Random Results (Full Version)

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



Message

lparkh -> Random Results (1/21/2012 7:13:27 PM)

I know this issue has been beaten to death and I am sympathetic to the "war is hell" view of strong variation in random results.
Nonetheless, I just want to ping the designer to think about this again because it is driving me back to opengen and PG2 original mods. Specifically, I opened up my 1941 campaign trying to get into game again (I've worked through 39 and 40). I took my tank and attacked a Yugoslavian CAVALRY in the open with a panzerIVe (an infantry oriented tank). I took FOUR DAMAGE (10 str vs 10 str). In the open in dry. It took 1 or 2 I think. But I *really* have a hard time swallowing the idea that a PanzerIV in 1941 in the open against cavalry in clear and dry is going to take 40% casualties against Cavalry. I never ran into this in any other version of the game.
So maybe it is just my problem but shouldn't we be able to model the math a bit so that such things don't happen. It reminds me of Civ where spearmen beat tanks.

I bring this whine up again because I want Panzer Corps to be my favorite Panzer General like game but results like this just make me frustrated and I switch back to earlier versions... esp since the prestige to keep an experienced unit up to snuff is tough (4 points off an experienced tank during a scenario is not easy to fix).

Enough said.



VPaulus -> RE: Random Results (1/21/2012 9:06:02 PM)

You can play the game in chess mode.
This will makes all combats play exactly as they were predicted (unless rugged defense happens).



paulk205 -> RE: Random Results (1/22/2012 12:34:20 AM)

There must surely exist some sort of intermediate situation between zero randomisation and the present completely ridiculous situation when results are wildly divergent from those predicted. The original PG had the balance right, PC just feels way too random. I don't want to beat this particular dead horse again either, but too much randomness completely kills the joy of a supposedly "strategic" game. And that's both sides too, I'm not just complaining about my not wreaking havoc with the AI as predicted.

The 41 DLC felt much more random than the 40, too. Just an impression though.



lparkh -> RE: Random Results (1/22/2012 4:01:18 PM)

Thanks for the "chess" tip but Paulk205 is saying well what I am trying to say. Good tactical play should be rewarded but with some variation.



goodwoodrw -> RE: Random Results (1/23/2012 1:41:56 AM)

I think I was the one of the first to whinge about this, random results is fine, but too random is getting away from realism. Results should be reliable not random, for example a one sided battle where the odds considerably in favour of one side, 9 out 10 times the stronger should side win. As a commander when making a pre battle assessment you look at the odds of winning before attacking. If you think they are not stacked in your favour, you add a couple extra elements to the force to ensure a positive result. An example of this the way you can add elements to your force in GG WITE. I know its not possible in PC due different game mechanics. Where the random result really puke are in multiple attacks. A defending enemy unit strength of 10 is attacked by attacker strength of 12, say battle result equals defender 2 points lost and 2 for the attacker,
defender now 8 attacked by second unit of a strength of 10 attacks 4/2. Defenders strength now 4, the 3rd attack results in the defender being wiped out, attacker losers 4 or 5 points totally crazy random results, but too often. In the world the defender by the 3rd encounter the defender would so disorganised, suppressed etc its ability to show any serious resistance would zilch and the atacker lose very little strength. Multiple attacks should aways be rewarded. A lucky break occurring should be a 1 in 20 or so result not 1 in 5 or 10. A commander should have the expectation if the odds are his favour he is going to win the battle 9 times out of 10.



mr_clark -> RE: Random Results (1/30/2012 1:49:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BASB

by the 3rd encounter the defender would so disorganised, suppressed etc its ability to show any serious resistance would zilch and the atacker lose very little strength. Multiple attacks should aways be rewarded.


The way I see it multiple attacks in the Game are not comparable to multiple attacks "in the real world". In the game additional attacks are more like reinforcments joining the fray in the middle of a battle and not a new strike by a fresh unit after the initial fight has bogged down. These are just game-mechanics, IMHO.
And luck (randomness) is something that, by definition, can't be quantified. After all maybe the Commander of this Cavalry unit just happened to set up his AT-Gun detachment in such a position that it is completely surprising the advancing Panzers...
In that regard I think the current level of randomness is just fine.

And aren't you all a little too focused on your negative results? Didn't you ever enjoy to see one of your Grenadier units blast away an enemy tank, when you just hoped to scratch it enough that the AI repairs it next turn?



IainMcNeil -> RE: Random Results (1/31/2012 1:32:41 PM)

Hold down Ctrl and click to get a detailed summary of the combat odds. This will explain what is going on under the hood. The results are not really that raandom and good play will easily make up for any randomness.



soldier1 -> RE: Random Results (1/31/2012 5:39:46 PM)

I'm not sure that the problem here has to do so much with random results but rather with the ability of units with low hard attack (namely HA of 1) to really damage tanks. i saw a lot of it in the 1940 DLC, where Belguim and British troops seem to cause as much pain to tanks out in the open as the cheap AT guns would. Similarly i could hardly attack the Matilda I's as they would always hurt the Panzers despite only being armed with MG's (again HA of 1). There was a similar issue with fighter causing damage that was comparable to the bombers before the 3rd patch (again HA of 1). There sometimes seems to be not much difference between HA of 1 or HA of 4. You really didn't see these sort of results in PG, where troops in the open were at the mercy of tanks and couldnt really hurt them. The matilda I's couldn't really hurt tanks in PG either.



soldier1 -> RE: Random Results (1/31/2012 5:40:19 PM)

sorry double post somehow



Max 86 -> RE: Random Results (2/9/2012 8:39:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VPaulus

You can play the game in chess mode.
This will makes all combats play exactly as they were predicted (unless rugged defense happens).



How do you set that? Just curious.



VPaulus -> RE: Random Results (2/10/2012 12:06:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Max 86

How do you set that? Just curious.

It's a cheat code.
http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=121&t=25990



mr_clark -> RE: Random Results (2/17/2012 1:31:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: soldier1

I'm not sure that the problem here has to do so much with random results but rather with the ability of units with low hard attack (namely HA of 1) to really damage tanks. i saw a lot of it in the 1940 DLC, where Belguim and British troops seem to cause as much pain to tanks out in the open as the cheap AT guns would. Similarly i could hardly attack the Matilda I's as they would always hurt the Panzers despite only being armed with MG's (again HA of 1). There was a similar issue with fighter causing damage that was comparable to the bombers before the 3rd patch (again HA of 1). There sometimes seems to be not much difference between HA of 1 or HA of 4. You really didn't see these sort of results in PG, where troops in the open were at the mercy of tanks and couldnt really hurt them. The matilda I's couldn't really hurt tanks in PG either.

Sounds plausible. After playing through the bulk of the '42 DLC I was at some points constantly cursing at the 15 strenght Infantry rushes against my tanks that really do large damage even in the open... Only PzIII Ms with their high (especially close) defensive values are really good.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375