Why so high losses?
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=2154
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 07:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Why so high losses?
Posted By: Shaharet
Subject: Why so high losses?
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 18:22
So... I attacked some giant spiders. With mostly T1 bows, to be fair, but T1 elven bows are still an attack value of 20, and giant spiders are weaker than that, for the most part. So how come with 5-1 odds, I take such high losses?
Can anyone make any sense of this? Oh, and it was on plains, which doesn't affect the bows really any, negatively affects the spears(including their 86 spears), and helped their 1 cav unit. I still don't get why my losses were so high...? |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Replies:
Posted By: Mandarins31
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 18:37
|
no u did good, that's alomost a 1:1, look again your battle report, you just lost 18% of your army. and that's a good result knowing that: 1- you are attacking with defensive units 2- you attacking with T1 units (that are 1/3 weaker that T2 ones and do not have the racial bonus, that is for you on archers) 3- Giant spiders are not the best beasts, but they are sill strong 4- you attacked on Plains while archers are better on mountains |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:11
|
True but: 1-T1 archers are only slightly more defensive than offensive: 20 attack, 23/24 defense(16 vs cav). 2- The racial bonus makes trueshots cheaper to make, not more effective, they aren't much better attackers/upkeep than sentinels(32/3 vs 20/2). 3-The spiders had lower/equal stats to my units. The adolescents were 16 vs archers, the giants 20, the spinners 30. The other 2 types were a bit higher, but they were few. 4- Archers have no bonus on plains, but they also have no minus either. Meanwhile the bulk of their army(spears) do. So a 1:1 loss ratio when one overwhelms an enemy force by 5:1 is good? That makes attacking npcs all but useless, and the xp/score earned from it too pricey by far.... |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:12
|
You weren't defending, you were attacking.
------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Sloter5
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:16
| Depends on the race, NPC hunting is very profitable for humans and dworfs not elfs, since there are no NPC on hills.Did you fought them in building or plains?If you fought them in building and they had infantry and spear then they had large bonuses. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:17
|
.. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:18
| Sloter: As stated, it was on plains, where there were no advantages for me, and a slight disadvantage for them. |
Posted By: Sloter5
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:19
| did they had cavalry units? |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:20
| They had 1 cav unit. |
Posted By: Kurfist
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:20
|
I'm pretty confident the defensive only comes in when you are "ahem" defending.
------------- Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin |
Posted By: Sloter5
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:24
| Still you did good considering you used t1 units,1:1 ration is ok in this kind of battles like Mandarins said, especially since you used only one commander.Considering their total def agains bows and your total attack 1:1 ratio sounds ok for this battle. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:25
|
The defensive what? I am talking about my attack values, and their defensive values so...? |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:26
| Shaharet, the fact is that T! are really defence units. T2 are attackers. what level is your commander? |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:28
|
...really? So if they have 100 units that are exactly identical to my 500 that attack(and exactly the same attack/defense), I should expect to lose 100 units to kill them? That's...weird. I mean, I know that wasn't the situation, but my average trooper had a pretty similar attack value to their average unit had defense vs mine.... so it's similar. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:29
| Again, what makes them defensive units? Yes, they have slightly better defense/upkeep and slightly lower attack/upkeep, but in the case of elven bows, the difference is minute. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:31
|
Or is there some sort of magical hidden value that makes them -more- defensive than the obvious? I mean 20/2 isn't all that much less effective at attack than 32/3. There is also commander advantages, yes, but they add up to 10, or at best 15% advantage. Nothing to sneeze at when fairly even numbers are involved, but on this circumstance I cannot see it having much impact. |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:36
|
Some numbers to help make sense(not an exact replication of the combat system but what I believe is a close approximation) Total defensive points 3931.076 Total offensive points 19606 % Damage done to the attacker = Dpoints/Apoints = ~20% |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:37
|
My one commander was a beginner. Again, I cannot see how this has much effect...? Please don't answer with 'it does, really' without giving some explanation why, or simply letting me know that there is more going on than the numbers would indicate. Like somehow a level 20 commander doubles the effectiveness of a fighting force. I also do not see how, in this circumstance, having multiple commanders could at all help. They each give a bonus only to their respective unit, so aside from their own power as individuals(which seems pretty weak even leveled up), I don't see having multiple commanders as being too exciting aside from their being able to bonus different types of troops. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:38
| Anjire: Thank you. This is what I have been asking. That is a fairly disturbing bit of info, but does make this combat make sense. |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:39
|
It's a general rule that T2 are better attackers, although T2 are just better TBH. Really, what you have to do as well is consider the upkeep of the attackers and defenders. Then decide who came out best.
|
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:43
| Basically that means that regardless of the numbers involved, the losses will be approx 1:1 on a point for point basis... My opponent has 200 pts and I am going to lose 200 pts worth of troops whether I have 200 or whether I have 2000. Terrain and command bonus change those numbers somewhat, but better troops merely mean more expensive losses(though somewhat less of them, in balance). |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:47
| Nokigon: Looking at the numbers, Elven T1 bows have only slightly less attack/upkeep than t2 bows(20/2 vs 32/3), and far superior if cost to produce is the only factor(worth considering when one is throwing them away on npc attacks for xp). They are a fair sight better at defense/upkeep. So no, in this case they are not better all around. |
Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:54
|
I'm going to experiment but if what Anjire says is true than this follows: Attacker total offense: ~20k Defender total defense: ~4k Attacker losses ~20%, or 4k worth of troops. Attacker total offense: ~40k Defender total defense: ~4k Attacker losses: ~10%, or 4k worth of troops. Which looking through my battle records seems to hold true at least to a degree. I'm going to do more experimenting and see if the numbers continue to hold. |
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 22:10
|
The sums Anjire gave are good. Its got a lot of variables in it (commander skills, terrain, troop types, troop stats etc) which makes difficult to predict 100% accurately without a complicated spreadsheet (yes I am trying as a pet project), but the maths is basically good. ------------- Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either! "Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 00:29
|
I'd have expected the number-crunching for battles to be a bit more than a direct 'subtract A from B' operation, but it seems to be that way.
So a lone swordsman would be able to take out one opponent in a 1000-strong opposition? (wrong place for suggestions, but) A more sensible algorithm might be to compare the squares of the numbers against each other, so (for example) 2:1 numbers would result in 1:4 casualties... or do the same sliced up into may phases, so you get the benefit of eroding formations and greater momentum of losses. </waffle> |
Posted By: Anjire
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 01:12
This is my current understanding of combat. (I haven't really done in depth number crunching)
Defense is a little more complicated so if you are attacked by an army that just happens to break down to 25% spear, 25% bow, 25% infantry, 25% cavalry attack percentage you would calculate as follows: # of defensive units ( DvS * SAP + DvB *BAP + DvI * IAP + DvC * CAP) * (1 + modifier bonus total) Sum for each type of defensive unit. DvS= defense against spear, DvB = Defense against Bow, DvI = Defense against Infantry, DvC = Defense against Cavalry. Damage is then assigned very roughly as a percentage comparison of Attacker Point Total vs Defender Point Total. I believe there is a minimum damage threshold that I think is related to Attacker Strength if you are the Attacker and a defensive strength total of the unit based on the attacker army composition. Once again, I have not committed any time to spreadsheet number crunching. |
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 02:29
@Kur: I'm pretty sure you need to get some sleep, then reread what Shaharet wrote. @Shar: Having large numerical advantage over a target has a relatively small effect. 200 sentinels attacking 50 NPCs will generally take approx. the same losses as 20,000 sentinels attacking 50 NPC (assuming a level 0 commander, and all units in the same division.) |
Mandarins31 wrote:Posted By: Shaharet
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 02:43
|
That just seems so weird. Every other wargame I've played, having superior numbers leads to less losses. Which frankly makes sense: 10 guys taking on 20 will do more damage before they fall than 10 guys against 2000.... This also means that the % bonuses and the like are the only thing that really matters, aside from raw ability to throw more fodder at the problem. Which basically nukes most strategic aspects of the game. I mean, I realize there is the scissors/paper/rock element, and the siege tactics, but as is, no matter how well one plans their strategy, attacking someone is ruinous for both sides. Hmmm. So on that note... How about a nice game of Chess? |
Posted By: GM Stormcrow
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 03:30
Thank you, Professor Falken.
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 05:36
| I always though that having no advanatage for size was rather silly, especilly consdering that archers would cut down the opposition long before the spearmen reached them, unless they're using their bows as clubs as an honourable orc knows you should. |
Posted By: Wulfgang
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 06:17
| Has to be said..this combat system is dumb. No offense to game dev but those numbers are idiotic. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 09:52
| I'm not sure what you mean. Are you mainly objecting to the numeric attributes given to the various units? Is your problem that it doesn't reflect "reality"? Or is there a flaw in the system that creates an imbalance? |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 10:10
Eloquent and descriptive... |
Posted By: Yso Sris
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 15:51
| Eh, combat system is something that will be refined and improved over time probably since this game, unlike the previous best in the genre, evony, actually has devs at the wheel instead of chinese gold farmers, and for sure it's far better already than evonys permanent situation of being absolutely useless to do anything other than 6-700k armies of archers |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 15:58
|
the system is fine. go play something else if yer all out for attacks and wars. idiotic or not, i like it. no zerg rush for you, mr. cheep-o! -------------  my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 17:10
|
The combat system of 1:1 makes sure that nobody or no city is ever 'invincible'. Anyone could be brought down.
The 1:1 ratio feels unfair when you are fighting against NPCs. You'd feel that is the fair thing if you are fighting a foe bigger than you. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 25 Sep 2011 at 17:14
|
btw here you actually have to plan and use yer brain, not just send a hooman wall of doom to your enemy and lol about it.
------------- my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |