Slitherine

TheGrayMouser wrote:You know this whole discussion kinda ties into the thread that experiance doesnt matter much

Makes sense. But experience matters because there is a finite number of slots and experienced units can be overstrengthed.

TheGrayMouser wrote:...
Im not sure but based on the data files on how a unit gains values for every bar of experiance ( iether 10% or +1 whichevr is lower) its seams that infantry get the short end of the stick due to rounding. ie units with starting high levels likly get a point for every bar , but due to rounding , units with low starting values skip levels of experiance with no benefit

Example: Infantry get 2 intiative , at what point does an infantry unit get an additional point ? 2 bars 3? at what point 2 additioal , 4 ?
A tsnk with 12 starting intiative likly gets addtitional points more evenly and thus more!

So an infantry attacked by a tank is kinda hosed here, even if the infantry is in close terrain/entrenched and there is an initiative cap. This is because the cap can be bypassed by 2 things A the experiance bonus and B the random 0 thru +2 roll.

So tanks that benefit by getting additional initiative points from experiance , plus the roll often times win the intitiatve which is very very improtant in this game as you highlight above. Unlike other values like attack ground defence etc, where the differnce beteen 8 and 10, say for hard attack is important but isnt huge, having two point higher in intiative IS because the game uses that as an absolote comparative: every point allows 20% hits to take effect before the defender can fire back!.

This is my gripe that I alluded to about this game, partly because of the above and partly other items that make infantry very very weak IMHO.

I think the problem is that if you would allow infantry "full" growth, ie 1 per star, then a experienced (at least two, three star) infantry would have double the initiative of regular troops.
Which could be unbalancing.

For example, one of my three star Pioneers picked up a +3 Initiative hero, and man do they cut through other infantry.
Usually my Pioneers do maybe 5-6 damage to a suppressed target, these boys regularly do 7-8 and "crit" for 10 quite often.

Fimconte wrote:For example, one of my three star Pioneers picked up a +3 Initiative hero, and man do they cut through other infantry.
Usually my Pioneers do maybe 5-6 damage to a suppressed target, these boys regularly do 7-8 and "crit" for 10 quite often.

Thats awesome!
Want that too.

Now consider how much prestige you have invested on that single unit troughtout the campaign. Their performance just makes sense. Thats the level of performance one should expect from elite units.

+3 initiative is an amazing infantry leader, no doubt about it.
It's the equivalent of carrying around 3 extra units with you at all times to contribute to mass attack.

Thanks everyone, the quality of the discussed really picked up lately!

(No offense taken and hopefully not given either)

Hopefully the devs by now realize their combat calculator is a little too random for many of their players, and/or that the prediction isn't sufficiently accurate.

While I prefer a narrowed-down range of outcomes, let me take this opportunity to reiterate that the current combat results would be fine if only the quick estimator provided enough valuable info!

If there is a 30% chance your attack will go horribly wrong, then this must be made known to the player (and not by having him check a details screen before every combat). Square and simple as that.

The suggestion (assuming a reduced variance isn't on the table) made above would be very useful:

To color the prediction in either green, yellow or red colour, depending on the quality of the prediction:

GREEN: 5-3 means the game tells you there are no unknowns. All relevant squares are visible (no surprise artillery backup etc), the enemy is out of entrenchment and/or suffers at least 50% suppression. Also, even with minimal luck you will still fire first (or even with max luck fire last!).

YELLOW: 2-2 means you can generally trust the prediction, but that there might be unexpected variables changing this. Such as a possibility for Rugged Defense, hidden arty, you attacking while surrounded by several enemy units (if that has any defensive effect) etc but mostly that the initiative counts of the units are so very close that an unlucky "roll" might give the "outliers" we're discussing. Yellow means "the predictor is accurate, except clearly defined exceptions, such as Rugged Defense et al" - the estimation in on par with Panzer General.

RED: 0-7 means what you have today: no assurances. There exists enough uncertainty or mitigating factors that the predictor can fail the way it does today for any number of reasons. In short, red means "don't trust the predictor" (which is sadly the case today - the whole reason for having this discussion in the first place)

Do note that these colors have nothing to do with actually winning the combat. You could get a 10-0 prediction in green, as long as you're assured of wasting your unit for no gains at all!



In other words, if the current system is retained, there needs to be a convenient flag telling the player "you should really check the details screen before attacking. Either that, or add another artillery barge, move up a supporting mass attack unit, etc first".

It could well be that the current game is good enough, only that the game isn't good enough in giving enough information automatically. A case of too little automation, as it were. If the game makes the information known to the play, it also needs to collect it for him or her in a digestible (and quickly-accessed) format!

(And as always: yes, there should be an option to not colour-code the predictor for those who enjoys spending the time to find out for themselves)

This would help immensely in summarizing the available info for the player, so he can make informed decisions about when to go ahead and make the attack, and when he should support it better first; all without the rather lazy suggestion to check the details screen before every combat.

Molve - I wasn't aware that it has been concluded that the combat predictions are a little to random? I'm still in the camp that they're good enough for what info I want!

On the other hand I like you sugestion for colour coding ho wlikely you are to be surprised by the result

Horseman wrote:Molve - I wasn't aware that it has been concluded that the combat predictions are a little to random? I'm still in the camp that they're good enough for what info I want!

Thanks for making me realize I was unclear. I've edited that sentence; hopefully for the better.

Recognising that there is a need to make games accessible to new players, I don't think there is a need to modify the current AI predictions much, if at all. I am testing a scenario and have made 100s of attacks and have got some outrageous results *but* they are the exception and not the rule. Generally, the AI is pretty close and perhaps 'out' by one or two. In MP games I, like most of us, have had turns where I swear the RDR has it in for me but the next turn evens it all out. It's frustrating but my point is this: how many real world on-the-ground or even strategic planners can make decisions that are always within a 10% range of error? Even with the best intel, it is possible to get it wrong, terribly wrong. This is abstracted to the RDM in PzC and I don't think the less than 5% (approximate value based on the non-empirical value of perception!) of 'bad rolls' is that 'bad'.

Apart from the lack of intel for commanders, from a purely game-play point of view making the AI do all the work (or 90% of it) takes away the experience level of the player and the learning curve that makes a better player. When I played the 'old hands' in the beta I got my butt kicked but I learned. I am still learning and how? Trial and error, discussions on these forums and looking at the unit stats and game mechanics. Personally, and of course as with all that I have said it is only my opinion, I don't want the AI to be too accurate - one day I would like to be able to plan an attack with just the intel I have and know the approximate chance of success intuitively.

You hit on a very key concept there.

Intel.

If you are attacking a unit and you don’t know if there are hidden arty behind it and don’t check the entrenchment or don’t know what kind of unit it really is as far as its stats – then I guess let come what may.
But if you do know all of that stuff (and more) you should eventually be able to have a good idea how it’s going to turn out and the combat prediction should then be only a confirmation of what you thought.

I would like to get to that level myself at some point.


... But ...

To the new player or less skilled player, I can’t see it being anything but frustration and a “never to play again” result if you keep getting a positive prediction with terrible results. And even if it is only a few times that it happens; players tend to notice and remember the negatives more so than the positives if it is a new game for them.

Perhaps in the difficulty level this could be incorporated. The easier the level, the more precise the predictions – the hard the level, they go off a bit more.

Just a thought.

Xerkis wrote:Perhaps in the difficulty level this could be incorporated. The easier the level, the more precise the predictions – the hard the level, they go off a bit more.

That makes good sense. I like it. Supreme Commander level - no AI predictions at all. OK, I might be going too far with that one.

El_Condoro wrote:

Xerkis wrote:Perhaps in the difficulty level this could be incorporated. The easier the level, the more precise the predictions – the hard the level, they go off a bit more.

That makes good sense. I like it. Supreme Commander level - no AI predictions at all. OK, I might be going too far with that one.

Hhhmmm… but are you?

A true commander – one worth his title – doesn’t need predictions; he KNOWS how it is going to turn out. After gathering all the intel, preparations, a well designed plan, and excellently executed; the results are as he knew they would be.

Xerkis wrote:

El_Condoro wrote:

Xerkis wrote:Perhaps in the difficulty level this could be incorporated. The easier the level, the more precise the predictions – the hard the level, they go off a bit more.

That makes good sense. I like it. Supreme Commander level - no AI predictions at all. OK, I might be going too far with that one.

Hhhmmm… but are you?

A true commander – one worth his title – doesn’t need predictions; he KNOWS how it is going to turn out. After gathering all the intel, preparations, a well designed plan, and excellently executed; the results are as he knew they would be.

You could argue all that MIGHT be true of a "Great Commander" except for the last , the actual execution, because the commander is not executing , his sub commanders are, those subcommanders subcommadners etc etc right down to the individual grunts.

Also , in a perfect world you have time to prepare, you actually have intel that is accurate. In reality you likly have neither!