06MAR12 - Gaming the Combat Casualty Algorithm

SunStorm wrote: Brids17 wrote: abstractdream wrote: It's a game, with game like limitations. Combat is good enough that it doesn't need to be a SOON(tm) item. If the DEVs focused on and released pathfinding, who would care about this, really? Sometimes it's the small stuff that matters the most.  +1 I am sure this was an easy fix...and I am sure it has not set path-finding behind at all.  Plus, there is that unfounded rumor Rill started that new features wont be released until we figure out the Heart of Corruption (aka Audrey II).  *though I wonder if Ryelle put her up to that* http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/heart-of-corruption_topic2004_post39774.html#39774

abstractdream wrote: It's a game, with game like limitations. Combat is good enough that it doesn't need to be a SOON(tm) item. If the DEVs focused on and released pathfinding, who would care about this, really?

Miklabjarnir wrote: I am really sceptical about fiddling with the combat system in a live game. Such things should happen only after a reasonably long notice period, like any important game change. In principle, bugs should be fixed. However, if there is no documentation to the user of how the combat system works the the way it actually works is the specification. I have many issues with the entire combat system in Illyriad, but that does not mean I think it is buggy and must be fixed. It means I think it should be improved in a planned and predictable way. I kind of like the lack of specification for the combat system. It means there is a challenge for the players to explore it and find out for themselves. If somebody discovers that it does not work the way they believed, they should not be bailed out by a quick change. Lazy or sloppy players should not be rewarded at the cost of those who actually test their tactics and do some research. For me this is merely a statement of principle. I do not take part in the tournament, so I have no personal interest in this case and do not have big enough armies to see any large-scale combat effects. My biggest gripe with the combat system is that outcomes are way too binary. It is highly unrealistic in any kind of warfare, and pre-gunpowder in particular, to have large numbers of casualties. Losers should not be annihilated except in unusual circumstances. 10% casualties due to battle is heavy. More than 50% is a historical disaster, like end of the German Order as a power after Grünefeld.

lost battle (= 75% defenders dead/ death of commander?) rest heads home in shame? 

Miklabjarnir, anihilation is needed... and i can take the exemple of the siege: as far as it isnt anihilated, it continues, and consequences of a non anihilation system would be pretty bad in that case. Then, there could be ways for an attacking army to focus on certain units (Siege engines here) in certain conditions.
Though, here isnt the subject of that. You have interesting points though; as said Geofrey, you should develop your ideas/vision through a thead in the Suggestions part of the forum.

To come back to the subject, JimJams, the thing about the roundings down really had to be updated. And about the critical hit chance, it depends on def stack, but Also on attacking power. The higher the both are, the higher the critical hit chance is... that also means that it will rarely aply to "casual attacks" even if def stack is big. So this change here doesnt change anything for usual use of armies, so from what you are talking about, i see your problem is much about the already present unbalance def/attk and not something brought by this update.

Though, something im understing through this, is that big attacking armies might not be the best if they make the citical hit chance increase against them... I always made sure to hve big single armies... these mostly permit to eat the coms self def only once... though i may change that maniac obsession... even if that have been substantially smoothed, i'd advise to be carefull with that :p.


Edited by Mandarins31 - 07 Mar 2012 at 22:56