The dices, oh the dices!

[von_Rundstedt]

It was annoying in eu3, and is annoying in Vicky2...

I am playing Austria, fighting Prussia. I am defending, ~equal amount of infantry, me having the edge in arty and cav (AI ever using artillery??), with a 3-1 leader advantage, dug-in troops and the Prussians crossing a river... yet them throwing the 8 and me throwing the 2 makes them completely slaughter my army... repeatedly.


And I know that the dices will be balanced over time, as by chance I will throw just as much eights and nines as the AI. But that's not what's annoying me.

What's annoying me is: Why make luck the most important part of battles? Good planning, better positions and the better general should account for just as much. Felt a bit like RISK today... :/

 

[King]

Military tactics, this one of the army tech effects that reduce your casulties from combat. In order to stop Austria instantly raping Prussia at the get go we gave Prussia an edge in that field.

 

[von_Rundstedt]

It's 1846, and apart from the first railroad tech I've been researching army-techs non-stop. Must have missed one, then. ;D

 

[King]

It's 1846, and apart from the first railroad tech I've been researching army-techs non-stop. Must have missed one, then. ;D

It's on the far right, so it depends which side you started from.

 

[Petrarca]

What's annoying me is: Why make luck the most important part of battles? Good planning, better positions and the better general should account for just as much. Felt a bit like RISK today... :/

Generals, terrain, tech, and armies matter more, but Paradox's mistake has apparently been showing the player the explicit effects of random chance.

Meanwhile, the Prussians have probably also been researching military techs and have a faster research rate as well.

 

[von_Rundstedt]

It's on the far right, so it depends which side you started from.

Just checked it... yeah, was the only one I missed of the first 5... o


Apart from that, damn nice game you made there. ;D

 

[King]

Generals, terrain, tech, and armies matter more, but Paradox's mistake has apparently been showing the player the explicit effects of random chance.

Meanwhile, the Prussians have probably also been researching military techs and have a faster research rate as well.

I disagree here. I think it is far more frustrating to lose a battle and not know why.

 

[von_Rundstedt]

Generals, terrain, tech, and armies matter more, but Paradox's mistake has apparently been showing the player the explicit effects of random chance.

Meanwhile, the Prussians have probably also been researching military techs and have a faster research rate as well.

I do realise that there's always a certain amount of randomness in warfare. The thing I don't understand (despite not having that military tech), is that things like terrain and dug-in troops give advantages of 1-2 (or more?), generals 1-5(6?), while chance can go up to 9.

I'd say limiting the dices to results from 0-6, maybe even less, would be better.

 

[Petrarca]

I disagree here. I think it is far more frustrating to lose a battle and not know why.

I was being facetious, sorry. I vastly prefer to know why, but there is a vocal minority (not thinking of you, Rundstedt, don't worry ) who blame random chance for all their setbacks and act as if it isn't, and shouldn't be, an effect in anything else that happens anywhere.

 

[byzantium43]

Haven't played Victoria 2 yet, but I can say from EU3, which I gather the combat system is based off of, I do wish that Paradox reduced the role of the dice in combat some, in favor of the more controllable factors. Obviously there is an important, central role, for the dice to represent everything from tactics to unseen patches of mud that slow advances, messed up orders, and all the vagaries of war, but they seem a little over pronounced at times.

 

[King]

I was being facetious, sorry. I vastly prefer to know why, but there is a vocal minority (not thinking of you, Rundstedt, don't worry ) who blame random chance for all their setbacks and act as if it isn't, and shouldn't be, an effect in anything else that happens anywhere.

no worries, being release day I am in a rather literal mood.

 

[unmerged(56909)]

The RNG giveth, and the RNG taketh away.

 

[Petrarca]

I do realise that there's always a certain amount of randomness in warfare. The thing I don't understand (despite not having that military tech), is that things like terrain and dug-in troops give advantages of 1-2 (or more?), generals 1-5(6?), while chance can go up to 9.

I'd say limiting the dices to results from 0-6, maybe even less, would be better.

I wouldn't mind throwing more advantages to position and preparation, but I don't like the idea that my mediocre commander can never the get drop on someone's idea of a god general. I'd reduce the generals' bonus or at least make it more org-damaging rather than casualty-inflicting.

The generals are a peeve of mine. I don't mind losing to superior generals even if I outnumber their forces, but I want to be able to maul their force with repeated attacks rather than lose and suffer a 4:1 casualty ratio in a force that's 2:1 to the enemy.

 

[Sovetskysoyuz]

Are the dice rolls uniformly distributed (i.e. all possible rolls are equally likely), or are the probabilities such that middling rolls are more likely? Applying a normal distribution to the rolls would cut down on the luck factor, since most rolls would be in the middle of the possible range, while still allowing for exceptional or abysmal luck.

 

[King]

Are the dice rolls uniformly distributed (i.e. all possible rolls are equally likely), or are the probabilities such that middling rolls are more likely? Applying a normal distribution to the rolls would cut down on the luck factor, since most rolls would be in the middle of the possible range, while still allowing for exceptional or abysmal luck.

I believe we use a straight uniform distribution.

 

[Black Lotus]

There's always randomness in battle, I'm sure "Special Order 191" wasn't meant to be "misplaced" before the Battle of Antietam.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

I believe we use a straight uniform distribution.

I did a quick and dirty test some time ago and came up with what looked like an equidistribution. Not with enough confidence to say that it is, but enough that I'll believe it until proven otherwise.

More to the point, perhaps, using a distribution weighed towards the middle for each of two opposed die rolls would go a long way towards removing the reason you have the random factor in the combat system in the first place. That's the sort of thing that is most commonly done for single die rolls, so I doubt Johan would have implemented it as such for a battle system relying on opposed tuples.

 

[von_Rundstedt]

There's always randomness in battle, I'm sure "Special Order 191" wasn't meant to be "misplaced" before the Battle of Antietam.

Read what's been posted in this thread. Randomness is fine, randomness being more important than generals+terrain+preparations (like dug in troops), is not, in my opinion.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Read what's been posted in this thread. Randomness is fine, randomness being more important than generals+terrain+preparations (like dug in troops), is not, in my opinion.

I respect your opinion but if implemented it makes for terrible gameplay.

The point is, if a random element in a combat system isn't large enough that it will, often enough that players considers it significant, trump the factors that are under players' control, that random element should be removed entirely because it is not adding anything beneficial to the game.

The counterpoint is that it should not dominate to the degree that players do not concentrate on maximizing the factors under their own control.

Paradox combat system for both EU3 and Victoria 2 satisfies both these demands.

While some players may say that randomness is more important than generals+terrain+preparations in Paradox games, I have yet to see a player that doesn't try to some or most of maximize the factors under his control because he knows and have observed in-game that doing so gives him a measurable advantage in battle outcomes.

That said, removing the random factor entirely or reducing it to a size where it was irrelevant from the point of view of strategical considerations, while I feel it would be utterly inappropriate for a broad audience, could be interesting to test even as much of the charm of the game would utterly evaporate when the player knew before battle who would win and who would lose by weighing the known factors.

There's a good reason that games without random elements in resolving conflicts between players are few and far between and typically have fairly simple rulesets.

 

[Dragoneer]

cant say i feel the same, i always win battles when im fighting in defensive terrain with +def generals, heck ive even slaughtered 25 000 zulus with 1000 boers Any more benefits for defending and it would be impossible to attack!