Extensive combat testing in 1.22, and why combat number are so skewed

[Pornek]

But wouldnt that mean its still not WAD ?

The lvl 3 halberd infantery fire modifier is +0.25, which gives it an overall fire of 0.25. However if I attack someone with the same technologies the modifier is changed to 1 instead of 0.25 (as seen in anomalacaris test).

Or what is my mistake?

 

[Varyar]

So combat as a whole is being changed in 1.3? Or the chasing of shattered armies? It's not very clear.

Can't have one without the other.

It is so vague a statement that I would hardly consider it an answer to the issues raised here.

I don't think the 'combat engine' is a perfectly modularised entity where you can tweak one part without affecting the others. There's no doubt in my mind that when he writes that they'll change it in 1.03, there will be a full review (i.e. "how do we want this system to work"?) and not just some small detail change. Either way, we'll have to wait and see until 1.03.

 

[anomalacaris]

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.

I see! Thanks for the clarification. (So that is why my Kongo cavalry die in mass to Ryukyu peasants in the wrongly scripted event.. after I tag switched from high-tech Ryukyu to Kongo)
This does not really change the late game combat problem though, since mostly you are still going to fight same tech enemies. Early game combat is still going to be bloody and late game combat painless due to tactics difference. That is definitely one design choice I would not agree to.

In the meantime I also briefly tried cavalry, and shock. There is also no real difference between infantry/cavalry damage, nor between fire/shock (there seem to be some rounding errors). Is that desired too? I mean historically firearms should not become so important until much later, around 1500. And it would really seem wrong if artillery would be able to do as much shock damage as fire. (I assume they follow same rules here...)

So my feeling is that this is still a bug, but bug in design?

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.

One way to look at this is that morale simply act like strength, but act in the morale section of combat.
Does it need fix? I don't know. It really depends on whether it's morale or strength losses that decides wars (current weapon damage system would favor morale, since manpower would not be big conern in later game). I guess it's a bigger concern in MP, making it harder to come back from losses, since you lose prestige and thus have lower morale.

 

[Varyar]

But wouldnt that mean its still not WAD ?

The lvl 3 halberd infantery fire modifier is +0.25, which gives it an overall fire of 0.25. However if I attack someone with the same technologies the modifier is changed to 1 instead of 0.25 (as seen in anomalacaris test).

Or what is my mistake?

I suppose 1 means no modifier? As in 4*1=4? Whereas if there was a difference (say 0,25 vs 0,5) you'd get some sort of bonus from the difference (0.25) like 4*1.25=5.

 

[Morwys]

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.

:laugh:

Way to go to crush all the dreamer's dreams, dev. "He should be gaining all the games for free, he should have a plaque installed in PI headquarters, he should have all our virginities...". The test was rigged from the start and meant absolutely nothing new. Also, about a "problem" that existed since game launch. I can't stand this crap anymore: I dream about the day we get rid of the 1.2 whiners. Maybe I'll do as many did: the game was broken for them, so they're shelving the game. I think I'm shelving the forums, because they're clearly broken to me.

 

[Pornek]

I suppose 1 means no modifier? As in 4*1=4? Whereas if there was a difference (say 0,25 vs 0,5) you'd get some sort of bonus from the difference (0.25) like 4*1.25=5.

Ok makes sense, but If we assume that 1 is no modifier we would still have the ineffectivness of combat ability etc. and further my fire 10 infantery vs an enemy fire 10 infantery (on the same technology level) is still treated like a fire 1 infantery. Which means its still flawed, no?

Edit: Nvm the 2nd part.

 

[Novacat]

:laugh:

Way to go to crush all the dreamer's dreams, dev. "He should be gaining all the games for free, he should have a plaque installed in PI headquarters, he should have all our virginities...". The test was rigged from the start and meant absolutely nothing new. Also, about a "problem" that existed since game launch. I can't stand this crap anymore: I dream about the day we get rid of the 1.2 whiners. Maybe I'll do as many did: the game was broken for them, so they're shelving the game. I think I'm shelving the forums, because they're clearly broken to me.

Theres still a number of anamolies that Paradox has not addressed, such as power doing absolutly nothing and discipline not affecting defense properly.

 

[Lakedaimon]

Theres still a number of anamolies that Paradox has not addressed, such as power doing absolutly nothing and discipline not affecting defense properly.

Exactly, anomalies. Not "broken".

 

[Novacat]

Exactly, anomalies. Not "broken".

Very major anamolies that have a substantial negative impact on balance and gameplay.

 

[Dorevai]

Well something is certainly wrong when one 12k army takes out one 10k army in western europe on day 5 of the game instantly. Hundred Years War is just full of stupid with the way tuning is right now. I don't know if he found the silver bullet, but I'm not satisfied with the balance of things atm. I'm looking forward to combat being improved.

 

[Meneth]

:laugh:

Way to go to crush all the dreamer's dreams, dev. "He should be gaining all the games for free, he should have a plaque installed in PI headquarters, he should have all our virginities...". The test was rigged from the start and meant absolutely nothing new. Also, about a "problem" that existed since game launch. I can't stand this crap anymore: I dream about the day we get rid of the 1.2 whiners. Maybe I'll do as many did: the game was broken for them, so they're shelving the game. I think I'm shelving the forums, because they're clearly broken to me.

That only means that the game isn't as broken when there's a major tech disparity.
When tech is the same or near the same, it's just as broken as if the tech did literally nothing.
The problem with casualties being too high early-game and too low late-game still remain.

And of course, that doesn't address "combat ability" having no effect.

 

[arctus]

so everything is fine with weapon modifier and combat ability?

 

[Zarine]

Theres still a number of anamolies that Paradox has not addressed, such as power doing absolutly nothing and discipline not affecting defense properly.

Are we sure that rebels are not taking the ideas as well ? Because if they do, this solves the power problem.
It is in his summary so his test is hidden somewhere in 9 pages of wall of text. Someone knows where exactly ?

 

[anubisfike]

So combat is "working" but it's just really really stupid? Hahaha, that's even worse.

 

[BoleslavLev]

I am totally lost. More I read less I know. So may you please tell me if I am getting this right?
1) difference in technology between 2 states makes difference in combat, but if both states have high tech, the difference is gone (so it soean´t matter if both have swords or both have machineguns - just an example - but there is difference when one have sword and the other one have a machinegun, obviously )
2) infantry, cavalry, artillery bonus power does absolutely nothing (damn my Polish game )
3) the rest works fine.
Is that it? Thanks.

 

[OhioAstro]

Theres still a number of anamolies that Paradox has not addressed, such as power doing absolutly nothing and discipline not affecting defense properly.

And the predictable fanboy sneering (not from you) because someone did a good-faith test that was tripped up by an undocumented feature. Christ.

 

[Zarine]

I am totally lost. More I read less I know. So may you please tell me if I am getting this right?
1) difference in technology between 2 states makes difference in combat, but if both states have high tech, the difference is gone (so it soean´t matter if both have swords or both have machineguns - just an example - but there is difference when one have sword and the other one have a machinegun, obviously )
2) infantry, cavalry, artillery bonus power does absolutely nothing (damn my Polish game )
3) the rest works fine.
Is that it? Thanks.

1 - Yes exactly (according to dev)
2 - as I stated in my previous post, that's true if rebels don't get bonus from ideas. I have no clue about that and I guess there is a test here to show it.
3 - define fine ?

 

[Varyar]

I am totally lost. More I read less I know. So may you please tell me if I am getting this right?
1) difference in technology between 2 states makes difference in combat, but if both states have high tech, the difference is gone (so it soean´t matter if both have swords or both have machineguns - just an example - but there is difference when one have sword and the other one have a machinegun, obviously )
2) infantry, cavalry, artillery bonus power does absolutely nothing (damn my Polish game )
3) the rest works fine.
Is that it? Thanks.

1) Yes, although it's strictly speaking not tech difference, but difference in weapons modifiers (which does change with tech, just not with every level of it).
2) Probably, but not necessarily. If it acts as a bonus to weapons modifiers, then it will work, but only against nations with worse weapons modifiers than yourself.
3) Wouldn't vouch for it, but any remaining bug/poor balance is less important than the problems discussed in this thread methinks.

 

[Red_warning]

I'm temporarily living in a place with poor infrastructure and as such has no access to internet on my gaming PC. I'm stuck at 1.1 and I know for certain that I don't suffer from the incredibly low amount of deaths people speak about. I guess I should rejoice over that fact...

 

[unmerged(652342)]

:laugh:

Way to go to crush all the dreamer's dreams, dev. "He should be gaining all the games for free, he should have a plaque installed in PI headquarters, he should have all our virginities...". The test was rigged from the start and meant absolutely nothing new. Also, about a "problem" that existed since game launch. I can't stand this crap anymore: I dream about the day we get rid of the 1.2 whiners. Maybe I'll do as many did: the game was broken for them, so they're shelving the game.

- does not change anything, even if system WAD Johans response just means that it designed to be "broken" from the start.

I dream about the day we get rid of the 1.2 whiners.

- and i dream about the day all Pdox free lawyers will go away.

Maybe I'll do as many did: the game was broken for them, so they're shelving the game.I think I'm shelving the forums, because they're clearly broken to me.

- bye bye and dont cry