vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Battle Casualties Still Too High Yet Again

Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:11 am

Again, largest battle of war saw around 64k combined casualties (Bordino, total casualties for Russia and French combined of 64k). Here's this. Double. To Hit Coeff still too high at 125 and something else off about combat. Haven't dived into land models yet, but my guess is too much range, too much damage.

[ATTACH]36874[/ATTACH]
Attachments
2016-01-07 21_07_58-Greenshot.png

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:05 am

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?

Lucky
Private
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 7:58 pm
Location: WA, USA

Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:11 am

Didn't even know there was a battle log. I'm going to go check it out. I assume it's in the log folder.

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 25432
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:44 am

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?


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?
Image


Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:08 am

I haven't had this problem in terms of casualties, but then again I only end up wiping small AI stacks, maybe when there are real battles somewhat balanced to begin with, the engine gets into a very destructive loop ? Hard to know.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:01 pm

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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 12:17 pm

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.


There might be something to be done here : make fronts narrower and fire damage lower, so that battles last longer with unit rotation that spread the damage more until the battle reaches a breaking point : one of the sides can't really rotate units anymore, they start routing instead of rotating, etc... A battle like the one Vicberg uses as his example should (in abstracto, I know nothing of the in game circumstances) have more likely seen something like 15/20 000 casualties for the french and 30/40 000 for the Austrians, including prisonners taken on the battlefield. This would still have been heavy and bloody but it would make sense since there seems to have been litte manouver and a battle in Wien province looks more like a static affaire with the Austrians waiting for the french à la Wagram.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:40 pm

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?


I was completely unaware of the "red box" for battle logs. I'll look for it.

User avatar
Ebbingford
Posts: 6124
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: England

Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:47 pm

Main menu, options, system, error logging. Click to on.
You then get the above mentioned red box on the left hand side of the screen, plus extra error messages etc.....
"Umbrellas will not be opened in the presence of the enemy." Duke of Wellington before the Battle of Waterloo, 1815.

"Top hats will not be worn in the Eighth Army" Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein K.G.


Image

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:18 pm

I did notice 12 lb arty at range 6. Infantry are at range 2. Ships were brought down from range 5 to range 3 to manage naval combat. So I'm going to try bringing ranges of arty down to 3 or 4 for arty. It's an abstraction, but might bring down some of the combat results. Another option is to reduce the to hit values for all artillery (which could enable increasing range of ship artillery to be consistent more consistent with land artillery).

I'll look into frontage as well.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:25 pm

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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:47 pm

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.


Problem is that it seems to open the whole battlefield. It looks as if in that battle you had basically two lines of 80 000 firing one massivelly deadly volley at each other. It really looks like when trying to integrate many different units and parameters something has gone aske: Battles in AACW years ago had a distinguishly better feel for numbers !

In my limited experience with this game so far I have the feeling that there are 2 problems compounding each other :
- Fire is too deadly at range so units have fantastic kill rates
- AND cohesion losses are too low and too slow, meaning that units that are 40% dead keep shooting at each other with gustor whereas their cohesion should be completely gone (except for elite or guard units) and they should have routed long ago.

In biggish battles (although the one Vicberg posted is abnormally big for the times, probably PBEM) we should basically have for two equalish forces of 80 000 fighting each other the winner taking 5 to 15 000 losses, the loser 10 to 30 000 and for both armies the majority of units should have cohesion going from very low to significantly dented. only non engaged units (a big chunk of them being light cav) and specific units like guards should still have high cohesion. This would also make pursuit more realistic : a side having badly lost would have very low cohesion accross the board and have a hard time defending against ennemy pursuit, whereas if the battle was more drawish à la Wagram, both armies have low cohesion and can't really pursue one another.

So there are adjustments to be made here, clearly : less kills, more cohesion AND both more spread accross the board rather than focussing on some specific units leading to wipeouts.

User avatar
Ace
Posts: 3498
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:33 pm
Location: Croatia

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:51 pm

That's what I was saying. In cw2 every unit takes double frontage space than here. So, perhaps frontage point and commander frontage bonus might need halving as well.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:57 pm

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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:15 pm

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.


What are the cohesion losses : Do you have basically armies that have lost half their troops but not much cohesion ?

And I understand what you sayd. Indeed in terms of PBEM these should be standard-ish battles as players will tend to go for the stack of doom strategy (it will be up to the french player to turn around them and get to their supply lines).

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:29 pm

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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:39 pm

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.


And this is were player return (sort of like beta testing....) will be important : the french player should be able to use his mobility advantage to beat on big ennemy stacks because at least in the few first years of the game his troops (parti cularly the Grande Armée and its corps should be massively faster than other nations organically + benefit from less road crowding.

To me in PBEM road congestion settings should be at their maximum so that a stack of doom is, as it should be, a fricking turtle trying to fight against a swarm of bees. The french should be able to go and whack Austria while the Russians plod through middle germany/Bohemia trying to reach the french.

