Combat Issues - Why are outrageous results possible?

[unmerged(25609)]

These sorts of things are frustrating, but you just have to laugh. I'm trying to remember a battle that I won to open a GC - as anybody! Yesterday 17,000 of mine ran from 164 enemy (but we did cut them down to 87 before running, Sir!)
But a sense of humour is essential.
If you want realism .... then most of your troops should desert long before you get to the battlefield. Attrition rates should be astronomic. Then, your feudal nobles wouldn't even show up to fight without promises on your part - like centralization -1, aristocracy +1. And after the battle, they would want more. If you're one of those who likes mercenaries, then you should be prepared to have them take your money and do nothing, or go over to the enemy who offered them more, or sack your provinces just for the hell of it, or capture one of your provinces and set up an independent state.
Your generals wouldn't have combat abilities that you could discover simply by hovering the cursor over them. You would send them into battle completely ignorant of their talents. To be realistic, for every one with combat bonuses, you'd have three or four total incompetents with negative attributes - yes, combat penalties! And you couldn't dismiss them because they happen to be the most powerful nobles in your kingdom.


you wish for realism ... are you sure?

 

[unmerged(29041)]

These sorts of things are frustrating, but you just have to laugh. I'm trying to remember a battle that I won to open a GC - as anybody! Yesterday 17,000 of mine ran from 164 enemy (but we did cut them down to 87 before running, Sir!)
But a sense of humour is essential.
If you want realism .... then most of your troops should desert long before you get to the battlefield. Attrition rates should be astronomic. Then, your feudal nobles wouldn't even show up to fight without promises on your part - like centralization -1, aristocracy +1. And after the battle, they would want more. If you're one of those who likes mercenaries, then you should be prepared to have them take your money and do nothing, or go over to the enemy who offered them more, or sack your provinces just for the hell of it, or capture one of your provinces and set up an independent state.
Your generals wouldn't have combat abilities that you could discover simply by hovering the cursor over them. You would send them into battle completely ignorant of their talents. To be realistic, for every one with combat bonuses, you'd have three or four total incompetents with negative attributes - yes, combat penalties! And you couldn't dismiss them because they happen to be the most powerful nobles in your kingdom.


you wish for realism ... are you sure?

LOL, the best description of renaissance warfare I have ever read. kudos.

 

[unmerged(25696)]

LOL, the best description of renaissance warfare I have ever read. kudos.

Yes, I heartfully agree. And wish some God of Rock 'n Roll would pass along, and read this.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

So, if I understand correctly, no one knows anything about the actual mechanics of combat resolution used by the game, beyond the bare outline I gave above, and whatever they have managed to parse out of the quite unintelligible FAQ?

 

[iBaLkiD]

These sorts of things are frustrating, but you just have to laugh. I'm trying to remember a battle that I won to open a GC - as anybody! Yesterday 17,000 of mine ran from 164 enemy (but we did cut them down to 87 before running, Sir!)
But a sense of humour is essential.
If you want realism .... then most of your troops should desert long before you get to the battlefield. Attrition rates should be astronomic. Then, your feudal nobles wouldn't even show up to fight without promises on your part - like centralization -1, aristocracy +1. And after the battle, they would want more. If you're one of those who likes mercenaries, then you should be prepared to have them take your money and do nothing, or go over to the enemy who offered them more, or sack your provinces just for the hell of it, or capture one of your provinces and set up an independent state.
Your generals wouldn't have combat abilities that you could discover simply by hovering the cursor over them. You would send them into battle completely ignorant of their talents. To be realistic, for every one with combat bonuses, you'd have three or four total incompetents with negative attributes - yes, combat penalties! And you couldn't dismiss them because they happen to be the most powerful nobles in your kingdom.


you wish for realism ... are you sure?

Ditto those sentiments. I think the combat system is TOO CONSISTENT, when compared to the realities of those times. People are thinking that every engagement is a set piece battle under the most optimal of circumstances, that was rarley ever the case in any engagement be it land or sea. Also some of these supposed inconsistencies are the fault of the player.

"Gee my 20k army of cav got slaughtered by a 2000 man army! That's preposterous I say!"

"So unrealistic!"

"What do mean Cavalry cant fight well in heavily forested terrain, thats unrealistic too, i mean they can just go around the trees with their steeds can't they!?"

War was chaotic then, never any gaurantees. I would hate to build up an army for a span of ten years then go to invade Japan and have my entire fleet/army/supplies lost to a typhoon. How fun would that be? How fun would it be to have an inept military leader who gained his post through nepotism, or wealth that was stated before, ruin my careful planning that took a massive amount of time/effort/and resources to coordinate? Not to talk about the total lack of communication inregards to coordinating armies and battle plans.

The game makes going to war alot easier on the player then our historical counterparts. So many variables are nixed for gameplay issues in EU2, to ensure a smooth gameplay experience. Try playing Vicky if you want a mind numbing amount of things to consider/ruin your well made plans. Trust me it leaves an awful taste in your mouth when you have planned a war for 5+ years game time and your military institution has supllied you with 6 pitiful leaders that all have negative traits/low morale/chicken hearted/inept/unorganized/stubborn/blah/blah/blah/...

Or a liberal revolution that last's for ten years game time(about two to three hours of play times at mormal speed)! Hundreds upon hundreds of revolts that will criplle your nation. Wow very realistic, but not much fun if you really think about it.

"Gee i cant wait to get home and play some vicky tonight, ive got those liberal revolutionaries to deal with over and over again!" "Cant wait to kill my own populace weakening my industry/research/manpower."


I also think people are too critical of a 5 year old game, that has had stellar support up to this very day. Think about what Paradox gains from said support economically, and one would come to the conclusion that we should be oh so happy with the current state of EU2. EU2 of today is a far cry from its release version. I have never seen a company patch a game this long(Starcraft maybe?)



In the end though, too each is own...

 

[unmerged(25696)]

I also think people are too critical of a 5 year old game, that has had stellar support up to this very day. Think about what Paradox gains from said support economically, and one would come to the conclusion that we should be oh so happy with the current state of EU2. EU2 of today is a far cry from its release version. I have never seen a company patch a game this long(Starcraft maybe?)

Indeed, I think it's time Paradox realizes that it's the good time for them to make EU3, not HoI2.

 

[unmerged(34070)]

I`m not complaining. I`m just wondering, and it looks like that`s what most of the others are doing too. I haven`t seen anyone ask for a patch or anything.

 

[iBaLkiD]

I`m not complaining. I`m just wondering, and it looks like that`s what most of the others are doing too. I haven`t seen anyone ask for a patch or anything.

Read my entire post, not just the "Quote" from my previous post. The quote had nothing really to do with the gist of my post so...

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Now, this thread isn't started as a rant on the stupidity of the methodology EU2 uses for resolving naval battles (two month battles? come on ... ). Nor is it specifically about the concept of allowing outmatched fleets/armies to win (because, after all, Agincourt DID happen, among other notable upsets). This thread comes about because I can't make heads or tales out of the FAQ regarding the battle system, and would like to know just HOW specifically a battle in EU2 is resolved (mechanically speaking), and how it is that 15 v 3 doesn't result in a victory almost all the time!

Obviously, I failed to avoid the pitfall of discussing the irrelevant. <sigh>

 

[unmerged(16599)]

Indeed, I think it's time Paradox realizes that it's the good time for them to make EU3, not HoI2.

EU3 with... tactical battles as an option!

 

[unmerged(29041)]

So, if I understand correctly, no one knows anything about the actual mechanics of combat resolution used by the game, beyond the bare outline I gave above, and whatever they have managed to parse out of the quite unintelligible FAQ?

Sorry, DSYoungEsq, we are not paying much attention to you in your own thread.

AFAIK you are right. Nobody has a *%&*!% idea how the combat system works, only that it gets tweaked sometimes. From 1.07 to 1.08, cavalry started to have a malus in mountains, and morale importance in the outcome was increased (to most people dismay if I may add).

To most players, going to combat is one of the few things in the game that can give a total surprise, and I think many of them are quite happy with that. That is probably why no info was ever hinted by the programmers, and why your thread is being sidetracked so often.

While finding out the values for all the variables involved would probably benefit MP players, I doubt it would benefit SP players like myself. After all, warfare should be a very haphardous bussiness.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Fodoron, thanks, I'm glad I got someone's attention.

I suspected this to be the case. The FAQ on the battle system just leaves you scratching your head, and not quite in the same good-feeling way that reading about the attempt to hack the .tbl files does.

I guess it's the boardgamegeek in me that wants to know how the mechanics work. I've always tried to figure it out in any strategy game or tactics game I've played on the computer. Usually, it is pretty easy to figure out; often the game's manual spells it out pretty clearly (uh, Paradox, are you listening??? EU3 with a correct, comprehensive manual??). I certainly don't want "certainty" going into battle; we do want things like Agincourt to happen naturally. Probably the only real strong complaint I had with Alpha Centauri was that they made the combat resolution system so predictable, you know if you are going to win in advance on odds down to the hundreths of difference (e.g.: 1.09 to 1 odds). But then Civilization III screwed it up the other way, so that a company of rifle-toting cavalry can lose to a company of spearmen, simply through a not-too-lucky set of die rolls.

If we knew the actual calculations, and the results; that is, if we understood correctly how the tables in the FAQ are applied, then we could at least know how to maximize our chances in a battle. We might also be able to offer Johan valid suggestions on how to tweak the system so that you can't have three galleys beating 15!

