Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Battle Calculation with Equipment
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Battle Calculation with Equipment

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Sene View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 19 Oct 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sene Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 12:01
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

The range is because you can't kill half a soldier - so anything between 9.5 and 10.4999 rounds to 10.

OK  I'm not too sure how Illy rounding up algorythm works so I took it from 0.9 to 0.11 just in case. But so be it, let's assume you are right for it follows general math rules.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

I wasn't playing the 'get the exact' number game! The exercise was to demonstrate the calculation not get a perfect kill.

Hucbold, there's one good attribute of any solid knowledge: it enables us to get precisely expected outcome over and over again. What does your example demonstrate? You killed a host of rats and then tried to work back the attack values. Well, anyone can kill a host of rats and anyone can come up with some version of what was going on there. With all my greatest respect to you efforts your attempt wasn't a big deal. And I would like to emphasize it once again: I showed you I knew EXACTLY what was going to happen, and it did happen. In order to make a 1 survivor battle one must put exact number of troops. Well, there's an errand of 3-4 soldiers when attacking a big stack, but gessing the number would still be like winning a lottery. And I would like to see if you could do the same thing. 'Cause if you can, we would face quite an interesting situation here.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Now you admit you got the wrong number of casualties. You overstated the attack force (but corrected slightly by pulling the 10% pres inside the calculation)

I never admitted having wrong value, I said one of us is mistaken. It could be due to me miscalculating the outcome or you not giving the correct picture. Now I'm not saying you are lying, you could have mistaken too. Unfortunately, the bonuses can't be seen from the battle report so you must agree both scenarios are feasible.

Cheers
Back to Top
Hucbold View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hucbold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 14:52
Well no, I'm not lying. I did post the report. I argued backwards for demonstration purposes - if I were to do the same again and use a different formula you would have a point! (I am going to do the same again below, using the same formulas). 

I find it interesting that you disregard the math - what's your explanation for the disparity in your result?

Here's the next setup  - a host of rats on a big hill - so the rats get a positive boost and I get a negative one.

Rat details:
ratling 490 6 2940
rat 233 8 1864
dis rat 102 12 1224
6028
by 1.1 6630.8

This time I sent 4 divisions with a total of 80 men. The men had hill spears and the four commanders had upland plate. Again pres was used

Here's my calculation
num hero base weapon armour terrain total
4 3965 15860 1.2 1.2 -0.15 51545
80 65 5200 1.2 -0.15 10660
62205
pres 68425.5
the formula in the total field is tot = base*(1+weapon+armour+terrain)

and here's yours (I think)

num hero base weapon armour pres total
4 3965 15860 1.2 1.2 0.1 55510
80 65 5200 1.2 0.1 11960
67470
terrain 57349.5

mine gives a kill ratio of 0.0969, yours gives .1146

Here's the report
Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: BenjaminKnights Knight1Damaged for 9, 591 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20119
Commander: BoadiciaKnights Knight1Damaged for 9, 591 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: BlaiseKnights Knight1Damaged for 9, 591 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: BernardoKnights Knight1Damaged for 9, 591 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218


Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Troops:Diseased Rats Diseased Rats1021020
Troops:Ratlings Ratlings4904900
Troops:Rats Rats2332330

Note that the commanders are damaged by 9 (not 11). However if I multiply by .0969 I would get 7.752 losses which would round to 8. In fact 7 were killed (I believe that they chop to 2 decimal places giving 80*.09 = 7.2 which rounds to 7). Your prediction would be 9.24 i.e 9.

I believe your calculations come very close because
1. You're a dwarf (cannot see the blackboard - sorry, joke!) and you use mainly infantry. Infantry have no negative terrain values - so swapping the 10% pres bonus inside the brackets and a terrain bonus of 5,10,15% outside the brackets does not make a huge difference.
2. You're not equipping soldiers, so the size of the error is limited to the commanders.

I'm using cav so the negative terrain modifiers make a much bigger difference to my outcomes.

So here's the next test/challenge.
You find something to kill in buildings with your stals (40% terrain bonus). Equip your troops as well as your commanders - guess it'll have to be ss for positive effect. Tell me the troop numbers and equipment on both sides. I will predict the casualties. If I'm wrong, I'll buy you double the replacement equipment lost.



Back to Top
Hucbold View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hucbold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 14:58
Sorry - I left out the charge. Here's the table

num hero base weapon armour charge terrain total
4 3965 15860 1.2 1.2 0.15 -0.15 53924
80 65 5200 1.2 0.15 -0.15 11440
65364
pres 71900.4

giving a kill ratio of 0.9222 (better)

and here's yours
num hero base weapon armour charge pres total
4 3965 15860 1.2 1.2 0.15 0.1 57889
80 65 5200 1.2 0.15 0.1 12740
70629
terrain 60034.65

giving a kill ratio of 0.11045


Edited by Hucbold - 05 Jun 2018 at 15:00
Back to Top
Sene View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 19 Oct 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sene Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 19:31
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Well no, I'm not lying. I did post the report

Hucbold, let's be honest: this doesn't prove anything. Let me make it clear: it's not that I do not believe you, it's justt I prefer to know for sure. Hence I only believe facts. While I do not have proof you lied I by default assume you tell the truth, but it still leaves the chance of the opposite. Forum post is not a fact for figures can be easily altered while during posting.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

I find it interesting that you disregard the math

That was the second time you had blamed me for something I've never said and done. A friendly advise if I may: refrain from making up quotes and deeds unless you want to be regarded as a mere troll. Let's keep to facts. Your words were: "my attack score needed to be in the range 113,022.95 to 124,983.06". After that you provided the calculations that showed the result was in the range. There is no actual proof it was the real attack score. It could've been 115k, 120k, 123k. How am I to know you were right? No facts, man. No facts - no result, sorry. On the contrary, I presented the rep that showed next to 100% preciseness. In the first rep i presented the def score of 15 414 NPCs, it was 279624.1, and my attack score of 1901 units and 5 commas, which was 279 628.4. The difference was  0.00156% (and you never tried to comment it in the first place). 1 per miller per cent, man. One. Per mille. Per cent. Now you come up with a rep where attack score is 10 times bigger than a def score and claiming you succeeded there - ah, c'mon! Are you serious??? Let's be fair: who's more precise here: me hitting a dime 300 yards away with an arrow or you hittting a 100x100 yards square with a nuclear bomb and crying "I hit it!!" Well, you did, man... 


Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

what's your explanation for the disparity in your result

It's not me who is to be asked. Your perfomance was different from your words, how am I to know what was wrong. The wild guess it that you forgot to equip some or all of your troops, but who knows. It's either skills, or terrain, or crafted or biome issue. Pres is less likely, its input is not that significant

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

giving a kill ratio of 0.9222 (better)... and here's yours... giving a kill ratio of 0.11045

First, that's the third time you've made it up. Second, it's utterly funny that by mere accident you've got completely correct results. It was because of terrain penalty value neautralizing the charge one, -15 + 15. As a result, the general mofidier consited of nothing but pres bonus, and you correctly multiplied it by the crafted one. Here is the calculation:

The def score is 6630.8, no objection here.

The attack score:

1) Commaders: basic 3965, 5 dealing 15860. General modifier: 1+ (15charge - 15terrain + 10pres + 0 biome)/100 = 1.1; crafted one: 1 + (60*2spear + 60*2armor)/100 = 3.4. Total attack = 15860* 1.1 *3.4 = 59316.4;
2) troops: basic 65, Gm is the same, crafted = 1 + 60*2spears /100 = 2.2. total attack = 65 * 80 * 1.1 * 2.2 = 12584;
3) total attack 59316.4 + 12584 = 71900.4

Casualties rate 6630.8 /  71900.4 = 0.0922 = 9.22% At least something wew agree on:)

Now it's either you do some serios battle trying to match your attack with the NPC def, or I loose interest in this arguing. Let those guys reading the forum make the decision on who's right here.

Lucks there



Edited by Sene - 05 Jun 2018 at 19:32
Back to Top
Hucbold View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hucbold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 23:54
Please don't get ratty with me and accuse me of lying. All the figures are there and anyone can check their own kills. I'm not trying to troll you or confuse anyone. You're the biggest killer in Illy and I respect that. I'm only the 15th biggest killer - but this is an argument about figures. 

Your latest post clarifies your formula for me - I had misunderstood it and we agree on the figures, because the 15% charge bonus cancels the -15% terrain bonus. We both get 71900.4. I've done a spreadsheet -

comm men total
num 4 80
hero 3965 65
base 15860 5200
weapon 120% 120%
armour 120% 0%
horse 0% 0%
charge 15% 15%
terrain -15% -15%
pres 10% 10%
hucm1           3.40           2.20
hucm2           1.10           1.10
huctot 59316.4 12584 71900.4
senem1 3.4 2.2
senem2 1.1 1.1
sene tot 59316.4 12584 71900.4
NPCscore 6630.8
HucKR 0.092222
SeneKR 0.092222
Hucdead 7.377761
Senedead 7.377761
Actual 7

We both believe there are two multipliers. 

I believe the first multiplier is (1+weapon+armour+horse+charge+terrain) and the second is (1+prestige). I don't know where the biome college bonus goes.

You, I think, believe the first multiplier is (1+weapon+armour + horse) and the second is (1+charge+terrain+pres+biome).

In this case they come out the same. Now lets go back to the first example and heres the table:

comm men total
num 5 100
hero 3965 65
base 19825 6500
weapon 120% 120%
armour 120% 120%
horse 10%
charge 15% 15%
terrain 30% 30%
pres 10% 10%
hucm1           3.95           3.85
hucm2           1.10           1.10
huctot 86139.63 27527.5 113667.1
senem1           3.50           3.40
senem2 1.55 1.55
sene tot 107550.6 34255 141805.6
NPCscore 11840.5
HucKR 0.104168
SeneKR 0.083498
Hucdead 10.41682
Senedead 8.34981
Actual 10

The point here is that I am correctly predicting the kill number whereas you are out. Repeat the experiment - let others fill in their numbers for their equipment and kills and lets see which has a better predictive ability. I'm not crying 'I hit it', I'm saying that my math predicts the kills correctly.

The other point I'm making to you is that if you are always or usually using infantry (positive terrain bonuses) and only equipping the commanders, then both our results will come out very close. However with big negatives like -30% for cav on some terrains and fully equipped armies, the answers will be very different and that all affects the argument whether it is economical to fully equip a 50k knight army - which is the subject I actually want to address.

ATM I seem to be surrounded by hosts of rats and packs or smaller of other things but I am looking for reasonable size kills on forest and mountains to support my argument - whatever degree of overkill or underkill does not matter - even if I lose a battle my formula will predict the NPC survivors too.

Mistakes do happen (in your analysis you describe 5 commanders but correctly multiply by 4 - a typo but I'm making no deal of that) but to suggest that I am lying or must have made a mistake because my outcomes differ from your predictions is demeaning. I will produce multiple repetitions of the exercise enough times to  verify the experiment as quickly as it is possible to. In fact on one I will misequip a division to further verify.
Back to Top
Sene View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 19 Oct 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sene Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 06:06
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

Please don't get ratty with me and accuse me of lying.

Well, another one of your fancies about me doing something I didn't. I will try to explain myself for the very last time: dear Hucbold, I'm trying to be purely, perfectly rational. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being rational involves: 
- dealing with facts, not speculations;
- leaving out emotions, reasoning withing 'cause-consequence' logic (not sure what it's called in English);
- accepting all reasonable possibillites rather than "right/wrong" cliches.

For the last time: I've never said you were lying, I said you could've been wrong and so far you haven't prove that's a wrong statement. And honestly, 'lying or mistaking?' issue doesn't bother me much. It's "are you right and what proof is there?" instead.

Now is there a possibility you were wrong when posting all the battle circumstances? Yes, there is. It's only a possibility, but it's there. Are there facts showing you calculated EXACT attack value, not some vague range? "No, the arn't. Both reports produced range values, with ranges being quite large to make the errand reasonably serious to question the outcome of the calculations". So is there a possibility the actual attack value was different from what you calculated? 'YES, it's quite probable'. In both cases. So is it possible you were wrong in your assumpitons? The answer is "YES, it's quite probable" again.

No let's estimate my 2 reps: is there a possibility I was wrong when posting the battle cicumstances? "Yes, of course". Are there facts showing I calculated the EXACT attack value? the answer is "YES, beyond reasonable doubts. It's been proved twice by attack value exactly matching the def score with both values being reasonably big in order to make them highly unlikely to be guessed". So Is there  possibility I was wrong in my calculations? "The probability is extremely low, next to impossible".

Please tell me where my logic fails. I'd be most gratedul if you could point my mistakes.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

You're the biggest killer in Illy and... I'm only the 15th...

We both know it matters not.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

The point here is that I am correctly predicting the kill number whereas you are out... I'm saying that my math predicts the kills correctly

The point here is that "pre-" in "predicting" means "before" or "in adavance". What you did is wrote a couple of 'post-mortems" that - again - only produced values fitting withing the large errand range. Ther is no proof your assumptions are correct (though it's possible they might be) or you might've known the exact outcome before the attack. Sending an army approximately 10 times or more stronger than the defender and saying "I knew it would win" is also a kind of "prediction", but doesn't bear any significant knowledge to me.

Let's rationally estimate our input:

S: presented 2 battle reports proving exact attack values. Estimated 2 rival's reports, one estimate lies within the possible values range, one is presumably out.
H: presented 2 battle reports showing wide range values, estimate fits in the ranges in both cases. Didn't try to estimate rival's reports.

Nuff said. Please show something more solid to get back in the discussion.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

The other point ... is that if you are always or usually using infantry...only equipping the commanders

That could hardly be an issue. The battle algorythm deals with pure digits, races or troop types are only different attack values and terrain modifiers, but governed by the same formulas. Thus deathpacks and marshals show absolutely identical results both being cavalry and having the same attack value of 59. Personally checked. The only difference is when using racial mounts 

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

...but to suggest that I am lying

...sigh...


Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

...must have made a mistake because my outcomes differ from your predictions is demeaning

1. No "must", just "might". Hucbold, do you always believe people who say something different from what you know? Never question their statements, never try to find out who's wrong, no?
2. Demeaning. You are heading into some emotional fields I am totally not interested in. I am sorry if yo ufind my words demening or humiliating but if you demand your opponent to believe your because presenting proof is 'demeaning' than honestly we have nothing to discuss.

Regards,

S.
Back to Top
Hucbold View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2015
Location: Meilla
Status: Offline
Points: 113
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hucbold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 12:02
I'm not sure why we're bouncing off each other. My approach to the problem was/is
1. the devs have not told us exactly what the algorithm is.
2. What you do get is a battle report that tells you what was killed.
3. So one can conjecture what the algorithm is - using the hints the devs have given us.
4. If a conjectured algorithm gives the correct kill ratio it is a candidate worthy of consideration.
5. If it does not it must be wrong.
I believe that is rational - a standard scientific approach.

On the two samples I provided, my conjecture worked. Yours 'failed' on one of them. To not reject your conjecture we need to come up with an explanation as to what was wrong with the experiment . Your suggestion is that the setup I claimed is not, for whatever reason, what I sent out. Okay. What I claimed was that I sent out all troops fully equipped with terrain gear and in addition a horse for the commanders and applied pres. Assuming your formula to be correct, the 'alleged' setup would have an attack score of 141805.6 and the max score that would give the correct kill ratio would be 112484.8. So my error would have to be greater than 17598.76 (12.4% of the total) up to 29320.85 (20.6% of the total). That's a big error. I can still check the pres bonus - its expiry date covers the date of the attack. So different equipment? Well the returned army is still there. Its commanders have the alleged equipment and its troops have the equipment and are fully equipped. The terrain type is as I stated. So I cannot see the error.

If I have misrepresented what you said, I am sorry. We appear to use language differently and in some places I do not find your exposition clear and have tried to interpret as best I can. My point was that sending any army against any other army is a valid experiment  and that a workable hypothesis has to predict the kills correctly in all cases. BTW I avoided boar spears as there are other people saying the figures on those are wrong.

I'm going to sign off at that. Others can do their own experiments. Good luck with your hunting - not that you need luck.
Back to Top
Sene View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 19 Oct 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 59
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sene Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 13:06
Well we seemto mainly disagree on point 4: in order to minimize error probability, the difference between attack and defence score should be minimized. The closer losses ratio to 100%, the more precise the outcome is. I'd still say I'm not convinced by your figures, they leave too much space for speculations.

Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

So I cannot see the error.

Since I have no means of checking the input data - ok, let's assume my method somewhy didn't work in that case.

I offer a tie:) Thanks for the conversaiotn in any case.
Back to Top
Tensmoor View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2015
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Tensmoor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 13:56
This has been an extremly interesting conversation to follow - many thanks to both of you Thumbs Up
Back to Top
Ten Kulch View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Location: Fellandire
Status: Offline
Points: 678
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ten Kulch Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 18:01
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:

in order to minimize error probability, the difference between attack and defence score should be minimized. The closer losses ratio to 100%, the more precise the outcome is.

I rather disagree with that theory. The closer you are to evenly matched, the more likely you are to trigger corner case scenarios like fractional troop rounding and the effect of multiple divisions. These factors disappear in any battle of meaningful size, but they will serve to muddy your results data on the micro scale.

The most valid way to sort out the primary effects would be with two armies of significant size, where one incurs perhaps 20% damage from the other.
Check out my blog, Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.