Slitherine

There has bee much discussion about the differences between combat results and the predictions of those results.

There has also been a poll, but the only two options were, to leave it as it is or to make the predictions 100% accurate.

In the discussion it turned out, that there are essentially 4 opinions (afaik) and 1 of them can be devided in 2 options.
So in this poll I include the 5 basic options. Of course those could be implemented if different ways and combined.


1. As it is now. Fine with the way predictions and results work.

2. Max difference to predictions (pseudo-relative). Eg. 50%: If 2:4 predicted, range of results from 1:6 (best) to 3:2 (worst).
Here the result can deviate by 50% from the prediction, so eg your two losses can become 1 loss (best) or 3 losses (worst). This pseudo relative approach massively favors the player, because of the unequal treatment of positive and negative outliers. The reason is, that the player is much more affected by unexpected losses to his units, then by unexpected inflicted damage to the enemy.

3. Max difference to predictions (relative). Eg. 50%: If 2:4 predicted, range of results from 1:8 (best) to 4:2 (worst).
The same as above, but positive and negative outliers are treated equally. Negative halfs are compared to positive doubles, instead of positive halfs as above. It still favors the player compared to 1. (as it is now), but not as much as 2. The choice of higher difficulty can counter that.

4. Smaller variance (eg. 1/4) for random number generation. Extreme outliers possible, but much less likely.
Also favors the player like 3.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Norma ... on_PDF.svg
There the blue distribution has a variance of 0.2 (so 1/5) compared to the red distri variance of 1. Smaller variance lead to more centered results in rng generation

5. 100% accurate predictions.
Favors the player as well, changes the game profoundly by removing randomness.

6. Some different method.


Of course those alterations can be combined as well. Like max differences to predictions and more centered results.
And of course it depends on the implementation. How to cap the differences to predictions? Will to outliers beyond those caps be simply "downsized" to fit in the cap?

We are not going to change the randomness so the poll is pointless.

People may think they dont want it but the game would get very stale and chess like without it. It is not going to be altered.

I put in my vote to stick with what we have now. It is simply a matter wether you are prepared for the unexpected or not. War was (and still is) not a simple math calculation. There are so many things that can influence combat outcome, from my own military experience I can tell that no one really can be sure things work out as they should. Rather than changing PzC, learn that life (and PzC ) is full of unexpected, not really calculable things. That is what keeps life interesting!

I'm sure this is going to trigger a hundred objecting posts, so I don't suggest this lightly, but if there is such an outcry about the randomness of negative battle results, why don't you just let people cheat?

Easy now, listen to the method behind my madness. As we all know, the old Panzer General would let us save the game, fight the battle, and if it had an unpleasant result we would just load that save game and attack again. It is my understanding that this cannot be done in PzC because there is a master string that is generated at the beginning of the scenario/campaign and there is no changing the results from a single battle no matter how many times you reload.

So change that, but with one limitation... don't change it for multiplayer games. MP's would understandably be frustrated and upset with cheaters. I would too. But for single player scenarios and single player campaigns make the results random every time so people can cheat. That way the perfectionist who wants an entire army of core units that never take damage can cheat to their heart's content, and if you don't want to cheat and roll with the punches, well then don't reload the game.

Go ahead, yell at me now.

Or , instead of having the developers write a second string of code for single player AND MP, players that dont like the outcomes can just use the following cheat code ( the list is stickied in this forum)


str #N
Sets strength of the selected unit to #N

Or , instead of having the developers write a second string of code for single player AND MP, players that dont like the outcomes can just use the following cheat code

Sorry GreyMouser but I don't have a strong programming background so I have to ask this, does that change the battle to a random event, or does that actually weaken the enemy unit to give you a better result?

macattack wrote:

Or , instead of having the developers write a second string of code for single player AND MP, players that dont like the outcomes can just use the following cheat code

Sorry GreyMouser but I don't have a strong programming background so I have to ask this, does that change the battle to a random event, or does that actually weaken the enemy unit to give you a better result?

The second , so if you dont like the Gods of the Dice "random" battle result you could change the losses to your and the enemy unit to your liking ....

Another thread about this?

Leave it as it is or make the predictions closer to real battle results depending on the unit experience.

Unit experience, by default, already alters the combat predictions for initiative and attack/defense values. So adding unit xp to influence the combat results would be double.

Anyway I voted that I want it to stay as it is. It's the way I play really, if I don't like the odds then I won't attack (or will soften up the target first). And if I cannot retreat a unit that gets mauled then I won't attack.

I think the time for the scenarios in the DLC's especially is pretty generous, you have the time to deploy your forces and then bad results will not have significant impact (which in worst case would be the destruction of a core unit).

I've had massively "bad luck" stubborn defenders that even after 4 attacks would still be alive and block my advance.
I've had incredible "luck" some unit should have been destroyed after being pounded by 3 enemy tanks and 1 plane but survived, or my anti-air just destroyed and enemy bomber so my fighter could still escort my bomber and pound the enemy.

I like how it is now, it's random and dynamic, and I love that they refuse to change it.

Randomness is ok. As long as battle results remain realistic. Otherwise it's an action game. I am not so sure what PzC really wants to be .

macattack wrote:I'm sure this is going to trigger a hundred objecting posts, so I don't suggest this lightly, but if there is such an outcry about the randomness of negative battle results, why don't you just let people cheat?

Easy now, listen to the method behind my madness. As we all know, the old Panzer General would let us save the game, fight the battle, and if it had an unpleasant result we would just load that save game and attack again. It is my understanding that this cannot be done in PzC because there is a master string that is generated at the beginning of the scenario/campaign and there is no changing the results from a single battle no matter how many times you reload.

So change that, but with one limitation... don't change it for multiplayer games. MP's would understandably be frustrated and upset with cheaters. I would too. But for single player scenarios and single player campaigns make the results random every time so people can cheat. That way the perfectionist who wants an entire army of core units that never take damage can cheat to their heart's content, and if you don't want to cheat and roll with the punches, well then don't reload the game.

Go ahead, yell at me now.

I vote for let it as it is. I'm struggling with the default difficult level but I know that others can even master DV with highest difficult levels without using cheat codes.
But I quoted this one because I remember that they might consider to not save the seed in the save games so that it would work like in PG. As long as there's no quick save and quick load I refuse to choose this way and try to get a grip what I do wrong. Suppression seems one key to have more or better outcome which matches or is even better then the prediction.

I tried it one time on the lowest difficult setting and had only DVs.

I never used predictions and played through all campaigns... I don´t care at all about em

If I had too choose from an alternative I would say:

"So change that, but with one limitation... don't change it for multiplayer games. MP's would understandably be frustrated and upset with cheaters. I would too. But for single player scenarios and single player campaigns make the results random every time so people can cheat. That way the perfectionist who wants an entire army of core units that never take damage can cheat to their heart's content, and if you don't want to cheat and roll with the punches, well then don't reload the game.

Go ahead, yell at me now.