Combat Resolution Algorithms

[unmerged(37472)]

When considering how to rate the impact of leaders, technological events, inventions, etc. on land units, it is critical to have an answer to this question: What is/are the algorithm(s) used in the land combat resolution cycles in Victoria? The following are modifiable attributes (variables) that effect unit performance:

Shock
Defense
Morale
Organization
Speed
Terrain
Attrition
Fire
Experience
Reliability

Which of these variables listed are used to resolve land combat operations in Victoria? How is each variable defined (mathematically…I know what they mean semantically)? Must they be whole numbers or can they be decimals. Is the variable a base factor or a percentage for modifying that factor? (e.g. base factor = Fire multiplied by modifier = morale; or 4 * .25 = 1). What are the arithmetic operators (+, -, / , or *) used between each of these variables in the land combat resolution algorithm? Enquiring minds want to know…

 

[unmerged(37472)]

A related question is: What is the range of leader modifiers for Background and Personality traits? As an example, shock has a range of entries -4 to +6 (per table at http://victoria.nsen.ch/wiki/index.php/Leader_Traits). Can a +10 be used? +20? - 100? What are the limits?

Range for Modifiers as currently defined for Leader Backgrounds:

Shock -4 to +6 (11 entries)
Defense -6 to +4 (11 entries)
Morale -4 to +5 (10 entries)
Organization -25 to +10 (36 entries)
Speed -15 to +15 (31 entries)
Terrain -20 to +10 (31 entries)
Attrition -10 to +5 (16 entries)
Fire -4 to +4 (10 entries)
Experience -20 to + 25 (46 entries)
Reliability -5 to +5 (11 entries)

 

[Strategist]

They can be almost double of the numbers you wrote at least, as a leader always has 2 of these traits, for example I had a +40% speed leader today.

I dont know for sure, but I think any values are accepted by the programm, at least shock etcetera can be 100 if you want, to why not the modifier?

 

[unmerged(37472)]

Thanks Strategist. I'm surprised that with all the modding going on, so little is known about a very important element of the game. New pretty pictures, new events...but how does it all piece together in its totality as a representation of history?

 

[Strategist]

Thanks Strategist. I'm surprised that with all the modding going on, so little is known about a very important element of the game. New pretty pictures, new events...but how does it all piece together in its totality as a representation of history?

I am going to post quite some things to change on the warfare part soon

I am currently reading some sources just to be sure, but then I will post suggestions about what to change to make the warfare part a lot more historical (although more challenging too). I posted something about the warfare (clausewitzian) AI before, but now I will post about the warfare engine and some changes that should be made. They will involve easy modding, but also changes in the executables...

 

[unmerged(37472)]

I am going to post quite some things to change on the warfare part soon

Thanks Strategist. It sounds intriquing. I look forward to the results of your endeavors in this area. The mystery of the Sphinx...

To expand on my thoughts about the Combat Resolution Algorithm and what generated them in the first place, here is a post I made to the Victoria 18th Century Mod Forum...

...Last week I sat down with Chandler's Dictionary of the Napoleonic Wars and tried to translate what I was reading into a background and personality rating. As I posted elsewhere, it became apparent to me that I didn't know enough about combat resolution to know the order of magnitude of my background and personality selections. This begat deeper thoughts which I'm still pondering.

Assignment to any leader, event, or technology a modifier for shock, fire, organization ratings, etc. should (I think) be governed with the endstate in view. In other words, at what state should these variables be in at the end of the game (historically speaking)? Working back from there, what should the state of these variable be in at the beginning of the game? Is the difference bewteen the beginning and end state 1.5 times better? Twice? Three times? Given the answer to this question, should we not fill in "the blanks" of the scenario with events and technologies over time to get you to the end state?

Example: For the sake of discussion, let's say there are 15 technological events/inventions that can occur during the time period covered by a scenario (say 30 years). For illustrative purposes, let's begin by saying that all inventions are equal in order of magnitude and all impact on the organization rating. With an organization start state of 25 and an end state of 50 (we make this up--informed by historical research), then 25/30 = the average increase in organization per year = .83

As stated above, there are only 15 events during this 30-year period. Therefore, the average increase in the organization rating per event = 1.66 every two years. So in this hypothetical, when scripting an event, each event (when triggered) will increase the organization rating by +1.6

Assuming whole numbers are required by the Victoria engine, let's do some rounding making judgments on the significance of any particular event. In this simple example, let's say some events will generate a +1 and others will generate a +2. By the end of the scenario, given our previous historical estimate, no more than +25 can be added to the organization rating.

So what does this have to do with assigning leader backgrounds and personalities? Well, I think it's all part of the same equation. A Leader's rating should be judged in light of our peception of his effects (+ or -) on this larger equation of start and endstates--not because history has labled him as "impetuous" and Victoria says an impetuous leader = -5 from the organization rating. Maybe -5 is the right answer or maybe -10 is given the bigger picture. Using Victoria, to get a -10, our leader has to be either mediocre or undisciplined. What if he was neither--just impetuous? We can address this by changing the background and personality strings and ratings to suit our purposes. But the bigger issue is what are these leader modifiers modifying over time? How much is about right?

As I said, I'm still pondering how to devise a ruler to measure impact across this spectrum of variables. These are my thoughts for now.

Viewing Victoria as a system--that implements a world of diplomacy, information, economics, warfare and technology over time, and knowing how each of these sub-system works alone and together is critical when it comes to modding. I want to craft a mod that gives the player a "feeling" that he has participated in an historical event vs a strange, science fictional journey through some vaguely familiar parallel universe. Knowing what goes on "under the hood" is the key.

Thanks fer listenin'