Combat Results vs Predictions (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Panzer Corps



Message

Zerstorer -> Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 5:30:01 PM)

Can the combat results be more consistant to ensure the predicted combat results are realized "unit wide" (instead of just per individual strenght point)?

While a certain amount of randomness is required/necessary, sometimes over-whelming odds that should always result in "victory" do not. On several occassions a unit with a low percentage odds of a kill (ie; 14-17% etc) achieved 80-90% kills and another unit in the same combat with high odds (80-85% etc) only had 20% kills. This occurs for both the AI and the player a few time each scenario. For example, I've seen 2 strenght towed AT hold out in the open against a 10 strenght Grenadier and take no loses (while inflicting 2)... the odds of a kill where only 17% for the AT and 80% for the Infantry so the expected losses where the exact opposite. Since victory conditions are turn based, a couple of combats like this can have catastrophic effect on the scenario. Unless this was by design, I believe there may be a problem with some combat result calculations or its end application.

I realize this is just a game, but such wildly varying results tends to undermine the strategic elements of the game. An attacker to defender combat with a 5-1 ratio (or more) should always be a win (of some degree). Die roll results which allow the defender to occassionally win against an overwhelming attack may seem to be exciting, it detracts from the strategic & historical elements of the game.

Can the combat results table (or its application) be modified so that when the game says "80% chance of a kill"... that there will be indeed a 80% kill average for EACH UNIT (+/- 20% for example)... not just per individually attack factor? If a 10 strenght unit is given an 80% chance of kill (per strenght pt) the end result should be at least 6 kills (example) - never no kills. Since combat die rolls only appear to reference individual attack factors and not the entire unit, it appears that a 90% kill could theorically mean no kills at all for the entire unit.

My appologies for the rather lenghty rambling as I only wished to address a game mechanic that I believe will improve the game. The game runs flawlessly and is a major improvement over PG, so this post was not intended to deminish that accomplishment at all.



Rudankort -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 6:43:30 PM)

I do agree that sometimes combat results can get way off. I remember attacking that polish cavalry in the Poland scen with german inf, and german inf was fully destroyed while cavalry took 1 or 2 damage. Oops.

So yes, this aspect may need some more attention.

Random number generators are tricky. The generator I use now is very close to perfect uniformly distributed generator on a big number of samples, but it does generate long sequences of similar (similar low, or similar high) numbers from time to time. I'll think what I can do about it.

PS. I think I did not say it yet, but it's nice to see you on this forum. :)



SeaMonkey -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 8:43:23 PM)

Just cap the randomness at a plus or minus 2 applied to the predicted results. This works well for SC which has the same unit strength scheme.



Zerstorer -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 8:52:23 PM)

Thanks for giving this issue the attention this fine game deserves, you have done a remarkable job correcting so many issues the original game had. I also apprieciate the time and dedication you have show to the forum and continued support for the game.

And thanks so much for the welcome, it's been a while since I worked with the PG series and it was only recently that I ran across your PGF - such an improvement itself. Best to you and continued success with PC. :-)



BriteLite -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 9:07:06 PM)

Hey I remember you Zerstorer![:)] Welcome.

For those who don't know back in the days before Rudankort did PGForever, Zerstorer was one of a handful of modders who worked on improving PG. His equiptment file was considered by many to be the best, including me.[&o]



Josh -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 9:30:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BriteLite

Hey I remember you Zerstorer![:)] Welcome.

For those who don't know back in the days before Rudankort did PGForever, Zerstorer was one of a handful of modders who worked on improving PG. His equipment file was considered by many to be the best, including me.[&o]


In that case: welcome to the forum, we owe you. [&o]



VPaulus -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/25/2011 10:30:32 PM)

Welcome.



Zerstorer -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/26/2011 12:13:07 AM)


Thanks BriteLite, that was quite a compliment. And thanks to each of you for the welcome. This forum and it's members contributions are another way PC is such a improvement to the PG series. And finally, one last thank you to Rudankort! PC is really very nicely done. A near seamless blending of many improvements which has greatly enhanced the old classic.



fuelli -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/26/2011 10:16:44 AM)

quote:

Just cap the randomness at a plus or minus 2 applied to the predicted results. This works well for SC which has the same unit strength scheme.


I donīt think that the randomness should be capped. Just the probability of results that differ significantly from the prediction needs to be kept at a reasonable level. I have not played enough yet to say that there is something wrong with the probability up to now.



Razz1 -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/27/2011 4:59:38 AM)

I have been petitioning to reduce the randomness for some time.

If you play the Allies you can really see how it hurts.




Dragoon. -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/27/2011 11:22:41 AM)

Well the randomness is not a problem per se, like with AT units it always have been part of discussion since the first PG and the 7 other games that followed it.
I mean AT units are by nature and design a defensive unit not meant to lead the attack, at best defending the flanks. Since the player usally is on the offensive he find limited usage in opposite to the defending AI. But back to the randomness there was always a certain spread with all games. People naturally complain when they get blown on the nose, and less if the randomness caused them to end up better than expected.
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



Mart.n -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/28/2011 9:47:10 AM)

I absolutely agree that the luck factor has to be capped. It's frustrating if you lose 4 units to a single infantry due to bad luck. I know that it evens out over the course of the game, but this favours the load/save abuse so much.

Maybe you can compare it to traditional RPGs - a critical hit deals 2x damage. That's harsh but no overkill. A critical does not automatically kill your whole party.

I would at least love an option to cap the RNG at a plus or minus 2 applied to the predicted results as mentioned above.



willgamer -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/28/2011 4:39:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon

I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.


Actually that essentially impossible!

If taken as 1 chance in 3, the odds are computed as .3 to the 48 power ~= 8 x 10 to the -26 power.

This is about 1 chance in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. [X(]

Strong conclusion: If that sequence can be confirmed, the random number generator is broken. [:(]




Dragoon. -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/28/2011 5:20:16 PM)

Seriously I was shocked when several combat results in a row where completely out of line. A strength 10 PZIV attack a strength 6 infantry units on a river hex without doing any damage but manage to lose one tank. But what made me break out in loud maniacal laughter was when a strength 10 ME110 attacked full strength french engineers in a forest hex losing 4 planes and doing no damage. I finally pressed L to see the dice rolls. All 10 below 30 and had several red numbers in the nineties.

Now I got curious. Since the game don't change seed on reload I loaded the axis autosave. Replayed the whole turn in the same order and checked the detailed combat results each time for the dice rolls and there was that ridicules spree again where all my rolls where a max 29 and AI in exchange rolled many red numbers.
Unfortunately I didn't keep the autosave to show it off however I wished a camera had save the dumb expression on my face. [;)]



SeaMonkey -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/28/2011 5:46:43 PM)

I've played through LC on FM difficulty and I'm noticing some really outlandish combat results.  Maybe we should have a discussion on survivability of units at this level?  If we're talking about battalion sized units, then only when units are completely outnumbered and semi surrounded should they suffer a complete demise in one turn.

Some of the massed unit attacks seem to come off with completely fantastical results as one unit that has suffered air and artillery softening, plus soak-off attacks by ground units, will deal out extensive damage to full strength, experienced attacks from a plethora of surrounding units.

The whole sequence is highly suspicious of a blatant departure from reality.



greykemp@gmail.com -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/29/2011 4:28:36 AM)

There is no true randomness in a computer generated die roll. The seed determines the results and the seed is determined by.....usually, the clock, sometimes a number picked from a table. This means that once the seed is determined the entire sequence is no longer random and OFTEN resultes in long strings of numbers within a narrow range. "Good" or "Bad" depending on whose side you are playing.

Unless someone wants to load large numbers of random number tables we either cap the results or live with it.

DigIn, another orginal PG Forum guy.



soldier1 -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/29/2011 5:18:44 AM)

quote:

Some of the massed unit attacks seem to come off with completely fantastical results as one unit that has suffered air and artillery softening, plus soak-off attacks by ground units, will deal out extensive damage to full strength, experienced attacks from a plethora of surrounding units.

The whole sequence is highly suspicious of a blatant departure from reality.


I don't see too many softened and mass attacked units dealing out fantastic amounts of damage. Unless heavily entrenched they usually go down without causing too much trouble. Of course sometimes they hold out but that's war.
Haven't seen troops on rivers do much but I have seen them in forests hit planes hard and take no casualties. There are some odd results but overall i found the original PG to be more wide ranging and unpredictable.
and if your losing four units to a single troop, then i think its more likely bad tactics than a bad generator.





dorjun driver -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/29/2011 5:37:44 PM)

Any one who considers arithmetical methods of producing random digits is, of course, in a state of sin.

-Johnny V (1951)

On the other hand, Chapter 3 of TAOCP is still a good read.



SeaMonkey -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/29/2011 7:20:18 PM)


Not losing units, just taking abnormally high rates of casualties all the way around from a low strength unit surrounded and absorbing multiple attacks from quality units.



willgamer -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (7/29/2011 8:02:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DigIn

There is no true randomness in a computer generated die roll. The seed determines the results and the seed is determined by.....usually, the clock, sometimes a number picked from a table. This means that once the seed is determined the entire sequence is no longer random and OFTEN resultes in long strings of numbers within a narrow range. "Good" or "Bad" depending on whose side you are playing.


I would call it bad regardless. [:-]

If the random method does gen long, narrowly bounded sequences, I hope the devs will take notice and corrective action. [&o]


quote:

ORIGINAL: DigIn
Unless someone wants to load large numbers of random number tables we either cap the results or live with it.

DigIn, another orginal PG Forum guy.


Or use a method, or combination of methods, that yields a better algorithm. [:)]

If Dragoon's observation is confirmed, I believe the random generator needs fixing. [sm=sign0031.gif]



MWadwell -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 5:54:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon
(SNIP)
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



To be honest, I was playing a downloaded trial version of this game (version 1.0), and had a really bad string of luck against me (to the point where it wiped out my attacking force as a viable force).

This wouldn't be such a bad thing by itself, but as the random number generator doesn't re-seed during a re-load - I ended up getting exactly the same results when I tried the turn again.

I understand why you don't want to re-seed too often (as it promotes the save/reload "cheat") - but to essentially lose a campaign scenario due to a fixed "random" number generator has resulted in an incredible amount of frustration on my part.

My frustration level is so high, I will NOT be buying the game, and I will be going back to the original Panzer General. Dated as it is, it is a hell of a lot less frustrating (and so, more enjoyable) then this remake.

Sorry for the rant, but I just thought to provide some feedback on what has turned me off the game....


Later,
Matt



Birdmon -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 2:12:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon
(SNIP)
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



To be honest, I was playing a downloaded trial version of this game (version 1.0), and had a really bad string of luck against me (to the point where it wiped out my attacking force as a viable force).

This wouldn't be such a bad thing by itself, but as the random number generator doesn't re-seed during a re-load - I ended up getting exactly the same results when I tried the turn again.

I understand why you don't want to re-seed too often (as it promotes the save/reload "cheat") - but to essentially lose a campaign scenario due to a fixed "random" number generator has resulted in an incredible amount of frustration on my part.

My frustration level is so high, I will NOT be buying the game, and I will be going back to the original Panzer General. Dated as it is, it is a hell of a lot less frustrating (and so, more enjoyable) then this remake.

Sorry for the rant, but I just thought to provide some feedback on what has turned me off the game....


Later,
Matt


Matt, I too was angry at this issue but...you can change the reload, just move or attack with another unit first - not near the battle which caused a BS roll. Then come back and try after another move.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 4:59:59 PM)

There is no download trial version of the game 1.0. Where did you get this file?



James Ward -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 5:02:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon
(SNIP)
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



To be honest, I was playing a downloaded trial version of this game (version 1.0), and had a really bad string of luck against me (to the point where it wiped out my attacking force as a viable force).

This wouldn't be such a bad thing by itself, but as the random number generator doesn't re-seed during a re-load - I ended up getting exactly the same results when I tried the turn again.

I understand why you don't want to re-seed too often (as it promotes the save/reload "cheat") - but to essentially lose a campaign scenario due to a fixed "random" number generator has resulted in an incredible amount of frustration on my part.

My frustration level is so high, I will NOT be buying the game, and I will be going back to the original Panzer General. Dated as it is, it is a hell of a lot less frustrating (and so, more enjoyable) then this remake.

Sorry for the rant, but I just thought to provide some feedback on what has turned me off the game....


Later,
Matt


I think if you just change the order of your attacks you get different results so ou have some degree of 'do over'.



MWadwell -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 9:04:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

There is no download trial version of the game 1.0. Where did you get this file?


Demonoid. At least I though it was a trial version (as it didn't ask for a serial code).

I've also downloaded the 1.04 patch - but was waiting to try the game before forking over the money for a serial code (I was going to buy it yesterday, but after the problem with the random number generator, I'm waiting to see what comes up on this forum first).


Later,
Matt



MWadwell -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 9:11:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon
(SNIP)
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



To be honest, I was playing a downloaded trial version of this game (version 1.0), and had a really bad string of luck against me (to the point where it wiped out my attacking force as a viable force).

This wouldn't be such a bad thing by itself, but as the random number generator doesn't re-seed during a re-load - I ended up getting exactly the same results when I tried the turn again.

I understand why you don't want to re-seed too often (as it promotes the save/reload "cheat") - but to essentially lose a campaign scenario due to a fixed "random" number generator has resulted in an incredible amount of frustration on my part.

My frustration level is so high, I will NOT be buying the game, and I will be going back to the original Panzer General. Dated as it is, it is a hell of a lot less frustrating (and so, more enjoyable) then this remake.

Sorry for the rant, but I just thought to provide some feedback on what has turned me off the game....


Later,
Matt


I think if you just change the order of your attacks you get different results so ou have some degree of 'do over'.


Not really - an example is the allies turn that wipes out my attacking force. Unless I redo my entire turn (as I only have autosaves at the start and end of the turn), then the allies will always have exactly the same results.

And if I alter my attacks (i.e. skipping one, or doing one extra) knowing what some of the numbers that are coming up, then that too is a form of cheating.

I understand why the limited re-seeding of the random number generator was done, but (IMHO) I think it might have been changed a bit too far....


Later,
Matt



James Ward -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/19/2011 10:43:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Ward


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon
(SNIP)
The only issue I have noted and it got already Rudankort attention is that the number generator sometimes generates long sequences of similar results.
I had one freak accidents with 48 rolls in succession all between 3 and 29! After that I was considering tempering with my high resolution timer.
Of course I wouldn't have complaind if I had 48 rolls all between 71-97. [:D]



To be honest, I was playing a downloaded trial version of this game (version 1.0), and had a really bad string of luck against me (to the point where it wiped out my attacking force as a viable force).

This wouldn't be such a bad thing by itself, but as the random number generator doesn't re-seed during a re-load - I ended up getting exactly the same results when I tried the turn again.

I understand why you don't want to re-seed too often (as it promotes the save/reload "cheat") - but to essentially lose a campaign scenario due to a fixed "random" number generator has resulted in an incredible amount of frustration on my part.

My frustration level is so high, I will NOT be buying the game, and I will be going back to the original Panzer General. Dated as it is, it is a hell of a lot less frustrating (and so, more enjoyable) then this remake.

Sorry for the rant, but I just thought to provide some feedback on what has turned me off the game....


Later,
Matt


I think if you just change the order of your attacks you get different results so ou have some degree of 'do over'.


Not really - an example is the allies turn that wipes out my attacking force. Unless I redo my entire turn (as I only have autosaves at the start and end of the turn), then the allies will always have exactly the same results.

And if I alter my attacks (i.e. skipping one, or doing one extra) knowing what some of the numbers that are coming up, then that too is a form of cheating.

I understand why the limited re-seeding of the random number generator was done, but (IMHO) I think it might have been changed a bit too far....


Later,
Matt


Yes the AI seems to always attack in the same order so on it's turn there isn't much to be done. I generally don't pay attention to the results predictor but I will occasionally go back and re-do a turn if I roll 'snake eyes' 6 times in a row. That seems to be a little more than bad luck.



Lord Zimoa -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/20/2011 11:01:44 AM)

quote:

Demonoid. At least I though it was a trial version (as it didn't ask for a serial code).

I've also downloaded the 1.04 patch - but was waiting to try the game before forking over the money for a serial code (I was going to buy it yesterday, but after the problem with the random number generator, I'm waiting to see what comes up on this forum first).


Later,
Matt



No, you are playing a pirated version, most probably even an early Beta version, that makes for me at least all your comments totally unreliable, as you play an illegal and outdated pirated version.
The 22nd of November we release the first official demo, download and try that.

Feedback needs to be based on the latest version as it makes any discussion irrelevant and outdated right from the start. The game has undergone continuous support, patching and so many balance changes. We cannot spend time and support on pirated, outdated, illegal copies.




MWadwell -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/20/2011 5:56:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lord Zimoa

quote:

Demonoid. At least I though it was a trial version (as it didn't ask for a serial code).

I've also downloaded the 1.04 patch - but was waiting to try the game before forking over the money for a serial code (I was going to buy it yesterday, but after the problem with the random number generator, I'm waiting to see what comes up on this forum first).


Later,
Matt



No, you are playing a pirated version, most probably even an early Beta version, that makes for me at least all your comments totally unreliable, as you play an illegal and outdated pirated version.
The 22nd of November we release the first official demo, download and try that.

Feedback needs to be based on the latest version as it makes any discussion irrelevant and outdated right from the start. The game has undergone continuous support, patching and so many balance changes. We cannot spend time and support on pirated, outdated, illegal copies.


The version I was playing is listed as version 1.0 and dated 4 July 2011.

And just to confirm (as I'm confused by your use of past/present tense), you are releasing an official demo tomorrow the 22nd of November (as here in Sdney Australia, it is currently 05:00 21 November). Correct?


Later,
Matt



VPaulus -> RE: Combat Results vs Predictions (11/20/2011 6:02:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MWadwell
And just to confirm (as I'm confused by your use of past/present tense), you are releasing an official demo tomorrow the 22nd of November (as here in Sdney Australia, it is currently 05:00 21 November). Correct?

GMT time. And probably not at 00.00 GMT of that day.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.656982