PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE Fix the odds predictor

[IainMcNeil]

The point is it can't be more accurate

It gives the most likely result already. Any other result would be less likely to occur therfore less accurate! I don't know how else to explain it

The only way to make it more accurate is to change the mechanics and this is not going to happen.

[brettz123]

The point is it can't be more accurate

It gives the most likely result already. Any other result would be less likely to occur therfore less accurate! I don't know how else to explain it

The only way to make it more accurate is to change the mechanics and this is not going to happen.

I think we understand you . All we are saying is that you should change the mechanics . But seriously we understand that isn't going to happen (though it probably should!).

[soldier]

am aware of the randomness but i swear the original campaign was more balanced. I´m playing DLC 40 and sometimes i would like to throw the game across the window. Odds results here and there are fun but watching those pesky Dingos & Matildas attacking my Panzers III&IV every turn....it get on my nerves. Try to do that with a Panzer I and you get crushed. Not fair.

I too notice that Dingo's, Matilda I's and allied infantry out in the open all do too much damage to tanks out in the open, when such units shouldn't even penetrate armour (armed only with MG's). Somehow units with a hard attack of 1 can still hit enemy armour hard in this game and its not accurate. Not sure how much of it has to do with the random generator though. Something is wrong with the combat mechanics in this situation. You never saw such results in Panzer General

[Aloo]

The point is it can't be more accurate

Maybe you can also give information what is the chance (percent) for such outcome?

[Sourdust]

I used to play a lot of a game called "Warlords II" by SSG many years ago, it used a vaguely similar combat mechanic. I had a utility called "odds predictor" that I used with it, which gave you a percentage chance of each possible outcome. It was an invaluable tool, and fun as well. Results were presented in a histogram format.

Seems to me it wouldn't be hard to implement for PanzerCorps. In other words, when clicking on the detailed odds prediction, you would get a graph that would show you the likelihood of each possible step loss in percentage terms. This would give you a sense not only of the most likely outcome (which sometimes isn't all that likely!), as well as the likelihood of more and less severe outcomes. Would be good to know if you have a 5% chance of a 5 step loss, even if the "most likely" outcome is only a 2 step loss.

[Sourdust]

The problem is that any combat has a chance of 10 hits for either side so showing the max hits would always be the same - 10.

....

Not exactly. Max hits actually depends on unit strength, suppression, initiative and rate of fire. It's not always 10. If you're attacking a 12-strength unit that has 6 suppression hits already on it, and where you are guaranteed to have an initiative advantage of at least +3, then max hits is only 4, if I've done my maths properly...

But your broader point is right, that "max hits" won't give the most interesting information most of the time.

I am interested in the choice of median rather than mean average in the combat predictor. Using the mean would give slightly higher loss predictions in most cases, because the bell curve for most combats will have a long tail extending up towards 10.

A combat predictor that uses mean might give predictions that are a bit bloodier, and therefore perhaps more in tune with what some players are intuition that combats are more severe that what the odds predictor is telling us.

[deducter]

Not exactly. Max hits actually depends on unit strength, suppression, initiative and rate of fire. It's not always 10. If you're attacking a 12-strength unit that has 6 suppression hits already on it, and where you are guaranteed to have an initiative advantage of at least +3, then max hits is only 4, if I've done my maths properly...

Not true, this assumes during your combat rolls your unit actually kills/or suppresses at least 2 strength points. The max hit is still 6 in your case.

[Amaranthus]

The Warlords II combat predictor was used in the World Tournament to turn WLII into a chess-like variant (there were problems with save-reloads in that game). It was called WarBOT, the Warlords Battle Odds Tool.

I see that Battle for Wesnoth has a built-in predictor. That would be a neat addition to PzC, without changing anything else.

I still think that my idea of averaged dice rolls (see upthread) was a good one, but Ian hasn't commented on it

[robc04_1]

Another possiblity for the odds predictor would be to show a weighted average of the possible results. For example if there was:

10% chance for 1 hit
30% chance for 2 hits
40% chance for 3 hits
15% chance for 4 hits
5% chance for 5 hits

(.1 x 1) + (.3 x 2) + (.4 x 3) + (.15 x 4) + (.05 x 5) = 2.75 hits

You could also display the min and max of 1 and 5 too.

[Amaranthus]

Another thing I'd like to suggest.

Currently (as I understand it), you can only pull up the combat results predictor by ctrl-click when adjacent to a unit. It would be useful if this could be done *before* you move the unit, being available for any enemy unit that is within range.

The caveat I could see is when your terrain will modify the results (e.g. the attack would be made from a river hex), but since movement is already set (we can't chart our path) then the AI will know the attacking hex anyway, so this should not be an issue.

Thoughts?

[El_Condoro]

I can see why this would be useful but it could be misleading in some situations, such as when a massed attack is possible - the AI would only be able to work with a single attack; or when there is an option to attack from a hex which would attract supporting artillery fire and another that doesn't - which one would the AI work with? The river example, you used. There are probably too many permutations to work with but in 80% (no basis for the figure but guesswork!) of the time it would be better than moving, checking odds, undoing the move to try a different target.

[Amaranthus]

Of course massed attack only comes into the current calculations when the other units are already moved into place, so the "move-check-unmove" is not all that different from the "remote CTRL-Click" situation in practice (except you have the danger of interception/unable to undo via FoW). The enemy arty would be partly known (those not within the FoW before you moved), so I agree it would not be as accurate as the adjacent CTRL-Click, but again, similar to the move-check-unmove - without some of the risk and hassle.

[Sourdust]

Not exactly. Max hits actually depends on unit strength, suppression, initiative and rate of fire. It's not always 10. If you're attacking a 12-strength unit that has 6 suppression hits already on it, and where you are guaranteed to have an initiative advantage of at least +3, then max hits is only 4, if I've done my maths properly...

Not true, this assumes during your combat rolls your unit actually kills/or suppresses at least 2 strength points. The max hit is still 6 in your case.

No, I meant if the defender had suppression hits already on it prior to your attack. Ie, you fire your artillery, see that it has gotten 6 suppression hits, and are then considering whether to follow-up with an infantry or tank attack. You know the six suppression hits are definite.

Or are you referring to the initiative dynamic? Perhaps I've misunderstood how that works?

[deducter]

Not exactly. Max hits actually depends on unit strength, suppression, initiative and rate of fire. It's not always 10. If you're attacking a 12-strength unit that has 6 suppression hits already on it, and where you are guaranteed to have an initiative advantage of at least +3, then max hits is only 4, if I've done my maths properly...

Not true, this assumes during your combat rolls your unit actually kills/or suppresses at least 2 strength points. The max hit is still 6 in your case.

I'm actually not 100% clear on how initiative works, hopefully one of the devs or another knowledgeable player can verify what I'm about to say.

From the many, many hours that I've played this game and the combat logs I've examined, my sense is that for every point of initiative advantage, 20% of your units shoot first. I think this value is dependent on the current strength, so if you overstrength your high initiative units, proportionally more will shoot first (I base this guess off of the super-effectiveness of overstrengthed 88 guns).

When you attack with one unit into another, you can score either a kill or a suppression. A point of suppression for the unit with initiative advantage eliminates one of the dice rolls for the unit with the lower initiative, but suppression does not inflict strength loss. It is possible, for instance, for you to for a unit that is strength 10-9 (10 strength, 9 suppression) to retreat without inflicting any strength damage, as you can inflict suppression. This is critical for surrender/retreat mechanics, which is vital in MP/higher difficulties.

It is possible, however, through combat with an inferior unit vs a superior unit or through back luck for you to fail to inflict any points of suppression. Such a possibility is extremely unlikely, but the best example may be something like a Marder IIIH (INI 7) vs a Soviet guard (INI 2). You are guaranteed, in clear terrain, of an INI advantage of at least 3 (Marder IIIH INI = 7 vs Guards INI = 2 +2 dice roll = 4). However, the Mrader IIIH has a SA of 4, and furthermore the guards get a defense bonus of 2 for fighting a AT unit. It is quite possible that your Marder will inflict no kills or suppression on the Soviet Guards, and hence it can retaliate with all 6 of its unsuppressed strength points, and might inflict up to 6 damage back on your Marder IIIH. Such a possibility is extremely unlikely, however, as it assumes a perfect kill ratio on the guards (3 HA vs 12 GD for the Marder) and that you inflicted no kills or suppression with your Marder. It is still theoretically possible, as far as I understand the mechanics.

[Sourdust]

I see, thanks deducter. In that case you're right, max hits in theory depends only on unit strength, pre-existing suppression, and rate of fire.

[deducter]

One other detail, only dice that kills/suppresses during your initiative advantage determine how many dice the defending unit can strike back with. In the previous example of the Marder III vs Soviet Guards, the Marder III is guaranteed 6 dice rolls on the Guards before it retaliates. To reduce the dice roll of the Guards, only kills or suppression in the first six dice roll matter. In other words, it is possible for your Marder III to score 4 kills in the last 4 dice roll, but the Guards can still retaliate with 6 strength because none of the Marder's kills were scored in the first 60% of its dice.