| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Shaharet 
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43 |
 Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:43 |
|
Basically that means that regardless of the numbers involved, the losses will be approx 1:1 on a point for point basis... My opponent has 200 pts and I am going to lose 200 pts worth of troops whether I have 200 or whether I have 2000. Terrain and command bonus change those numbers somewhat, but better troops merely mean more expensive losses(though somewhat less of them, in balance).
Edited by Shaharet - 11 Jul 2011 at 19:48
|
 |
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:47 |
|
Nokigon: Looking at the numbers, Elven T1 bows have only slightly less attack/upkeep than t2 bows(20/2 vs 32/3), and far superior if cost to produce is the only factor(worth considering when one is throwing them away on npc attacks for xp). They are a fair sight better at defense/upkeep. So no, in this case they are not better all around.
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 19:54 |
|
I'm going to experiment but if what Anjire says is true than this follows:
Attacker total offense: ~20k
Defender total defense: ~4k
Attacker losses ~20%, or 4k worth of troops.
Attacker total offense: ~40k
Defender total defense: ~4k
Attacker losses: ~10%, or 4k worth of troops.
Which looking through my battle records seems to hold true at least to a degree. I'm going to do more experimenting and see if the numbers continue to hold.
|
|
Manannan
Postmaster
Joined: 22 Mar 2011
Location: Mystical Mists
Status: Offline
Points: 576 |
Posted: 11 Jul 2011 at 22:10 |
|
The sums Anjire gave are good. Its got a lot of variables in it (commander skills, terrain, troop types, troop stats etc) which makes difficult to predict 100% accurately without a complicated spreadsheet (yes I am trying as a pet project), but the maths is basically good.
|
|
Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either!
"Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 00:29 |
I'd have expected the number-crunching for battles to be a bit more than a direct 'subtract A from B' operation, but it seems to be that way.
So a lone swordsman would be able to take out one opponent in a 1000-strong opposition?
(wrong place for suggestions, but) A more sensible algorithm might be to compare the
squares of the numbers against each other, so (for example) 2:1 numbers would result in 1:4 casualties... or do the same sliced up into may phases, so you get the benefit of eroding formations and greater momentum of losses. </waffle>
|
|
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 01:12 |
This is my current understanding of combat. (I haven't really done in depth number crunching)
- Calculate Attacker Strength(point value)
- (Attack strength of units * # of units) * (1+ Modifier bonus total)
- sum each unit types contributions: spear, bows, infantry, cavalry
- using the above unit sums, convert to percentage: spears contribution/Overall Attack Strength
- spear = SAP, bow = BAP, Infantry = IAP, Cavalry = CAP
Defense is a little more complicated
Have to break out the defensive contribution of each unit based on the above attacker unit contribution percentage
so if you are attacked by an army that just happens to break down to 25% spear, 25% bow, 25% infantry, 25% cavalry
attack percentage you would calculate as follows:
# of defensive units ( DvS * SAP + DvB *BAP + DvI * IAP + DvC * CAP) * (1 + modifier bonus total)
Sum for each type of defensive unit. DvS= defense against spear, DvB = Defense against Bow, DvI = Defense against Infantry, DvC = Defense against Cavalry.
Damage is then assigned very roughly as a percentage comparison of Attacker Point Total vs Defender Point Total.
I believe there is a minimum damage threshold that I think is related to Attacker Strength if you are the Attacker
and a defensive strength total of the unit based on the attacker army composition.
Once again, I have not committed any time to spreadsheet number crunching.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 02:29 |
|
|
|
Shaharet
Greenhorn
Joined: 20 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 43 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 02:43 |
|
That just seems so weird. Every other wargame I've played, having superior numbers leads to less losses. Which frankly makes sense: 10 guys taking on 20 will do more damage before they fall than 10 guys against 2000....
This also means that the % bonuses and the like are the only thing that really matters, aside from raw ability to throw more fodder at the problem. Which basically nukes most strategic aspects of the game. I mean, I realize there is the scissors/paper/rock element, and the siege tactics, but as is, no matter how well one plans their strategy, attacking someone is ruinous for both sides.
Hmmm. So on that note...
How about a nice game of
Chess?
|
|
GM Stormcrow
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Location: Illyria
Status: Offline
Points: 3820 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 03:30 |
 Shaharet wrote:
How about a nice game of
Chess?
|
Thank you, Professor Falken.
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238 |
Posted: 12 Jul 2011 at 05:36 |
|
I always though that having no advanatage for size was rather silly, especilly consdering that archers would cut down the opposition long before the spearmen reached them, unless they're using their bows as clubs as an honourable orc knows you should.
|
|
Tweet
Why so high losses?