Every once in a while, I just suddenly feel like I've fallen into a different universe where almost everything is the same.
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.
Every once in a while, I just suddenly feel like I've fallen into a different universe where almost everything is the same.
In 1.2.2, Weapondamage gives a bonus relative to the difference between your weapondamage and the enemies.. And since rebels use your technology for everything, they give 0 bonus...
You need to test between countries of different technologies to see the difference.
You need to test between countries of different technologies to see the difference.
Whoops
Does this mean combat is working as intended, and the constant chasing of shattered armies in late game is here to stay?
That would be the case if the rebels use the ideas as well ?
I mean he edited the ideas to give a lot of modifiers in combat fire ability and so on but it didn't have any effect whatsoever. WAD as well?
I think Bellygareth meant the infantry combat ability modifier, which is the first idea of the quality group. It is also not having any effect in the testing.
Is this a good design? If damage-reducing bonuses accumulate towards the lategame regardless, while damage dealt is negated due to almost equal tech with your neighbors, then you don't do much damage. I'd love to see improvements and advantages in tech really change the game, I don't feel they do that today.
Ok, the system apparently is WAD but some thoughts about this design of the combat system are more than obligatory.
1) If the weapons modifiers only give bonuses it is likely that the base value which determines damage inflicted is hardcoded, as we realised.
2) Probably this change was meant to make battles more or less inflict the same damage over the whole period of 1400-1800, however it didn't take into account the military tactics steady increase. This means late game battles are too bloodless.
3) It means manpower is a very precious resource in the early game because not only it is inherently fewer than in later period (due to buildings, ideas...) but is virtually inexhaustible in the late game due to very low losses which gives time to manpower to recover. Needless to say this means consuming big blobs' manpower late game is almost impossible or very difficult and time consuming. This is clearly working very badly for mere gameplay purposes.
4) In History as in real life weapons damage is an inherent feature of the weapon itself. If damage depended on the weapon the enemy is using then very few casualties would have occurred in WW1 as german and french machine guns would simply nullify each other. Or in the cold war there would have been no nuclear disaster since both the Soviet union and the USA had the same nuclear weapons so atomic weapons would become harmless.
Therefore I please ask Paradox to change this feature as it is both unacceptable from a gameplay and a historical perspective. There is already the military tactics modifier to decrease battle losses later in the game, no need to penalise later battles so heavily.
@ AdmRepublic; Comes Imperii: He already wrote the following about combat.
So combat as a whole is being changed in 1.3? Or the chasing of shattered armies? It's not very clear.
It is so vague a statement that I would hardly consider it an answer to the issues raised here.
My guess is that combat abilities modify the relative difference between the two armies' weapon damage modifiers. When technologies are at the same level, weapon damage modifier difference is zero and thus the effect combat ability has on it is again, zero. Or maybe they are just non-functional at all.
That would be poor design if so. I would think that combat ability should give a bonus even if technology is equal, and that any difference in tech should accentuante or reduce this bonus.