Print Page | Close Window

Battle Calculation with Equipment

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10471
Printed Date: 22 Sep 2018 at 08:15
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Battle Calculation with Equipment
Posted By: Torn Sky
Subject: Battle Calculation with Equipment
Date Posted: 22 May 2018 at 03:19
So I made this attack, T2 Spear Commander with 7 Heroism, Boar Spear, Elite on plains

Figuring base attack of 817 -16%(plains) -32%(boar spear) +240%(boar spear) = 1586 attack
475 Kobolds base 9 -16%(plains) = 3591 attack

5177 total attack against 5172 Defense per Digioso calculator

after the attack i only did around 88% damage or 4554 damage

4554 - 3591 = 963 damage done by my commander

so 817 -16% = 686.28 +40% = 960.8

so the base boar spear is +20% (+40% roughly with elite status) or is my napkin math wrong


Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: Second SpearClan Guardsmen Clan Guardsman1Damaged for 93, 0 health remains.
Troops:Kobold Cohorts Kobold Cohorts2002000
Troops:Kobold Cohorts Kobold Cohorts2752750


Despite your troops' defeat, word reaches you concerning the defenders' forces in this battle.

Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Troops:Scaled Chargers Scaled Chargers15713819
Troops:Armoured Chargers Armoured Chargers74668
Troops:Heavy Chargers Heavy Chargers45396







Replies:
Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 22 May 2018 at 05:50
Do the terrain modifiers add or multiply with equipment modifiers? I have always assumed multiply, although both types of math are used in Illyriad.

Also, the malfunction with boar spears has been discussed extensively.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 22 May 2018 at 05:53
The http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/combat-equipment-and-divisional-bonuses_topic6486_post97096.html#97096" rel="nofollow - boar spear malfunction discussion.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 22 May 2018 at 12:53
Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

Do the terrain modifiers add or multiply with equipment modifiers? I have always assumed multiply, although both types of math are used in Illyriad.

Also, the malfunction with boar spears has been discussed extensively.

That what im wanting to know is if the math is right or missed a variable mainly. I was told the +animal bonus weapons were off thats why i ran the numbers before and after.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 31 May 2018 at 19:10
1. Through my all years in Illy i have learned that:

total attack = basic attac * general multiplier * crafted multiplier,
where

1.
a) Basic attack of a unit is basicly a basic attack of a unit (eg knight's BA = 65, stalwart's = 45),
b) commander basic attack = UBA * (1+ HL*6), where

UBA - unit's basic attack  - the attack score of the unit the commander is recruited from;
HL - Heroism skill level;

2. General multiplier is comprised of every bonus out there but crafted:

Division bonus attack skill
Terrain;
Biome;
Prestige;

the multiplier is = 1 + (DBA% + TB% + BB% + PB%)/100

3. crafted multiplier is  1 + (armor bonus% + weapon bonus% + mount bonus%)/100;
or when elite: CM = 1 + (armor bonus% + weapon bonus% + mount bonus%)*2/100;


so lets assume a classic situation: you deploy an army of 61 knight troops lead by 5 elite knight commanders on plains, with only commanders equipped with pains spears and plainsman armor and heavy horses, no biome and pres bonus on,all commanders have heroism 10 and charge level 15;

so each of your commander's attack will consist of:

a) basic attack: 65*(1+ 10*6) = 65*61 = 3965

b) general multiplier consists of: terran 30%, charge 15%, biome 0%, pres 0%, total of

GM = 1 + (30 + 15 + 0 +0)/100 = 1.45;

c) crafted multiplier: plains spear +60%, plains armor +60%, heavy horse +5%, all elite;
CM = 1 + (60 + 60 +5)*2/100 = 3.5;

so your total (knight) commander's attack will be:

TCA = 3965 * 1.45 * 3.5 = 20 122.375;

5 commanders will do: 20 122.375 * 5 = 100 611.875;

61 knight troops gonna deal: 65 * 61 * 1.45 * 1 (unequipped) = 5 749.25;

and your total army's attack is:

TAA = 100 611.875 + 5 749.25 = 106 361.125.

I've checked this script on virtually thoudands of attacks during last 5 years and it did work all the time. But I haven't been too active during last few months so unless the devs have changed the rules recently it all should be true.

PS A bit tipsy atm and English is ot my mother tongue so sorry guys if it's not coming too clear. tried my best you know, hope it helps.


Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 31 May 2018 at 23:19
Thank you, that was clear enough


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2018 at 03:24
It still works it seems, proof attached:)

heroim 10, bloodlust 15, terrain +30, biome +30, pres on;
silversteel swords +150, forest armor +60

From: System

Subject: FW: Victorious battle against NPC units's forces at [@l=219|-1388|41|113|7] by Sene's forces from Acoron
Received: 31 May 2018 19:49
Original Message:
Two opposing forces clash against each other.

Heavily wooded terrain spells difficulty for ranged units and cavalry. Infantry units find they have a large advantage here.

Like the attackers, these thick forests do not provide much assistance for anyone except your footsoldiers, who take great pleasure in the extra cover afforded to them.

Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: Yozz[@i=5|61] Stalwart1Damaged for 100, 200 health remains.
Troops:[@i=5|61] Stalwarts150115010
Commander: Leshiy[@i=5|61] Stalwart1Damaged for 100, 200 health remains.
Troops:[@i=5|61] Stalwarts1001000
Commander: Sohatiy[@i=5|61] Stalwart1Damaged for 100, 200 health remains.
Troops:[@i=5|61] Stalwarts1001000
Commander: Voron[@i=5|61] Stalwart1Damaged for 100, 200 health remains.
Troops:[@i=5|61] Stalwarts1001000
Commander: Koteiko[@i=5|61] Stalwart1Damaged for 100, 200 health remains.
Troops:[@i=5|61] Stalwarts1001000


Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Troops:[@i=5|146] Spitting Crawlers8048040
Troops:[@i=5|147] Crawler Queens6076070
Troops:[@i=5|144] Small Poisonous Crawlers970097000
Troops:[@i=5|145] Adult Crawler430343030



Your victorious troops retrieved:
0 [@i=4|1]
from the slain foes.



Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2018 at 12:00
If your stalwarts had 100 health not 300, would they be damage by 100 or 33 health in same scenario?


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2018 at 12:47
No, Dabrelis, hit points loss is equal to troops losses percentage. 23% losses mean 23 HP loss for all commanders in the army. Levels, experience, skills or anything but loss rate matter not. Hence here commanders lost 100 HP


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 01:58
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:

1. Through my all years in Illy i have learned that:

total attack = basic attac * general multiplier * crafted multiplier,
where

1.
a) Basic attack of a unit is basicly a basic attack of a unit (eg knight's BA = 65, stalwart's = 45),
b) commander basic attack = UBA * (1+ HL*6), where

UBA - unit's basic attack  - the attack score of the unit the commander is recruited from;
HL - Heroism skill level;

2. General multiplier is comprised of every bonus out there but crafted:

Division bonus attack skill
Terrain;
Biome;
Prestige;

the multiplier is = 1 + (DBA% + TB% + BB% + PB%)/100

3. crafted multiplier is  1 + (armor bonus% + weapon bonus% + mount bonus%)/100;
or when elite: CM = 1 + (armor bonus% + weapon bonus% + mount bonus%)*2/100;


so lets assume a classic situation: you deploy an army of 61 knight troops lead by 5 elite knight commanders on plains, with only commanders equipped with pains spears and plainsman armor and heavy horses, no biome and pres bonus on,all commanders have heroism 10 and charge level 15;

so each of your commander's attack will consist of:

a) basic attack: 65*(1+ 10*6) = 65*61 = 3965

b) general multiplier consists of: terran 30%, charge 15%, biome 0%, pres 0%, total of

GM = 1 + (30 + 15 + 0 +0)/100 = 1.45;

c) crafted multiplier: plains spear +60%, plains armor +60%, heavy horse +5%, all elite;
CM = 1 + (60 + 60 +5)*2/100 = 3.5;

so your total (knight) commander's attack will be:

TCA = 3965 * 1.45 * 3.5 = 20 122.375;

5 commanders will do: 20 122.375 * 5 = 100 611.875;

61 knight troops gonna deal: 65 * 61 * 1.45 * 1 (unequipped) = 5 749.25;

and your total army's attack is:

TAA = 100 611.875 + 5 749.25 = 106 361.125.

I've checked this script on virtually thoudands of attacks during last 5 years and it did work all the time. But I haven't been too active during last few months so unless the devs have changed the rules recently it all should be true.

PS A bit tipsy atm and English is ot my mother tongue so sorry guys if it's not coming too clear. tried my best you know, hope it helps.

I'm sorry to disagree but you do NOT multiply the equipment bonus by the terrain bonus. I've also checked this over long periods until I correctly predicted kills in advance. Take a human Knight for example. Its basic attack is 65. The correct terrain gear adds 60% for the weapon and 60% for the armour - this comes to +39 for each REGARDLESS of terrain. Ignore all other bonuses for the moment.
So on plains 65+39+39 + 19.5(terrain) = 162.5 (not 185.9 as if multiplied)
and on large mountains 65+39+39 - 19.5 = 123.5 (not 100.1)
Note that the difference is not as big as you might instinctively think and it is NOT insane to send cav up mountains! if properly geared.
Remember also that a terrain spear costs the same to make no matter which troop type you put it on - so the decision to use gear is much easier for a human knight than it is for 'in-between' troop types and nearly impossible for a one million kobold army. 
There are a lot of misunderstandings about equipment and charts that draw conclusions that are only valid if no equipment is used - my advice to you is to analyse your battle reports until you can do the calculation yourself - experiment - predict - analyse. You will find that you can get EXACT results.
If you have a battle report and can tell me the equipment used, I can do the calculation for you a couple of times.

PS: - this really matters when you use equipment on ALL your troops, not just commanders.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 02:05
The main issues with using equipment tend to be economic ones- equipment is rather expensive in large quantities, especially when you'll lose most of it attacking and then any that does survive may be collected by your enemies.

If you have deep pockets, then yeah. equipment makes sense.... if you don't then it should be used sparingly when it will have the most impact.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 02:19
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

The main issues with using equipment tend to be economic ones- equipment is rather expensive in large quantities, especially when you'll lose most of it attacking and then any that does survive may be collected by your enemies.

If you have deep pockets, then yeah. equipment makes sense.... if you don't then it should be used sparingly when it will have the most impact.

... but the bigger the score you're augmenting the more the economics work for you. Remember that the bonus is not just bigger kill ratios but smaller armies too - equipment has no maintenance cost - and faster recovery times - you can make equipment in parallel to building troops. Kill and craft your own stuff - keeps you busy while waiting for the paint to dry.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 03:04
So, to use your example of the knight on mountains:
A knight at current centrum prices costs 3237
A mountain spear costs 8200 and gives a 60% bonus
Therefore a mountain spear removes the need to spend 1942.2 on knight building equipment.
This leaves 6257.8 in cost from the spear.
Now, assuming you have a 50% cost reduction on troop upkeep, a knight costs 2 per hour in upkeep.
Therefore a equipping a knight with a spear is worth it if the knight you would be equipping it to was around for 3129 hours or more.... which is over 130 days.... 

If you do the same but with elite divisions used, then that figure falls to just under 90 days.

Not really worth it imo.

You may have faster recovery times but if you are at war then you can't be spending troops hunting meaning you need to buy the ingredients to make the equipment... meaning you need deep pockets.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 03:31
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree but you do NOT multiply the equipment bonus by the terrain bonus.

I'm not too sorry to disagree with you, Hucbold, for the debates give birth to the truth:) I take it you will not believe my words if I just say "you are wrong". So let's post our battle reports and see whose method works better. I'd love to see my fails if there are any, but up to this date i've made virtually thousands  victorious hunting runs with 1 survivor, about 10 with zero survivors, which showed calculations worked perfectly right.

Let me start wtih posting this one, made the day before yesterday. I'll make few more and you make some too, lets compare them




Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 03:40
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

The main issues with using equipment tend to be economic ones

In hunting crafted is only used on commanders, troops are never equipped. Not sure about PvP but I'd say it must be some extremely desperate situation to use thousands of equipment units to loose in a single battle. Well, unless one is defending a town. But generally I guess no one casres to equip troops too, far too expensive. Remeber "Brave Heart"? "Send Irish first: arrows cost money, Irish cost nothing". Well, this cynical approach rules Illy too: troops cost pennies, whyequip[ them you you could just use more troops


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 07:03
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

I'm sorry to disagree but you do NOT multiply the equipment bonus by the terrain bonus. 



That's a fresh one. 4 commanders, 3 elite, 1 non-elite. Pres bonus on top to make calcs a bit more complex, but no biome. PLainsman gear, heavy horses, Heroism 10, Charge 15 for all. Ifyou could provide your calculations Hucbold I'd be most curious to learn them. And if you could provide one of your battle reports that illustrate your outcome prediction skill - I'd be both most curious and most grateful too:)

Great lucks and good hunting, pals


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 07:12
ah, not sure why those images become so blurry after upload... Anyone could advise anything here plz?



this one looks a bit better i guess..


Posted By: Dabrelis
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 14:19
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:

No, Dabrelis, hit points loss is equal to troops losses percentage. 23% losses mean 23 HP loss for all commanders in the army. Levels, experience, skills or anything but loss rate matter not. Hence here commanders lost 100 HP

If they had only 100 HP to start with, they would be dead?
Is that what you are saying?


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 20:42
Originally posted by Dabrelis Dabrelis wrote:

 If they had only 100 HP to start with, they would be dead?
Is that what you are saying?

Totally true:)


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 21:33
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Therefore a equipping a knight with a spear is worth it if the knight you would be equipping it to was around for 3129 hours or more.... which is over 130 days.... If you do the same but with elite divisions used, then that figure falls to just under 90 days.

Mountain spears are relatively expensive. There are a number of items that are sufficiently economical on offense for elite divisions, and a few that make sense for medium sized armies. The same applies to defensive field armies.

As pointed out, the economics of city defense are different because of the 100% recovery rate. This is reflected in the cost of wolf fur for pikes, for example.

I believe that many players gather, hunt, and craft with their alt(s).

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 22:06
Yep, I agree with the city defence thing as I referenced in my original post on this that one of the issues is that you lose most of the equipment/ could possibly end up supplying your enemies.

TBH, I only really looked at mountain spears because those were what was being talked about in the original post, I have by no means studied this in depth.

Which ones would have a better payback period?

I also hadn't thought of the use of a non-involved account for the purposes of gathering ingredients for crafted items.




-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 23:00
Additionally, I've realised I made a mistake with my calculations for mountain spears- I forgot to scale the upkeep cost by the effect of the mountain spear.

The actual payback periods are ~217 days for non-elites and ~75 for elites.


-------------
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2018 at 23:47
I think what often gets missed in these conversations is that people get very focused on the hunting scenario, and more broadly on theoretical efficiency in isolation from practical concerns.

Crafted items aren't cost effective in many situations. However, on the battlefield, there are situations where long term theoretical efficiency takes a backseat to eliminating enemy troops for strategic purposes, even if the extra killing power is 20% less cost efficient for small portions of your army.

Case in point: when you are running full troop queues at max sov, crafted items can be a way to slightly boost killing power beyond your practical limit. Gear and elite divisions can also be deployed to cover holes in your defensive formations. In that example, you would look at casualties reduced from the main army, which is a different metric than upkeep savings.

If you view gear as an ace up the sleeve for specific field situations, I think that gives you a better grasp of how equipment is actually used in PvP. More expensive, quite likely yes, but there are times when you would pay up for a small, concrete, temporary, one-time advantage. That is how gear is used in many other MMORTS titles.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2018 at 22:56
Taking up Sene's challenge I dispatched 5 elite divisions of 20 human knights each against a host of rats on the plains. The knights had plains spears and plains plate. In addition the commanders had heavy horses.

The rats details:
# def tot
Ratlings 943 6 5658
Rats 467 8 3736
Dis Rats 230 12 2760
Elder Bucks 111 16 1776
Raw total 13930
Terrain modified 11840.5

I lost 10 knights (kill ratio of 175 to 1). To achieve this my attack score needed to be in the range 113,022.95 to 124,983.06.

Here's my table
basic weap arm horse terrain charge total prestige
coms 19825 1.2 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.15              78,308.75
men 6500 1.2 1.2 0.3 0.15              25,025.00
          103,333.75           113,667.13

pres applies to the total - all others add (not sure about biome college bonuses but will check). The total is in the required range.

Putting figures on the elements - so you can gauge the value of each element
basic weap arm horse terrain charge total prestige
coms 19825 23790 23790 1982.5 5947.5 2973.75 78308.75
men 6500 7800 7800 0 1950 975 25025
tot 26325 31590 31590 1982.5 7897.5 3948.75 103333.75              11,366.71

and as a percentage:
basic weap arm horse terrain charge total prestige
coms 17.4% 20.9% 20.9% 1.7% 5.2% 2.6% 68.9%
men 5.7% 6.9% 6.9% 0.0% 1.7% 0.9% 22.0%
tot 23.2% 27.8% 27.8% 1.7% 6.9% 3.5% 90.9% 10.0%

Note that the terrain effect is only 6.9% not 30%. The terrain bonus does NOT multiply the equipment bonuses. Rather the equipment counters and overtakes the terrain effect. QED!

Had I sent 65 knights, I would only have lost 7.

Alternative workings that produce a value in range will be entertained.



Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2018 at 23:00
I will answer the economics discussion separately but not tonight - the above figures impinge on the argument but so do other things. BTW, Sene, you DO know I'm Irish? Excellent put-down if it was intended.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 05:43
Originally posted by Hucbold Hucbold wrote:

BTW, Sene, you DO know I'm Irish? Excellent put-down if it was intended.

It seems we haven't met before so no, I did not know you are Irish. Kinda thought it was going without saying that those words belong to the baddiest baddie of the film and the phrase was to demonstrate how rotten and filthy he was. In any case, my sincerest apologies, pal, if you took it personally. I am a strong rasism-hater myself, got a couple of Irish friends here, got no problems with no races or countries. Russia is my neck of the woods and believe me, I know how it feels to be looked down on and to be blamed for all the world's sins.

Anyway, down to business if you don't mind. I take it you 1) equipped all the troops and and all the commanders with plainsman gear, commanders had heavy horses in addition; 2) commanders all have Hersoim 10 & Charge 15; 3) You have prestige attack bonus on.

I'll try to make my cacls but quick word straight away:

1) You heavily oversent there, man. Each army must contain of no more than 61 troops distributed between 5 divisions within elite limits;
2) Rats are so easy that 61 knights is enough to kill most of the myriads, not mentioning legions and furthermore hosts;
3) In your caclulations you clearly missed the elite bonus that doubles crafted bonus up, which implies your calculations might be seriously misleading;
4) Last, but most important to me. Your attack was 'in blind", you just sent the amount of troops that was obviously sufficient and then tried to speculate the result out of it; now I posted 2 reports proving I knew in advance the exact minimum number of troops needed to prevail in the battle. Don't you think the latter speaks a bit LOUDER than the former?:)

Great lucks and good hunting meanwhile, I'll try to post something meaningful a bit later.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 07:09
Ok I've mistaken: you did consider the elite bonus, it's just your table is bit messy. Ok, let's roll.

Knight's basic attack:
Knight commander basic attack: 65*(1+6*10) = 3965; 
General modifier: 1 + (15Charge + 30Terrain + 10Pres + 0Biome)/100 = 1 + 0.55 = 1.55;
Crafted modifier for commanders: 1 + (60spear*2 + 60armor*2 +5heavy horse*2)/100 = 1 + 2.5 = 3.5;
Crafted modifier for troops: 1 + (60spear*2 + 60armor*2 +5heavy horse*2)/100 = 1 + 2.5 = 3.4.

Now 1 commander total attack: 3965 * 1.55 * 3.5 = 21 510.13, all 5 dealt 21 510.13 * 5 = 107 550.63;
1 knight (troops) total attack: 65 * 1.55 * 3.4 = 342.55; all 100 dealt 34 255.

Total army attack 107 550.13 + 34 255.0 = 141 805.63.

Casualties rate must be 11 840.5 / 141 805.63 = 0.08 or 8% or 8 knights. Hmm... It's either your data wasn't too correct or one of us is mistaken:)

Now you see those your precentage figures can't be taken serious because of one of your early statemetns: "To achieve this my attack score needed to be in the range 113,022.95 to 124,983.06" (not sure how you got it btw, i got different range here). This means only one: "I do knot know what my exact atack score was". Now if you don't, all those QEDs are but mere speculations. Sorry, man, no offense.

If I may advise you to use the following values in your new attack (plz attack something bigger than a host of rats, find some decent stack of 60-80k def score at least):

- 1 knight commander atack on plains, with 10 Heroism and 15 Charge, fully equipped in plainsman and heavy horse, no pres and biome: 20 122.38
- the same with pres bonus: 21 510.13
- 1 knight (troops) unequipped attack without pres: 94.25
- 1 the same with pres: 100.75
- 1 knight (troops) equipped (plainsman armor and spear, no hh) attack without pres: 320.45
- 1 the same with pres: 342.55.

Please try this ones on a good NPC stack and see if you can predict casualties rate. And the last one, about adding vs multiplying modifiers: please check http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/advanced-attacking-a-work-in-progress_topic3506.html?KW=" rel="nofollow - this one  out. The guy showed everyone here the proper way some 6 years ago. Still excellent read, except missing crafted. My only endeavor was to find out how crafteed is applied. Took me quite a time it blasted me that when the crafted stuff was intruduced the devs rather added another modifier for it than modified the existing one:)

GReat lucks and good hunting, pals


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 07:31
Ah, and the last one, "Of economics matters".

You see in the example your commas combined dealt 107550.63 attack. HAd you not equipped the troops they would have dealt 10 075 attack - less than 10%. The addition of 200 equipment pieces (of which 20 you lost on the battlefield, of which only 3-4 are harvestable) you gained only 24 180 attack, and the overall perfomance went up from 117 625.63 to 141805.63 - by mere 20.5%. And it only allowed to save 2-3 guys. Now if you attak a bigger stack with casulties rate of 80% or more, you will loose around 160 pieces, of which 130-140 pieces will go for good, others will remain on the battle fiels. Now is it really worth it? Everyone is to have personal opinion here, for me cannon fodder is mich cheaper


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 11:35
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:

Now you see those your precentage figures can't be taken serious because of one of your early statemetns: "To achieve this my attack score needed to be in the range 113,022.95 to 124,983.06" (not sure how you got it btw, i got different range here). This means only one: "I do knot know what my exact atack score was". Now if you don't, all those QEDs are but mere speculations. Sorry, man, no offense.

The range is because you can't kill half a soldier - so anything between 9.5 and 10.4999 rounds to 10. I wasn't playing the 'get the exact' number game! The exercise was to demonstrate the calculation not get a perfect kill. 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). Here's the battle report

Attackers:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Commander: AlbertKnights Knight1Damaged for 10, 590 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: AndrewKnights Knight1Damaged for 10, 590 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: ArthurKnights Knight1Damaged for 10, 590 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: AlfredKnights Knight1Damaged for 10, 590 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218
Commander: AgmondishamKnights Knight1Damaged for 10, 590 health remains.
Troops:Knights Knights20218


Defenders:Unit:Quantity:Casualties:Survivors:
Troops:Ratlings Ratlings9439430
Troops:Rats Rats4674670
Troops:Diseased Rats Diseased Rats2302300
Troops:Elder Bucks Elder Bucks1111110


Posted By: Hucbold
Date Posted: 05 Jun 2018 at 11:39
Oh and I worked backwards because that's what I had to do two years ago when I started doing this seriously. The %s given by the devs can be interpreted differently (as in this discussion!). I'll verify by repeating - just need to find a legion of rats on some other terrain.


Posted By: Sene
Date 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


Posted By: Hucbold
Date 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.





Posted By: Hucbold
Date 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


Posted By: Sene
Date 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



Posted By: Hucbold
Date 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.


Posted By: Sene
Date 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.


Posted By: Hucbold
Date 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.


Posted By: Sene
Date 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.


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 13:56
This has been an extremly interesting conversation to follow - many thanks to both of you Thumbs Up


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date 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, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 06 Jun 2018 at 20:58
My sincearest apologies, man, but i didn'tunderstand a word of what you said. Would you please clarify the following:

corner case scenarios
fractional troop rounding
effect of multiple divisions

Cheers in advance

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

[QUOTE=Sene]
These factors disappear in any battle of meaningful size, but they will serve to muddy your results data on the micro scale..

We talk hunting, you talk PvP. I guess it goes without saying those are different matters, arn't they? While the basic algorithm, formulas and stuff are the same, those modes demand completely different approaches. Hunting is single player, while PvP is a multi-player campaign. i can't really get your point here


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 00:01
The engine is the same, regardless of hunting or PvP.

If your intention is to demonstrate the algorithm for interactions between equipment and terrain (for example), then a proper experiment attempts to isolate those two factors in a predictable way so that they can be measured, in a manner that removes all other potential influences from the picture.

Many divisions (A or D) will result in fractional casualties, per Stormcrow and Thundercat on this forum. In a tiny hunting army of 61 troops, a single fractional casualty is a significant percent deflection in results (~1.7% per casualty). A tiny hunting army also disproportionately involves factors like commander Heroism, elite division status, etc. in a way that can completely swamp the quantities you are trying to measure. Your experiment construction also lacks a proper control, and the way that external factors dominate the equation on your tiny sample size basically invalidates the experiment.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 06:51
P.S (PreScriptum in this case:)

I'm still struggling to get your point, Ten Kulch. Since I'm not a born English speaker, I am asking you to be as 'plain words' as possible. Please imagine you are talking to your 8 year son and he is not a young einstein (I'm times older than 13 in case devs are reading).

In previous post you stated that (plz correct me if I'm wrong) proper experiment should involve:

1) both armies being of reasonable size;
2) one of them should be several times bigger than the other.

While I completely agree with 1), that 2) is totally escaping me. 

Now I'm not sure If you are familiar with that algorithm hunt. Hucbold precisely defined the basics in his 1-5 points of his last post. 

Originally posted by Ten Kulch Ten Kulch wrote:

If your intention is to demonstrate the algorithm for interactions between equipment and terrain

The intention - the HolyGrail of Illy attackers - (the way I see it) has always been to find the connection between all the factors influencing attack/defense score. Innoble in his post 6 years ago presented a clear formula that included terrain and divison bonuses - everything that had been introduced by the moment. Since then biome, pres and crafted were added on and the task was to squeeze them all in without loosing the formula's working algorithm.

In the battle outcome/attack score/def score equation the latter part is easy to calculate - well, at least when it comes to hunting. No crafted, biome, pres or divisional bonuses for the poor NPC fellows, they are only ifluenced by terain. Hence all the experiments first aimed to work the actual attack score back from the def/kill rate, and we are brothers in arms with Hucbold here. Just like him or many other guys I spent years attacking NPCs over and over again trying to extract attack score form the def one. Hundreds of email with guys like Naigoizati who is sadly abandoned few months back were exchanged discussing how to do it the proper way.

The problem there was that casualties rate is shown with integer number, whilst calculations regard it as float. The fractional part isn't shown and it has been quite a headache for it produces what I call errand range (just checked the dict and it seems i musunderstood the word, it should be just 'error range'. My apologies here).

That's the way the story goes for those who arn't too familiar with the issue. The reson I'm telling you all that is to clarify the following 2 points: the way I see it to narrow that error range one has to 1) use big armies - the bigger, the better and 2) keep the attack as close to def possible,  the kill ratio will be very close to 1 and def/kill ratio is as close to deff and hence to attack as possible. And yes, 1 division is a better case but it would mean less commanders hence less attack score hence more trrops to compensate hence much more expensive experiments troops-wise, which is a serious issue for single 'researchers' like me.

So I agree on 'big armies' point Ten Kulch but can't see the "different size". You say many divisions result in fractional casualties, and that is partially true. Partially firstly cause all troops are added up when outcome is being calculeted, secondly this factor is diminished when using big troops numbers. Now that was my main point in the discussion with Hucbold: I used 2 scenarios with 1901 troops / 100% casualties rate and 837 troops  100% - 1/837 casualtie rate. While Hubold presented 100 troops with 10 CR% and 80 troops with 9% CR.

So please let me repeat the question: why would you propose clashing armies with troops numbers differentiting greatly? Wouldn't that increase the error/deviation?

P.S. (proper 'post scriptum' now) I get a bit graphomaniac sometimes, please let me know if do. Cheers.


Posted By: Ten Kulch
Date Posted: 07 Jun 2018 at 15:19
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:


In previous post you stated that (plz correct me if I'm wrong) proper experiment should involve:

1) both armies being of reasonable size;
2) one of them should be several times bigger than the other.

While I completely agree with 1), that 2) is totally escaping me.

If you use a single division, and both armies are of good size, then the second point matters less. If the armies are very small (ex. 61 knights vs 400 rats) then you again create situations where a single fractional kill will significantly affect the data. That error appears to increase with Heroism, powerful commander gear, elite divisions, multiple divisions.

Regarding experiment cost, I think the best configuration is: alt account, a settlement with no walls, defenders equipped, 5000-10000 defenders, attackers not equipped, 500-1000 attackers, single divisions. One city with neutral modifiers for both armies. A second city with a large modifier for the defender, and not the attacker (ex. defending chariots vs. attacking sentinels or fangs on plains). That way you can run a control with no equipment. When you run the comparison, the defenders will recover all equipment. I would analyze both terrain gear and defense-specific gear. With enough equipped troops, you should be able to clearly see whether the equipment adds to the terrain modifier, or multiplies it.

Army size would have to be adjusted to the point where it is easy to detect (and repeat) a different result for 1.25*2.2 vs. 2.2+0.25. That's only 2.55 vs 2.45, so my 10000 vs 1000 might not be enough. Potentially it might be better to use equipment where the modifier is closer to the terrain modifier, causing the numbers to diverge more.

Innoble probably used less troops, but he was approaching a single factor in isolation, not the interaction of two factors.

-------------
Check out my blog, http://illywarmonger.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow - Warmongering in Illyriad for self-defense techniques, military city construction, and PvP strategies.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2018 at 07:47
It looks like you overestimate the influence of the divisional error. In fact, there is no any as far as I'm concerned. The final casualties number will solely depend on attack/defence ratio as the algorithm doesn't compute individual divisional losses. When number of casualties has been calculated via "Total army troops deployed x Looser's score / Winner's score", formula, they are then distributed evenly between divisions. If that's is impossible because of great difference in troops numbers, last "error" casualties are ditributed between random divisions evenly. 

So even when say classic 61 elite army is deployed with 5 commanders  and 57-1-1-1-1 troops allocation, and they win the battle with 45.5% or 27,76 rounded up to 28 casaualties, the divisions will suffer 26-0-1-1-0, with 2 single lost unit divisions being chosen at random. I'm not too sure if It could be 27-1-0-0-0 or even 28-0-0-0-0 either (this one is unlikely I'd say from my experience), but in any case that will not alter the total casulaties namber and rate. That's why I would upvote you 'big armies' point to eliminate fractional error, but thumbs down for single division. Or thumbs sidewards rather: while it does make life a little easier computing-wise, it makes no impact on the outcome.

You do have a good point, Ten Kulch, in proposing 'suicidal' (for attacking side) battles, hypothetically that is the best way to take computational error away. I did use failed battle reports to get the precise attack score, but in practice the bigger issue was not finding attack itself, but rather finding calculation model that gives the same result. Since I did found it and I'm sure beyond any reasonable doubts its true, I ceased any experiments and focused on precalculating battle reports ranging from 61 to thousands of units deployed. I think my maximum was around 3,5k stalwarts and 2,5k runeriders deployed, with 1 or 0 survivors left, can't remember for sure. Not that you have to believe my words, guys.

Lucks,

S.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2018 at 08:21
Originally posted by Sene Sene wrote:

Not that you have to believe my words, guys.

Ah, it must've been "... but I'm ready to provide battle reps if ncessary".

PS Checked some battle reps, seems like "26-1-1-0-0" allocation in my last post's example is the only real case. 1-1 still randomly chosen. The same goes to survivors, actually. When casualties ratio is close to 100%, some divisions will loose all guys and few left troops will be randomly awarded to the remaining ones.


Posted By: Sene
Date Posted: 28 Jun 2018 at 05:30
Thanks to Tensmoor's ultimate digging skills the devs' post on crafting has been unearthed on http://moddb.com/games/illyriad/news/equipping-scavenging" rel="nofollow - moddb.com  The most interesting part is 

Quote The equipment's combat bonuses are additive with each other - i.e. they stack. So:
  • Offensive bonuses add up attack bonus, racial bonus, terrain bonus, biome bonus, and day/night bonus.
  • ...
All bonuses are then doubled if the unit/commander is elite.

The equipped units new stats are then multiplied by the additive effects of the other bonuses. (e.g. commander divisional bonuses, jungle warfare colleges etc.)

I think that one clearly implies that crafted and non-crafted bonuses (called "offensive" in the article) are grouped separately and then used as multipliers.

Nevertheless, there were more examples of small battles uncovered where casualties rate wouldn't match def/attack ratio. That does indirectly proves Hucbold's reports were true which I admit but stil ldoesn't  expain the issue. Since I keep producing 1 survivor reports with legions and myriads of poisonous crawlers, it seems like being a minor random (or just unknown) factor in case of small armies with great difference in attack/defense score.

Any thoughts and examples here would be of much help.

Lucks and good hunting, pals

S.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net