Experience factor - far too powerful?

[Kensai]

In addition to that, before any assault, you must pass a TQ check under a 10-sided dice. If you fail, you don't assault or counter-assault.

Philippe, this might need to get tweaked, probably. I can understand in other AGE titles (modern warfare) of its use, simulating that an element is under range fire (ie artillery, bombardment, etc) and the suppressive shock blocks its reaction, but it probably gets overpowered in ancient warfare where most units need to close in before commencing the contact clash. Otherwise, units with range fire will get suppressive ability that is probably too good to be true.

Perhaps, you could tweak this TQ check to be giving failed results less often (a 12-sided dice?). This theory might need some testing.

[yellow ribbon]

Philippe, this might need to get tweaked, probably. I can understand in other AGE titles (modern warfare) of its use, simulating that an element is under range fire (ie artillery, bombardment, etc) and the suppressive shock blocks its reaction, but it probably gets overpowered in ancient warfare that units need to close in before commencing the contact clash. Otherwise, units with range fire will get suppressive ability that is probably too good to be true.

Perhaps, you could tweak this TQ check to be giving failed results less often (a 12-sided dice?). This theory might need some testing.

i understood off/def fire matters in round one only, does it?

if 1/5 is ranged unit, has it to be read

1 hit point on the elements strength itself,

5 on its cohesion.

if yes, its only the way he explained it:

As any low-TQ-unit is blocked during THE ASSAULT phase, it can take 2x5 or 2x6 on the elements max. 10 points and is eliminated before hitting back at all.

if we take a fresh legion (7*9)/2 = 31% the effect is very hard. [color="#FFFF00"]everything else just enhances it, if the base value is too low for the simplest legion model
[/color] [color="#FF0000"]AND it cannot compensate it[/color]

barbarians have been discussed endless. and will be in future...

[Emx77]

Basically this gives a 5-star legion (model 187 OPT) a 82% probability to assault and a 0-star legion (model 186, POP) 45% chance, because

OPT: Assault 15, TQ 11, x0.5 = 82%
POP: Assault 10, TQ 9, x0.5 = 45%

If you check others combination, with a few stars, then you get a nice spread between these 2 extremes.

If we go back to TEST 1, we can rule out a lot of variables from calculation (as you already explained). Basically, in that test, it all comes to TQ (discipline) and assault. By using your formula we get:

OPT: Assault 11.3, TQ 10.3, x0.5 = 58% (remember that 30% of cohorts are 2** cohorts and 70% are 1* cohorts)
POP: Assault 10, TQ 9, x0.5 = 45%

As TQ check is under a 10-sided dice, I assume that POP unit will fail that test on average only 10% of all times.

The questions are:

1.) Are these differences are so big to justify 90% higher casualties for POP legion (4.698 vs 2.493 dead)? I would say no. In above example, it is perfectly justified OPT legion to win almost every time, just not to win with such huge advantage in casualty ratio.

2.) How come that even a decent commander (3-2-2), defensive posture and huge gap in NM are barely able to compensate for difference between 45% and 58% (tests 2-4)? From my knowledge of ancient warfare moral and commander are just important factors as TQ.

3.) My assumption is that all above factors are included in PWR indicator. You may see how POP legion has initial PWR value of 153 while OPT legion has 166 (which reflects stats differences). When you add commander to POP legion its PWR changes to 230... If I understand correctly, PWR shows Combat Efficiency of the Force and his primary function is to give to a player approximate information about odds in battle between two forces. I don't expect force with higher PWR to always win as you have to take into considerations other variables (terrain, weather, frontage, dice rolls, postures, entrenchment...). If you have most of these variables in your favor it is pretty certain that force with higher PWR will win against force with smaller PWR (that is my experience from WiA, ROP, AACW, and RUS).

However, in AJE, PWR for some reason is off the target and doesn't give you even approximation of what you may expect. That is my experience from Sulla scenario and from above tests. For example, third test shows that POP legion has 230 PWR vs enemy 166 PWR. If Combat Efficiency of the Force (PWR) incorporate in-itself: assault, discipline, initiative... how come that force with smaller PWR always win?

[yellow ribbon]

for 1.)

using Pocus explanation of how the element of a unit might fail the test and gets wiped out after two possible hits, barely inflicting damage on its own

and knowing that ONE SINGLE ELEMENT is already a 600 men in a legion

...frankly, i cannot follow why you dont understand how the large impact (4.698 vs 2.493 dead) comes together.

