Slitherine

Kerensky wrote:Just curious what people think about this. Would the game be more fun if all randomness was removed? Combat prediction becomes combat facts.

Sorry but I have to say you dropped the ball on this. I call this vote worthless.

Several posters (including me) have complained about the sometimes wild differences between the combat prediction and a regular outcome. Nowhere have I encountered the suggestion to REMOVE the randomness.

The point is that the randomness needs to be CONTAINED, i.e. the game should reserve wild combat results for clearly labeled events (such as rugged defense, ambush etc) and also help the player in determining when there is a risk that these events might take place, and so how great a risk.

That is, giving the player accurate info on the risk of a wild result. Containing the wilderness as it were.

NOT giving accurate info on the actual outcome.

Like everybody else I voted "keep randomness". But please don't take that to mean "keep the current wild randomness". Only that the random factor is essential to the gameplay fun.


best regards,
Zapp

It seems to me the only way to remove the "wild" randomness (which i dont personlly see in my games) is to remove the random initiave roll the attacker and defender get when you actually pull the trigger to fight. if this is removed though, you are taking away a pretty important game mechanic that was part if every Pg style game.

TheGrayMouser wrote:It seems to me the only way to remove the "wild" randomness (which i dont personlly see in my games) is to remove the random initiave roll the attacker and defender get when you actually pull the trigger to fight. if this is removed though, you are taking away a pretty important game mechanic that was part if every Pg style game.

Since other PG style games had that mechanic, yet weren't as "wild", you must be missing something.

Molve wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:It seems to me the only way to remove the "wild" randomness (which i dont personlly see in my games) is to remove the random initiave roll the attacker and defender get when you actually pull the trigger to fight. if this is removed though, you are taking away a pretty important game mechanic that was part if every Pg style game.

Since other PG style games had that mechanic, yet weren't as "wild", you must be missing something.

What am i missing? perhaps intiative played a completely differnt role in the older games? i believe it was broadly similar...

TheGrayMouser wrote:

Molve wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:It seems to me the only way to remove the "wild" randomness (which i dont personlly see in my games) is to remove the random initiave roll the attacker and defender get when you actually pull the trigger to fight. if this is removed though, you are taking away a pretty important game mechanic that was part if every Pg style game.

Since other PG style games had that mechanic, yet weren't as "wild", you must be missing something.

What am i missing? perhaps intiative played a completely differnt role in the older games? i believe it was broadly similar...

Initiative was way more important in the original PG.....I still cant see that I'm gettinng any more wild results than I did in PG though

Horseman wrote:Initiative was way more important in the original PG...

I have to agree with Horseman here. In PG initiative was the single most important stat. Especially in air combat if you got to shot first you probably suffered nearly no casualties. It changed for the better in PC imho. Initiative is still important but not (almost) the one and only stat.

Horseman wrote:I still cant see that I'm gettinng any more wild results than I did in PG though

I agree here again. There are no more "wild" results in PC then there were in PG but it tend to happen. Sometimes you tend to get bad or good streaks of RNG and can get really strange combat outcomes. I remember a Panzer III with a strength of 7 standing in open field being attacked by basic infantry and wiped out totally or my Ju 88A shooting down 5 Hurricanes after being attacked without suffering any casualties. Granted the JU 88 got some nice air defense but that outcome was a bit out.

I no longer own my PG manual, but is it possible that PG handled the effects of initiave differntly for differnt unit classes? As mentioned by another poster, even a small initiave differnential between air units made a huge diffence but infanry vs an infantry not so much. Ohe well, i think its fine the way it id and I like to play the game , not study the predictor and sweat over the dice rolls afterwords

TheGrayMouser wrote:I no longer own my PG manual, but is it possible that PG handled the effects of initiave differntly for differnt unit classes? As mentioned by another poster, even a small initiave differnential between air units made a huge diffence but infanry vs an infantry not so much. Ohe well, i think its fine the way it id and I like to play the game , not study the predictor and sweat over the dice rolls afterwords

I am not 100% sure about this but i think Pg handled initiative same across all unit types. The difference in the impact it had, had something to do with the way the different units were designes. Planes, especially fighters had usually high attack values but was quite fragile. If you won initiative you shot first and killed or suppressed most, if not all, of the opposing unit. Infantry and tanks tended to have lower attack values in case of the first or be a lot sturdier in case of the second so even if you shot first you seldom managed to kill and suppress all opposing units so you almost always took some backfire. It changed again with the late war tanks which got such high attack values again that they behaved almost like fighters agai, tho they still was a lot sturdier.

IMHO a less random outcome is not more realistic. In war there are many factors which can influence an outcome and are too numerous to be modeled in an understandable way, or maybe at all really. Some games try, but understanding the mechanics then becomes a real chore.

So how else would you model these unaccountable factors in a way consistent with the style of PC? I can't think of a better way.

You'll see this same discussion about random outcomes on pretty much any game with an RNG element - take Battle for Wesnoth for example. It always ends up the same way; there's no better KISS way to do it. And so these threads go round and round.

But realistically, a general's job is to react to the situation at hand. Nobody can accurately predict what that situation will be, therefore the old saying "no plan of action survives first contact." However, the better strategy will still prevail in spite of randomness because it balances out in the end. And if not? Real wars have been lost due to luck or God-factors.

-Ben

Good post xitax, especially considering the scale of the game where each unit is a division, your role isnt even as low as an Army general but more realistically an Army Group Commander. You would be very far removed from the tactical battles of divisions fighting other divisions

Molve wrote:Sorry but I have to say you dropped the ball on this. I call this vote worthless.

If by dropping the ball you mean finding a topic the community is almost universally united on in agreement, stimulation discussion, and creating a good size thread of interesting and creative ideas for consideration, I think it's something I should be happy to do more often.

Kerensky wrote:

Molve wrote:Sorry but I have to say you dropped the ball on this. I call this vote worthless.

If by dropping the ball you mean finding a topic the community is almost universally united on in agreement, stimulation discussion, and creating a good size thread of interesting and creative ideas for consideration, I think it's something I should be happy to do more often.

i bet you did like it when your balls dropped lawlz

I voted NO. I think you shouldn't even get an prediction. You should have to figure it out yourself if it's worth attacking or not.

Now that's an interesting idea - perhaps in one of the difficulty levels or even as on option at any level.

Talking about total strange outcomes: Here is one that really should not happen like this:

Stuff like that makes me think that the randomness need to be tuned down a bit. Notice the amount of 90+ rolls on the AI side vs 2 of 5 rolls of 1 on my side. But then when it comes to gambling thats always my luck, or more the lack of it.

MartyWard wrote:I voted NO. I think you shouldn't even get an prediction. You should have to figure it out yourself if it's worth attacking or not.

Working on doing this - one of my goals in the game.
Getting better at it, but still a ways to go yet.

Apart from the amazing bad luck in that attack, Tarrak, I wonder why it records 3 suppressed when there is only one in the list of rolls. And why that suppressed point still gets to attack in the counter.

El_Condoro wrote:Apart from the amazing bad luck in that attack, Tarrak, I wonder why it records 3 suppressed when there is only one in the list of rolls. And why that suppressed point still gets to attack in the counter.

Good observation.


I think you’re right. shouldn’t the Grenadier only get 2 rolls?

I would have thought 4 rolls - (10-6) 5 killed and one suppressed according to the rolls, although the text below them says 3 suppressed.

El_Condoro wrote:Apart from the amazing bad luck in that attack, Tarrak, I wonder why it records 3 suppressed when there is only one in the list of rolls.

Now you said that i notice it too. Really strange ... according to the rolls it should be 5 killed and 1 suppressed. Possibly a bug or am i missing something?

El_Condoro wrote:And why that suppressed point still gets to attack in the counter.

This on the other hand is working like intended as far i know. PC handles initiative differently to PG. In Pg the unit that won the initiative shot with full strength before the loser. In PC only a certain amount of shots is done before the defender can fire back. I think the exact amount is influenced by the difference in the initiative score. The higher you won the more shots you get first. This is the reason why initiative is not as strong in PC as it was in Pg