Die rolls

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Die rolls

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] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Die rolls

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Die rolls - 3/5/2010 12:46:14 PM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Hi all
is anyone experiencing a high number of leader casualities since going to 1.07? I'm wondering if the security measures are causing the game to look up the same results repeatedly, so we are getting lot of repeat rolls for some actions? Or maybe, we have just been unlucky.

Post #: 1

RE: Die rolls - 3/5/2010 1:18:32 PM

Mardonius

Posts: 654
Joined: 4/9/2007
From: East Coast
Status: offline

I do know that when the first edition of this game was put out the leader casualty role was 1 in 12 (random linear) vice 1 in 36 (bell curve, 2 rolls of 1 six sided die). Perhaps we have regressed to the original pattern.

_____________________________

"Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant" -- James Madison
"Yes, you will win most battles, but if you loose to me you will loose oh so badly that it causes me pain (chortle) just to think of it" - P. Khan

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 2

RE: Die rolls - 3/5/2010 10:56:05 PM

NeverMan

Posts: 1722
Joined: 2/24/2004
Status: offline

Isn't this like the 5th thread on this topic?

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 3

RE: Die rolls - 3/6/2010 12:17:47 PM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Marshall can you comment on this, is leader casualty a 1 in 12 event or a 1 in 36?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

I do know that when the first edition of this game was put out the leader casualty role was 1 in 12 (random linear) vice 1 in 36 (bell curve, 2 rolls of 1 six sided die). Perhaps we have regressed to the original pattern.

(in reply to Mardonius)

Post #: 4

RE: Die rolls - 3/6/2010 2:40:43 PM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

There was a thread quite a while back on the 1-in-12 vs. 1-in-36 thing. That was fixed in an early version, but as Mardonius says, it could always get broken again....

More recently there was a thread about the casualties always landing on the senior leader; that's supposed to be fixed in 1.08, I think.

(in reply to NeverMan)

Post #: 5

RE: Die rolls - 3/7/2010 3:55:26 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Just had another leader in one of our games get wounded today. This one game has had 3 leaders killed or wounded in a year (game time. i.e. 1805). This is the seocnd leader to be wounded or killed this month in this game. In another game we have had one leader killed/wounded in 3 months of game time. Does this seem right? I can't imagine we have had that many battles where leaders were involved during this time frame, even considered numerous seige battles.

(in reply to ndrose)

Post #: 6

RE: Die rolls - 3/7/2010 4:43:40 AM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

That does sound like a lot. The siege battles shouldn't count, either. If any leader casualties occur during a siege, that would itself be a bug, I think. (Or is it a deviation?)

And if the game's (correctly) not doing leader casualties in sieges, then the denominator is just the number of field combats, so the rate's higher.

Might be worth setting up a test game and running it numerous times to find the real rate.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 7

RE: Die rolls - 3/7/2010 11:48:45 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

That's a good point. In this case, the commander was wounded when the beseiged forces attacked the besiegers, which is still not a battle (a field, limited or trival) where a leader should be wounded.

One, maybe two leader casualities related to seiges, while the others have been chit exchange combats.

If there is a change, it might be related to 1.07, since all of the casualities have happened since Christmas (at least 3 and maybe all of them in February).

Anybody else having this problem?

(in reply to ndrose)

Post #: 8

RE: Die rolls - 3/7/2010 5:20:25 PM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

I set up a test case vs. the AI, with Napoleon vs. Mack, and replayed the battle a number of times. Each battle should count as 2 trials, since each side has a leader. First I tried it 20 times, and had no casualties. Then I tried a further 20, and had 1 casualty. So that's 1 in 80 trials.

Assuming a 1/12 probability of a casualty, there is less than a 1% chance of getting 1 casualty or fewer in 80 trials. But assuming a 1/36 probability, there's a 34% chance of 1 casualty or fewer. So in that case, it looks to me as if it's operating correctly.

Of course, that's not to say a bug might creep in under other circumstances.

The fact that you're getting casualties in sieges is a bug, certainly. There can be lots of sieges in a game, and if it's possible that 2 of your 3 casualties came that way it may indicate that that's the only bug. That is, it may be applying the right probability, but over too large a denominator.

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 9

RE: Die rolls - 3/7/2010 9:32:30 PM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

That's excellent research, Ndrose.

The log was checked for the third battle and it was an open field combat, but we have had 2 leaders killed/wounded in open field and one is a seige battle since mid February 2010 (two months in game time).

Almost of all our seige battles have not involved leaders, so should not have increased the odds. I would say more than 50% of the battles (seige and non-seige) that involved leaders have resulted in a casualty. No casualities when the leader was in a seiging force that attacked a garrison, so it might be close to 100% of field battles with leaders or when a beseiged force attacked a stack with a leader.

(in reply to ndrose)

Post #: 10

RE: Die rolls - 3/8/2010 10:41:25 AM

bresh

Posts: 936
Joined: 8/8/2005
Status: offline

Remember witch leaders are casulties if from a group is still not random, but should be fixed in 1.08.

Regards
Bresh

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 11

RE: Die rolls - 3/10/2010 4:51:18 AM

ereiser

Posts: 28
Joined: 11/27/2008
Status: offline

I am also involved in the game that DB is in. After checking the log (whew), there have been 16 open field combats with leaders, 7 of which involved leaders on both sides (and I think 8 were PBEM battles). This means 23 checks for casualties. In 23 checks, there have been 2 casualties, both KIA (1 against computer, 1 PBEM).

While definitely higher than average for both casualties and effect, the sampling size is insufficient to draw any conclusions, but it certainly bears further scrutiny.

The 3rd case, where the besieged attacked the besiegers, is definitely a bug. There should not have been a casualty check (fortunately in this case the leader was only wounded for a month so no long-term harm). That is the first time in the game that this set of circumstances occurred.

ER

(in reply to bresh)

Post #: 12

RE: Die rolls - 3/10/2010 1:51:02 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

I just looked at this code and I am still doing a 1 in 36 chance of a casualty. There was a 2 in 12 chance at first release but this has been fixed BUT I will continue to monitor...

BTW: Bresh is correct! leader selection for casualty was not random until 1.08! It always chose the current leader assigned to the force!

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to ereiser)

Post #: 13

RE: Die rolls - 3/10/2010 2:33:03 PM

ndrose

Posts: 612
Joined: 10/13/2006
Status: offline

In 23 trials, some 50-odd percent of the time there would be no casualties, 34% of the time 1 casualty, and the remaining 13% of the time 2 or more casualties. So it is higher than average, but not especially weird.

2 KIA is definitely an outlier. It would be very time-consuming to try to check statistically whether the game is doing this right (you'd have to do hundreds, perhaps thousands, of trials). But maybe Marshall could double-check the code on this.

The siege combat casualties need to be fixed. Did anyone submit this to Mantis?

(in reply to ereiser)

Post #: 14

RE: Die rolls - 3/11/2010 12:48:37 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Well, maybe it is bad luck to have 3 leaders wounded/killed in 2 months of play. I was wondering if the pre-roll security feature for PBEM was properly clearing itself after each month? Could this be a possibility?

The leader wounded ina seige battle is a bug, and I have reported it to Mantis (althuogh I accidently locked it, so let me know if you can not read this, Marshal).

(in reply to ndrose)

Post #: 15

RE: Die rolls - 3/21/2010 9:34:35 AM

Grognot

Posts: 409
Joined: 12/7/2007
Status: offline

Heh. In a long-distance hotseat game with a friend of mine (trading saved-game files using Dropbox), the AI's Napoleon brought the pain to a sacrificial corps of mine (an Austrian corps that contained only militia, being used to cut supply lines).

His forces wiped out my corps to a man... but Napoleon himself was killed. In Feb 1806. Doh!

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 16

RE: Die rolls - 3/22/2010 12:56:33 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

FYI, I'm running a 2 AI games and I haven't seen a killed leader yet in about 2 years of game play???

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Grognot)

Post #: 17

RE: Die rolls - 3/24/2010 12:08:34 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

I was wondering if the pre-rolling security coding was adding modifiers to the leader casualty die rolls (same as a land combat), which might explain the inferred increase in incidence of leader casualties in our PBEM game.

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 18

RE: Die rolls - 3/24/2010 1:00:10 PM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Modifiers? Such as what? I didn't think there were mods for casualties?

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 19

RE: Die rolls - 3/25/2010 4:05:30 AM

Dancing Bear

Posts: 1003
Joined: 2/21/2008
Status: offline

Your right there should not be any. If there were, then it would be a bug. I was looking for an explanation for why we had three leaders wounded/killed in 4 months, which seemed very unlucky.

One turned out to be because he was wounded in a seige battle (he was in the besieging force that was attacked by the beseigers). Leaders are not meant to be wounded in siege battes, and so is a bug (reported on Mantis, interestingly, the same battle caused the besiegers and beseiged to swith places, so it was unusual for two reasons).

(in reply to Marshall Ellis)

Post #: 20

RE: Die rolls - 3/25/2010 11:05:03 AM

Marshall Ellis

Posts: 5630
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Got it! I will look a little further into this...

_____________________________

Thank you

Marshall Ellis
Outflank Strategy War Games

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 21

RE: Die rolls - 3/26/2010 9:35:51 PM

Ted1066

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dancing Bear
Leaders are not meant to be wounded in siege battes, and so is a bug (reported on Mantis, interestingly, the same battle caused the besiegers and beseiged to swith places, so it was unusual for two reasons).

100% correct here - the 12.7 rule in the EiA manual states field, limited field, trivial and naval combats are the only situations where a leader casualty determination needs to be checked.

Cheers,

Ted

(in reply to Dancing Bear)

Post #: 22