Slitherine

Hi,

I noticed something that when I replayed the same turn with the same units, I got a difference in Damage points of upto 4-5 for many battles. If that is correct then there is a big random element in how battles between the units are settled. Why should the random element play such a big part, over 50 % swing ? When all the variables like Efficiency, terrain, etc. are so well defined then why should the random element have such a big part in battles ?

I am yet playing Vanilla 1.12 version. Would the BJR Mod settle battles differently ?

Thanks & Regards,
Derek

julyderek wrote:Hi,

I noticed something that when I replayed the same turn with the same units, I got a difference in Damage points of upto 4-5 for many battles. If that is correct then there is a big random element in how battles between the units are settled. Why should the random element play such a big part, over 50 % swing ? When all the variables like Efficiency, terrain, etc. are so well defined then why should the random element have such a big part in battles ?

I am yet playing Vanilla 1.12 version. Would the BJR Mod settle battles differently ?

Thanks & Regards,
Derek

While an individual battle might have a massive swing in actual casualties vs estimated casualties, over the long run those losses will even out.
It is also historically accurate. You can find dozens of battles where one side should have taken heavy losses, but came out with minimal losses. I view it as the vagaries of war.

Jyri

JyriErik wrote: While an individual battle might have a massive swing in actual casualties vs estimated casualties, over the long run those losses will even out.
It is also historically accurate. You can find dozens of battles where one side should have taken heavy losses, but came out with minimal losses. I view it as the vagaries of war.

Jyri

Hi,

I was not talking about the Estimated Damage Vs Actual Damage. I was mentioning that the Battle resolving engine has a big random element. If you play the same turn twice you will see that there will be a huge difference in damage numbers.

Correct. I was just using that as an example. My point is still valid. There is a lot of "luck" involved in combat in real life. The same paratrooper units who sliced through the Norwegian army in April surrendered in large numbers after minimal casualties in Holland in May. Yet on Crete they took horrendous casualties, fought on, and won. That's why you could do the same combat multiple times and get a different result each time. Sometimes units hold out to the last man, sometimes they retreat after 1 point of casualties, sometimes they cause massive losses on the defenders, sometimes they take massive casualties. That's how war is.

Jyri

Maybe the combat engine works like a die roll?.....*remembers back to Russian Campaign and cursing 1s and 6s sometimes* ...I like it actually...makes it more of a game if you will

I think the difficult settings widen the range to.

In the last game against the AI I played, I gave it a minor advantage with me playing as the Allies. I saw units taking quite large variations in damages, including one that got one-shot from 10 to -3 (yup, hit for 13!!).

julyderek wrote: Hi,

I was not talking about the Estimated Damage Vs Actual Damage. I was mentioning that the Battle resolving engine has a big random element. If you play the same turn twice you will see that there will be a huge difference in damage numbers.

Certainly, CEAW has a random resolving battles engine and when you see there´s no random at all when playing on pbem, that´s because something go wrong...