combat is also a little illogical

combat is also a little illogical (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Empires in Arms the Napoleonic Wars of 1805 - 1815 >> Tech Support

Message

Xikar -> combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 4:30:31 AM)
have fought way too many battles where I had superior morale, leadership AND outnumbered the AI as much as 4 to 1... and they massacered me. Way too much to be random chance. Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me.

JavaJoe -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 5:05:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar have fought way too many battles where I had superior morale, leadership AND outnumbered the AI as much as 4 to 1... and they massacered me. Way too much to be random chance. Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me. That's not a bug that's bad chit choice.

Minedog -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 5:25:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar have fought way too many battles where I had superior morale, leadership AND outnumbered the AI as much as 4 to 1... and they massacered me. Way too much to be random chance. Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me. I think you need to provide more information on this, specifically; 1. Composition of the forces in infantry, militia, guard and cavalry 2. Chit choices 3. Terrain 4. How the losses were derived, in particular pursuit losses. 61 French militia versus 6 Russian Guard and 12 Cavalry in the mountains could do this easily, especially French Esc Assault versus Russian Defend.

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 6:33:43 AM)
Nope. Almost entire infantry on both sides (I actually had some cavalry), and one of my leaders was napoleon. His was benningson. And this isn't the only occurance of this out of balance combat resolution. Funny how lucky AI's get in combat in so many games.

Grognot -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 7:03:31 AM)
Funny how you're not mentioning your chit choices or posting saved games.

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 7:20:03 AM)
I did mention that I used napoleon- and another was davout- as leaders, all he had was benningson. Don't know what you are impying but i've hit a brick wall here so this must be a "good ole' boy agreement" i've stumbled upon here, a "don't complain about this, it's just the way it is and we'll attack anybody who does post a comment about it." thanks anyway. i've been here before I know the routine. sigh

NeverMan -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 7:38:32 AM)
Once again, you fail to mention the chit choices. It is a "it's just the way it is" thing since the game is Empires in Arms and that's how the combat system works in Empires in Arms (originally a board game and this is the computer adaptation of it). Why do people continue to complain to complain? If "good ole' boy agreement" means rational logic and a sense of sanity, then yes, you are right.

JanSorensen -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 8:44:41 AM)
Xikar Post the chits each side picked and post the dice each side rolled. If the opponents picks a better chit and rolls the dice better than you may very well lose the battle despite having more troops in the area. Historically that means you had the troops in the generel area but failed to deploy the wisely instead getting suprised and hit in the flank by your opponent. If you dislike the combat mechanism thats obviously fair enough but dont expect it to be changed as thats how the game is meant to work. Unpredictability in battle is very much a core element of EiA. Now, if your complaint is that the AI cheats and looks at your chit before picking one for itself and/no cheats with the dice then its a different matter. I havent seen that myself and doubt it very much but its possible.

Thresh -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 5:18:51 PM)
Xikar, Being French and Having Napoleon in your stack, and outnumering your opponent, doesnot always guarentee a win. Chit choice plays a huge role in whats going to haappen, as well as the die roll. If you, As France with Napoleon, are Figithng Russia, and You choose attack and the Russuans choose defend, the battle got a lot harder because the Russians get a defense bonus. And if you roll low, even with the modifier, and the Russians roll higher, you will break. You will not be "annilihated" because at the numbers you quoting thats an impossibilty. So, if you have a complaint aboiut a specific battle, you need to tell us the chit choices, and if possible the dice rolls involved. It's quite possible you were outpicked and had poor die rolls, which means even if Your Napoelon and 12 Corps you may not win. Thresh

JavaJoe -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 5:36:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar I did mention that I used napoleon- and another was davout- as leaders, all he had was benningson. Don't know what you are impying but i've hit a brick wall here so this must be a "good ole' boy agreement" i've stumbled upon here, a "don't complain about this, it's just the way it is and we'll attack anybody who does post a comment about it." thanks anyway. i've been here before I know the routine. sigh Having more leaders with the stack does nothing. The numbers the senior leader has do matter. RTRB. Egads he's stumbled onto the great EiA wall of secrecy. We must send out our minions to dispose of this one.....[:@]

bresh -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/4/2008 5:52:36 PM)
Yeah, leaders mean nothing if chit where assult/esc assult vs Defend. Then leaders tac ratings are ignored. And the Morale level of Russians increase with that chit outcome. So would help if you described how the battles went, chit/rolls etc. I had no problems winning vs the AI, as France, didnt fight the Russians much though, they surendered when i passed their border.. Regards Bresh

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 6:24:06 AM)
Leader advantages are ignored? Well, that's makes about as much sense as a rubber crutch in a hospital ward. I am also finding out that the AI mysteriously knows when I am about to get reinforcements and sends a nuissance corp to hit my depots so.. guess what... I can't get reinforcements to my front lines. Wonder how the AI knew I happened to have some scheduled then. Sad when they program the AI to get advantages like that. Guess this game only makes sense with all human players so you can't "know" things conveniently.

mr.godo -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 8:54:42 AM)
There's also a "bug" where the computer doesn't let you pick your outflanking force when it picks outflank too. Then I attacked a turkish force (assault vs counter attack) and it gave him extra morale! Then I got attacked by an Austrian force. The computer picked Echelon and I picked Cordon and the computer added one to his roll! I figured something was up, so I attacked a lowly spanish force. Davout with 4 corps against one spanish corps. Outflank vs Withdrawal. When my outflanking force didn't show up in the second round, the computer cancelled the battle! Next I had Ney with a corps get attacked by Hohenlohe (1/2). I picked defend and the computer tried an outflank. Instead of outflanking me on a 1, it outflanked me on a 2! I could go on... <sarcasm>there are just so many "bugs" with this game!...</sarcasm> rtfm! [sm=terms.gif]

bresh -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 10:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mr.godo There's also a bug where the computer doesn't let you pick your outflanking force when it picks outflank too. Then I attacked a turkish force (assault vs counter attack) and it gave him extra morale! (B) A side�s final morale level is increased by "+1" if commanded by a Turkish leader. Then I got attacked by an Austrian force. The computer picked Echelon and I picked Cordon and the computer added one to his roll! ((C) An Austrian commander adds �+1� to Combat Resolution Chart (see section 14.10) random number (net maximum �+1� I figured something was up, so I attacked a lowly spanish force. Davout with 4 corps against one spanish corps. Outflank vs Withdrawal. When my outflanking force didn't show up in the second round, the computer cancelled the battle! ((D) If the outflanking force does not arrive after the first combat round, the defender automatically withdraws before the second combat round and cannot be pursued. Next I had Ney with a corps get attacked by Hohenlohe (1/2). I picked defend and the computer tried an outflank. Instead of outflanking me on a 1, it outflanked me on a 2! (E) The attacking commander�s strategic rating is increased by �+1� I could go on... there are just so many bugs with this game!... rtfm! [sm=terms.gif] I think you guys should study the table 14.9 and 14.9.1 Each and every battle you pictured follows the rules, so how can you say this is a bug ? Regards Bresh

bresh -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 10:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar Leader advantages are ignored? Well, that's makes about as much sense as a rubber crutch in a hospital ward. I am also finding out that the AI mysteriously knows when I am about to get reinforcements and sends a nuissance corp to hit my depots so.. guess what... I can't get reinforcements to my front lines. Wonder how the AI knew I happened to have some scheduled then. Sad when they program the AI to get advantages like that. Guess this game only makes sense with all human players so you can't "know" things conveniently. Xikar you have to check the tables when you do your chit choise. Defend vs Esc Assault/Assault. (F) Tactical ratings are ignored for the modification of random numbers If you leave your supply lines open, why should the ai not attack those ? Human players would not ? Just like a human player the AI can count bit. To have an idea when someone could get reinforcements. But i doubt thats the reason why he attacks supply lines. I think you should try play more careful, and you might have more success. Regards Bresh

NeverMan -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 3:10:03 PM)
Once again, it's VERY obvious that many people didn't read the rulebook before sitting down to play this game and then choose to complain that the game "doesn't make sense" or that there are "bugs", when there aren't. Essentially, to those that are complaining, it's hard to take you seriously when you haven't even read the rules and understand the game. Furthermore, for your OWN ENJOYMENT ( you paid the money, you should get full enjoyment from it) you really should read the rules before playing the game, the things bresh mentioned can be taken full advantage of by yourself too, since they are part of the rules. Like bresh mentioned, nothing mentioned in this thread is a bug, these are all part of the rules. Xikar, I don't believe you when you say " Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me." since I think that's statistically impossible. Even if they took 25% all three rounds (18.25-4.5, rounded = 5, 53=15) then 61-15 > 0, so how were you "annihilated"??? What you meant to say was " Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they BROKE THE MORALE OF MY MEN." There, all fixed.

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 3:57:15 PM)
Thanks for the input bresh... and you are of course correct; human players would and attacking supply lines falls on page one of nearly any historical commander's strategy hand book... I guess what I am referring to is the extraordinary number of incidences where the AI hit my depot prior to the turn when I had reinforcements about to arrive to the front lines. I am aware of the fact that it would be easy to incorporate an algorithm into AI logic to "count" the months- seems the available from purchase date to deployment date are all factors of 3 months- I noted that with amazing efficiency he hit my depot on the CORRECT 3 month time interval. Had I bought infantry in january, the infantry I just bought would arrive at a different month than had I bought them in febuary... unless there is something I missed in the rulebook about the 3 month time intervals all being forced to fall on the same months regardless of date of purchase. I hope this all makes sense.

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 4:02:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan Once again, it's VERY obvious that many people didn't read the rulebook before sitting down to play this game and then choose to complain that the game "doesn't make sense" or that there are "bugs", when there aren't. Essentially, to those that are complaining, it's hard to take you seriously when you haven't even read the rules and understand the game. Furthermore, for your OWN ENJOYMENT ( you paid the money, you should get full enjoyment from it) you really should read the rules before playing the game, the things bresh mentioned can be taken full advantage of by yourself too, since they are part of the rules. Like bresh mentioned, nothing mentioned in this thread is a bug, these are all part of the rules. Xikar, I don't believe you when you say " Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me." since I think that's statistically impossible. Even if they took 25% all three rounds (18.25-4.5, rounded = 5, 53=15) then 61-15 > 0, so how were you "annihilated"??? What you meant to say was " Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they BROKE THE MORALE OF MY MEN." There, all fixed. okay, yes, to play a game of symantics.... I used a poorly chosen adjective. Point is, with all the advantages I had, it was a good selection of an example of AI luck- I had him outnumbered in favorable conditions with a little over 3X the men. And the degree I got whipped was nearly comical- I would lose 12 to 15 strength factors each round while he lost in the neighborhood of the lower single digits- no more than 2 to 5 a round. I must concede that perhaps this game was designed for a different purpose than real-world accuracy, and there are factors and ideas implimented to incorporate that dreaded concept of "game balance". Anyway, ka sara sara, what can you do.

NeverMan -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 5:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar okay, yes, to play a game of symantics.... I used a poorly chosen adjective. Point is, with all the advantages I had, it was a good selection of an example of AI luck- I had him outnumbered in favorable conditions with a little over 3X the men. And the degree I got whipped was nearly comical- I would lose 12 to 15 strength factors each round while he lost in the neighborhood of the lower single digits- no more than 2 to 5 a round. I must concede that perhaps this game was designed for a different purpose than real-world accuracy, and there are factors and ideas implimented to incorporate that dreaded concept of "game balance". Anyway, ka sara sara, what can you do. I'm not sure how you could lose 12 to 15 factors if he only has 18 there, that's like 80-90% casualty losses. Did this actually happen or are you exaggerating? If that is actually happening then something is wrong UNLESS you mean you lost a lot of troops in PURSUIT.

mr.godo -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/10/2008 7:49:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bresh quote: ORIGINAL: mr.godo There's also a bug where the computer doesn't let you pick your outflanking force when it picks outflank too. Then I attacked a turkish force (assault vs counter attack) and it gave him extra morale! (B) A side�s final morale level is increased by "+1" if commanded by a Turkish leader. Then I got attacked by an Austrian force. The computer picked Echelon and I picked Cordon and the computer added one to his roll! ((C) An Austrian commander adds �+1� to Combat Resolution Chart (see section 14.10) random number (net maximum �+1� I figured something was up, so I attacked a lowly spanish force. Davout with 4 corps against one spanish corps. Outflank vs Withdrawal. When my outflanking force didn't show up in the second round, the computer cancelled the battle! ((D) If the outflanking force does not arrive after the first combat round, the defender automatically withdraws before the second combat round and cannot be pursued. Next I had Ney with a corps get attacked by Hohenlohe (1/2). I picked defend and the computer tried an outflank. Instead of outflanking me on a 1, it outflanked me on a 2! (E) The attacking commander�s strategic rating is increased by �+1� I could go on... there are just so many bugs with this game!... rtfm! [sm=terms.gif] I think you guys should study the table 14.9 and 14.9.1 Each and every battle you pictured follows the rules, so how can you say this is a bug ? Regards Bresh sorry for speaking in code... no more drinking or posting past my normal bedtime... i was reading from the manual. and you missed one. quote: ORIGINAL: mr.godo There's also a bug where the computer doesn't let you pick your outflanking force when it picks outflank too. (A) Armies are not split into pinning and outflanking forces xikar, you need a hug. and you need to buy this game. quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Yeah, leaders mean nothing if chit where assult/esc assult vs Defend. Then leaders tac ratings are ignored... quote: ORIGINAL: bresh Leader advantages are ignored? Well, that's makes about as much sense as a rubber crutch in a hospital ward... From the combat tables, Assault/Escalated Assault vs Defend... (F) Tactical ratings are ignored for the modification of random numbers quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar Just fought a battle where I had 61 strength factos (french) against 18 russian factors and they annihilated me.... I would lose 12 to 15 strength factors each round while he lost in the neighborhood of the lower single digits- no more than 2 to 5 a round. Assuming this is from the same battle, let's ignore chit choices. Let's just go off of tables! Okay, we'll assume you have all infantry and cavalry, making your morale 4. The russian, let's say he's got 10 guard and 8 cavalry for a morale of 4.56. If you can only get 2 to 5 in a round, that is in the area of 3 to 8%, which equates to no more than 10%. Great, that means you're rolling on 1-1 or 1-2. Okay, the russian is inflicting 12 to 15 on base 18... that's 67% to 83%... I don't see those values in the table. Hmm. What could be wrong here? No matter! Let's go for MAXIMUM DAMAGE. The russian is on the 5-5 chart! Oooh the carnage!!! First round that russkie computer kicks out a 7 on the die! Whoot! 25% losses (5 factors) and -5 morale! ... Hmm. You're broken. That doesn't work! I'm finding it hard to fit in 61 vs 18 where you lose what you say you lost AND managed to go more than one round. When the casualties are high, the morale loss is high. That's just common sense. You see your comrades dying, you either get heroic and die too, or you panic. quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar Had I bought infantry in january, the infantry I just bought would arrive at a different month than had I bought them in febuary... unless there is something I missed in the rulebook about the 3 month time intervals all being forced to fall on the same months regardless of date of purchase. I hope this all makes sense. How are you going to make purchases in February? Or get Infantry reinforcements in other than three month intervals from the Economic phase? 12.0 The Economic Phase During this phase, which occurs only at the end of the March, June, September and December months, money and manpower are collected and certain expenditures are made. Yes, it does make sense. Have you actually played the game? rtfm - Read The Manual mr.god�

Xikar -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/11/2008 12:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NeverMan I'm not sure how you could lose 12 to 15 factors if he only has 18 there, that's like 80-90% casualty losses. Did this actually happen or are you exaggerating? If that is actually happening then something is wrong UNLESS you mean you lost a lot of troops in PURSUIT. No, I am NOT exaggerating. Combat went for a few rounds and my army, what was left of it, retreated. This is not to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to lose a battle with over 3 to 1 odds- such has happened historically and there are the fluke results in random number generators that make it possible in a game- but I am saying that there were way too many battles where I had superior morale, numbers and tactical leadership and that AI got aweful lucky. Reminds me of the days when I played axis & allies and that AI seemed to get 1's a lot on the computerized dice rolll and shoot down all my bombers that flew over his territory. Clint

bresh -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/11/2008 12:09:33 PM)
Mr.Godo :) If you wanna quote me, please quote something i write, and not something i quote :) I only quoted: quote: Leader advantages are ignored? Well, that's makes about as much sense as a rubber crutch in a hospital ward... Regards Bresh

DCWhitworth -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/11/2008 9:40:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Xikar No, I am NOT exaggerating. Combat went for a few rounds and my army, what was left of it, retreated. This is not to say that it's IMPOSSIBLE to lose a battle with over 3 to 1 odds- such has happened historically and there are the fluke results in random number generators that make it possible in a game- but I am saying that there were way too many battles where I had superior morale, numbers and tactical leadership and that AI got aweful lucky. Reminds me of the days when I played axis & allies and that AI seemed to get 1's a lot on the computerized dice rolll and shoot down all my bombers that flew over his territory. Clint Clint, I don't quite see the point of your posts. Are you looking for sympathy or for a solution to your issues ? If you want a solution then you need to provide much more evidence. Which corps and leaders were present at the battle ? What strength points ? What chits were picked and what were the die rolls ? Do you have a save game from that point ? If you have uncovered a bug, we're all keen to see it identified and fixed, but this can't be done without some hard evidence for Marshal to work on.

Marshall Ellis -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/12/2008 2:32:52 PM)
Xikar: I am curious about the casualty level here that you reported. Was it pursuit that took the most?

pzgndr -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/12/2008 2:58:43 PM)
quote: Essentially, to those that are complaining, it's hard to take you seriously when you haven't even read the rules and understand the game. Furthermore, for your OWN ENJOYMENT ( you paid the money, you should get full enjoyment from it) you really should read the rules before playing the game, the things bresh mentioned can be taken full advantage of by yourself too, since they are part of the rules. I can't dispute this, but in fairness it is difficult for newbies to simply read the rules and instantly comprehend all the many nuances. I tried pointing this out on the Land Combat Stuff thread. Where possible in the combat screens, information popups and the presentation of applicable bonuses and penalties would be most helpful. The rules are the rules of course, but why not show via user interface enhancements what the effects of forests are, what that known opposing Turkish leader does, what your own leader(s) can do, etc. Heck, an automated "caddy" might be nice... "Sir, I would recommend the escalated assault or outflank today." I'm not suggesting a substitution for reading the rules, just that some player aids would be appreciated.

NeverMan -> RE: combat is also a little illogical (5/12/2008 6:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pzgndr I can't dispute this, but in fairness it is difficult for newbies to simply read the rules and instantly comprehend all the many nuances. I tried pointing this out on the Land Combat Stuff thread. Where possible in the combat screens, information popups and the presentation of applicable bonuses and penalties would be most helpful. The rules are the rules of course, but why not show via user interface enhancements what the effects of forests are, what that known opposing Turkish leader does, what your own leader(s) can do, etc. Heck, an automated "caddy" might be nice... "Sir, I would recommend the escalated assault or outflank today." I'm not suggesting a substitution for reading the rules, just that some player aids would be appreciated. I absolutely agree that some extra "hints and features" in the UI would be great. There are a TON of things happening in EiA (it's a very complex game), many of which go on behind the scenes in EiANW so it is easy for the inexperienced user to get confused and frustrated. Part of that, I think, is that the inexperienced user comes here and reads these forums and realizes that there are a ton of bugs with the game, so now every time something happens in the game that he/she doesn't understand they think it must be a bug because the "apparently" (according to some of the forum posters here) the game is really screwed up beyond being playable (which I don't believe to be the case at all).

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.140625