| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Createure 
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 02:29 |
|
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 01:12 |
This is my current understanding of combat. (I haven't really done in depth number crunching)
- Calculate Attacker Strength(point value)
- (Attack strength of units * # of units) * (1+ Modifier bonus total)
- sum each unit types contributions: spear, bows, infantry, cavalry
- using the above unit sums, convert to percentage: spears contribution/Overall Attack Strength
- spear = SAP, bow = BAP, Infantry = IAP, Cavalry = CAP
Defense is a little more complicated
Have to break out the defensive contribution of each unit based on the above attacker unit contribution percentageso 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.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
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>
|
|
Manannan
Postmaster
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Location: Mystical Mists
Status: Offline
Points: 576
|
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
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
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.
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
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.
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
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).
Edited by Shaharet - 11 Jul 2011 at 19:48
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
|
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.
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
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.
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43
|
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.
|
|
Tweet
Why so high losses?
Mandarins31 wrote: