Extensive combat testing in 1.22, and why combat number are so skewed
- Thread starter anomalacaris
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Well, now I feel less of a horrible general for losing a ton of men with Sweden and Brandenburg in the early going. Far more than I lost in the previous patch. I lost wars because of how quickly the battles were over with.
This is very enlightening. Thank you anomalacaris for investigating this so diligently.
Impressive research!
This reminds me of the thread in Dwarf Fortress where they proved that armor was useless at deflecting crossbow bolts.
This reminds me of the thread in Dwarf Fortress where they proved that armor was useless at deflecting crossbow bolts.
OBVIOUSLY. Armor cannot stop crossbow you silly XD. This is why all knights worn armor : So that they can be easily taken out by crossbow.
Lol dont get me started. Armor is why europe moved to the crossbow (instead of bows). The pope wanted to ban crossbows because they pierced armor and could be used by some halfwitted peasant. Having a king or other noble die to a halfwit peasant with a crossbow was against thier very moral fibre. The move to gothic and maximilian full plate was to counter the xbow and musket. It was incredibly expensive however and only the richest wore such sets. The cuirais was a later development, where a thicker plate was used only to cover the torso. But earlier (and cheaper) armors were always vulnerable to the xbow.
Excellent research - thanks for sharing OP.
I am very reluctant to call any bug game-breaking, but this seems to qualify as it seriously skews not just battles but also army composition and military tech.
I may take a break with something else until this is resolved.
I am very reluctant to call any bug game-breaking, but this seems to qualify as it seriously skews not just battles but also army composition and military tech.
I may take a break with something else until this is resolved.
... This explains so much, indeed.
I must now make an observations of my own based on what I read and seen.
- morale damage you inflict is proportional to your own morale <- This means if you want to win wars you want Morale-raising ideas and DO NOT REDUCE MAINTENANCE. Not even against REBELS. Really. This explains some lost battles I had against rebels and a battle I lost against Castille. (I had more units but they had defensive morale idea, so they outdamaged me in morale and routed my unit despite the fact we probably had around the same amount of morale when all was added together)
It's also rather strange, TBH... seriously, morale's supposed to be hitpoints for unit integrity, isn't it? That's always what I thought it was. Why is it modifying the damage you deal? Does not compute...
I must now make an observations of my own based on what I read and seen.
- morale damage you inflict is proportional to your own morale <- This means if you want to win wars you want Morale-raising ideas and DO NOT REDUCE MAINTENANCE. Not even against REBELS. Really. This explains some lost battles I had against rebels and a battle I lost against Castille. (I had more units but they had defensive morale idea, so they outdamaged me in morale and routed my unit despite the fact we probably had around the same amount of morale when all was added together)
It's also rather strange, TBH... seriously, morale's supposed to be hitpoints for unit integrity, isn't it? That's always what I thought it was. Why is it modifying the damage you deal? Does not compute...
The term "morale damage" does not mean killing more soldiers due to morale, but means reducing the morale of the enemy.
Yes, I know, I was not stating anything about strength damage. So, to clarify, the question is "Why is your own morale modifying the morale damage you deal in combat?"
That doesn't sound so weird. An army which is very close to routing will probably be less able to make the enemy feel fear. Or something like that.
Last edited:
Ok, I see your point now, sorry for misreading your post. Now having inferior morale is indeed fatal for combat. That actually means that countries with morale bonuses will have a much easier time winning battles. From this respect, changing morale to percentage is a wrong move. Retaining the system in pre-1.2 status is probably better.
EDIT: But again, after the weapon damage bug is fixed, direct damage may be able to slash through the enemy before they can drain your morale. More test will be needed.
I think it's fine. This way it scales in the late game and now morale actually has importance. People used to just ignore morale apart from getting MD in eu3, for example.
Wow! Science FTW!
Sadly it makes it impossible to continue my game. It was so fun...
Sadly it makes it impossible to continue my game. It was so fun...
Except it places too much importance on it. The way it seems to act is not just as "hitpoints" (which is worth by itself to improve because who doesn't want units that stay in the field for longer? ) but also as a damage multiplier that magnifies the advantage of whoever has the most.
When you take into consideration stacking ideas that raise morale by 25% (defensive) or 33% (look at Brandenburg for example, IIRC), it becomes horribly broken very fast. We're talking invincible armies here.
This needs looking at, probably as part of the fix to the issue the OP has brought to light.
If armies can deal enough damage to decimate the enemy before morale breaks, then it will be less of a problem. We need to see if enough damage can be dealt after the fix for the weapon modifier,
