Too much random!

[Morbio]

Ah then a shorter answer would have been more effcient

Yeah the loser can inflict more "casualties", the loser as being defined by the BG that rolled less hits The combat charts show it well but the winner might , for example be the one that got say 3 hits and thus will inflict 9-18% causalties, the loser who got 2 hits 5-14%. A 5% differential, worst case scenario

Assuming the percentage spread is determined linearly, i.e. there is an equal chance of 9%, 10%, ....18% then I realise that in the majority of cases the winner will inflict more casualties than it receives. However, there still is a good spread of occurrences where the loser can outscore the winner, i.e. all the combinations where the winner is in the range 9-14% and the loser is in the similar range.

Surely a system that allows, using the example above, a winning side to inflict 9% casualties on the opponent and the losing side to inflict 14% casualties on the winner is flawed and needs a rethink.

Once the "winner" has been determined then constraints must be put on the loser to ensure that the casualties they inflict is less than the casualties inflicted by the winners.

At present it seems that too many random factors are being used in determining the result. A random dice to determine who wins and a random determination of casualties, which could, at least in my mind, override the decision of who won. This may be why there is some adverse feedback that the results are too random.

I certainly believe that that random elements are required to determine results, but some constraints need to be applied too. Constraining the losers maximum percentage to less than the winners percentage roll, is one way to ensure that strange results are minimised.

Obviously, there are a number of assumptions in what I've written, e.g. linear spread, no current constraints, etc. so I'd welcome feedback from the technical community that know how it works behind the scenes as well as thoughts from all others.

[batesmotel]

Ah then a shorter answer would have been more effcient

Yeah the loser can inflict more "casualties", the loser as being defined by the BG that rolled less hits The combat charts show it well but the winner might , for example be the one that got say 3 hits and thus will inflict 9-18% causalties, the loser who got 2 hits 5-14%. A 5% differential, worst case scenario

Your numbers here are wrong according to the on line help. The non-loser in impact or melee uses a different table for losses than the loser in such a combat does. For the loser with 3 hits the range is 9-14%.
For a winner who took 2 hits, the range is .5-5% so should always be lower than the losers percentage. From the help:

Code: Select all

Depending upon the number of hits the losses inflicted will vary randomly:
If a battle group received more hits than it inflicted:

    * 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
    * 1 hit : 2% to 9%
    * 2 hits : 5% to 14%
    * 3 hits : 9% to 18%
    * 4 hits : 12% to 24%
    * 5 hits : 17% to 27%
    * 6 hits : 22% to 28%

Other results:

    * 0 hits : 0.01% to 1%
    * 1 hit : 0.25% to 3%
    * 2 hits : 0.5% to 5%
    * 3 hits : 2% to 9%
    * 4 hits : 5% to 14%
    * 5 hits : 9% to 18%
    * 6 hits : 12% to 24%

If you see results that are not consistent with this, then this is a bug and should be reported, preferably with a screen shot showing the results.

Chris

[TheGrayMouser]

i of course stand corrected based on the chart ranges you supplied, however it is possible the winner could suffer more 'casaulaties" if the notation unit strengths of the units are differnt

example
HF 1500 wins combat w 3 success dice
LF 500 loses w 2 succesful dice

loser will suffer 9-18% winner will suffer .05-5%

worst case rolls for the %
1500* 5% 75 kia
500* 9% 45 kia

Thus the winner could have more "men" dead , however the loser actually suffer greater % of the nominal value of the unit.... Maybe this is what is confusing people



The important thing is the relative staying power of the winner unit is effected less
I never consider winner- loser per the game mecahism to be important anyways, it is whether my unit passes the cohesion tests, opponent fails his that I watch out for