Attrition indicator flaw

[Shai]

I don't consider this a game-stopper, but the province of Obdorsk, in winter, doesn't show the correct attrition rate. I had a conquistador with 8K troops in winter. Attrition should be 10% for winter and 5% for swamp (think it's swamp). Conquistador was a 12 leader. Tho no attrition was predicted/indicated, it DID occur.

 

[AndrewT]

It has the same climate and terrain settings as, for instance, Berezov or Saleharo; I can't see any reason why it would behave differently to them.

Arer you saying none was shown, none should have occurred, but some did occur? Or that none was shown, some should have occurred, but a different amount did occur?

 

[Shai]

AndrewT...

Attrition should have been forecast (on the unit display with the skull) and attrition did occur. I noticed when it indicated no attrition because I was watching closely when my conquistador was at work there.

Attrition was evident when the 8000 even army was reduced. I didn't calculate the %. Like I said, it's no game-stopper. Losing troops, as Russia, is like losing pennies as Bill Gates.

As for the neighboring provinces, I can't say that there is a difference... I wondered if they are, in fact, the same. I'll run some troops up there and check the area.

 

[Shai]

I took a conquistador up there with 24K troops (23033 cav and 10 arty) and got the following results.....

+24 Unit Size
-15 Province
-16 Leader

+5 Due to Technology
+10 Winter
+2 Marsh

Attrition = 2 (that's with the conquistador, without him, attrition = 14)

At Saleharo the results are the same. Is this correct? If so, why don't the numbers seem right to me?

I was not able to recreate the original error. I don't know how to explain that.

 

[AndrewT]

You're right, no matter how you toss up the figures you can't get them to add up to +2, but I admit I don't know much about how attrition works. I'll see if I can find out more.

 

[AndrewT]

All I've got so far is "I don't think technology adds to the sum, it sets a limit (winter and terrain modifier not included). For instance, the maximum attrition for the player's tech level is 5 (+10 winter + 2 marsh = 17)."

But the numbers still don't add up. Can we get a saved game showing what you see?

If so please zip up the .eug and .eug.cfg files of that game, and email to me at ataubman@ducros.com.au , along with a link to this thread, your forum Nick, and what I need to do in the game to see the problem. Thanks.

 

[Shai]

AndrewT........

Ok, I've saved a winter month with an army in Obdorsk and another in Nagorje which both have the same kind of results. I'll send it along, zipped.

 

[unmerged(4219)]

More information: You suffer maximum attrition during the winter in provinces that you do not own (even if you control them) - and do not suffer max in your owned provinces even though the enemies control them. This seems...kinda strange.

Furthermore: Troops stationed in a city without a fortress will suffer at least 1% attrition, unless there is a conquistador.

But conquistadors still suffer some sort of attrition in the winter...not sure how this is calculated though (which seems to be the problem above.)


I would argue that the first point I mentioned may be a bug of sorts - supply and max attrition from winter effects should depend on the controller, not the owner, of a province. I think the only thing that needs to be changed is supply, since automatic max attrition is dependant on there being at best "yellow" supply for the province

 

[Shai]

AndrewT......

Slight delay... Have a problem with my e-mail .... can't load msoe.dll... what the hell?

 

[AndrewT]

Well they still don't add up, but I see a little better what's happening. With the example above

+24 Unit Size
-15 Province
-16 Leader

+5 Due to Technology
+10 Winter
+2 Marsh

Attrition = 2 (that's with the conquistador, without him, attrition = 14)

the lower 3 factors don't affect your actual attrition, they set what the max attrition can be; so you cannot get more than 17% attrition in this example. The top section is what you actually experience; in this case +24-15-16=+3. You got +2 but that is pretty close, if that's all it was I wouldn't bother logging a bug.

But the examples in the save game you sent are not that close. Obdorsk is

+21 Unit Size
-15 Province
-6 Leader

+1 Due to Technology
+10 Winter
+2 Marsh

Attrition=9, but the sums =0


and Nagorje is

+21 Unit Size
-20 Province
-4 Leader

+1 Due to Technology
+10 Winter
+5 Mountain

Attrition = 6, but the sums =-3. In both cases the difference is 9; it is as if the tech level # is being added to the attrition number as well as removed from the maximum total. Let me send this game in to Paradox for comment.

 

[AndrewT]

This is what we think happens. The "+10 winter" should really be both above and below the line; winter means the max possible attrition is raised by 10% AND the actual attrition is also raised by 10%. I guess it was decided having it in both places would be confusing.

So in your example, +24 Unit Size -15 Province -16 Leader = +3 +10 (Winter) =+13. You were actually getting +14 without the conquistador so that is close enough, probably a rounding error.

 

[Shai]

I see. Thanx for your effort on this! Is terrain and tech only used to determine the maximum attrition, then?

 

[AndrewT]

Yes, the better the terrain or more advanced the tech level, the lower the maximum attrition can be no matter what (except for winter).