Slitherine

El_Condoro wrote: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.

If I undertand how it works correctly (and understand how the game rounds):

the 45 has 3 intitiave points OVER the Inf.
every initiative gives 20% ist strike so 3 x 20% is 60% !!

Then the game rolls the dice
the 45 got 5 kills and 3 supressed: 5 x 60% is 3, 3 x60% is 1.80 (rounded to 2) 3+2=5

so the infantrys counter attack is reduced by 5 ( the 3 kills and 2 supressed round ist strikes) and thus only gets to fire back with 5 dice.

Why not save all these crazy suggested changes for something like "Panzer Corps-- The Chess Game", or something.

Anyhow, less randomized predictions = more maps being solved-games before they start, unless the FoW is significant enough. This just isn't very good development here...

Obsolete wrote:Why not save all these crazy suggested changes for something like "Panzer Corps-- The Chess Game", or something.

Hell they made Star Wars Chess, maybe we should make Panzer Corps Chess and milk the franchise.

It's off topic so anyway...

What I'm trying to understand is why in the 10 die rolls there is only ONE purple/blue suppressed roll and yet it says in the text below that THREE points were suppressed.

TheGaryMouser's explanation may be the key but I'm not sure.

El_Condoro wrote:It's off topic so anyway...

What I'm trying to understand is why in the 10 die rolls there is only ONE purple/blue suppressed roll and yet it says in the text below that THREE points were suppressed.

TheGaryMouser's explanation may be the key but I'm not sure.

i second that. What THeGrayMouser posted is rather an explanation why some of the "killed or suppressed" grenadier do shot back. I can't see how that explain the higher amount of suppression then should happen,

Lucks swings both ways though. Sometimes we get outrageous good luck.
Should this also not be allowed to happen?

El_Condoro wrote: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.

I was going by the “3 suppressed”. What's the point of the text if it's not going to reflect what happened?

Kerensky wrote:Lucks swings both ways though. Sometimes we get outrageous good luck.

“Luck” – yes
A “formula” – no
Either you count the suppressed or you don’t count them.
Luck determines if there are any suppressed.
The formula should determine what to do with the suppressed.

Kerensky wrote: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.

No, I find the discussion very worthwhile. It's the way you set up the vote. In short: Please don't interpret the probably overwhelming "no - keep randomness" vote to mean "the current level of randomness is okay".


If you're told you'll be getting a 1-6 outcome in your favor, then actually getting a 0-5 or 2-4 etc is all good and well. But if there's a chance you will get a 7-2 outcome (essentially devastating your attacking unit) then that needs to be flagged up beforehand. And the best way to handle it would be to
1) use "rugged defense" to make it clear something unexpected has happened
2) make sure the player had information at his fingertips telling him there was a real risk of this happening, essentially warning him not to trust the combat predictor.

Saying "you could have looked at the detailed statistics screen" is not an acceptable excuse - it simply isn't a good user interface that expects users to go through hoops like that.

The game needs refinement:
1) reserve truly wild outcomes to exceptional results only (like "rugged defense"). Make sure they actually occur on others (like for "ambush" which currently is not nearly dangerous enough).
2) ensure the quick combat predictor gives sufficient indication an exceptional result might happen. THEN it's okay to expect the player to delve into the detailed statistics (or to simply make another suppressing attack and see if that makes the risk goes away).

There's nothing wrong with "uncertainties of battle". As long as you allow the player to make those calls himself. Getting a 1-7 outcome is totally fine, if the player knew of the risks. But you don't do that right now, not unless you bring up details screens all the time, or have considerable experience playing the game.

Knowing those risks is currently far too obscured, especially for casual players, and that is the real issue at hand.

Not categorically removing randomness. Randomness is essential.

My question is not about luck - why does the roll result and the text differ? I can't ask the question in a simpler way, sorry!

I found this on another thread:

Rudankort wrote:It works like this: for each point of initiative advantage you inflict 20% of damage (kills and suppression) before the enemy can counterattack. So if you have an initiative advantage of 5 or more, you shoot first and all damage is applied right away. But if your advantage is less than that, some damage is applied only after the enemy counterattacks you.

In the example, the effective initiative of the defender is 7 and the attacker 4 (diff = 3) Does that somehow multiply the suppressed rolls?

El_Condoro wrote:My question is not about luck - why does the roll result and the text differ? I can't ask the question in a simpler way, sorry!

Good point , I wasnt looking at the actual rolls just the text ( actually the sceenshot is blurry on my end so cant even make out the #'s. This is clearly a mystery . The only thing I can think is we are missing a piece of data ( ie longterm supression??) or a display glitch or unk game mechanic etc etc...

Kerensky wrote:Lucks swings both ways though. Sometimes we get outrageous good luck.
Should this also not be allowed to happen?

It definitely should not be allowed to happen when I'm playing the Poles!

Serious question, though: the Wehrmacht attack shows 9 red rolls (kills) and 1 blue/purple (suppressed) roll but the text only mentions the kills. Why?

Oye that makes no sence at all, its like the game said 9 kills 1 supress applied immedielty thus the polish infantry only gets to shoot back w the 3 out of the 13 sp's it had .....
? was the Polish infantry ambushed??

The Wehrmacht unit has 2 higher initiative than the Poles so the Poles don't reduce the kills/suppressed at all and thus the full 10 points are deducted from their counter attack.

El_Condoro wrote:The Wehrmacht unit has 2 higher initiative than the Poles so the Poles don't reduce the kills/suppressed at all and thus the full 10 points are deducted from their counter attack.

Why ? shouldnt only 40% of the kill/supressed be imedietly applied?? (which is like four or 5 , not 10!)

Being a programmer – all this text in the posts is getting me more confused.


I need an algebraic formula written out – or better yet, if it’s in programming code (any language will do).

TheGrayMouser wrote:

El_Condoro wrote:The Wehrmacht unit has 2 higher initiative than the Poles so the Poles don't reduce the kills/suppressed at all and thus the full 10 points are deducted from their counter attack.

Why ? shouldnt only 40% of the kill/supressed be imedietly applied?? (which is like four or 5 , not 10!)

Hmmm. I think you're right. Someone able to answer this one, too?

Hi,

I vote no, too, but agree with a lot of the people here that his does not mean that the current (fairly large) variation in the rolls/results should be kept.

IMO the results should be closer to the expected outcome, but still a fair bit away from being 100% accurate since randomness played a fairly important part in actual combat and should do the same here, too.

I have not looked that closely at the ambush results, but from what I remember they seemed to low for my taste, too. Making ambushes more devastating will enhance the usefullness for recon units, too (at least if undo-recon is somehow dealt with).

CharonJr

Definetely not. It always has to be a possibility that things go terribly wrong, or right...

El_Condoro wrote:It's off topic so anyway...

What I'm trying to understand is why in the 10 die rolls there is only ONE purple/blue suppressed roll and yet it says in the text below that THREE points were suppressed.

TheGaryMouser's explanation may be the key but I'm not sure.

When a unit takes 1 kill, this also generates some suppression. The formula is (50-stars*10)%. This means that a green unit takes additional 0.5 points of suppression per every kill. This models the fact that green unit becomes disorganized and demoralized when taking damage. Veteran 5-star units take zero additional suppression because they are so tough they are immune to this effect. All the rest units lie in between these two extremes.

As always, thanks for the definitive explanation.

If I may add one more important equation to this topic though...