Armor POA?

[TheGrayMouser]

Hello, a little confused on how the armor bonus works for infantry vs infantry combat

example after using detailed combat results

Spanish Colonella with 34% shot, 50% pike 16% sword and armor rating of 22
I understand why the unit only gets 22 armor as 2/3 of the men (non shot) are armoured (33/3, *2 =22)

However when in melee w a swiss Keil w 88% pike and 12% HW's and 33 armor, the Keil got NO armor bonus.

Prior to any "adjustments" the keil should have had(by my possibly incorrect reckoning) 16.6 POA for better armor (the Colonella armor rating of 22 is 2/3 of the maximum armor Poa of 50 the keil could get, thus 16.6 aprox)

Then I suppose the game engine would say , ok, 1/3 of the Colonella is SHOT which cancels some(1/3??) of the better armor bonus, so I guess I would have expected to see an armor bonus for the kiel of around 10 POA or so...but the keil got nothing

Now in the combat bsf, I saw some additional code that factors in non shot vs shot to further modify armor, but I profess I don't get it(the code).... If the armour rating is already taking into account only a proportion of the men have armor , would any further adjustments "double count" the effect?

What am I missing?

[rbodleyscott]

Who do you think the keil should have armour advantage against? They don't get any against shot and the other men in the colunela have the same armour that they do. The colunela has an armour rating of 22 because 2/3 of the unit are armoured, and 1/3 (the shot) are unarmoured.

The program does not simply compare average armour ratings, it actually takes into account what the men are armed with and assumes that shot in mixed units have no armour at all. Not only that but (in situations where it makes a difference, which in this case it does not) it assumes that the pike blocks in mixed units are (as far as possible when taking into account different proportion of pikes in the two units, and hence different width of the pike blocks) facing each other.

[pantherboy]

Who do you think the keil should have armour advantage against? They don't get any against shot and the other men in the colunela have the same armour that they do. The colunela has an armour rating of 22 because 2/3 of the unit are armoured, and 1/3 (the shot) are unarmoured.

The program does not simply compare average armour ratings, it actually takes into account what the men are armed with and assumes that shot in mixed units have no armour at all. Not only that but (in situations where it makes a difference, which in this case it does not) it assumes that the pike blocks in mixed units are (as far as possible when taking into account different proportion of pikes in the two units, and hence different width of the pike blocks) facing each other.

This explanation is why I said your combat engine is as clear as mud. I don't have the computing expertise to examine files like GrayMouser so I rely upon clear rules that provide an explanation on how combat works. Your keeping it out of sight advantages anyone who can delve into the programming. FOG at least was simple and clear to understand while here I can't truly say how shooting is figured or melee calculations are done. What is the impact of moving before firing? Does firing in an opponents turn occur at reduced effect? Why target an oblique target when one is directly in front of you? Why do two pike & shot units in melee versus a later Tercio have equal odds considering one is meleeing from the front and the other to the rear? How important is quality? etc. A good commander needs to know what the % of success is before maneuvering into a position and discovering the odds are crap when he moves the mouse pointer over the target. He also needs to know how good his shooting will be in any given circumstance. From my real life experience you need to understand these factors to effectively employ tactics. Still this game is far more preferable to FOG in my opinion.

[TheGrayMouser]

haha, Pantherboy, I certainly do not have the computing skills to understand the code. Hence my question/observation that likely was as muddy as some of the finer details of the game.

RBS , thanks for the response, I should likely have been clearer about my "expectation" I did not expect an armoured kiel would get an armor advantage vs a colenella as in above example, but only because I understand the table top rules and know how "bases can line up" My expectation wasn't due to game play "wants" but rather misunderstanding the code and how it applies things vs in game observations.

You clarified armour rating of mixed units is not "averaged out", yet it at a glance SEEMS like it would be, as the rating is reduced proportionally vs the % of shot in the unit. After studying the code again, I think I get how the code "gives back" this deficit (for lack of a better term.) and factors in other game mechanics so that in effect shot and non shot "line up" correctly to an enemy units shot and not shot in the PC game. Wonderfully clever and confusing.

Would it be fair to say though that the actual armour rating is what is used for shooting POA's?

[rbodleyscott]

Yes, the actual armour rating is used for shooting.

[rbodleyscott]

Who do you think the keil should have armour advantage against? They don't get any against shot and the other men in the colunela have the same armour that they do. The colunela has an armour rating of 22 because 2/3 of the unit are armoured, and 1/3 (the shot) are unarmoured.

The program does not simply compare average armour ratings, it actually takes into account what the men are armed with and assumes that shot in mixed units have no armour at all. Not only that but (in situations where it makes a difference, which in this case it does not) it assumes that the pike blocks in mixed units are (as far as possible when taking into account different proportion of pikes in the two units, and hence different width of the pike blocks) facing each other.

This explanation is why I said your combat engine is as clear as mud. I don't have the computing expertise to examine files like GrayMouser so I rely upon clear rules that provide an explanation on how combat works. Your keeping it out of sight advantages anyone who can delve into the programming. FOG at least was simple and clear to understand while here I can't truly say how shooting is figured or melee calculations are done. What is the impact of moving before firing? Does firing in an opponents turn occur at reduced effect? Why target an oblique target when one is directly in front of you? Why do two pike & shot units in melee versus a later Tercio have equal odds considering one is meleeing from the front and the other to the rear? How important is quality? etc. A good commander needs to know what the % of success is before maneuvering into a position and discovering the odds are crap when he moves the mouse pointer over the target. He also needs to know how good his shooting will be in any given circumstance. From my real life experience you need to understand these factors to effectively employ tactics. Still this game is far more preferable to FOG in my opinion.

No historical general in this period had such an exact understanding of the odds. And you seem to be doing pretty well without

Several of the things you mention above are in fact specified in the manual or in the detailed tooltips. Some aren't specified in full detail, it is true.

The effect of moving on shooting is shown in the tooltips, and this does indeed still apply in the opponent's turn.

The effects of shooting obliquely or straight ahead are discussed in the manual and shown in the tooltips.

The effects of quality on combat are shown in the tooltips, and the effect on cohesion tests in the manual.