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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 9:21 am

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.


Reducing men per hit will halve army numbers. Every regiment has 8 hits (or health points). Each hit values 100 men. So, we have historic number for full regiment of 800 men. If we lower hit value to 50 men, we would have to change every model to have double hits at full strength. Every model is more precise if it has more hits, because random factors have less influence. So, the most precise would be that every unit has 800 hits with 1 hit valued at 1 men. In that case, battles would take long long time to calculate...

That may be the culprit. Succesful hit by an arty will kill 200 men in won, and only 60 men in cw2.
Assault hits are higher here as well.

But you can't lower arty hits to 1 as it would make them as low as an infantry hit. Higher number of hits in units might help.

Replacement cost is calculated for the full unit, so you wouldn't have change that.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Sun Jan 10, 2016 10:03 am

Mickem2011 wrote:I understand but my point is that comparing WoN to CW2 is like comparing apples to oranges. NGC and WoN would offer a similar comparison. I seem to recall the numbers being fine in NGC so it could just be a matter of changing WoN's numbers to match NGC. The question wasn't really directed at you personally. Just more of a suggestion for those who have NGC to compare it to WoN for a possible solution. It's been a few years since I played NGC but I don't remember having casualty rates that were way off like in WoN. The devs got it right in NGC. Since NGC and WoN are similar games I think that's where the answer lies. Using CW2 to try to find a solution may not be as workable since the era and weaponry were different and the numbers in CW2 reflect the Civil War era. You need somebody with a copy of NGC to compare numbers. I'd volunteer to do it but I lost my copy of NGC in my last move. Somebody in this discussion may be able to help though.


vicberg wrote:Because I own CW2 and I don't own NGC. :blink:


you don't actually need the game - all the files are here and can be downloaded so easy to set up comparisons
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:51 am

lycortas2 wrote:'kay, next.... there is a rule that states when you are in a region with more than 50% enemy military control you auto switch to offensive posture.
Could this be causing Grand Armee to switch back to offensive posture?


It shouldn't if everything works as intended.

Pocus wrote:I'm not too sure what the problem is. After he lost the first battle, he was in defensive without MC. I switched him to passive and he proceeded in retreating toward Pensacola. I would say here that what you got is that you switched him in passive (right, right? ) but he was still targeted by Taylor and engaged.

A force can't be targeted the turn it is sent to retreat from a defeat, but here this is not what has happened. Passive don't let you avoid combat, but it let you avoid being forced to attack even without MC. As for the original thread title, do we have a MC bug? It seems, to my surprise, that we don't have one. You get the minimal 5% MC in a region only if you are cityscape defenders and have no MC. I don't think that right and I'll give these 5% MC to any factions having non passive forces in a region, because the men must be somewhere!


You might also take a look here: http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?38435-1-05RC3-Not-retreating-after-loosing-a-battle-bug&p=338116&viewfull=1#post338116
It seems that the new engine uses a different behaviour (defeated stacks not set to passive/moved out of the region if beaten by opponent in defensive stance; instead stationary in the region in defensive posture). The question of retreat seems to have been an field of experimentation over the last year, which would explain some crazy results. However, judging from the previous discussions, at least the "problems" occured in between two turns. Now it seems that something is wrong during the turn.
[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]

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:35 pm

That explains quite a bit. I do believe this is an engine issue. The retreat or not retreat (and that is the question), is causing forces to take pursuit hits, remain in battle and then continue to attack.

An addition to this, Massena was 1 region away from Venice. Battle occurred in Venice. Same thing happened. Full 6 round combat.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 2:35 pm

loki100 wrote:you don't actually need the game - all the files are here and can be downloaded so easy to set up comparisons


Thank you. I've downloaded and I'll check it out.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 4:26 pm

WOW. And thanks for the link to the "database" which are really excel files.

The hits on these units are anywhere from 9-36. The damage done is 1 and the ROF is 3. Defensive Fire is slightly higher than offensive fire (which makes sense). The cohesion done by each hit from guns is TINY (5) and an average French unit has cohesion of 60. The real damage comes from Assaults and cohesion damage from Assaults goes up slightly (8). With more experienced units, all these numbers go up dramatically. Off/Def fire is doubled. Assault damage becomes a 2 or 3 (versus a 1).

Arty has ROF 2, low chance to hit and causes 2 damage per hit (3 with 12 pounders) and 15 Cohesion per hit.

So looking that this, I can infer that combat relies more on damage and much less on cohesion loss. It also makes a bit more sense as combats during this period relied less upon gun damage and more upon assaults.

I can also say that the models need to be tweaked quite a bit. 40 Cohesion loss for a single ARTY hit in WON is excessive.

This is an eye opener.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:20 pm

Ace wrote:Reducing men per hit will halve army numbers. Every regiment has 8 hits (or health points). Each hit values 100 men. So, we have historic number for full regiment of 800 men. If we lower hit value to 50 men, we would have to change every model to have double hits at full strength. Every model is more precise if it has more hits, because random factors have less influence. So, the most precise would be that every unit has 800 hits with 1 hit valued at 1 men. In that case, battles would take long long time to calculate...

That may be the culprit. Succesful hit by an arty will kill 200 men in won, and only 60 men in cw2.
Assault hits are higher here as well.

But you can't lower arty hits to 1 as it would make them as low as an infantry hit. Higher number of hits in units might help.

Replacement cost is calculated for the full unit, so you wouldn't have change that.


The number of men per hit is pure display only. I'm noticing in NGP, they didn't care about that. Conscripts have 9 hits and Elite have 36 hits and number of men per hit remains at 100. Perhaps they didn't care about the display of men. Doesn't matter to me either, honestly.

All that matters is number of hits (health) vs. to hit vs. damage (guns and assault) vs. cohesion loss (guns and assault). That's the essence of the combat system. WON isn't close to where it needs to be yet.

Basic comparison (very very generalized)
- WON units have 50-60 overall cohesion, 8 health, do 2 damage per hit, ROF 2, cause 20-25 cohesion loss (on average) per hit. Artillery have ROF2, do 2-3 damage per hit and cause 30-40 cohesion loss per hit.
- NGP units have 50-60 overall cohesion, 9-36 health based on experience, do 1 damage per hit (2 during assaults), ROF 3, cause 5 cohesion loss for guns, 8 cohesion loss for assaults. Arty have ROF 2 and do 2 damage per hit and 15 cohesion loss per hit.


Obviously the combat in NGP is more reliant upon damage done than cohesion. It's more reliant upon Artillery and Assaults doing the bulk of the damage/cohesion loss. The more experienced units take much more damage. Cohesion is important, but damage is more important. Assaults are more the determining factor. NGP is well thought out.

I'm going to be working on this, time allowing.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:36 pm

I'm going to have to assume that NGP uses the same engine with the same leaders and roughly the same leader qualities.

I'm noticing that Austrian elite german/hungarian troops are monsters. 40 hits!

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 5:45 pm

Somehow, I think we're missing each others points. Battles are ended if

1) one side retreats (due to voluntary retreat or auto-retreat as described in the link I posted) before a combat round (even before the first)
2) the "day" ends after the fixed number of rounds of battle with no side having retreated - if the offensive faction has not been auto- (or manually, if the end of the day coincides with the end of the turn) switched to defensive stance due to low cohesion, the battle will continue on the next day

In other words, there is no end to battle and bloodshed unless the retreat-mechanic kicks in or it's a stalemate with the offensive side switching to a defensive stance.

The chance for retreat is increased if a force suffers hits and cohesion loss: For voluntary retreat via combat power, for auto-retreat via the autoretreat-threshold which in turn is modified by average cohesion. The exact balance (influence of cohesion vs. influence of hits) can be modified for auto-retreat, whereas the formula for combat power is hardcoded (and unknown). Moreover, the ROE of the C-in-C modifies the retreat-will (and, as one of the battlelogs you posted shows, also the auto-retreat-threshold). That retreat seems to be bugged right now is a big problem. Therefore I would wait until we get some kind of official comment on the retreat-issue, if it is way as intended, why it comes about, and what could/should be done. Moreover, I don't think that changing the damage inflicted by models will help a lot to make battles be decided with less casualties inflicted. It will only make battles take longer (but roughly with the same amount of bloodshed) until they're decided. The only positive effect of lower damage output is that there are more chances/rolls to retreat for the same amount of bloodshed (as less damage will be inflicted during each round of combat, and retreat-tests are carried out in between the rounds). But as long as retreat supposedly doesn't work as intended, this is no real help either. And reducing overall damage output might also make battles a bit less one-sided (as more hits are needed to bring a model below the threshold triggering mali for being low on hits or cohesion; plus with lower cohesion damage models are more likely to pass their rout-tests).

As it stands, I still don't know what exactly you want to achieve. I'd like to help, as I'm quite into all that modding stuff and having fun with it right now as you might have noticed ;) . Just to make sure: you know the ageod wiki (especially "combat explained") and also the guides to the melee and fire phases of ageod titles (in the AJE forum)? So what do you want to achieve, vicberg?
[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]

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:04 pm

JacquesDeLalaing wrote:Somehow, I think we're missing each others points. Battles are ended if

1) one side retreats (due to voluntary retreat or auto-retreat as described in the link I posted) before a combat round (even before the first)
2) the "day" ends after the fixed number of rounds of battle with no side having retreated - if the offensive faction has not been auto- (or manually, if the end of the day coincides with the end of the turn) switched to defensive stance due to low cohesion, the battle will continue on the next day

The chance for retreat is increased if a force suffers hits and cohesion loss: For voluntary retreat via combat power, for auto-retreat via the autoretreat-threshold which in turn is modified by average cohesion. The exact balance (influence of cohesion vs. influence of hits) can be modified for auto-retreat, whereas the formula for combat power is hardcoded (and unknown). Moreover, the ROE of the C-in-C modifies the retreat-will (and, as one of the battlelogs you posted shows, also the auto-retreat-threshold). That retreat seems to be bugged right now is a big problem. Therefore I would wait until we get some kind of official comment on the retreat-issue, if it is way as intended, why it comes about, and what could/should be done. Moreover, I don't think that changing the damage inflicted by models will help a lot to make battles be decided with less casualties inflicted. It will only make battles take longer (but roughly with the same amount of bloodshed) until they're decided. The only positive effect of lower damage output is that there are more chances/rolls to retreat for the same amount of bloodshed (as less damage will be inflicted during each round of combat, and retreat-tests are carried out in between the rounds). But as long as retreat supposedly doesn't work as intended, this is no real help either. And reducing overall damage output might also make battles a bit less one-sided (as more hits are needed to brin cog a model below the threshold triggering mali for being low on hits or cohesion and with lower cohesion damage, models are more likely to pass their rout-tests).

As it stands, I still don't know what exactly you want to achieve. I'd like to help, as I'm quite into all that modding stuff and having fun with it right now as you might have noticed ;) . Just to make sure: you know the ageod wiki (especially "combat explained") and also the guides to the melee and fire phases of ageod titles (in the AJE forum)? So what do you want to achieve, vicberg?


The retreat issue is a showstopper, but even without it, the combat model is off in WON. We've noticed it in Naval Battles and we've noticed it with Land Combat. AGEOD has already implemented some of my recommended changes with naval models, but now I'm focusing on the land models. What I'm trying to achieve is a land combat model that somewhat reflects history and is somewhat balanced.

Compare ARTY between both games
- WON: 30-40 cohesion loss per hit
- NGP: 15 cohesion loss per hit

Compare INF between both game
- WON: 20-25 cohesion loss per hit and 2 damage done per hit
- NGP: 5-8 cohesion loss per hit and 1 damage done per hit
- WON: 8 hits per unit
- NGP: 9-27 hits per unit

It's a long game. I forsee a fix to the retreat issue, but in comparing the two games, I can see where there will be further issues downstream in the game.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:21 pm

So in what ways does the abstraction of the game fail to deliver historically plausible results? I'm not sure if all model-stats should be taken very literally. I think it's more important that the end-result of battles is plausible, not the minutae of the battle-resolution. It depends on what each individual stat is supposed to "reflect" historically and how it should be measured.

But to take up the example, you say that the fire-cohesion-damage of arty is set too high. To rule out all distortions in the comparison between the two titles: Do the average models in both titles have the same amount of cohesion to start with (and no protection)? Do the arty-models in both titles have the same off/def fire ratings, ROF, initiative, range and is the tohit coefficient and the number of combat rounds per day the same in both games? Does terrain affect arty in both games in the same way?

If so then indeed the artillery in WON will have a higher chance to rout models that are hit successfully and might give them a malus on their own offensive actions (by lowering their cohesion below the threshold that triggers mali on fire-values) and make them more prone to cavalry charges. In effect, this will lead to a faster rate of and a more uneven/extreme distribution of cohesion-loss. Also, big values for cohesion loss should make factions more prone to retreat.

So you want to have a more balanced, "flatter" and less luck-based (with high damage values, more damage is bound to a single dice-roll) distribution of cohesion loss? And a more fine-tuned rate of combat casualties? (I understand that - I went for 30 hits per model in my mod; with 1 hit representing 3 men) I think that a game of WONs scale might run into performance issues here?
[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]

Taillebois
General
Posts: 572
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:09 pm

Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:50 pm

Is NGP the same as NCP?

If the files are Excel can you use the goal seek function to produce a list of the most critical factors in calculating a battle result?

As this is a strategy game rather than a tactical combat game is going beyond producing broadly acceptable battle results risking an element of over achievement?

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Sun Jan 10, 2016 6:54 pm

Historical plausibility, rather than historical fidelity, is a reasonable goal for a grand strategy game like WoN. Either way, the game needs work. I appreciate all your efforts.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:14 pm

I think the key point is that We see that the Units in Won are very fragile (not many hits per unit) and that the weapons in WON are very effective (Arty in particular). Basically it make the game feel a lot more like some sort of 1914 meeting in the field of armies with fast shooting guns and rifles.. Whereas battles in the napoleonic area tended to be long when decided by fire : the only shortish battles are battles where particular circumstances made one side crumble fast.

A battle with 20 000 men per side or 60 000 men per side tended to last between 5 to 10/12 hours, almost regardless of number of men involved. So there is an issue in how the game is built because it tends to be way to brutal in the dishing of damage, creating side effects like sitting duck units too beat up to get out of the front line, lack of unit rotation in battle meaning some units take all the beating, etc.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:26 pm

I mean look at the battles of the first campaign of italy : many were longish back and forths for a whole day or two.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:36 pm

veji1 wrote:I mean look at the battles of the first campaign of italy : many were longish back and forths for a whole day or two.


What I have noticed is that combats last 1, maybe 2 rounds on average. Auto-retreat is usually initiated from the combat logs. Why?

Because each element has 8 hits. Each elements causes 2 damage and causes 20-40 cohesion per hit. when you have a unit that starts with 50-60 cohesion, won't take long to cause them to run away. Remember when to hit coefficient was set to 400. That was causing entire corp annihilation. It's not because they are hitting all the time. It's because of the damage/cohesion being done by all these units.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:39 pm

The other thing I'm noticing about NGP...the reduced gun effectiveness, both damage and cohesion, makes total sense as guns of this period were wildly inaccurate. Arty is definately more effective in terms of damage and cohesion, and that's correct IMO. Lastly, assaults will determine the majority of outcomes, also represents the period tactics.

I look at the model data for NGP and it screams out napoleonic battles. WON isn't right now

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:48 pm

vicberg wrote:What I have noticed is that combats last 1, maybe 2 rounds on average. Auto-retreat is usually initiated from the combat logs. Why?

Because each element has 8 hits. Each elements causes 2 damage and causes 20-40 cohesion per hit. when you have a unit that starts with 50-60 cohesion, won't take long to cause them to run away. Remember when to hit coefficient was set to 400. That was causing entire corp annihilation. It's not because they are hitting all the time. It's because of the damage/cohesion being done by all these units.


Exactly, it looks like unis facing in line at 200 yards but with backloading rifles instead of slow muskets : battle is sure not going to last long !

To me a standard battle that isn't some super unbalanced mopting up operation should have 3/4 rounds at least : anything less than 3 rounds is a skirmish or accrochage. A battle means armies positioning facing each other, lines moving, flanks rounding or folding, reserves intervening, etc. 2 rounds or less isn't this. I understand this is a game mechanism not to be taken litteraly, but units are just too fragile and efficient at once.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:49 pm

vicberg wrote:The other thing I'm noticing about NGP...the reduced gun effectiveness, both damage and cohesion, makes total sense as guns of this period were wildly inaccurate. Arty is definately more effective in terms of damage and cohesion, and that's correct IMO. Lastly, assaults will determine the majority of outcomes, also represents the period tactics.

I look at the model data for NGP and it screams out napoleonic battles. WON isn't right now


muskets were very inefficient indeed, only the brits managed to be very efficient with fire, for all others musket fire wasn't the biggest deciding factor.

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

Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:58 pm

Here's another bit of historical flavor in the model data.

The horse units were much smaller than the infantry. Yet they have the same # of hits in WON. in NGP, the infantry units have 18-36 hits, depending on experience, and the horse units still have 8. So horse units will get destroyed much easier. That's another well thought out piece of data.

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:44 pm

Another retreat based issue

After writing a program to tweak some of the models, I ran August Scenario. Grand Armee vs. Mack. Mack attempted to retreat on round 1-5 and was successful. However, the engine determined that ULM was the best retreat spot (which is where the battle was occurring) and so Mack retreated, took hits, stayed in region and continued to get pummeled.

Then a battle occurred on second day in Ulm. Same thing happened. Battle lasted 3 rounds and Mack's entire force was wiped out.

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:10 pm

vicberg wrote:Another retreat based issue

After writing a program to tweak some of the models, I ran August Scenario. Grand Armee vs. Mack. Mack attempted to retreat on round 1-5 and was successful. However, the engine determined that ULM was the best retreat spot (which is where the battle was occurring) and so Mack retreated, took hits, stayed in region and continued to get pummeled.

Then a battle occurred on second day in Ulm. Same thing happened. Battle lasted 3 rounds and Mack's entire force was wiped out.


Interesting, thanks. I hope you can get those elements to the devs.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:35 pm

vicberg wrote:Here's another bit of historical flavor in the model data.

The horse units were much smaller than the infantry. Yet they have the same # of hits in WON. in NGP, the infantry units have 18-36 hits, depending on experience, and the horse units still have 8. So horse units will get destroyed much easier. That's another well thought out piece of data.


not quite so simple - WoN has introduced the concept of 'combat signature' which is multiplied by the elements in a unit to determine if its the target. A cavalry unit has a signature of 15% not 100% for infantry, so its much less likely to be targetted by infantry unless it chooses to engage.

in this respect remember there are also combat rules that are in the engine, one that is relevant is that cavalry tends to look for either cavalry or units that are low on cohesion. All this matters and you are missing it by just concentrating on a few aspects
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:51 pm

loki100 wrote:not quite so simple - WoN has introduced the concept of 'combat signature' which is multiplied by the elements in a unit to determine if its the target. A cavalry unit has a signature of 15% not 100% for infantry, so its much less likely to be targetted by infantry unless it chooses to engage.

in this respect remember there are also combat rules that are in the engine, one that is relevant is that cavalry tends to look for either cavalry or units that are low on cohesion. All this matters and you are missing it by just concentrating on a few aspects


This is also why Dev input would be useful. Vicberg is bravely trying to unknot the Gordian knot without having all the tools.

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:52 pm

loki100 wrote:not quite so simple - WoN has introduced the concept of 'combat signature' which is multiplied by the elements in a unit to determine if its the target. A cavalry unit has a signature of 15% not 100% for infantry, so its much less likely to be targetted by infantry unless it chooses to engage.

in this respect remember there are also combat rules that are in the engine, one that is relevant is that cavalry tends to look for either cavalry or units that are low on cohesion. All this matters and you are missing it by just concentrating on a few aspects


That's for the input. I noticed a large difference in CBT Signature. I'll incorporate that into this. And that's excellent to know. Because of the length of this thread, I'm afraid the retreat issue is getting buried. That's key right now.

User avatar
loki100
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2374
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 4:15 pm
Location: Caithness
Contact: Website Twitter

Mon Jan 11, 2016 4:54 pm

veji1 wrote:This is also why Dev input would be useful. Vicberg is bravely trying to unknot the Gordian knot without having all the tools.


up to a point yes, but a lot of material has been discussed in previous AGE games as the issue of balancing the losses in battle (and of leaders) has cropped up before. He could save himself some time by looking around.

It also doesn't help to declare something

another well thought out piece of data.


when he's missed the introduction of combat signature which effectively returns the chance for cavalry to be targetted to that of NCP?
AJE The Hero, The Traitor and The Barbarian
PoN Manufacturing Italy; A clear bright sun
RoP The Mightiest Empires Fall
WIA Burning down the Houses; Wars in America; The Tea Wars

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:02 pm

Honestly Loki, trying to find information on this forum is challenging at best. The search engine isn't, lets just say Google and I often use Google in the hopes it will find information on this forum.

Also, it's real hit and miss in terms of who is doing what. Also, you MUST know exactly what you are looking for in terms of searching and finding information. CBT Sig of the horses is something I noticed in the data and now I know why. To search for it on this forum required knowing about this engine behavior in advance.

I will be going through the NCP forums in a bit to gather as much information as I can there.

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:05 pm

In terms of retreats, no amount of polling through forums is going to convince me it's working correctly. Look at the battle below. Mack is still in Stuttgart. Why didn't Mack go to Ulm (and possibly get booted out of there by Soult). Though he "retreated", he remained in Stuttgart for some reason

8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Bayerische Armee succeeded in retreating
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Bayerische Armee will take 3 hits while retreating (though no hits can be done on round 0)
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 902 Heilbronn
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Not enough control, discarded
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 891 Heidelberg
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Not enough control, discarded
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 892 Karlsruhe
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Not enough control, discarded
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 897 Baden Baden
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Not enough control, discarded
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 900 Ulm
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Initial value from MC: 100
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after move cost: 100
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after structures ownership: 240
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after enemy presence: 240
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after friendly presence: 240
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after bottleneckness / Passage hub : 408
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Value after coming from this region bonus : 1020
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) ---> New best region: 900 Ulm Value: 1020
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Retreat Path Inspecting 903 Schwaebisch Hall
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Not enough control, discarded
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Region picked : 900 Ulm
[color="#FFA500"]8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Bayerische Armee is retreating toward Ulm
8:11:10 AM (Reporting) Group Bayerische Armee has retreated[/color]


[ATTACH]36909[/ATTACH]
Attachments
2016-01-11 08_56_59-Greenshot.png

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

Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:09 pm

loki100 wrote:up to a point yes, but a lot of material has been discussed in previous AGE games as the issue of balancing the losses in battle (and of leaders) has cropped up before. He could save himself some time by looking around.

It also doesn't help to declare something



when he's missed the introduction of combat signature which effectively returns the chance for cavalry to be targetted to that of NCP?


Come on loki, Vicberg has been working on the game for 3/4 hard weeks and the long thread here is a testament to his dedication to the game, some of us have tried to help (little we can) by bouncing ideas on and off. It's a bit salty to come and say "you should look for the right infor before you speak" whereas we have all consistently appealed for more info to understand the issue;

Should we just hang a banner in this thread saying "pretty please could the devs or someone in the know deign come and have a look or at least just tell us if they are looking at it, if we are mistaken, or anything really !"

When discussing an issue in a game that is standalone, we shouldn't be told "you should do your reading on the engine throughout the history of the forums for the last 10 years and 10 games". This is just ridiculous tbh.

User avatar
fred zeppelin
Colonel
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:29 pm

Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:40 pm

veji1 wrote:Come on loki, Vicberg has been working on the game for 3/4 hard weeks and the long thread here is a testament to his dedication to the game, some of us have tried to help (little we can) by bouncing ideas on and off. It's a bit salty to come and say "you should look for the right infor before you speak" whereas we have all consistently appealed for more info to understand the issue;

Should we just hang a banner in this thread saying "pretty please could the devs or someone in the know deign come and have a look or at least just tell us if they are looking at it, if we are mistaken, or anything really !"

When discussing an issue in a game that is standalone, we shouldn't be told "you should do your reading on the engine throughout the history of the forums for the last 10 years and 10 games". This is just ridiculous tbh.


Agreed. I think some of these oddities have been around so long across many AGEOD games that some folks have come to accept them. But that doesn't make them any less odd.

I, for one, appreciatre the work Vicberg is doing on this. And I continue to be disappointed that the devs still haven't contributed anything to this discussion.

Return to “Wars of Napoleon”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Offworlder and 1 guest