It's random. The calculations for it are hidden entirely behind code that the players do not have access to; no player outside of the developers can tell you how it's calculated. We know maneuver affects it, but we don't know how much. We also know the UI lies copiously, especially in regards to terrain counts (as people have done hundreds of tests with running two general-less armies into each other) and not getting anything close to the shown percentages for each terrain.
Petition to Paradox: Keep the current percentage-based terrain system
- Thread starter Comes Imperii
- Start date
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
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.
It's random. The calculations for it are hidden entirely behind code that the players do not have access to; no player outside of the developers can tell you how it's calculated. We know maneuver affects it, but we don't know how much. We also know the UI lies copiously, especially in regards to terrain counts (as people have done hundreds of tests with running two general-less armies into each other) and not getting anything close to the shown percentages for each terrain.
Just to the right of the 'reply with quote' button it a button with a quote symbol and a plus. Press that and a spidery writing appears. Then when you want to reply use the reply to thread at the button of the page; if you remove/add some spidery writings pressing reply to thread will update what you quote, but if you have already written some of your reply that will be cleared so remember to copy that first.
Were it the exact same generals and the exact same provinces? Otherwise it is different experiments.
Yes, it was the same province and the same general. Tested both with and without generals.
Edit: And the attack always came from the same province.
Any time an RNG is used you're adding in a random element. You can call it pseudo-random if you would like, but that does not change anything.
As far as being a ruler, that is incorrect. You are some demi-something-or-other that's not a god or ruler but somewhere in between. Pre-release Paradox made a big deal about the fact that you are not the ruler and you're stuck with things like ruler stats which might make your nation prosperous or even lead you into stagnation. The game tries to present you the important decisions for the nation and let you point the way.
Coping with things going wrong is something I really enjoy in the game too. That's why I rarely play a European. The game does offer plenty of countries that have difficulties but allow you to grow. Recent games like Sofala and Kathiawar are examples of fun starts to play if you want to cope with things going wrong.
Your comment on the river crossing penalty illustrates one of the issues Paradox has with combat which Wiz pointed out earlier in the thread, and that is the learning curve. Each combat round you have an attack and a defense (actually I believe it's a series of 3 of them per phase, but let's only talk one at a time). If it's a shock round you get -1 shock defense and -1 shock offense from the river crossing. If it is a fire round you get -1 fire offense and -1 fire defense. That's the 4 pips. I don't know if it affects morale damage offense/defense so I'm not sure if it is 6.
Side note: To multi-quote you're adding the quote tags. You can either manually type in {QUOTE}{/QUOTE} (replace { } with [ ]) or in the quick reply at the far right is a button for it if you highlight the text you want to quote. If you want to quote more than one post, in the thread next to the "Reply With Quote" button click the little conversation looking icon for each post, then click Reply to Thread. The first time I did it, it took about 10 times to get that right!
There is surely a RNG component in the formula, but its not the same thing as simply random. There isn't equal chance of getting hills or mountains when the split is 80-20, but there is if it were 50-50.
I concede I've not done lots of testing but I've not experienced great, frequent terrain surprises. I'll only be ok with this change if they can demonstrate that it's simply too difficult to fix/improve the existing terrain as it is, and then add modifiers/features to represent the chance of finding more favourable terrain inside the battle for the new system. I think the same will go for a very significant group.
I concede I've not done lots of testing but I've not experienced great, frequent terrain surprises. I'll only be ok with this change if they can demonstrate that it's simply too difficult to fix/improve the existing terrain as it is, and then add modifiers/features to represent the chance of finding more favourable terrain inside the battle for the new system. I think the same will go for a very significant group.
+1. I like percent-based system. But this thread needs a poll, I don't think anyone will read all this pages counting + and -.
So you are in favour of the Lombardy being all plains, but the Alps stretching all the way to Venice (Treviso is mountain)?
Between Italy in Charlemagne and in Art of War, I want to puke.
Here pictured: "plains".
Here pictured: "mountains"
Last edited:
Just like WETN. Just like the changes made to AE in almost every patch. Just like...oh wait...
Between Italy in Charlemagne and in Art of War, I want to puke.
Here pictured: "plains".
Here pictured: "mountains"
You act as if this abstraction isn't equally silly almost everywhere in the game.
And that's what it is, an abstraction, just like the ability for you to march dozens of cannon regiments full speed, convert war score, not take more than 100%, and using "military tradition" that is attained equally by killing contemporary armies, killing trash armies across the world, and...building earth ramparts + star forts. Unlike quite a few gameplay element changes, this one does not materially alter one's typical strategy in war, nor does it make gameplay more convoluted. It removes a noise factor in a game that still has too many noise factors, and it's a step in the right direction when it comes to "does the UI function up to even average standards".
-1
I never liked the percent-based system, except to the extent that it made maneuver skill more relevant. But I can't even remember if I commented in this thread before, so +1 on the poll, if there's any chance that the devs care about forum sentiment.
For all I know the removal could be part of their optimization, though, in which case I'm doubly against restoring the percent-based system, and the odds of it changing are probably nil.
Not having mountains to defend is an abstraction? Oh, golly! I guess I don't need them.
Abstraction is good when it gets granular enough. Add the Alps to Italy (and wherever needed) and the new system is fine. As of now, it's like having armies in 50'000 blocks - you either have 0, 50'000, or more. Too abstract.
Personally I imagine a system where a province can have multiple "points" for military units to move on, rather than one province meaning just one placement.
So, say, the province is half-mountains and half-plains, then you can chose to move the army up on either the mountain part of the plains part. No need to increase province count like that either.
Doesn't sound impossible to me.
So, say, the province is half-mountains and half-plains, then you can chose to move the army up on either the mountain part of the plains part. No need to increase province count like that either.
Doesn't sound impossible to me.
Then the defender sits on the mountain part and the attacker on the plains part. What happens next?
A pink unicorn (with wings) flies over the mountain and and creates a double rainbow.
Can the troops move over the rainbow, and what's the terrain malus then?