Slitherine

First I do not mean the discrepancy between projected and actual combat results, but the way the results of the same combat change when you save/reload and fight it more than once. It is not uncommon that your unit inflicts 3-4 points loss on the enemy without any own losses, you reload, attack again and this time you lose 3 points and your enemy none. I feel that the random factor is two strong, and it may have a negative impact on multiplayer (pbem) like in Civilization once, where players willing to replay their turn a few times got an unfair edge over their opponents.

I'm curious what the rest of the players think about this, so please take a minute to answer in the poll.

A really interesting observation Borsook, and one that requires, perhaps, consideration and response from the folks that write the code for this game.
I can't vote on this issue for 2 reasons.
1. I mostly play solitaire, and have no cause for concern that a possible exploit is taking place, and
2. I have never noticed this in the game play, as I never considered the possibility of reloading and replaying battles to improve an outcome.

If the discrepancies in the observed combat results are extreme, then perhaps the patch go someway to rectifying this.

I'm with Agent Smith-I'm playing solo (and on a Mac, so that really narrows the field, anyway!).

However, this kind of problem is something that in theory can be fixed by the programmers. I remember this was an issue with Combat Mission, and the programmers at Battlefront.com were able to change the way PBEM files were generated so that you couldn't keep replaying a turn--you got what you got.

I am not sure that this is necessarily a problem, it may be that more people actually like the unpredictability that the random factor adds, that's why I've added a poll. I came by this by an accident, when my computer hanged half-way through a turn (which BTW was not CEAW's fault, but something's that was running in the background). After replaying that turn while I still remembered the results I did some tests, and while at times the results are similar, sometimes, as I described in the first post, they're completely different.

Maj_Battaglia wrote:(and on a Mac, so that really narrows the field, anyway!).

yes, the incompatibility between the platforms is annoying...

Maj_Battaglia wrote: I remember this was an issue with Combat Mission, and the programmers at Battlefront.com were able to change the way PBEM files were generated so that you couldn't keep replaying a turn--you got what you got.

Yes, this is a good idea, preventing potential exploits.

I like the random nature of combat, I think it adds to the strategy pf the game. In other words, you can get a good "estimate" prior to battle, but ultimately, you never know what you'll get until you fight. If somebody wants to keep replaying a specific move, then they have WAY too much time on their hands.

What is truly random is the odds displayed before a combat. It´s very common having a 3:1 for you and then you get 1 casualty and the enemy none.

The odd ratings are only reasonably accurate when armour is involved. With infantry i sometimes doesn´t have a clue of what would happen.


I liked the old Panzer General odd ratings. While not precise at 100% they really informed you of what you could expect with a little chance of a surprise. In CEAW that numbers are nearly useless...

I found the old Panzer General "projected" results to be very misleading. Either your unit got the initiative, and the enemy took heavy casualties and suppressions, and yours took virtually none in return, or else you lost the initiative and got your posterior handed to you on a plate. There was very little repeatability to the results; if you reran the scenario with the exact same moves you would often get completely different outcomes. Armor, Fighter, and Recon units were more dependent on initiative than infantry.