[Emx77]

...frankly, i cannot follow why you dont understand how the large impact (4.698 vs 2.493 dead) comes together.

Thank you for explanation but that is not what I have asked. My question is primarily: "Is this realistic result or not?" or "Is the impact of these factors overpowered or not?", rather then: "How engine came to such a result?". I'm player and I'm interested more about gameplaying and historical rather then technical aspects of this issue.

[Pocus]

Emx, don't take badly (I know you don't but that's just in case) how Yellow Ribbon may turn his sentences in English,as most of us he is not native English speaker... Just in case

Back to main topic, I was unable to find the test in your save Emx, but if you have one as you say, I can check why exactly the loss difference is so big, despite a commander.

[yellow ribbon]

but its the technical aspect he explained in a long post WHAT COUNTS !

the engine has no infiltration,
no flank attack,
no attack from the rear

a massive frontal attack, ambush etc with hundreds on one single cohort can be simulated by the shock effect (barbarians mainly)

**********

you have your example with fluctuation between the battles with

[color="#FFFF00"]1600 to far over 2000 additional men lost[/color]

[color="#FF0000"] minus 500
[/color]

as an average just by staying defensive (blue i assume). 25% reduction on average!
with using the terrain for your advantage (other terrain) you can reduce it even more



[color="#FF0000"]minus 600 men [/color]

which can already come from one single element which is overwhelmed (throwing the pilum in the best case and then running away (not committing) or getting hit twice, eliminated)
[color="#FF0000"]so by strategy and luck half of your "extraordinary" losses against an enemy with higher cohesion, with higher experience can already be nilled[/color]

it seems the wish is mother of the mind, when one actually seems to depend on 25% on strategy, over 25% at least on luck and then claim that it would be a unfair situation

[color="#FFFF00"]and again, using the leaders abilities to raise discipline for the stacks units, can lower the loses in a 100 turn test run by nearly 20% [/color]

****************************

PS:

thinking in German
working in Flemish/French
arguing most of the days with Polish engineers lately
and the most important, cussing in Spanish (for my spouse doesnt understand it)

[Kensai]

Reading yellow ribbon is one of the most painful experiences I have ever encountered. Not because of his bad English (it's ok) but because of the liberal use of spaces, carriage returns, etc and the almost cryptographic way of posing his various thoughts. That said, if you learn to keep your calm, there is always signal in his noise. If you manage to isolate it, there is a lot of valuable insight and tons of experience to appreciate.

Reading Emx77's final remarks we can safely deduce it's not even discipline (TQ) but the assault value that makes the difference. Still, I think he is right, these two aspects need to be fixed: (1) the Power number, albeit comprehensive, needs more or less to portray the real fighting value of same units in "laboratory conditions" and (2) whatever the values or mechanics, it is unacceptable for 15% of power difference to have 90% casualty difference. This is even more than geometric!

[yellow ribbon]

Reading yellow ribbon is one of the most painful experiences I have ever encountered. Not because of his bad English (it's ok) but because of the liberal use of spaces, carriage returns, etc and the almost cryptographic way of posing his various thoughts.


well, the worst is, that i dont change my style between work and forum. I even get my payment for that kind of writing between 0800 to 1700

trust me, every longer text / sophisticated formulation will beyond of comprehension for most of you. too much information in single phrases, too many sentences.
they even asked me NOT to make such long posts during beta, especially not in PM/Email as well as in the PON forum

[Emx77]

Emx, don't take badly (I know you don't but that's just in case) how Yellow Ribbon may turn his sentences in English,as most of us he is not native English speaker... Just in case

I don't take it badly. It is just we are obviously approaching the problem from different perspectives. As a player I'm more concerned about final outcome rather then how the engine comes to that outcome. If my final travel destination is Paris but I find myself in London, I don't care whether I got there by car, bus, train or airplane. Wrong destination is wrong destination.

Back to main topic, I was unable to find the test in your save Emx, but if you have one as you say, I can check why exactly the loss difference is so big, despite a commander.

In that test loss difference is approximately same. Although, Populares lost 4 out of 5 times (fifth time battle didn't occured). Obviously leader and defensive posture helped with casualties but not to prevent retreat. I'm just pointing that you need a leader and defensive posture to offset impact of aforementioned difference between 45% and 58%. Even then you will lose battle but losses will not be as high.

However, if you want to recreate test here are instructions how to do it: In a mail I sent you before, you have basic setting for test no. 4 (where POP has higher NM). To recreate test 3 just reload two turns back and don't attack Rome with nearby POP force from Casinum (in order to have same NM for both faction). On following turn attach Carbo (3-2-2 leader) to POP Legio II (it is in Pisae) and send that legion to Populonia with defensive posture. Save orders. Reload turn as OPT faction. Select only Legio VI (in Clusium) and send it to Populonia with attack posture. Save and resolve turn. Repeat battle 5 times.
-----

Finally, don't bother to do this in order to give me a technical information. I just pinpoint potential issues where some unit stats can have overrated effect. If I'm only one who complains and if you guys think there is no need to balance this, then it is fine with me. Just, in that case, resolve PWR indicator issue to reflect this in a more appropriate manner. As it is now, PWR doesn't provide any useful information. Even worse, it can mislead player to make totally wrong decisions.

[koningtiger]

thinking in German
working in Flemish/French
arguing most of the days with Polish engineers lately
and the most important, cussing in Spanish (for my spouse doesnt understand it)

Who are you???? Heinz-Harald Frentzen ?

[Laruku]

I appreciate the tests made by Emx77 and I think that the system should be revised to give a fair information to the player, at least regarding the power of some units. Furthermore, what the heck he is not a beta yet? You need him!

[Narwhal]

As for command penalty, 15% is not a 15% reduction in efficiency. This is the chance that you lose one rate of fire (that you don't care about) and have half your initiative (this is more problematic!). Well this is problematic if your enemy manage to hit you, because otherwise you'll hit hard second, but hit hard nonetheless. So command penalty is less a problem against average or poor troops anyway, they have low hit chance, you are strong, so you retaliate anyway. Now the reverse is also an interesting thing to consider: if you are strong and have initiative, then you will trash an enemy element. Its cohesion will be so lowered that it will get an additional penalty because of that. Its chances were already rather low to hit, now they are even worse than that.

As said, combination of advantages can really make a small elite force beats a large but average one.

I am currently testing with the battle!.log (to give opinions on the whole balance issue, I need to understand them) and it looks like initiative has no influence in melee - which would mean that command penalties are neglectable :

Here is the extract, with my command in bold / red

16:37:23 (Reporting) <<<-----START----->>>
16:37:23 (Reporting) Starting CheckBattles, a battle occurs in region Eodaia at day 11
16:37:23 (Reporting) Outside terrain only (used only for range and Abies): Clear effects on Max Range: 99 Range Mod: 0 Weather: Fair
16:37:23 (Reporting) Checking Battle Abilities given by 1004373 Equites I (Mac)
16:37:23 (Reporting) Checking Battle Abilities given by 1004372 Phalanx Ach. II
16:37:23 (Reporting) GetRound SubList 15 SUs can be involved during this round.
16:37:23 (Reporting) Round: 0 Optimates is committing 5 Lines SUs and 0 Supports SUs
16:37:23 (Reporting) Round: 0 Pontus is committing 10 Lines SUs and 0 Supports SUs
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003320 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear [color="#FF0000"]This line and the following are the command tests[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003313 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003316 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) OPT 1004375 Roman Cavalry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 7 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003317 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) OPT 1004376 Roman Cavalry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 7 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003321 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 4 BattleGround: Clear [color="#FF0000"]Failed the test -1 initiative[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003312 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003319 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) Failed TQ in battle Hellenistic Heavy Infantry Adj Quality 7 Leader bonus 0[color="#FF0000"] No idea what this is[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003318 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: -1 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear [color="#FF0000"]Failed the test - 1 ROF[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) OPT 1004377 Roman Cavalry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 7 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) OPT 1004378 Roman Cavalry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 7 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003314 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) PON 1003315 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 5 BattleGround: Clear
16:37:23 (Reporting) OPT 1004379 Roman Cavalry [Line] Round ROF: 0 Round Initiative: 7 BattleGround: Clear[color="#FF0000"] End of command tests[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting)
16:37:23 (Reporting) Round: 0 Battle is now at range 0
16:37:23 (Reporting) There are 15 SU eligibles to attack at this range (0).
16:37:23 (Reporting) Picked: OPT Equites I (Mac) 1004377 Roman Cavalry assaulting [color="#FF0000"]Highest initiative is picked. They are 4 more Roman Cav elements to be picked after this one[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) Target unit is: Pontus\Phalanx Ach. II\Phalanx Ach. II
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker targeting 1003320 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker 1004377 Roman Cavalry health: 5 Cohesion:51
16:37:23 (Reporting) Defender 1003320 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry health: 10 Cohesion:86
16:37:23 (Reporting)
16:37:23 (Reporting) *** Start of action # 1 1004377 Roman Cavalry vs 1003320 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry ***
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker belong to a attacking group SubType: Cavalry Defender belong to a attacking group SubType: Regular
16:37:23 (Reporting) Terrain: Clear Weather: Fair Complete list of values from TEC:
16:37:23 (Reporting) Roman Cavalry (Fire: 120 TQ: 0 )
16:37:23 (Reporting) Hellenistic Heavy Infantry (Prot: 0 TQ: 0 )
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter base + BB-abi TQ: 6.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter TQ with terrain: 6.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter final TQ value: 6.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter base value : 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter value with cohesion: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter value with penalty from losses: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Assaulter final Assault value: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver base + BB-abi TQ: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver TQ with terrain: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver final TQ value: 7.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver value with cohesion: 8.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver value with penalty from losses: 8.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Receiver final Assault value: 8.00
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker failed to assault (Quality check failed)
16:37:23 (Reporting) *** End of action ***
16:37:23 (Reporting)
16:37:23 (Reporting) There are 14 SU eligibles to attack at this range (0).
16:37:23 (Reporting) Picked: PON Phalanx Ach. II 1003314 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry assaulting [color="#FF0000"] This element has 5 in initiative and was picked ?[/color]
16:37:23 (Reporting) Target unit is: Optimates\Equites I (Mac)\Equites I (Mac)
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker targeting 1004376 Roman Cavalry
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker 1003314 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry health: 10 Cohesion:84
16:37:23 (Reporting) Defender 1004376 Roman Cavalry health: 5 Cohesion:49
16:37:23 (Reporting)
16:37:23 (Reporting) *** Start of action # 2 1003314 Hellenistic Heavy Infantry vs 1004376 Roman Cavalry ***
16:37:23 (Reporting) Attacker belong to a attacking group SubType: Regular Defender belong to a attacking group SubType: Cavalry
16:37:23 (Reporting) Terrain: Clear Weather: Fair Complete list of values from TEC:

[Pocus]

You have more chance to be picked first if you have high initiative, but this is not a given.

Actually, what I cited from memory is not fully exact, but it don't change anything in our conclusion anyway.

ROF penalty can result from the command penalty (chance to lose one ROF equals to command penalty) and from a failed TQ (this is the line you don't get). In the end, we don't care much about ROF penalties here, but know that in theory you can lose up to 2 points.

Initiative penalty can only result from a command penalty, if you fail the percentile dice under command penalty, then you lose initiative equals to the command penalty (i.e 15% CP equals = 15% to initiative).

Initiative is then bounded between 3 and 15, just in case...

[lycortas2]

I am with emx on this; i feel that leadership particularly is almost unimportant in this title. As i posted in a different topic i found almost no difference having a 4 leadership leader and a 1 leadership leader in battle outcome.

Mike

[yellow ribbon]

I am with emx on this; i feel that leadership particularly is almost unimportant in this title. As i posted in a different topic i found almost no difference having a 4 leadership leader and a 1 leadership leader in battle outcome.

Mike

ahem...wait a moment:

he has shown that using a leader with a unit against any legion without a unit has MAYBE A HUGE impact to make combat results comparable.
for the leader rating, the devs might correct me, but the system in Ageod games:

[color="#FFD700"]STRATEGY RATING[/color]

decides the activation or non-activation. as soon you use a two or three star general you nearly dont have the problem of non-activation, as you have too many commanders in i.e. the Civ50 campaign

effect if inactive commander has command:

Reduced movement (-35% speed)
Combat penalties in hostile regions (up to –35%)
No orange/red orders possible


************

[color="#FFFF00"]command points penalty [/color] are neglect-able, most of the time the Ai has no very large stacks, the penalty you got against them doenst matter much.
also, in some moments too many commanders. game became too fast.

****************

[color="#FFFF00"]Offensive Rating [/color]

Offensive Rating should be only working when Assault or Offensive Posture is set. it used to give bonus of 5% for corps / 3% for divisions for every point. you will mostly not see much deviation then.

EDIT: i stand corrected, from Narw. Shooting guide i take a reported Bonus of even 10% each point (!?)


[color="#FF0000"]question to the devs, is there any split in AIE?[/color]

As i saw many a uploaded save where playerd DID NOT combine units and leaders at all, i ponder if this is an issue to. a 3*/2* can be useful as lonely superior over the stack, one star commanders should be combined with units (like "brigades"), their rating and most of the abilities dont give a bonus if they do not command a unit

********************

[color="#FFFF00"]Defensive Rating [/color]

formerly the same 5%/3% bonus for each defensive point but ONLY IF IN Defensive or Passive Posture.

EDIT: i stand corrected, from Narw. Shooting guide i take a reported Bonus of even 10% each point (!?)


NOW ITS IMPORTANT THAT MOST UNITS DONT HAVE OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE FIRE

see the guide about Shooting, offensive/defensive fire

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?26485-***-Guide-Combat-Fire-phase-***

AND WILL HAVE THE BONUS ONLY ON ASSAULT. AS SEEN ABOVE TO REACH THE ASSAULT PHASE IS NOT CERTAIN!

[Emx77]

I have repeated same test just to see what impact change of unit stats in AJE v1.01 has on combat this time. Just a brief reminder of basic settings. Two legions from opposite factions marching same distance into same province (clear terrain, fair weather). They have exactly the same organizational structure with same number of men and horses. Primary difference comes from stats:



As you may see, changes in v1.01 compared to v1.00 are reflected primary in one point lower stats for discipline and assault for both sides.

TEST 1 and 2


TEST 1 shows Pop legion now suffer significantly less losses then before. Also, cavalry losses are reduced for both sides. Obviously, cavalry is now much more resistant and this observation holds on subsequent tests. TEST 2 put Pop legion on defense. Again, results are much more realistic then before. Populares even managed to score one victory. So far so good...


TEST 3 and 4


At Test 3 weird results start to happen. Populares now have commander and their legion is on defense. In v1.00 losses were balanced on this test. Now, on average, Populares with commander suffer 70% more casualties then Optimates. What is even more interesting, Populares managed to score two victories. But, take a look at these "victorious battles". Just 0-3% casualties per side?! Strange. As I've just finished Marius vs Sulla scenario, it's worth noting that similar battles were pretty regular in campaign. Only difference was that they involved much larger stacks.

Test 4 shows similar thing. Larger losses gap between two factions in favor of Optimates. Obviously, both tests show much more variability in losses than before. This is not bad thing, but this contradicts results from tests 1 and 2. It seems, if you have commander or national morale on your side you will suffer relatively more losses!

Question is: What influenced such outcomes in test 3 and 4? Possible answers:

Battle engine needs more tweaking as some unidentified factor(s) is skewing results. Second possibility is that, simply by chance, I got non-representative sample of battles. This is certainly possibility as my sample is not big (just 5 battles per test). Although, small sample explanation is less likely in case of tiny casualty victories as I witnessed those not only in test 3 but also during campaign.

Before making any conclusive conclusion it would be wise to repeat more battles in above test settings. This process consumes time and that's why I would like to invite other players do repeat some of my tests (they are attached to this message). It would be interesting to see what will happen if we repeat this more then just five times.

[Narwhal]

Very interesting tests. Like you, I am puzzled by the impact of the leader in your tests.

My takes :

- Statistical outlier - I will test with your files when I have a "AJE" capable computer again, next week
- A special trait of your leader ?
- Last explanation I see : leaders improve the chance of an element to engage in melee, and since any element which engages in melee also receive hits, it increases the chance of the POP element to engage in a "duel" that does not favor them.

[Emx77]

Very interesting tests. Like you, I am puzzled by the impact of the leader in your tests.

My takes :

- Statistical outlier - I will test with your files when I have a "AJE" capable computer again, next week

Yes, as I said, it could be an outlier. Sample is small and more testing is needed for definite conclusion.

- A special trait of your leader ?

Definitely not. It is a leader without any traits.

- Last explanation I see : leaders improve the chance of an element to engage in melee, and since any element which engages in melee also receive hits, it increases the chance of the POP element to engage in a "duel" that does not favor them.

I really don't know what is happening under the hood... but you write great guides and I have intention to learn .

[Narwhal]

Reading the result again, I see a fourth explanation : the +30% bonus allows the POP to win the battle much earlier, hence less dead for the Optimates, and less dead for the Populares as well, but not in the same proportion. Do you have the number of rounds of the battles, by any chance ?

[Emx77]

Reading the result again, I see a fourth explanation : the +30% bonus allows the POP to win the battle much earlier, hence less dead for the Optimates, and less dead for the Populares as well, but not in the same proportion. Do you have the number of rounds of the battles, by any chance ?

