Combat Results

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Combat Results

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> Combat Results

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat Results - 6/6/2018 2:04:23 PM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

As I noticed after playing the new V 1.13, there were changes to the combat results. Until the former patch the results didn't differ from the prediction considering the resulting damages to enemy units (neither more nor less); more recieved damage happened nevertheless randomly.

Now also the dealt damage differs by +- 1, just like in the predecessor SCWWI. This issue has been part of many resulting discussions back in the days, since a few bad rolls could easily influence badly the faith of whole fronts.

For me the former changes were part of the reason not to play SCWWI any longer and instead prefering SC3. Therefore I really don't understand the necessity of changing that back to darker ages. Afaik the combat results hadn't been matter of any discussion, therefore I'm really concerned about this change nobody ever asked for.

Post #: 1

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 3:07:31 PM

LLv34Mika

Posts: 350
Joined: 12/29/2017
Status: offline

I noticed that too... I don't care if both sides take/make the damage predicted or if both sides have that +/- 1 luck factor... but I have to say that having that thing only for the attacker taking more damage in some combats was strange.

Btw, what I never understood: sometimes when you attack units on str 2 - 3 the are shattered even if the combat prediction showed that it won't be enough. That was the only situation in which I was able to deal more damage (in fact kill the unit).

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 2

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 5:45:19 PM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

"Shattered" is a special feature in SC3, I`m not a huge fan, since it's denying any gain of xp afaik; but I'm talking about the recent combat results, in which every calculation is randomly supplemented by +-1, both attacker- and defender casualties.

A calculation or prediction of 0:1 can therefore lead to results from 1:2 (in case the enemy has left 2 health points) to 1:0 and anything in between; with the other limit units won't gain health during combat of course.

In SCWWI with HQs limited to support 5 units at max that meant 3 bad rolls in a row could lead into a completely failed offense, with your HQ losing xp instead of gaining and the enemy gaining instead of losing xp; very likely leading to the loss of 1 or more own units starting the turn fully reinforced.

This mechanics were also implied in SoE, the SCWWI expression to SC3; the difference is that those units had higher attack- and defense values, making small predictions more unlikely.

In SC3 small combat predictions are no exception, but the rule, therefore this randomization has a potentially high impact.

(in reply to LLv34Mika)

Post #: 3

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 7:15:15 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

"Shattered" is a special feature in SC3, I`m not a huge fan, since it's denying any gain of xp afaik.

Then that should be reported as a bug I'd say.

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 4

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 7:34:47 PM

Christolos

Posts: 953
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

As I noticed after playing the new V 1.13, there were changes to the combat results. Until the former patch the results didn't differ from the prediction considering the resulting damages to enemy units (neither more nor less); more recieved damage happened nevertheless randomly.

Now also the dealt damage differs by +- 1, just like in the predecessor SCWWI. This issue has been part of many resulting discussions back in the days, since a few bad rolls could easily influence badly the faith of whole fronts.

For me the former changes were part of the reason not to play SCWWI any longer and instead prefering SC3. Therefore I really don't understand the necessity of changing that back to darker ages. Afaik the combat results hadn't been matter of any discussion, therefore I'm really concerned about this change nobody ever asked for.

Why was this not mentioned in the v1.13 change log?

I'm also wondering about the now two-way randomness of the +-1. How random is it? Is it influenced by relative readiness/morale values?
I can see how bad it would be for an attacker to get both +1 damage to his attacking unit, and -1 damage to the defending unit. Can this even happen, if is so, how and why?

C

_____________________________

�Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.�

-Aristotle-

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 5

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 7:50:45 PM

KorutZelva

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

Heh. Didn't know that, I assume the randomness prediction always worked both ways because IIRC that's what's mentioned in the manual. I guess it was always the intention and they just fixed it.

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 6

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 7:54:04 PM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline

Afaik, the calculation takes place at first, then the outcome is added randomly by +-1 on attacker's and defender's side. A prediction (which is always the result of the calculation including readiness, while readiness is only a product of morale and other factors) of 0:1 can lead to 1:0 instead, meaning you lost the fight and your HQ loses xp instead of gaining some. Of course the opposite is also possible, that would be 0:2, but as an outcome of -1:2 isn't possible (which would mean to gain a strenghtpoint from combat, which for obvious reasons is impossible), it leads in general to higher losses on the attacker's side and worse combat results, since the defender's strength is also limited downwards (a 1 strength unit can't lose more than 1 strenthpoint).

quote:

Heh. Didn't know that, I assume the randomness prediction always worked both ways because IIRC that's what's mentioned in the manual. I guess it was always the intention and they just fixed it.

Seriously? Took more than 18 months to find out?

Again: no one ever complained about the former mechanics, even not those who played SCWWI, while at the battlefront page this was part of confrontational debates.

I agree to some randomness in gameplay, even in the former mechanics the attacker suffered more casualties randomly in 33% the cases, but the calculated damage was fix. The combat results are already very low compared to SoE, and with the decreased movement points encirclements are hard to manage anyway, with the new calculation some fortresses will consume even more time than already. I don`t want a WWI style WWII game.

< Message edited by Sugar -- 6/6/2018 8:10:17 PM >

(in reply to Christolos)

Post #: 7

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 9:44:48 PM

KorutZelva

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sugar

Seriously? Took more than 18 months to find out?

It might come as a surprise to you, babe, but there are other PC games out there. I ain't playing SC III full time.

(in reply to Sugar)

Post #: 8

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 9:46:34 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KorutZelva

Heh. Didn't know that, I assume the randomness prediction always worked both ways because IIRC that's what's mentioned in the manual. I guess it was always the intention and they just fixed it.

This is unfortunately exactly what happened.

Just looking back at the subversion changes for this part of the code, I had accidentally commented out the part of the code that added random losses to the defender on May 15th, 2017, and then corrected this on March 15th of this year.

Likely I was running an internal combat results test and simply forgot to change the code back after the test. The correction happened between the release of the v1.12 patch and the v1.13 release. An official version notes update was not included (just a quick decision on that from my end) since this was as you've noted above how the code was always supposed to work, and in fact, from what I can see from the subversion changes, was working from release until May of last year until I fudged the code.

_____________________________

Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fury-Software/233842800005900

Join our Steam Community:
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/strategiccommand3

(in reply to KorutZelva)

Post #: 9

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 9:48:21 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LLv34Mika

I noticed that too... I don't care if both sides take/make the damage predicted or if both sides have that +/- 1 luck factor... but I have to say that having that thing only for the attacker taking more damage in some combats was strange.

Btw, what I never understood: sometimes when you attack units on str 2 - 3 the are shattered even if the combat prediction showed that it won't be enough. That was the only situation in which I was able to deal more damage (in fact kill the unit).

The new shattered mechanism is simply what happens when a unit was supposed to retreat but is unable to do so due to in game circumstances, i.e. no retreat hexes available etc. At that point the unit is very near to destruction either way so design wise it didn't feel inappropriate to implement it this way.

_____________________________

(in reply to LLv34Mika)

Post #: 10

RE: Combat Results - 6/6/2018 11:21:55 PM

KorutZelva

Posts: 1492
Joined: 2/4/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

This is unfortunately exactly what happened.

Just looking back at the subversion changes for this part of the code, I had accidentally commented out the part of the code that added random losses to the defender on May 15th, 2017, and then corrected this on March 15th of this year.

Likely I was running an internal combat results test and simply forgot to change the code back after the test. The correction happened between the release of the v1.12 patch and the v1.13 release. An official version notes update was not included (just a quick decision on that from my end) since this was as you've noted above how the code was always supposed to work, and in fact, from what I can see from the subversion changes, was working from release until May of last year until I fudged the code.

So I wasn't going crazy. That's how it was before. Heh. Thanks for the info, Hubert!

< Message edited by KorutZelva -- 6/6/2018 11:30:45 PM >

(in reply to Hubert Cater)

Post #: 11

RE: Combat Results - 6/7/2018 7:25:25 AM

Sugar

Posts: 926
Joined: 3/16/2017
Status: offline