Add to this that Britis disembarkment in France should be made quite difficult by the game as the Quiberon episode showed. In game there will probably be the risk that it is too easy for the british player to land 60 000 men in France and march on Paris while the French are fighting in Germany... I suppose there might be some events to allow raising of defense french forces in case of britis disembarkment ? Otherwise Augereau will tend to stay in France indeed...

Nevertheless beyond the tohit coeff, I'd be interested if you could test bigger cohesion losses for both sides so that units rotate more in and out from the front line.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 4:47 pm

The British invasion isn't a problem. A decent French player will have at least 1 corp to address it with multiple others ready to pounce.

I am noticing that garrisons seems to be useless, even in forts and fortified cities. Garrisons are wiped out and attacker takes few losses. That's another issue to eventually address.

The reason for a British invasion not being a problem is that there's events for France that kick off that give France all sorts of goodies. The problems with these events is that they require a minimum 250 element invasion to kick off, so I'd definitely reduce this down to >= 100 or possibly 50. This would prevent a diversionary invasion (or least cost the coalition if they do it). These events give money, conscripts, RGD cards, increase corp and division limits, provide force pool additions and eventually give a percent change that free militia based corp are spawned.

Alternatively, invasions could be made much harder. Right now, they can simply land at no cost.

What I noticed between both battles is reducing the to hit coeef created 30% casualties for both battle and a combined 60k casualties for both battles. I find it surprising that it was 30% each time. I would have expected more variance, but I guess not. The first battle lasted 3 rounds, French Victory. The second battle lasted 6 rounds. Neither side retreated from the region. Another issue is the battle report itself. Ney was involved in both battles in the battle log but doesn't show at all in either battle.


The issue with the super high casualties is that the once very 4 turn production model can't sustain these types of casualties. France lives on being bigger and smashing it's opponents until around 1810, when things start changing. It wont be able to survive a multi-player game at his casualty rate.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:03 pm

If I were to caricature a typical napoleonic battle it would be like this :
- 2 armies have 7 to 10 counters representing their main units (divisions, corps, whatever).
- The battle starts with both army putting 4/5 counters on the frontline forming a center and both wings and keeping a few counters in reserve (guard, cavalry, another corps of infantry).
- The battle starts with the 2 frontlines nibbling at each other. One of them might be taking the upper hand progressively.
- As one side sees its frontline suffer with units become less and less fighting worthy, it tries to break that trend by sending extra counters in to relieve the pressure on the suffering counters. This could be to try and disengage, or to try to win the battle by changing the dynamic. the suffering original counters might still be on the front line technically but their role peters out to become more static.
- The originally winning side can either counter the counter, so to speak, with its own reserv counters, or actually preempt the counter by engaging its reserve counters itself when the ennemy starts to weaken to "break the line" and carry the day.
- There comes a point when a side is losing because it's front is crumbling and it doesn't have enough counters left to change the balance of the battle. it becomes a race to disengage, using maybe the last counter to help in doing so.
- the winning side can now pour on the pressure, using its remaining counters in "pursuit mode" if it has enough of those.

This is sort of the schematic representation of how it works.

The key is a proper balance into 1/ the rythm at which the counters hurt each other, 2/ the way they hurt each other (actual losses or loss in fighting ability, aka cohesion), 3/ the way counter rotations and reserve intervention (MTSGing troops, cavalry, guard, etc) works and finally 4/ how the end of battle routine is calculated with tactical pursuit, units surrender, etc.

To me right now the game seems to have 3 problems when battles are big enough :
1/ The original counters on the front line hit each other way too hard.
2/ The counter rotation system fails meaning that counters keep hitting each other very hard without relief, whereas past a certain point either the counters should have been rotated out OR being spent their respective fire should have been too weak to do much damage, emulating a frontline turned more or less static.
3/ There is very bad repartition of losses between the counters.

These are not critical issues in the sense that they would be unfixable. the battle model has proved its value since AACW so I am confident it can get fixed but these issues are undeniable. The hits themselves are an issue but its part of that wider pattern imho.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:23 pm

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.

User avatar
JacquesDeLalaing
Colonel
Posts: 344
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:05 pm
Location: Vienna (Austria)

Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:33 pm

Assuming that the WON/TYW/CWII-engine works similar to that of the former AGEOD-titles (I haven't tried to mod TYW yet), there are many ways to deal with casualties if you feel that they are too high. It depends on what you want to achieve:

1) Longer battles with casualties rising slowlier, but the overall amount of casualties (until the battle is decided) staying the same? (Just changing the tohit-coefficient will not make battles be decided faster/with less casualties taken)
2) A more uneven balance of losses for victor and defeated?
3) A lower casualty rate in absolute terms - make battles be decided with less casualties inflicted both for the victor and the defeated?
4) Change the balance between in-battle-casualties versus pursuit-casualties? (linked to 2 to a certain extent)
5) Give smaller/fewer stacks better chances to hold out against bigger/more stacks?
6) And you also need to decide if you want to link battle-decisions more to cohesion or more to casualties.
7) Plus you can also play around with combat postures.

The distribution of casualties within the units that take part in a battle is another issue though.