This time I attached Marius himself to POP Legion. On first try I got this tiny casualty battle. Here are screens:

[Narwhal]

That battle you show did not go until the melee phase. Both side launched their javelins, and the Optimates retreated before contact

[Emx77]

That battle you show did not go until the melee phase. Both side launched their javelins, and the Optimates retreated before contact

Heh, one mystery solved

However still remains mystery about higher Populares casualties when they have commander and Optimates didn't retreat.

[Emx77]

After some more testing I think devs need to check this. I additionally repeated tests 2 and 3 and it seems commanders have negligible effect during combat. Again, sample of battles is not big, but it's big enough for pattern to emerge. Here are results:



As you can see from tests, commander (3-2-2) has only increased chance that Optimates will retreat before melee phase. However, when they accept fight they win almost every time. If you compare results from test 2 (no commander) and test 3 (commander) you can notice that Populares infantry on average suffers 24% more losses then Optimates infantry, [color="#FFFF00"]regardless of commander[/color]. For cavalry, this difference is even bigger in favor of Optimates. Strange thing is that Populares will suffer more cavalry casualties with commander (90% more losses then Optimates) then without commander (50% more losses then Optimates).

I think this is not WAD. Commanders' should have much more impact on actual combat, as their skills were probably among most important factors in ancient time.

[Narwhal]

OUstanding work.

Right now, my computer with AJE installed is out of reach, and has been for more than a week now, so no test possible.

For the horse lost, the explanation is easy :

- The presence of a commander increase the chance of your cavalry to charge VERY significantely
- If cavalry charges, the target infantry can test for a "square-formation". Currently, the threeshold for succeeding such a square formation is maybe too low - cohorts will succeed more often than not.
- In case of successful square-forming, the cavalr damage bonus is cancelled AND the cavalry receive +100% damage.

Hence, charging is actually a BAD thing against cohorts, and leaders increase the chance of charging. It defeintely needs tweaking (was the charge / square-forming actually relevant in Antique battles ? I know not).

For the increased losses for the infantry, I have my suspicions, but I am not quite sure. It could be :

- With a leader attached, the POP cohorts fights longer (one more round) and thus receive (and inflict) more damage
- Some other thing I don't know.

[yellow ribbon]

Hence, charging is actually a BAD thing against cohorts, and leaders increase the chance of charging. It defeintely needs tweaking (was the charge / square-forming actually relevant in Antique battles ? I know not).

the recycling of modding has shown that it can easily substituted to a ratio-of-light-troops-vs-cavalry subtest. if this fails (enemy has enough light troops/cavalry to cover the flanks), the cavalry will not participate in any second charge/round of battle resolution. so cavalry giving a huge bonus to break cohesion or not participating...
of course only one way it can be changed and we have problems with the javelin cavalry herein

[Emx77]

- With a leader attached, the POP cohorts fights longer (one more round) and thus receive (and inflict) more damage
- Some other thing I don't know.

Yes, it seems they fight longer as absolute losses are higher for both sides. Puzzling part is that it's looks like commanders' bonus is omitted from calculation during combat. How else to explain same relative losses ratio regardless of commander? I even tried to put Marius (6-3-5) in command of Populares legion. in that case optimates retreated much often, approximately 7 retreats and one combat. Here are results from three such fights:



This time Populares had on average 22% more casualties then Optimates, even when they were under Marius command (and take a look at his defensive rating).

[yellow ribbon]

in that case optimates retreated much often, approximately 7 retreats and one combat.

the situation with the overshooting of retreating / breaking combat should be known. maybe its a good idea to hand in some saves/battle reports to see what the overall impact in the actual public beta patch is.
can you attach them as well... or anyone else, in generally. i do mean frequency and impact in the scenarios, not only in this test situation...

[Emx77]

@yellow ribbon - Unfortunately, I don't have battle reports. But it is easy to recreate above battles and save reports if needed. Just download appropriate test (post #47) and repeat battles. You may attach Marius, Cinna or Carbo as commanders of Populares' legion (they are in same province at start turn).

[yellow ribbon]

@yellow ribbon - Unfortunately, I don't have battle reports. But it is easy to recreate above battles and save reports if needed. Just download appropriate test (post #47) and repeat battles. You may attach Marius, Cinna or Carbo as commanders of Populares' legion (they are in same province at start turn).

oh, i dont doubt that. its not about the test, cavalry problem as well as retreating are as systematically as you saw it.

i just want to take sure that the developers have enough [color="#FF0000"]out-house data [/color]to decide what they are actually dealing with. thus best would be just input from players in generally, any time such retreats happen. you know the deal, thats why its a public beta.

as its systematically, they need you as normal players to see the frequency and the impact on overall gameplay