Is a victory a victory in battle...or

[Fouche]

OK, I really enjoy this game. That said I have a question and I think it has been brought up before...sorry if it had. But this has to do with victory results in a battle.

I noted that in the preview of the game the .. Simulation & wargame news, The Flare Path: Diecast Romans, link... the reviewer mentioned a victory at Neapolis he had won as Spartacus, almost his entire army is lost out of 17K with a few hundred left over maybe...the Romans lost over 3K from a force of 40K. Now if I get this right...sometimes the victor is determined by the type of troops involved. The Romans could not afford to lose so many troops to slaves. I have noted some similar results in my game with the Mithridates vs the Romans.

A friend of mine, who also likes the game very much , mentioned to me the following...'I have only played 3-4 turns, but am getting beat up on Spain by the Certorans, or whomever they are. One odd thing is that Pompey, with an army of about 30,000, wiped out an army of the Spanish troops, killing all 7,800 of them while losing only 1,400 of his own men, but I was told this was a Roman defeat. Do you know what that would be?'
My question is this normal? Or is this part of the issue/situation of Romans suffering losses....although in my friend's case I can't see how the loss of only 1,400 out of 30 K be considered a defeat in his case.

Was also thinking maybe if possible a new type of victory should be added to the script for some of these battles. A player can have a Pyrrhic Victory....if he suffers so many losses...

[yellow ribbon]

i fear this question and advise is becoming a classical...

Roman have the highest value in game, regarding possible gain of VP if you kill them (good for barbarian players), highest loss of national moral per 1000 killed Romans (important if playing Romans)
then come less trained /experienced Romans, then barbarians/pirates, then slaves/plebs

thats how the whole balance of combat stats, the VP counting and the events (like needing certain national moral gain from a large battle for anything) is build around.


as parts of why what happens, you can read:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?25748-What-counts-as-a-victory

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?25560-Stalemate-battle-result

if one is not about to destroy the balance, the engine needs to learn, as some named it, strategical loss/win vs tactical loss/win or similar

as for now its simply a fact, that killing Romans is harder, but more valuable, while killing non-Romans is more easy, but brings you few advantage but rest and military control...
too many of players got spoiled by the "i-have-the-longer-gun" theory / or nominal values of battle results

[yellow ribbon]

this is madness?

*dramatical break*

...this is AGEOD/strategy!

[Dragoon!]

One thing I can add is that, and I do get it about the calculations etc, but when the game tells you you lost or stalemated a battle that you routed your opponent and in some cases wiped them out during the pursuit looks like a bug, or something amiss. It's going to stand out to alot of players, as it's just wierd. I've just started to ignore the battle screen and just read the ledger for the pertinent info.

[yellow ribbon]

no, the purpose of elements pursued and destroyed after a battle is WAD (as far i know), it is partially preventing dozens of small stacks laying siege on cities etc

and it has to be taken apart from the normal "taking hits" by fleeing (out of the) a battle, which is given in other titles of Ageod either

EDIT:

my bad, Dragoon, but the Masters are already watching us...

[Dragoon!]

no, the purpose of elements pursued and destroyed after a battle is WAD (as far i know), it is partially preventing dozens of small stacks laying siege on cities etc

err, what I was saying was: when you rout your opponent and the battle result says 'you lost' many people will think there is a bug in the game. Hence these threads.

*ed: my bad too-wasn't trying to come off as argumentitive, or whiny, just trying to make sure my meaning was understood. Thumbs up!

[Franciscus]

err, what I was saying was: when you rout your opponent and the battle result says 'you lost' many people will think there is a bug in the game. Hence these threads.

We understand, Dragoon.

I will discuss this with the Masters.

Thanks for your input

[Fouche]

Thank you for you response Yellow ribbon on my inquiry. Thank you for posting the links. I have read them.... I understand the logic in the design. Will mention this to my friend on his battle results.

I see now there are some comments on this topic..so I have edited my inquiry....

Again I ask is not possible for a time in the future a different script be added for certain victories/defeats? Of course this depends upon the flexibility of the AI. I have been on this forum for some time now and have read what Pocus and others have said of the inherent strengths of the AI used for various games....so indeed it may not be possible. Too bad if cannot...but if it could it would certainly spice up the game and be fun for the gamers.

[yellow ribbon]

the gauntlet is thrown down and we pick it up in any way we can as forumites or, most certainly even the devs....
for now, one can ask you only to acknowledge, that you will win despite the message that you did not win the day.

the balance is there, the message, well, the message...

[Pocus]

There may be indeed something to look at... when you manage to make the other side retreat and the summary indicates you have lost the battle, this is clearly not intended (well Pyrrhic victory may exist though)

[Searry]

A small report about this:

My plan for this turn was to force massive casualties on Sertorius and chase him around the eastern coast. I'm sure if I could destroy his main army, I could end the war in Hispania in a year.

1st battle

Clearly a Pyrrhic victory but nothing decisive. Managed to make Sertorius retreat. -6NM



2nd battle

A clear stalemate. Sertorius' troops are clearly very exhausted by now. Made him retreat. -8NM



3rd battle

A short battle where both armies are very exhausted after a month of hard campaigning. I think it's a loss because I lost those cohorts? Sertorius retreated. -1NM



I would say that those two last battles are stalemates rather than defeats. It would be nice to hear an opinion on this.

[yellow ribbon]

for Endetanorum its the most practical example for the effect of mixed troops

Pompey lost nearly 16.000 Romans, 14 elements look like being line troops, 6 Aux (i do not magnify, can see for sure)

Sertorius has only about 19 Roman elements
plus the 14 supply wagons which do not fight
plus two legatus leg. which are supports either, not active fighting

Sert. 14.700 dead are coming mainly from the lost 11 barbarian elements


[color="#FFFF00"]you killed an equal amount of Barbarians which count less, and got a high penalty for loosing that many Romans...[/color] so far the maths, your NM loss was much higher

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

for the battle reports logic, only the Designers, better to say Pocus might tell sufficiently

[Agesilaus]

How about this battle between Taxiles' 11k, well-supplied and entrenched army versus the under-supplied, 3k attacking legionary army:

Over view:
[ATTACH]19967[/ATTACH]
First Round:
[ATTACH]19963[/ATTACH]
Second Round:
[ATTACH]19964[/ATTACH]
Third Round:
[ATTACH]19965[/ATTACH]

Each round reports that I inflict 0 hearts of damage, while receiving 15-20. My units are clearly engaged (there is actually one phalanx not listed in the round summary, need to scroll down below the cart), but they apparently aren't inflicting strength damage. Yet, you can see that I was destroying elements somehow, because some of the units have little medals next to them.

How did I not simply steam roll the Romans in this battle? I had set it up beautifully; the Romans were going for Byzantium but I re-inforced it in time to turn them back, and then I cut off their retreat with Taxiles. The Romans sat in the middle-ground, and I just sat there waiting for their supply to go down; as you can see, they tried to break out and only had 50% of their units supplied during the battle. Ultimately, Taxiles retreated north and the Romans are heading towards the lightly defended Amphipolis.

EDIT: Also, why do Pirates always appear and nab my cities in Greece? I just demolished the Romans in Thessaly, but then Pirates appeared and occupied Pharsalos. I guess it's my city in a sense (because the Pirates are neutral and the Romans are gone), but I want it to be a Pontic-occupied city and I want to be sure that I get the victory points. I am sitting in Thessaly with my army set to assault, but I can't attack them. I just took Athens, too, and a pirate stack appeared (although thankfully I got the city). In truth, I think Pharsalos might have been taken by the pirates because my assault ended with the Romans at the very edge of defeat, and then the pirates attacked after me and took it, but at any rate I did all the fighting and now I want to kill the pirates. Supply map shows the province as green, so at least I'm not starving (although I wish there was a quick way to see the ultimate amount of supply generated by a province).


EDIT2: Finished the campaign, for what it's worth I scored a Victory! (although I only ranked second)

[yellow ribbon]

for the battle:

you lost 3000, killed over 400

the Legions have some offensive fire ability due to the Pilum, can be tossed 10-15 meters

the Phalanx troops, 17 elements, dont. they are assault-only units
this means, you troops couldnt reach the most Romans, but took some hits.

also both armies are in a defensive posture so that they broke from combat after few rounds


*************
but you did indead well, they were running out of supply and are to be considered the mules of their time, as Legions.

use the tactic, block them, deprive them of supply. and then steamroll
but really, never think a barbarian would have even close to the hitting power as a trained legion, you will always need high losses.

also a good tactic, drive them into cities and besiege them, whenever you can

[Agesilaus]

Pilum is range one right? So there'd be a round of pilum throwing, and then two rounds of stabby stabby. Surely my spear jabbers can do better than 0 hearts of damage? Also, if it's a case of the parties not getting into a melee, it sounds a little strange that the game can have battles where all that happens is pilum-tossing. Legions didn't fight like skirmishers.


Also, how do two armies in defensive posture engage? Aren't they supposed to stare at each other until one adopts an attack posture?

You mentioned barbarians, are Pontic forces barbaric? I mean, I thought they were hellenistic, fighting in drilled phalanxs. If they're irregular barbarians then in the future I will recruit all armies from hellenic cities and colonies.

[yellow ribbon]

yes, but look closer, you have troops with over 150 points cohesion lost

off. fire happens before assault phase, you lost much cohesion and then broke combat in round three

[yellow ribbon]

as you can see the AUX for the Romans did suffer hits. from 9 to six. many elements did not participate in the battle at all

its not clearly shown, something looks to be wrong with the summary line

can you please make a report in the technical aid forum, with log folder, saved game, scripts as it is described

[Agesilaus]

So if I was to do the battle again, what should I have done? In round three my best unit had over 600 cohesion left, so should I have set my commander to hold at all costs, forcing the armies to engage in several rounds of assault?

If I had switched to offensive posture, I would have lost the defence bonus, but I don't understand how the enemy could have been on a defensive posture as well because wouldn't that result in no battle at all?

EDIT: Okay, I will made a thread over there.

[yellow ribbon]

in this case, you better waited till they loose cohesion by lack of supply.
also avoid stacks with supply wagons if you play barbarians, the supply wagons give them additional fire bonus, with it more disruption of your already inferior organization of troops.

play with all possible advantage, like terrain (blue-red) as you did, kill as many as possible and take the cities by sieges if you can.

ignore the message from the battle screen, the Romans hit harder, but they are fewer. and at the moment the AI has problem to gather larger stacks.
so once you fixed larger stacks in besieged cities, or blocked them from movements as you did here already, then very large numbers of barbarians can take the cities.
in open field battle, by brute force, you would always deal with dozens and dozens of dead Romans per tribesmen.

[Agesilaus]

Thanks, I think in the future I will maintain blue-red stance more often so that my men can spend more time in stabbing range. I don't mind losing to the Romans in the battles, but I do mind when I lose and the battle report suggests that I inflicted 0 strength loss.

One last pic:

[ATTACH]19970[/ATTACH]

[Pocus]

Sorry to say that I could not do anything with your saves. The one named 1-MariusSulla870 is not of the right turn and has no backup. The other, 1-MariusSulla871, has enough backups so I can get back to the correct turn, but here the Optimates manage to escape. My guess is that you redid the turn to avoid the battle and so... it is gone.

If you see something, you must put aside immediately the current turn and backup1 folder, otherwise it may be gone... But I'm sure others will report weird results so no worry. If this is not a super rare problem, it will surface again.