+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 73

Thread: Could We Please Have a Random Element to Combat?

  1. #21
    Oh come on, please. Start combat, wait a bit, save game, see results. Load game, wait a bit again, compare results. They will be different. Conclusion: there is randomness.

    Instead of random +3 -10, randomness is choice of tactics. This way when you lose, it's because that son of a bitch Philippe chose to charge when two other flanks were defending. NOT because you rolled -10.

    This was all explained in diaries and it's a wonderful system.

  2. #22
    I think the key problem with CK2 combat is that historically smaller forces did beat larger forces, but in CK2 this never happens except for amphibious landings which I don't believe even happened in real life except maybe in one of Richard the Lionhearts landings and attack which he waded ashore to fight the enemy.

    What CK2 lacks is defeat of larger numerical forces by either tactically superior or technologically superior forces. Latin knights beat the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine defenders in the siege of Constantinople mostly because their armor and fighting styles were superior to that of the Byzantine defenders.

    Both at the Battle of Crecy and Agincourt were the numerically superior forces of the French beaten by the English. This was either due to the bad tactics of the French or the superiority of the Longbow. (probaly both)

    One thing I remember in CK1 was that a high stat martial rating army leader was hard to beat even with superior number of troops. I think we should go back to this and make martial rating even more important to battle outcomes.

    Something needs to be done to give underdogs a fighting chance against blobs.

  3. #23
    Annoying Latvian binTravkin's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Latvia of course
    Posts
    3,101
    Everything besides free will (although that's debatable) can be predicted. Especially something as simple as medieval combat.
    Yes, by somebody with godlike powers.
    And we all know medieval rulers just had to deal g-o-d and got all the enemy moves, so they just had to move in their armies in the most efficient way.
    Since the other side also dealed the same or "a-l-l-a-h", they also got all the plans, so the outcome was decided by who got more troops with some minor variation, just like it is in CK2.

    Right?
    And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

  4. #24
    Colonel Doppelsoldner's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesVictoria: Revolutions
    Rome GoldSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Victoria II: Heart of DarknessPride of NationsEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    948
    It was just a suggestion. No one has to jump on anyone else's toes.

    Combat does seem lacking IMO, and perhaps the system that I proposed was a bad idea, but there is still something terribly wrong to me about the exact predictions that can be drawn from existing statistics, (I.E. "This flank will kill exactly 1.7 soldiers per day"). That seems silly, and while luck need not taint the whole of combat, it has to play some significant role, because IRL there are things that cannot be predicted in a strategy game that must fall under 'luck'.
    "A man does not have himself killed for a half pence a day, or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him."

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

  5. #25
    Major MartinSWE's Avatar
    HoI AnthologyCities in MotionCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: Chronicles
    EU3 CompleteHearts of Iron IIIHearts of Iron III CollectionHOI3: Their Finest HourMagicka
    March of the EaglesPenumbra - Black PlagueSengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars II
    Victoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of DarknessWarlock: Master of the ArcaneMount & Blade: With Fire and Sword
    War of the RosesKnights of Pen and Paper +1 Edition500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Wealth of Nations
    EUIV: Conquest of Paradise

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Östergötland, Sweden
    Posts
    727
    I have no idea what ppl mean when they claim that numerically inferior forces never win. After what I have seen tactics and skill of the commanders makes a huge difference, especially if you have commanders with good combat skills (flank specialists leading flanks and so on and ofc decent Martial). Terrain modifiers are also important enough to decide an even number fight.

    Now in medieval combat numbers was more often than not a crucial factor and so it shall remain. Most of the time where 'tactics' seemed to prevail it was more due to stupidity or overconfidence on the opposing side (Battle of Azincourt, Battle of Montgisard and Battle of Hattin to take a few examples).
    "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power" - Franklin. D Roosevelt, 1938

  6. #26
    Lt. General Prime624's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelsoldner View Post
    It was just a suggestion. No one has to jump on anyone else's toes.

    Combat does seem lacking IMO, and perhaps the system that I proposed was a bad idea, but there is still something terribly wrong to me about the exact predictions that can be drawn from existing statistics, (I.E. "This flank will kill exactly 1.7 soldiers per day"). That seems silly, and while luck need not taint the whole of combat, it has to play some significant role, because IRL there are things that cannot be predicted in a strategy game that must fall under 'luck'.
    No. A good strategist never relies on or fails because of luck. (not in battle anyway)

  7. #27
    Field Marshal Lessing's Avatar
    EU3 CompleteMarch of the EaglesVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedCK2: Holy Knight
    Europa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Braunschweig, Germany
    Posts
    3,146
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinSWE View Post
    I have no idea what ppl mean when they claim that numerically inferior forces never win. After what I have seen tactics and skill of the commanders makes a huge difference, especially if you have commanders with good combat skills (flank specialists leading flanks and so on and ofc decent Martial). Terrain modifiers are also important enough to decide an even number fight.
    Hear hear. Just lost a battle (1100 vs 900 rebels) with far better commanders with (due? who knows) river crossing penalty.

  8. #28
    Colonel Doppelsoldner's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneMarch of the EaglesVictoria: Revolutions
    Rome GoldSemper FiSengokuVictoria 2Victoria II: A House Divided
    Victoria II: Heart of DarknessPride of NationsEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    948
    This is supposed to be a realistic game. The game should, in its revision and expansion thus seek to be more realistic. In real life, there are events that occur and affect combat that cannot be theorized or programmed into a game. Yet, this still leaves the need to simulate these occurances, as it would be ridiculous to assume an absolute exact outcome from a battle, (and no, Prime624, no commander ever was able to calculate the number of casualties inflicted to one tenth of a man every day, and military strategy always lies upon probabilities and assumptions). The aforementioned random occurances would be 'simulated' or at least, accounted for, by luck in the form of a dice roll. This is all that I mean to say, here.

    In that case, though, if the general consensus is that this is a bad idea, then so be it.
    "A man does not have himself killed for a half pence a day, or for a petty distinction. You must speak to the soul in order to electrify him."

    ~Napoleon Bonaparte~

  9. #29
    Lt. General Prime624's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Doppelsoldner View Post
    (and no, Prime624, no commander ever was able to calculate the number of casualties inflicted to one tenth of a man every day, and military strategy always lies upon probabilities and assumptions)
    But those probabilities and assumptions were a lot more probable with a good commander. Sometimes to the point where it could be called a near certainty.

  10. #30
    First Lieutenant Lord Samuel's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIMount & Blade: Warband500k club

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Les Halles, Paris
    Posts
    224
    Quote Originally Posted by Lessing View Post
    (...)
    I don't want to win or lose battles because of random stuff. (...) Why bother campaigning if it's mostly down to luck whether the big battle is lost or no?
    The Great Battles They Shouldn't Have Won, And Still Did Won Against All Odds.

    There's a feature in MTW2, where a great battle won against odds was marked on the Map with a specific symbol with a short summary.
    O Joy, O Felicity, when the Army you sent to sacrifice, in order to try and slow down a Stack of Doom threatening your Capital, actually managed to repel and inflict the Ennemy severe losses!

    Hey, that's the kind of battles we learn in class!

    I understand that, for small battles, there should be little place for randomness. Numbers, terrain, equipment, leadership and morale are what counts the most.

    But big battles? Maybe a little more randomness would be appreciable when two grand armies meet (like 20K vs 15K).
    Irrational movements of panic, for example, can cause entire flanks to route.
    A rumor spread among the ranks of the Infantry can cause thousands of men to abandon combat. See battle of Tours/Poitiers (732).
    Brilliant strategic moves can decimate or incapacitate entire battalions.



    Quote Originally Posted by perpetualmuse View Post
    I agree that it would be nice to see the combat system expanded slightly.
    (...)
    Perhaps adding some kind of random mid-battle event that reduced troop numbers (similar to during sieges) might work well.

    (...)
    More random battle events: Now, that sounds quite good!

  11. #31
    General Grumpalodian Aardvark Bellay's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDeus VultCK2: Holy Knight

    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Berlin - Dustbin of History
    Posts
    5,651
    Blog Entries
    1
    I guess the biggest emotional problem for the player now is the lack of feedback why something happened or how actually the decisions of commanders made an impact. We dont need tactic combats , but maybe a summary of battles.
    Would be nice for ....wait.... (1, 2, 3 ...) .... Immersion ! .... again.
    [Micromod] - Old Building Names (Pre-1.10-building-names for CK2)

    CK2 Mods: User Mod Index (Don't forget to post about your mod compatibility)
    Deutsch CK2: German CK2 Sub-Forum (go there for the german translation 'repair' mod)

  12. #32
    Lt. General Prime624's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Aardvark Bellay View Post
    I guess the biggest emotional problem for the player now is the lack of feedback why something happened or how actually the decisions of commanders made an impact. We dont need tactic combats , but maybe a summary of battles.
    Would be nice for ...wait.....(1, 2, 3 ...).... Immersion !...again. (sigh)
    I agree. They say that all this stuff goes into who wins, but I can hardly tell.

  13. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime624 View Post
    No. A good strategist never relies on or fails because of luck. (not in battle anyway)
    Uhm, this is ridiculous. People have different limitations, emotions, strengths. You aren't putting a pawn on top of a bishop where the pawn always gets to take the bishop down and comes unscathed... in these large scale battles there is a number of variables that would cause a battle to shift to one side. There could be a battle between same # of troops but in one instance of the battle the cavalry happened to route the other cavalry and was thus able to flank the enemy sooner... In the other incarnation of this same battle pikemen had to climb up a hill and got decimated by archers... archers that in an alternate universe gotten chased down by cavalry. In my most recent game MY KING GOT CAPTURED LEADING A 100- 1 advantage and I lost all of Brittany when I was winning the war! To say there is no luck is a weird thing to say indeed.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by vertinox View Post
    I think the key problem with CK2 combat is that historically smaller forces did beat larger forces, but in CK2 this never happens except for amphibious landings which I don't believe even happened in real life except maybe in one of Richard the Lionhearts landings and attack which he waded ashore to fight the enemy.

    What CK2 lacks is defeat of larger numerical forces by either tactically superior or technologically superior forces. Latin knights beat the numerically superior forces of the Byzantine defenders in the siege of Constantinople mostly because their armor and fighting styles were superior to that of the Byzantine defenders.

    Both at the Battle of Crecy and Agincourt were the numerically superior forces of the French beaten by the English. This was either due to the bad tactics of the French or the superiority of the Longbow. (probaly both)

    One thing I remember in CK1 was that a high stat martial rating army leader was hard to beat even with superior number of troops. I think we should go back to this and make martial rating even more important to battle outcomes.

    Something needs to be done to give underdogs a fighting chance against blobs
    .
    The bolded pretty much sums it up. Personally, I think Paradox made a mistake of showing us the combat breakdown at all. For starters, battles were not fought over x days back then, very few lasted a full day. The game should've just calculated a battle and given us a result without us visually watching a game of 'guess which number reaches 0 first', especially when 99 times out of 100 its the smaller number. If it were like that, there wouldnt be any need for combat modifiers, flanking, etc because we'd assume it is calculated (whether it is or isnt is beside the point cos we wouldnt know). It simply couldve been a result determined by troops numbers, martial stats and some sort of small variable the game producers couldve thought of to produce the odd, feasible upset (Perhaps consideration couldve been given to such things as veteran units, landscape familiarity, commander with 'legendary' status, fighting on de jure turf, distance from home, etc). As is now, we have a basic form of combat in what is a generally not considered a combaty type of game compared to others out there, opening up a can of worms with regards to it's integrity. And by letting the battle play out live it is difficult to include variables in a programable, realistic and gameplayable way.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime624 View Post
    Everything besides free will (although that's debatable) can be predicted. Especially something as simple as medieval combat.
    Homework for this week, go away and look up the phrase "wave function" and then come back to us.

  16. #36
    Lt. General Prime624's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiki989 View Post
    Homework for this week, go away and look up the phrase "wave function" and then come back to us.
    Quantum mechanics is way different than regular physics. You're very smart for referencing that though.

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Prime624 View Post
    Quantum mechanics is way different than regular physics. You're very smart for referencing that though.
    Yea but quantum mechanics is just as real as 'regular physics', a certain amount of randomness is a fact of life.

  18. #38
    Annoying Latvian binTravkin's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Latvia of course
    Posts
    3,101
    Prime624, is obviously trolling, let's just ignore him.
    There's simply no other way one could be spitting so much lalala.

    I am amazed how you guys even discuss this.
    Battle randomness is a fact of history, so the argument should be "should we have more randomness" not "did history have randomness".
    And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

  19. #39
    Lt. General Prime624's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindHeir to the ThroneVictoria 2
    Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-orderEUIV: Call to arms event

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by binTravkin View Post
    Prime624, is obviously trolling, let's just ignore him.
    There's simply no other way one could be spitting so much lalala.

    I am amazed how you guys even discuss this.
    Battle randomness is a fact of history, so the argument should be "should we have more randomness" not "did history have randomness".
    I'm not trolling. Things seeming to be random, are really either probable or improbable. Although that is a form of randomosity, it not dice-roll-random. It's 7-red 3-blue pick one random. Yes it could be blue, but unless red has been picked many times, you shouldn't bet on blue. And as a strategy game player, that is not classified random. Everything in a strategy game is random somewhat. From how skilled your child will be to if it's a boy or a girl.

  20. #40
    Annoying Latvian binTravkin's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    HOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneSemper Fi

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Latvia of course
    Posts
    3,101
    We are talking historical unpredictability, not statistical randomness here, so you're in the wrong place with this.

    The randomness OP was talking about was unpredictability of battle outcomes due to imperfections that statistical theory does not look at, such as lack of knowledge of enemy, the battlefield or even oneself, lack of experience, certain personal traits (brave, reckless, slothful, etc).
    The implications of all those factors are so complex that even in modern days with all the sensor and computing technology it is impossible to predict the outcome of the battle before it happened. Yes, you can often say what is "likely" to be the outcome, but it can still go both ways by large.
    It should be much more unpredictable for medieval armies.
    And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shalt be three. Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thou foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts