Incorrect NM calculation from battle?

[Narwhal]

It is a great game, and with the patch it looks much more like the 7 years war.

If only you could fix the bug with the huge NM lose for minor battles

Worse case in my 1.03 Beta Patch 5 game : 7 NM for 500 dead but 7 cav elements wiped out when my cav was surprised by an Austrian army, same day a major battle involved 40K soldiers vs 40K soldiers, 3K died vs 4K - impact on national morale : 0.

It would be great if you could at least set the impact of losing elements on national morale to be 0. It would not be perfect, but until you find a working equilibrium it would be better.

[Pocus]

Baring some major bug that would affect all games, the rule is fine: each element has an associated VP cost (that can be translated with a coefficient to a NM cost). Each time an element takes one hit, it can trigger (probabilistically) a loss of VP thus a loss of NM.

So perhaps you had a serie of bad luck and that's it?

[Narwhal]

I believe it actually is a major bug, since this happened to me on a regular basis (each time my cav is intercepted and wiped out for instance).

Not completely related, last game I tried, the destruction of (my) Schlesien Armee cost me 38 NM (in 4 battles during the same 15 days !). I suppose Austria won 38 NM, since its national morale is 177.

I actually understand that the destruction of an army that size could generate a massive loss of morale, though, so it is a different issue than losing 7 NM because a cav stack lost 500 men. I undestand you do not lose morale "by element destroyed" but by "hit", so I guess you cannot do the change I propose . Is the impact on NM of hits different depending on the type of units (hits on light cav should have less impact then hits on - say - Grenadiers) ?

Next game I will do, I will try to systematically report the NM change due to battles (with the results of the battle), so either you will see that there is a problem or I will have to admit I had a selective biais and/or a string of bad luck.

[Baris]

This image from my game last month under patch3 beta 5 (unfortunately I dont have save game anymore)

It was in the infantry-cavalry problem thread first I posted.

In the Battle, Gessler brigade attacking Picolomini Force in region of Kolin. In the battle report it is saying this but reality is Gessler having battle with only Gaisruck brigade just seperated from Picolomini Force. Gessler targeting only Gaisruck Brigade. After successful battle Gessler able to destroy many line inf elements of Gaisruck. In the Battle report it says Gessler defeated. Reason is piccolomini coloum start to support ongoing battle. (Gessler didnt fight with any Picolomini force). Battle report shows 29 hit taken by Prussians on the other hand 134 by Gaisruck brigade. Result is 5 NM loss for Prussia.. Gessler lost 500 men while Gaisruck lost 2461..

If formula starts as "hits taken" then what is the probility of VP and NM loss from 29 against 134 hits? also elements loss from Austria as a result. and does element loss has more probality of triggering NM loss after battle?

[ATTACH]12476[/ATTACH]

[Ebbingford]

I bet that if you could go back to this game you would see that your NM has actually gone up by 5 and not down. I think that because your force retreated from the battle the engine automatically assigns a loss to you and the messages then reflect this. Although the NM change is in fact the correct one.
I have seen the same thing happening in AACW as well as in RoP.
See my post here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=185998&postcount=205

and here http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=178401&postcount=19

[Baris]

Interesting.. Your screenshots are similar, than it is only display issue.

I think in your examples you also have battle with 2 or more armies in same region,and your army target the weak one first and when other armies commited your forces automatically retreat(without fighting) because of power odds. Battle report can be misleading about which army you fight against. The one that retreats first regarded as losing battle in battle report despite the success.

Then 5 NM gain is logical after successful battle.
Thanks.

[squarian]

Baring some major bug that would affect all games, the rule is fine: each element has an associated VP cost (that can be translated with a coefficient to a NM cost). Each time an element takes one hit, it can trigger (probabilistically) a loss of VP thus a loss of NM.

So perhaps you had a serie of bad luck and that's it?

Playing solo, I recently had a single cossack rgt overrun and destroyed - at a cost of 4 NM. The principle behind VP/NM is fine, but are you absolutely certain that the VP costs assigned to elements are correct? The VP value of a troop of Eurasian bandits shouldn't be very high - is this something to do with cossacks originally being categorized as real cavalry, perhaps?

Is it possible that error may have crept into the rest of the VP coefficient/NM result equation? I'm wondering, because I've seen some indisputably odd results.

[Pocus]

I would be interested if you have a small battle (tracing data in a huge one is really too long) showing something like the 4 NM change...

[Bertram]

These are zips from before and after the battle which caused Squarian and me to stop our game.... I lose a few hunderd elite soldiers (several depleted regiments) near Berlin and lose 10 NM.
Hope you can read them (beta v4, but that should not be a problem).

[Pocus]

I have checked the values, and lowered by a factor of two the morale change for killing a 'cadre' (a depleted element in your case), but overall there is no bug and it is working as designed.

With the new settings, I would guess that you would lose something around 8 NM and not 11 from your defeat. And this amount seems right to me. Sure, you only lost a few hundreds men, but you lost the cadres of 31 depleted companies!, all being Grenadiers or Elite Infantry. Imagine that... the flags of most of these 31 companies are captured and/or the officers are dead... So don't play down the effect it can have on the morale of the army. This is for me a tremendous blow.

[Bertram]

It might be a tremendous blow in reality, as those cadres would be used to build new regiments. In the game you cant get enough elite soldiers to build those regiments up to strenght, and the units will not accept anything less. So in the game the troops are useless, and were camping near Berlin for about a year.
You can not rebuild the units, you can not merge them, you an not fight with them (they get slaughtered even by militia units, because they have a 10-1 disadvantage in front line numbers) you just play hide and seek with them, because when the enemy finds them they will be killed, and you loose a lot of morale....
There are several systems here working as intended (promotion of soldiers to elite, depletion of units, scarcity of elite soldier replacements, loss of NM when a unit is eliminated) that together give a bad result....

[Pocus]

I hear you, but you can't fix something wrong by touching on something right. Here the fault is not in the morale loss calculation but on something else, like ... I don't know ... perhaps elite elements should be allowed to be used to form up new elements with a reduced morale, or be disbanded. In any case, the problem don't lie on morale calculation.

As for the solution to the elite problem, the quickest way would be to propose additional options I believe, to regulate this 'population'. I'll ask PhilThib if he has some time for that.

[Narwhal]

I think a good solution to the problem would be to allow troops to "dissolve", provided they are in their national territory, which would destroy the unit without NM loss and create in "replacement" 100% (90% ?) of the elements dissolved.

This might be a tad too easy, and I am not a programmer, so...

[Bertram]

I agree Pocus, things are actually working ok, except for the resulting depoplulated regiments.

In my opinion there are several options:
- giving the player the option to merge the elements of a unit into one element. Instead of one unit with 5 elements of 17 men, you would get a unit with one element of 85 men. It would free the spots for replacement regular (or militia) elements.
- have the elite units be able to add regular soldiers, with a experience penalty.
- give the ability to disband regiments without NM penalty (maybe only in the own country, or on depots). Men either added to the replacement pool (this would hurt Austria though, who has plenty of men, but no money) or as replacement chits.

Option 1 seems the most historical, and simulates the influx of new (inexperienced) men into a regiment. It does need some programming (for the option itself, and to check if the elements don't overstack). It would need a rule to decide how many men you can merge (like: can you merge two elements of 80 men to a new one of 160? Or can only elements depleted to 10 or 20% of there strenght be merged?) and it would of course add a new icon.
Option 2 would make elite regiments lose elite status when new men arrive. This might be historical, but players might not like it - it reduces the learning of the units and takes control from the player.
Option 3 seems the easiest one to implement - it just needs a rule that disregards the NM and VP penalties for disbanding units in certain circumstances. It could be misused though - you could disband troops en masse at one place, to get replacements elsewhere.

[Pocus]

We like suggestion 3 ... let me see that...

[Baris]

Ebbingford already mentioned and posted a saved game about wrong message logs and battle reports about NM loss or gain.

In the last Beta 7 There was a battle between Frederick and Joseph.
By looking at the battle results Imperial should have lost the battle. But They won. By looking at the NM of both coalitions in previous turn and next turn it looks Austria lost 9 NM not gained.

[ATTACH]12640[/ATTACH]


Edit: Yes Rafiki you are right Title is also appropriate.

[Rafiki]

[color="Blue"]This issue warrants a thread of its own, since it doesn't relate much to the original topic of http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18737 [/color]

[Bertram]

The NM loss (or gain) and the victory or loss in battle isn't completely locked one-on-one.
You loose NM due to the loss of units. You can win a battle - even when loosing more units - when forcing the enemy to retreat. Especially when the enemy has a larger army.
I think winning or losing also gives some NM, but winning (by forcing the enemy to retreat) and losing a lot of units will still cost you NM.

Not unlogical, though in some circumstances it gives strange results. But you cannot expect the engine to take in consideration all circumstances of the battle.

Oops: to slow.....

[Ebbingford]

Here is a an earlier post with several saves with this NM problem, 1 AACW and 2 from RoP.

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=188203&postcount=238

[Baris]

The NM loss (or gain) and the victory or loss in battle isn't completely locked one-on-one.
You loose NM due to the loss of units. You can win a battle - even when loosing more units - when forcing the enemy to retreat. Especially when the enemy has a larger army.
I think winning or losing also gives some NM, but winning (by forcing the enemy to retreat) and losing a lot of units will still cost you NM.

Not unlogical, though in some circumstances it gives strange results. But you cannot expect the engine to take in consideration all circumstances of the battle.

Oops: to slow.....

Yes, one can win the battle even after losing more elements, . But it can be confusing about which side really won when there is more than 1 stack in the region(or bigger army committed to battle). You have to dig battle report and try to figure out how you lost NM even you have won the battle. Most deciding factor(about NM gain or lose) is who retreats?.. Even one side can destroy elements in battle( VP,NM associated to each element) can take more NM losses as he retreats? . But it can be opposite sometimes. One army can lose the battle and retreats but in the end he can have NM gain because he caused massive damage in battle..
EDIT: Oh ok I have undertand what you mean.

Does that screenshot mean (Austria lost 9000 men while Prussia 5000) I lost 9 NM for losing more men.? If thats the case then Prussia should have lost some NM.

[Generalisimo]

Does that screenshot mean (Austria lost 9000 men while Prussia 5000) I lost 9 NM for losing more men.? If thats the case then Prussia should have lost some NM.

Just remember, each component of a unit, has a VP value associated with it... so, if you lose 1000 men, but you actually lose 8 components, and your enemy loses 2000 men but only 2 components... then, guess who will get the bigger hit?
You can look at the ROP database to see how much VP is associated to each model/component.
So, I will really not bring the "ammount of men" to the discussion... they are just flavour, the engine looks at the models/components of each unit to make the calculations.

[Baris]

Yes there are elements associated with VP and NM. But is the calculation of NM (loss or gain after the battle) is independent from the battle result?(win or lose)

So in theory if I had lost 9000 men while opponent lost 0 men. Would the NM loss, say 20 or 25? or it would be 9 still?. and does retreat(or losing battle) results more NM loss apart from Elements loss?

Questions questions..

[Charles]

I agree Pocus, things are actually working ok, except for the resulting depoplulated regiments.

In my opinion there are several options:
- giving the player the option to merge the elements of a unit into one element. Instead of one unit with 5 elements of 17 men, you would get a unit with one element of 85 men. It would free the spots for replacement regular (or militia) elements.
- have the elite units be able to add regular soldiers, with a experience penalty.
- give the ability to disband regiments without NM penalty (maybe only in the own country, or on depots). Men either added to the replacement pool (this would hurt Austria though, who has plenty of men, but no money) or as replacement chits.

Option 1 seems the most historical, and simulates the influx of new (inexperienced) men into a regiment. It does need some programming (for the option itself, and to check if the elements don't overstack). It would need a rule to decide how many men you can merge (like: can you merge two elements of 80 men to a new one of 160? Or can only elements depleted to 10 or 20% of there strenght be merged?) and it would of course add a new icon.
Option 2 would make elite regiments lose elite status when new men arrive. This might be historical, but players might not like it - it reduces the learning of the units and takes control from the player.
Option 3 seems the easiest one to implement - it just needs a rule that disregards the NM and VP penalties for disbanding units in certain circumstances. It could be misused though - you could disband troops en masse at one place, to get replacements elsewhere.

re replacements: between the regular options and the ability to build depot battalions, we can create enough elite and line infantry replacements to replace historical losses.

I checked my Duffy books on the Prussian and Austrian army and they do not list one regiment which was merged or voluntarily disbanded during the SYW. Remember that regiments in the mid 18th century were a semi-private affair with every officer from company captain on up deriving a nice profit from its operation. None would have liked being forced out of their nice plum positions.

The only option I could see as historical would be #3 since it could be viewed as sending a destroyed regiment back to be rebuilt which did happen. However, for the reasons above, I think there should be a cost for disbanding the unit, so the player thinks twice about it, perhaps 1/2 the NM and VP cost that would be paid if the unit was destroyed in combat? I would also limit it to same rules as replacements, namely, you can only disband if the unit is supplied and occupying a depot.

[Soderini]

I'd go for a different version of option 2: do not promote infantery to elite. I'd even go as far as to eliminate elite infantery altogether and instead give some experience levels to certain regiments. Units that gain experience would get better stats that way, and could still recieve regular replacements.
It would not only solve the problem, it would also be historically correct since the performance of most regiments declined during the war instead of getting better.
As for the player who would complain: sparing your regiments was one of the reasons why commands tended to avoid battle. Duffy in Instrument of War repeatedly states that Daun and the Austrians in particular were very keen to preserve their army to counter any threats that might appears once Prussia was defeated.

[Baris]

I think Elite status is a somehow balancing obstacle for regulars to prevent them to be owerpowered with experience. I agree about disbanding units in depots can be implemented with some cost. There can be other options like some depleted elite elements can be replenished from regular replacements. There can be a rule associated with it. If a unit with many elite elements depleted then some of them can be replaced from regular elements(if no elite replacement available). but should be very limited.
As the depleted elements gain strenght with full supply and replacements, number of regular replacements should be adequate for some Elite also.
But weak argument compared to disbanding.

[Anthropoid]

I checked my Duffy books on the Prussian and Austrian army and they do not list one regiment which was merged or voluntarily disbanded during the SYW. Remember that regiments in the mid 18th century were a semi-private affair with every officer from company captain on up deriving a nice profit from its operation. None would have liked being forced out of their nice plum positions.

No doubt you are right. But that would also lead one to conclude that the player should not be able to move the units regiments around to be commanded by different brigade and corps commanders too, right?

I like the effort to reflect political constraints on wild military reorganization at the top echelon promotion levels (top generals being pissed off and lowering Nm when they are bypassed for promotion to Army commander). I like the idea of a game engine that imposes similar constraints on the player at all levels. But if it is going to be done it should be consistent no?

At present, the game allows the player to do all kinds of reorganization of his military at the middle level (moving rgt between corps and brigades) with zero cost, but with costs at the high level (forming army that bypasses seniority) and at the low level (unable to merge, dissolve badly depleted units, which as it has been pointed out, stop being useful and represent a net Nm-loss risk, though it is true it remains possible to build enough elite companies to replenish them in an ideal world too).

[Charles]

All good points.

re: brigades, I am not sure where that concept comes from. From what I have read, neither the Prussian or Austrian Army had any organization higher than the regiment.

A force of several regiments, whether an army, wing or detached force was always formed on an ad hoc basis, sometimes even on the fly in the middle of battle.

I presumed the brigade and corps concept was a way to reflect the influence of the officer corps as a whole, since on average, Prussian officers were more professional and competent than their Austrian counterpart, but maybe the developpers can explain their rationale.

[OneArmedMexican]

If I understand this thread correctly, the real problem has been identified as a lack of elite replacements (leaving the player with depleted elements). So what needs fixing is the replacement system.

Therefore, there might be a fourth solution: reintroduce the replacement panel from ACW.

It just doesn't seem very logical: In RoP the player is free to recruit new regiments at will (the only constraint being money, conscripts and war supplies). On the other hand, in order to get replacements you have to spend EP and prioritise with other political and military options.

This system just isn't balanced. Why should it be more difficult to get a few men to replenish an existing batallion than to build a whole new regiment?

And why should I have to make a choice between getting a new general, fresh supplies or some replacements, when no such constraint applies to the creation of new regiments?

In my opinion the logical choice should be: Do I want to spend my conscripts on replacements or do I recruit new regiments?

[squarian]

In RoP the player is free to recruit new regiments at will (the only constraint being money, conscripts and war supplies). On the other hand, in order to get replacements you have to spend EP and prioritise with other political and military options.

Not entirely correct - grenadier (elite) and regular depot bns may be recruited a la AACW, each of which provides three replacement elements.

I would agree that the mixture of two systems is odd: one may buy replacements and new units by expenditure of EPs (i.e. WIA system) and/or via the recruitment screen by expenditure of MP/$/WS (i.e. AACW system). Since the cost in different resources are not exactly the same, it can be a bit gamey deciding whether to gain replacements one way or the other. And it's not at all clear why only elite and regular infantry should have depot bns.

But that being said, I'm not sure you've correctly diagnosed the problem.

[OneArmedMexican]

I have to admit my point of view may be prejudiced: The replacement system has been a personal annoyance of mine ever since AGEOD changed it after ACW.

Still, I think, the lack of sufficient replacements is at least part of the problem. With easier acces to replacements, those NM losses wouldn't occur in the first place.