 

[Yakman]

As in mine - I don't know much about the combat mechanics, but I do know that in EU2 an african galley can kick my 20 portugisian warships and 4000 defenders can beat back my 30000 men invasion army. Yes you can find some scenarios where this could actually happen, but its plain unrealistic and it happens far too much - so yea, shit happens! The next time you might be the one to beat a ten times greater army

Exactly! Plus, there is a huge amount going on in an EU2 game. So much is done that even outliers seem common.

A african galley might be able to beat 20 portugese warships--but it has say, a .05 % chance of doing it. You play EU2 long enough and there's a good chance it'll happen at some point.

My philosophy is--if I just lost a lopsided combat like that, then it must have been an outbreak of malaria, cholera, and the enemy was on top of giant cliffs rolling rocks down on my guys. It happens, you build again, and you try again.

 

[unmerged(25609)]

Obviously, I failed to avoid the pitfall of discussing the irrelevant. <sigh>

Sorry - you are 100% correct. Nobody seems to have the foggiest idea how it works. I'm not an engine mechanic, so I don't really worry about it. But if Robin74 or Lawkeeper remain silent on the subject, you might have to go all the way to the top.
Thanks for the nostalgia buzz, too. Ahh, my Civ 2 stealth bomber, shot down by a phalanx....

Just a thought .. is it possible that attacker and defender have different CRTs? One that's advantageous to the defender, of course. No bonus for morale or tech level, in the scenario you describe, so it seems like the computer rolled a "1" for both sides ("no damage", obviously). Each round, that "1" is carried over. Meanwhile, the marginal advantage to the defender increases almost imperceptibly, until after 2 months, YOUR morale cracks.
Just guessing, but if I think of it as a boardgame, maybe I'll have a real thought ....

 

[SnapperAEG]

Sorry - you are 100% correct. Nobody seems to have the foggiest idea how it works.
Thanks for the nostalgia buzz, too. Ahh, my Civ 2 stealth bomber, shot down by a phalanx....

Amen on both points.

1) No one has any idea.

2) Great nostalgia buzz. Hey, at least they could hit your stealth bomber with an arrow or rock or something. (He was "flying low, real low", to quote George C. Scott )
What about CIV 1, when a Battleship would bombard a phalanx, and get sunk? Never figured out how they got on board

 

[unmerged(25696)]

But if Robin74 or Lawkeeper remain silent on the subject, you might have to go all the way to the top.

Damn', found out. :wacko:

The only attempt at decoding the combat engine gave... the FAQ. Which is now obsolete, and unintelligible to most. But I don't bother, as several people already said, some randomness and fog-of-war (weird name isn't it ? highly appropriated ) are IMHO a good thing.

Only a handful (er... a rather long list) of variables, modifiers, penalties, disadvantages, bonuses, etc, have been found, like :
- cav is useless in mountains
- don't cross rivers unless you have a vastly superior army
- some techs are more important than others (CRT-changes, especially lvl 9)
- leaders rock , and maneuver helps slaughtering defeated armies
- mountains give a defensive bonus
- cav rule in plains/desert
- Fire is useless early, but becomes progressively more important
- etc, etc

For a more detailed analysis, I refer you to Ryoken's MP Tactical Domination Guide, which is good in SP too.

 

[unmerged(25609)]

But isn't there a defender bonus of some kind? I have not done any serious research or quantitative analysis (a la Robin74), but it seems to me that virtually every time I attack in the first 20-30 years of a GC, I lose. Equal in tech level, so the same CRT. I don't cross a river, or use cavalry in the mountains (anymore) But I lose - a lot. I know, I know ... the moral of the story is NOT to attack. Role-player, OK?

An advantage in numbers doesn't seem to matter. Even results like DSYoung's don't surprise me that much anymore. Just last night, 10 of my ships versus 2 enemy ... lost, retreated to port, waited, tried again, lost again. Strip away leaders, tech level, terrain & composition of the army variables ... and what's left? I should add that I am always at 100% support and maxixum morale.
My guess is that the advantage goes to the defender. Or does your morale drop if your troops are on the march?

 

[unmerged(9146)]

Strip away leaders, tech level, terrain & composition of the army variables ... and what's left?

Domestic policy sliders - they can heavily influence your morale.

 

[unmerged(35094)]

i loaded game, new GC just to saw morale of both navies, ottos and byz, byzantium has 1.5 from national morale (due to tech) and 1 from maintenance, ottomans has 1.5 from national morale (due to tech) 1 from maintenance and 0.13 from monarch so ottos has 0.13 more morale than byz.

The point of being 0 naval tech or 1 naval tech don't gives crt avantage, not every tech lvl gives crt avantage, only a few does.

 

[unmerged(20547)]

Just one more little thing that hasn't been mentioned. As well as providing a bonus to research the military skill of your monarch also has an effect on the morale of your forces.....So if you've got a monarch who's military rating is very low then beware.