Slitherine

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

Mine a definate no, take away the randomness and it just becomes a maths exercise or a slightly more complex version of chess!!!!

Part of the fun for me is having to plan for bad luck

I personally do not think so, although sometimes I wouldn't mind toning down the level of randomness.
Sometimes it's fun to see outrageous battle outcomes though, then I go "wow I have to check that combat log, WTF happened there?!"

Kerensky wrote:I personally do not think so, although sometimes I wouldn't mind toning down the level of randomness.
Sometimes it's fun to see outrageous battle outcomes though, then I go "wow I have to check that combat log, WTF happened there?!"

Indeed, in my recent Sealion 40 Mission it took 5 of my Bf109s to bring down a Hurricane....this was just after 1 Bf109 and 1 Bf110 took down a full strength Spitfire!!!

I voted NO , however, how could you even make the vombat prediction 100% accurate because each unit does get a random initiative of 0-+2 once combat is committed to??

100% accurate – no.
75% accurate – yes. In other words, a bit more accurate than what they are now.

I picked “75%” out of a hat – so those of you that voted “no” to this should be OK with my percentage being inaccurate and not what the current accuracy truly is.

TheGrayMouser wrote:I voted NO , however, how could you even make the vombat prediction 100% accurate because each unit does get a random initiative of 0-+2 once combat is committed to??

I'm guessing there would be no rolls at all.....if the prediction said 5-1 then thats exactly what you'd get

The "random bonus Initiative" could be rolled at the start of the turn and last for that entire "day". Would reflect if the officer got out of bed on the wrong foot or not.

The randomness is a great part of the game. The extent it can be, it's 'realistic' - what WW2 commander knew the outcome of any combat he entered? That said, if the odds are 5-1 you should get maybe 4-2 or even 3-3 but not 1-5. In other words, keep the RDM but narrow the range of possible outcomes.

El_Condoro wrote:The randomness is a great part of the game. The extent it can be, it's 'realistic' - what WW2 commander knew the outcome of any combat he entered? That said, if the odds are 5-1 you should get maybe 4-2 or even 3-3 but not 1-5. In other words, keep the RDM but narrow the range of possible outcomes.

I dont mind the odd total turn around...kinda works for me gameplay wise and history is littered with examples of the random number genrator messing up!

Kerensky wrote:I personally do not think so, although sometimes I wouldn't mind toning down the level of randomness.

+1

Removing the randomness totally would be bad in my opinion. As already said no one can predict outcome of a battle 100% accurate. There are simply to many things that factor in. Tuning down the randomness on the other hand would be good. Sometimes the outcomes are just way to strange.

If only consenting on a topic was always this easy....

Vote for No.
but more accuracy Yes

Sebastiansc wrote:Vote for No.
but more accuracy Yes

I wish that "more accuracy" was one of the choices. I like the randomness; just not the extreme randomness. I saw a good idea in one of these threads about linking the randomness to the unit's experience: as it gains more experience, the amount of randomness gets reduced. Maybe, to the point that when it gets to 500XP, a unit always gets at least the predicted results.

We need a third option to Tone down the randomness not remove it to only rugged defense.

While I do not want the random element removed, perhaps an option open to players for a desired level of randomness might be a nice feature -- choices could be low (battles will almost always play out as predicted), medium (battle results are more likely to fall outside of the predictions given), and high (battles can go virtually in any direction regardless of predictions). This would give players a level of "certainty" they'd feel most comfortable playing with.

I recognize this might not be achieveable in the game as currently designed, but something to ponder down the road as the game evolves.

Why not just run a monte carlo simulation on the outcomes to give us an outcome distribution joking of course.

Randomness is important - i'd keep it.

Question - does the engine automatically "balance out" things or is totally random? Unless I am going crazy, it seems that if I win a few battles (beat the odds) then shortly after I get bad luck and it seems to kind of cancel itself out. Is this the case?

dshaw62197 wrote:While I do not want the random element removed, perhaps an option open to players for a desired level of randomness might be a nice feature -- choices could be low (battles will almost always play out as predicted), medium (battle results are more likely to fall outside of the predictions given), and high (battles can go virtually in any direction regardless of predictions). This would give players a level of "certainty" they'd feel most comfortable playing with.

I recognize this might not be achieveable in the game as currently designed, but something to ponder down the road as the game evolves.

Do NOT touch the randomness!

If anything, the sugestion I read in this forum some time ago on making the predictions closer to reality depending on the unit experience.

impar wrote:If anything, the sugestion I read in this forum some time ago on making the predictions closer to reality depending on the unit experience.

That would be lovely.