All these things can be changed and modified/tested quite easily (and most of it NOT via model-stats). The engine is extremly modding-friendly and flexible to my eyes. I guess the AI could cope with it, as long as it is just about some minor adjustments.

PS: It's called Wien (pronounced "Veen") not Wein (pronounced "Whine").
[CENTER][color="#A52A2A"] S I L E S I A I N R U P T A[/color]
- a work-in-progress mod for Rise of Prussia - [/CENTER]

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:34 pm

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.


Here are the issues in what you point (using your numbers as reference) :
1/ basically frontline were symetric, a more numerous army would force a less numerous to have too wide a front or you would have one army balling up and the other forming a crescent around it but that use to happen during the battle, not at start.. the less numerous army would almost always find terrain features (villages/ forests) to which it could anchor its line and mitigate the number advantage. Numerical advantage tended to play overtime (ie in the unit rotation) rather than in setting the original front.
3/ It should be the same units FOR THE DURATION OF THE ROUND. This is where having quite a few rounds is key : in between rounds unit rotation takes place to start the new round if a unit is available, so the reserve division you had there or the MTSGing corps that just arrive would rotate in for the beat up unit. If this doesn't work this is a major issue. To be confirmed and tested, but rotation should be a key feature of going from one round to another (each round starting with a "frontline setup/reshuffle" routine). EDIT : this is why i prefer battles with 3/4/5 rounds rather than an engine that favors battles with 1 or 2 rounds.
4/ Seems ok to me : some artillery barrage, some skirmisher fire (skirmishing should give some units longer range but with limited efficiency in terms of hits, more in terms of cohesion).
5/ Another big issue if confirmed : A unit shouldn't stay on the line in passive mode, it should leave the frontline and be replaced by another unit OR lead to a collapse of the line via routing and a defeat. But this doesn't explain why land battle losses are so high for both sides. It looks like either the hit units keep hitting each other, or that we have a situation where both frontlines are stuck with very beat up units that just can't move or evade or fight anymore but keep being pound to a pulp by auxiliary forces like arty.

Points 3 and 5 would seem to be, if confirmed, the key problems.

Could devs or betas delve in with their insights, we might be mistaken here.

lycortas2
Captain
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:57 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:01 pm

Once a group of units reach passive mode due to casualties/cohesion the army should retreat. A retreat does not necessarily mean massive pursuit, many times an attacker was just as messed up and there was no real communication thus missed opportunities. Look at Austerlitz, French crushed the coalition but the pursuit was weaker than it should have been because the wing of the French army that was freshest did not realize the coalition was vulnerable. Or Bernadotte.

The game at the moment seems to be putting everyone on hold to the last man, and even that is unrealistic, troops will generally not stay through too many losses.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:05 pm

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.

lycortas2
Captain
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:57 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:11 pm

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.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:14 pm

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.


The rotation of units routine + insufficient cohesion damage might be the problem more than hits and range.

basically more units need to be able to participate in a big battle (the big majority of them actually) AND losses need to be lower. To me making unit rotation to the front line easier (including MTSG) AND increasing cohesion damages might be the right way to go.

But this is really the heart of the machine so really help from devs and betas is I think necessary.

in a battle with 80 000 per side, you should only end up with 10 000/15 000 not having participated at most. Out of the 65 000 others all should have varied level of Hit losses and cohesion losses. Damage (hits and cohesion) need to be spread out a lot more than now : more unit rotation, more rounds, more cohesion damage and better triggering of unit rotation and unit retreat based on cohesion.

It seems to me units keep taking hits without taking enough cohesion hits.

vicberg
AGEod Grognard
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:18 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:40 pm

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.

EDIT: After reading Veji1, I'm going to try increasing the cohesion loss back to 40 as well and see what affect THAT has also.

veji1
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 6:27 pm

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:48 pm

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.


Hi Vicberg, I appreciate you trying to find solutions, but at some point we will need dev input in there. More than the damage per se, the problem is units staying locked in a fight to the death leading to massive losses to some units in a stack all the way to destruction whereas others just don't participate.

Again when an army of 80 000 guys fights, say Nappy (Garde) + 1 corps there and 2 corps MTSGing, most if not all units should be involved and take hits and cohesion losses. Right now it seems to me the rotation model (including MTSG) is out of whack.

User avatar
lodilefty
Posts: 7578
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:27 pm
Location: Finger Lakes, NY GMT -5 US Eastern

Fri Jan 08, 2016 6:48 pm

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.


Did you delete the cache files in Models and Units after these changes?
Always ask yourself: "Am I part of the Solution?" If you aren't, then you are part of the Problem!
[CENTER][/CENTER]
[CENTER]Visit AGEWiki - your increasingly comprehensive source for information about AGE games[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Rules for new members[/CENTER]
[CENTER]Forum Rules[/CENTER]

[CENTER]Help desk: support@slitherine.co.uk[/CENTER]

lycortas2
Captain
Posts: 199
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:57 am

Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:10 pm

Yea, I will, I am just getting started testing this. What are your thoughts on number of men per hit?

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests