigue, what do you think causes it?

Demoralisation.

For the rest, I think we must just agree to disagree. It doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Wargamers will be using dice until the Second Coming and, heck, I like dice-driven games. I've played enough of them.

I think you are using one army at one period of ancient history as an example. The Romans had a professional army for a period. I can understand this view and making them "veteran" or such in a wargame rating.

Most troops would be levy/militia.

Moving off of basing/fencing (sport), I suggest considering the experiences of modern combatants. Combat, even the threat of combat (back-rangers) is mentally exhausting…leading to physical exhaustion.

@Tanker11

Most troops would be levy/militia.

Actually, no.

Greeks used citizen hoplites who brought their own arms to the battlefield and had fighting experience from previous 'call ups'.

Carthaginians largely used mercenaries who were experienced fighters.

Before they created a professional army, Rome used citizen troops who also had considerable fighting experience from previous times in the field. Livy relates a speech by Spurius Ligustinus, a farmer with a iugerum (¼ hectare) of land and a cottage, who spent more than twenty years in the army. The occasion was the raising of an army in 171 bc against Macedonia:

"I became a soldier in the consulship of P. Sulpicius and C. Aurelius. For two years I was a common soldier in the army, fighting against Philip in Macedonia; in the third year T. Quinctius Flamininus gave me in consideration of my courage the command of the tenth maniple of the hastati. After Philip and the Macedonians were vanquished and we were brought back to Italy and disbanded, I at once volunteered to go with the consul M. Porcius to Spain. Men who during a long service have had experience of him and of other generals know that of all living commanders not one has shown himself a keener observer or more accurate judge of military valour. It was this commander who thought me worthy of being appointed first centurion in the hastati. Again I served, for the third time, as a volunteer in the army which was sent against Antiochus and the Aetolians. I was made first centurion of the principes by Manius Acilius. After Antiochus was expelled and the Aetolians subjugated we were brought back to Italy."

Gauls, Germans, Spaniards and Britons were all experienced in fighting from constant tribal warfare.

All these "citizen soldiers" came from families with martial traditions. The sons were taught to fight, by their fathers or someone else in the family, long before they stepped onto their first battlefield. We have a problem conceptualising this since we don't do military outside of the army.

Only the Persians and other Fertile Crescent armies had true levy/militia troops. These were peasants with little or no combat experience and armed sometimes only with wooden sticks that had been fire-hardened. But they didn't do any fighting. They formed up at the rear and cheered on the more experienced soldiery in front of them.

By and large the men who fought had some military experience even if not at the professional level.

I suggest considering the experiences of modern combatants. Combat, even the threat of combat (back-rangers) is mentally exhausting…leading to physical exhaustion.

Modern combat is. Modern soldiers are shelled, bombed or machine-gunned from one day to the next, sometimes for months on end. Living in fear of death this long can do very bad things to the psyche. Soldiers in Antiquity didn't have this problem: the danger of death lasted as long as the battle did, usually a couple of hours at the most, and the average soldier might, in the course of a campaign, fight one, two or possibly three battles.

And in any case I think the Ancients were a good deal more thick-skinned than we are. Ours is a mentally fragile, hypochondriac generation with all sorts of mental problems, even without wars to make things worse.

And here you lost me.
-" And in any case I think the Ancients were a good deal more thick-skinned than we are. Ours is a mentally fragile, hypochondriac generation with all sorts of mental problems, even without wars to make things worse."

I recommend posting more about your rules in this thread to defend your original post.

A die roll represents all of the factors that are not figured into specific modifiers…plus the element of luck. Micro terrain, junior leaders, a missed opportunity….to game "vs a professional simulation", we must use some mechanism to represent these items or we hand wave them away. That can be OK, but let's not kid ourselves that a system is better, just different.

@Tanker11:

And here you lost me.
-" And in any case I think the Ancients were a good deal more thick-skinned than we are. Ours is a mentally fragile, hypochondriac generation with all sorts of mental problems, even without wars to make things worse."

I thought it was common knowledge. See here and here.

I recommend posting more about your rules in this thread to defend your original post.

I'll create a separate thread with an overview of the main mechanisms and link to it.

A die roll represents all of the factors that are not figured into specific modifiers…plus the element of luck. Micro terrain, junior leaders, a missed opportunity….to game "vs a professional simulation", we must use some mechanism to represent these items or we hand wave them away.

I think we can reduce the number factors that significantly affect a unit's combat efficacity to a few modifiers that influence that efficacity in a determinate way. The myriad of minor influences like micro terrain, junior officers, etc. can, in the the case of reasonably-sized formations, be presumed to average out.

There is the boardgame Stratego, that only uses Fog of war, but absolutely no chance to have a battle. It surely is no simulation, but it would be possible to use some of its mechanisms for a miniature wargame. Maybe that is, what Bolingar has in mind.

And Stratego is an example, that sone counter arguments are not correct. In Stratego a general can die. A army loose a battle by moral (loosing its flag). A unit can perform good and than bad.