vicberg wrote:And why all of a sudden did this last patch include putting a lot less information in the battle logs? This was information that allowed for someone like me (with a technical background) to figure out what the engine was doing and what was going wrong within the game? Now the information in the battle logs is almost useless.
I didn't see anyone requesting changes to the battle logs in the last patch? Did anyone else? Why on earth would AGEOD want to reduce this information?
Ace wrote:I think this may be related to frontage.
Compared to CW2 which uses the same engine, this game has much more smaller regions, enabling more operational gameplay. Because of smaller regions, units speed has been increased so they can traverse smaller regions more quickly. Now comes the catch. Age engine calculates frontage weight of units on the base of their speed. The more nimbler the unit, less space it takes in a battle. Unit fire values have actually been decreased compared to CW2 (average infantry unit in cw2 has fire values 11/18, artillery 18/30). IMO opinion, frontage points should be lowered a bit (including the bonus good commander gives to units in clear terrain and woods). After that, less units will be able to participate in a battle, so less casualties. Even at Borodino, French assault was not simultanious, it came in wawes.
Pocus wrote:Don't jump on erroneous conclusions. Always be prudent when you assert things
Nothing has been removed in the battle logs. But they are much simpler if you did not enable the 'red box', error logging. Does it fixes the issue?
Ace wrote:If the commander bonus is the same in cw2, good commander like Napoleon can bring in enormous ammounts of troops to fill frontage at the same time.
vicberg wrote:That battle above had 2 corp and Nappy (with CAV/Guards). In terms of historical not sure about it being abnormally large. In terms of game play, it's actually small, since France could easily have 3 - 6 corp involved in a single battle. These are starting French corps, which could be increased by at least 2 divisions for each corp in terms of Command Points. There will be more corp built over time. For starting non-French, most players will stack as much as they can into a single leader (around 5-6 divisions) and put the rest into another leader. Around 2-3 stacks depending on Nation and around 2000-3000 CBT. If they place both stacks into a single region which is needed since no one other than France starts with MTSG, this is going to be fairly normal for the start of this game.
In terms of the details battle logs, I'm not seeing pursuit going on at all. I do see screener, disruptor, charge and countercharge in the gamelogic files, but no where in either game logic file OR the battle logs does it look like pursuit is happening. That's not to say it isn't happening, I'm just not finding anything showing it.
vicberg wrote:I'll have to look. I did start playing with it last night. I reduced the to hit coeff from 125 down to 80. 2 attacks occurred in Wein. First attack was 30% losses on both sides, which was encouraging. Then a second attack occurs with 60K combined losses, which put me back at square 1.
The stack of doom is a good strategy. Even with MTSG, you need 4-5 corp to isolate a doom stack, and the French won't likely be able to commit that much as they have to deal with British and/or Prussian and/or Russian invasions from the north or middle areas (around HRE). Plus the French have to take into consideration connecting roads and ongoing supply, which isn't easy.
And if they did commit that many corp, even with MTSG, it makes it dicey. MTSG without connecting roads is either not happening or happening with less frequency, so the doom stack can run out and stomp. It's a solid strategy.
vicberg wrote:From what I've seen in the battle logs
1) There's rolls on both sides for inclusion of elements in the battle. Bad rolls mean less units involved n a side
2) Battle log doesn't kick out any messages concerning frontage, but I'll assume Frontage is involved in the # of units
3) From this point, it's the same units for the duration of the battle. That speaks to what you just stated, veji1, there is not a rotation involved. Once the units are included, they become fair game.
4) Starting at range 6, combat starts. Units eligible to fire select opposing units based on CBT signature and rolls
5) Because of the starting range, if a unit reaches a point of retreat, it will switch to passive mode, and it becomes easier to hit. This is why first shot, to hit roll (leader adjustment and to hit coeef), damage done and cohesion done become so important. Naval battles were lopsided because the bigger ships had initiative, range, damage and cohesion. There wasn't even a chance to cause a hit in combat.
6) Combat occurs range by range until range 0, which becomes assault (or boarding)
The 30% casualties for each round means that a reduction in to hit coeff reduces all other modifiers which in turn means it becomes less random and more mathematical. That's not the answer. I'm looking at changing the artillery models. 12 lb Arty have a range of 6. A lot of 12 lb artillery = massive damage. So the 4lb is range 3. I'm going to start with ranges of 3, 4 (6lb) and 5 (12 lb). If this doesn't work, then next step will be to reduce the to hit with them.
vicberg wrote:I'm amending what I just said. Each round of combat there IS another roll for MTSG and for inclusion of more units, including a chance for MTSG.
I think I have found the problem right now with land combat
1) 80% coefficient doesn't work as it totally removes all leadership modifiers (especially against entrenched opponents and Austria is entrenched in Wein). This is why the results have become more predictable. I'm put it up at 100% and soon will try 125% again.
2) 12 lb Arty is set to range 6. This I believe is causing the combat to become skewed. I've reduced 12 lb to range 5, 6 and 4 lb to range 4 and "light" arty to range 3.
3) And I still haven't found the problem. Another 100k casualty battle at Wien. Working on it some more.
Mike, I'll check what is causing units to hang around in combat for so long.
vicberg wrote:I've found what I think is another problem. Damage Done and Coheson Done for the larger artillery (6 and 12) were set to 2 damage and 30/40 cohension done. Compare that to line infantry which does 1 damage and causes 15 (or less) cohesion. So I'm reducing damage down to 1 and cohesion down to 20 (4 and light), 22 (6) and 25 (12) and see what affect that has.
lycortas2 wrote:Okay next idea. Ace chime in please as you know the most.
In American Civil War the casualties are 30 men per hit, 20 hits per unit for a fairly average infantry. In Revolution Under Siege the units lose 50 men per hit with 10 hits per unit.
In this game units are taking 100 men per hit with 8 hits. Dude that seems harsh. Mellow it out.
I think I am going to edit all units to a more chill 50 men per hit and more hits per unit. Have to bring down replacement costs as well to keep things even.
100 men per hit might be what's disturbing Vic's calm.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests