Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6821
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 21:52
I like that you can't scout a moving army.  Really adds an element to the fight, where you have to interpret who it came from and its likely composition based on past behavior of players and recent events.  It's more fun to develop flexible responses to a number of possible scenarios than to just stick something that will kill a known incoming force.

The ability to hover over an (allied) force and determine player and number of troops disappeared with the map changes in July, part of "fog of war."


Edited by Rill - 09 Mar 2012 at 21:53
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Mar 2012 at 22:43
Interesting points Salararius. Though, which factor would be used to mean that or that army has better efficiency? Maybe smaller army can more easily find the best formation, naturally by it's size, but also because a lower amount of soldiers is easyier to coordonate... and on battlefield, coordination is handled by the commander. So the lvl of Commanders would simulate their experience and army's experience. Then, a smaller attacking army would receive a bonus from being small, and also a bonus from being lead by high lvl comander(s). Though, in attack, amount of commanders is restricted to 5, unlike in defense. So a larger defense would be harder to coordonate, but a large a amount of high lvl commanders can counter that, against a comparatively small attacking army, and even give advantage of efficiency to defender.

Though, that already sounds like the critical hit factor... but maybe there could be other ways to simulate the comparative size VS number and lvl of commanders, that could be added to critical hit (if it has been substantially smoothed), or to replace it. That could be a hint for future improvements... though, this, imo, isnt a priority in dev list.



Edited by Mandarins31 - 09 Mar 2012 at 22:46
Back to Top
Salararius View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 03:02
Funny Clap I almost posted the same thing.

I reasoned to myself that to the extent that commanders influence combat the devs have already factored them in.  To factor them in again would be redundant although I agree with your thoughts that any advantage/disadvantage achieved through unit size would be through the commander's relative skill.

One way to implement asymmetrical warfare could be through units that specifically fight better in little vs big situations.  Perhaps ranged units or light cavalry or some sort of light infantry would be better at striking quickly in small numbers and then flowing away and they would need to be countered by small quantities of the same to avoid asymmetrically skewed losses.  Those losses in any given encounter couldn't amount to much but would more so favor the smaller unit.  Similar to how historical armies required cavalry screens to cover their movement or face a similar type of attrition warfare.

Back to Top
Aurordan View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar
Player Council - Ambassador

Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 04:11
Originally posted by Mandarins31 Mandarins31 wrote:

Interesting points Salararius. Though, which factor would be used to mean that or that army has better efficiency? Maybe smaller army can more easily find the best formation, naturally by it's size, but also because a lower amount of soldiers is easyier to coordonate... and on battlefield, coordination is handled by the commander. So the lvl of Commanders would simulate their experience and army's experience. Then, a smaller attacking army would receive a bonus from being small, and also a bonus from being lead by high lvl comander(s). Though, in attack, amount of commanders is restricted to 5, unlike in defense. So a larger defense would be harder to coordonate, but a large a amount of high lvl commanders can counter that, against a comparatively small attacking army, and even give advantage of efficiency to defender.

Though, that already sounds like the critical hit factor... but maybe there could be other ways to simulate the comparative size VS number and lvl of commanders, that could be added to critical hit (if it has been substantially smoothed), or to replace it. That could be a hint for future improvements... though, this, imo, isnt a priority in dev list.


Commanders already contribute to the organization of the army through the unit bonus abilities.  It seems redundant to make another factor that does the same thing.   
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Mar 2012 at 10:38
Salararius, i see no point of this, as in defense, people always put all sorts of units.... there are high chances your specific units fall against their similar kind in def.

Aurordan, indeed that's redundant with Commanders skills, but critical hit already is. Here that's about efficiency of Small units against large stacks mostly... though, indeed, for small armies, commanders heroism already permits to achieve better ratios.


Edited by Mandarins31 - 10 Mar 2012 at 10:42
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 13:46
Originally posted by Salararius Salararius wrote:

Army size alone shouldn't matter in relation to how effective the army is.  There are other variables that play a role in this determination.

For example, a small army is easier to coordinate and a coordinated army can more precisely direct it's force.  Thus a small army could surprise a large army or adjust it's attack/defense to take advantage of terrain or defender/attacker deployment opportunities.  In warfare, force is only effective if you can properly apply it.  A smaller army's lesser force is balanced by it's inherent advantage in more efficiently applying that smaller force.  Then again, if the larger army is equally efficient at applying it's larger force then it has an even greater tactical advantage.


I think this is in the game now, it just requires some creative strategy. Example as follows: 

I have a 30k t2 dwarven infantry army. It is my large army. 

You want to siege my largest town in Keshalia, but can't do it because my infantry will destroy your 10k army. 

You could blockade/siege one of my other cites in Zanpur. You could even taunt me with mail letting me know that more forces are rallying behind the siege in Zanpur. Causing me to ride out in full force with my 30k infantry army to destroy your siege. 

As soon as my 1 large army departs my primary town, you could send your primary siege against 
my town. And it will be another 2 days before my army returns from Attacking your other siege. 

Having 1 large army does not always = a win. But it does if your silly enough to face a larger army head on with a smaller army. Avoidance, subterfuge, deception, and coordination are the tools to make up for small numbers. 

Currently it is very easy to confuse your opponent since they can't ascertain the purpose of your oncoming army until it hits. And they can't know how many troops you send in that army. I really think scouting (troops count) and spying (purpose/siege-location) moving armies would add another layer of strategy to the game; so long as there was a counter to it (send scouts and spies with your army to act as scout/spy defense). 


Back to Top
surferdude View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Aug 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 103
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 14:13
Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

Currently it is very easy to confuse your opponent since they can't ascertain the purpose of your oncoming army until it hits. And they can't know how many troops you send in that army. I really think scouting (troops count) and spying (purpose/siege-location) moving armies would add another layer of strategy to the game; so long as there was a counter to it (send scouts and spies with your army to act as scout/spy defense). 
Don't teir 2 scouts already tell you the army make up of armies at home and on manuvers?
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2012 at 15:28
Originally posted by geofrey geofrey wrote:

Avoidance, subterfuge, deception, and coordination are the tools to make up for small numbers.
+100!
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Back to Top
JimJams View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2011
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 496
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 10:22
OK, yesterday we had a very big fight in Tor Carrock and we got a lot of data to work with.

From my preliminary analysis I have this to say:
  • I was thinking devs broke something in the combat program, but I found it is now working as intended
  • Combat program is keeping in account terrain modifier
  • T2 human cavalry and T2 darwish infantry are as good as T2 elvish bows attacking ON MOUNTAIN (per upkeep evaluation)
  • On buildings and forest stalwart are the king. On plain cavalry are the king. Spear are meh everywhere...
So we have forest (and buildings) for infantry, plain for cavalry, mountain for everyone but spear.

No surprise, but still somewhere broken...

PS
A note about little vs big army. While I still think big armies should have advantage, I also know actually an attacker cannot stack armies like the defender can. So, with actual mechanics, it would be unfair to give huge advantage to big armies vs little armies. 
But I think something can be done to introduce a bonus for large armies, while giving coordinated little armies attacks count more.

For example we can introduce a system like that:
  • Huge armies have bonus against little one (they got a casualties reduction percentage)
  • When a little army attack a large one standing on a square a counter is activated on the square. It will add up each attack received and it will be used to compare the attacker and defender size to calculate the casualties reduction rate of the defender. This counter will wear off after a stated time (10 minutes? something like that)
  • Using this trick, a coordinated multiple attack will initially do little damage, but the damage will raise the more little armies will hit without long enough pauses on the square
With this mechanic we give big standing armies a bonus from single not coordinated attacks (even big, but very littler that the defending army). This way a single hit of 10K cavalry on 500K defenders will do less damage than today. But if several hits are added to the squares without a long enough break, the defender casualties bonus will lowering and lowering, and even turn negative if enough attackers arrive.

What you think ?

JJ
Back to Top
Daefis View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 05 Aug 2011
Location: London
Status: Offline
Points: 128
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Mar 2012 at 10:27
I like that idea. An escalating modifier as more hits take place. It would certainly reward a well coordinated attack and give a real bonus to smaller alliances sending lot's of small armies.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.