Slitherine

The RnG aside, which results are sometimes really outright unbeliebable (know the lone Ju 87 parking on a forward airfield in Kharkov 42? This unit one got attacked by multiple overstrength Soviet fighters and survived with 4 strength left ...), did anyone notice the huge factor of luck in certain scenarios?

Example:
I just replayed Tatsinskaya, last of dlc 42 East, after the previous DV had an associated repair bill of several thousand prestige. I always play the scenario with a huge tank clash revolving around the center city and its airfields. The only difference (force composition was nearly the same) was the evolution of the Russian units. In the first playthrough the strongest Soviet armour concentrated center (a KV 2, some KV 1c and some T 34/43. THERE they are air protected by no less than 3 red 85 AA. So I had to use air force very, very sparingly.

In the new all fearsome red armour concentrated on my right flank, way out of reach of the AA. So I could use both strinking units brought to the battle - Rudel and an overstrength Ju 88. The result was stunning, while the first playthrough left several of my tanks badly damaged despite all and always backed by arty, this time all strong enemy armour was gone on turn 5 without a sweet and with barely noticeable losses for my own units.

This is just one example of quite some, where my repair bill was more a result of enemy forces evolution than of my tactics, which are pretty much PC standard (advance in tight, close packages led by armout, arty in direct follow up, these protected by AA and fighters).

Anyone else experienced ridiculous luck or the opposite?

Regards,
Thorsten

An enemy Pershing once took out a full strength Tiger II from me

On the other hand, in my Jutland scenario (WWI mod, ships used the same as in the vanilla mod), I had a BB kill a whole enemy CA in one go!

- BNC

Go to advance menu and choose chess.

No more problems.

Razz1 wrote:Go to advance menu and choose chess.

No more problems.

Where's the historical realism in chess mode? (I know the USA scenario and my uk18 are incredibly crazy as well - but they would have been possible if given enough time by the Germans)

- BNC

huh?
Look at other games. They use statistics and a calculation of the odds for combat.

Are you saying this is the only game that is historically real?

Razz1 wrote:huh?
Look at other games. They use statistics and a calculation of the odds for combat.

Are you saying this is the only game that is historically real?

I'm saying chess mode is a future-reader, which isn't possible in history. Other games also have a random-generator as well, which is considerably more likely. And a chess mode in realism would have led to a complete British victory at Cambrai in 1917, rather than their moderate defeat.

- BNC

BiteNibbleChomp wrote:An enemy Pershing once took out a full strength Tiger II from me - BNC

I did not complain about the RNG. Luck is a factor in warfare and Napoleon is said to have chosen his generals by the amount of luck they had on the battlefield previously. I was curious if other players observed the same as me in several scenarios - luck bound to the enemy troops evolution.

Regards,
Thorsten

Razz1 wrote:huh?
Look at other games. They use statistics and a calculation of the odds for combat.

Are you saying this is the only game that is historically real?

Isn't there a 3rd choice that allows for about a 20% variance?

Or use the more historically accurate "reload mode". Hey Rudel wasnt supposed to die! Reload.

ThorHa wrote:Luck is a factor in warfare and Napoleon is said to have chosen his generals by the amount of luck they had on the battlefield previously.

Better to be lucky than good?

But yeah, given the nature of war (e.g. semi-organized chaos), there are bound to be countless intangibles - such as miscommunication, mechanical failures, friendly fire and a host of others. So yeah, if some want to call that 'luck,' so be it.

For a while I used to use full random only, but now I find dice chess quite good. It varies enough to be interesting without some of the really strange outcomes from full random, and rugged defence still provides potential for disaster if you take a risk or don't think.

The one down side of dice chess is that on full random I could blame disasters on bad luck, but now I have to accept that almost all of them have something to do with the general.

I have to admit (just finished Orel dlc 43 east) that I can get furious, if a 0-8 prediction ends up 3-5, especially if its a Tiger against regular infantry in open terrain . But as much as I may be furious, does it have any noticeable effect on the scenario result? No, not if you can acheive a DV at 12 from 17 without a sweat.

And before I forget - I had at least one ridiculous favorite result as well. Most heavy losses resulted from MY mistakes pushing units forward carelessly, assuming free adavnce paths without scouting, moving an air unit and attacking in the same second etc. The effect of randomness evens out and is irrelevant on a single combat basis.

It however is much more than relevant in unit formation evolution. Orel was a perfect example again - the second wave of attackers scattered around half of the map as the AI went for single perceived chances instead of following a consistent battle plan. IF it had behaved more disciplined my repair bill would have been much higher.

Regards,
Thorsten haupts

ThorHa wrote:I have to admit (just finished Orel dlc 43 east) that I can get furious, if a 0-8 prediction ends up 3-5, especially if its a Tiger against regular infantry in open terrain .

Yeah, that's a bit extreme. I think the dice chess offers more of a happy medium where you still get variation but within the realm of keeping it real.

I personally like the total random mode most: as said before: war isn't chess and all kind of factors come into play.

I don't recall crazy odds in specific but it does get's me to laugh or shout out of frustration. It's always funny to see a fighter plane kill two strength if the odds are only 6%.

I do have the feeling that you can force better luck for yourself by good tactics and having a back-up plan: never assume that plan A will go for sure. This I have learned from playing table-top wargames, where dices decide your fate too. I you plan to encounter some bad rolls you won't be disappointed if a roll fails, you will be rather happy if you have a good strike of luck because it typically means you get more options with the units that didn't move already.

So I do agree that own bad tactical choices cost the most.

I'm happy with dice chess as well, best compromise between luck and totallyy accurate predictions IMO.

bebro wrote:I'm happy with dice chess as well, best compromise between luck and totallyy accurate predictions IMO.

Fully agree. I re-started my Grand campaign with limited chess, and that brings in pleasure and interest to the game