Game values are not respected

[KeinGeneral]

Why are the values that are displayed, never or hardly respected. Why do I perform the fights when I'm so betrayed by the game ?

[BiteNibbleChomp]

The prognosis gives a reasonable assumption as to how much damage you do. '3+' doesn't mean that you are guaranteed to do at least 3, and maybe more.

- BNC

[KeinGeneral]

Sorry, 3 means 3 and not maybe 1 or 4 numbers are fixed constants and exactly what I expect. In conclusion, I want to say, at 3+ I expect a loss of at least 3, ideally 4 or even more. Less ever !!

[BiteNibbleChomp]

If there is a mode similar to PzC's chess mode then I recommend you use that. I'm fairly sure this is possible in single scenario play, but I'm uncertain in a campaign.

- BNC

[KeinGeneral]

so I have a feeling you do not know what you're talking, right?
what are the values there?
so I can assess whether it is worth an attack or not. and when I see, there is 3+ and the unit has level 3, then I assume that the unit is also destroyed at this value. or I see something wrong?
particularly annoying is this behavior when, as in my example it several times in a scenario / playing level so occurs. even in the campaign ami This effect is amplified so on ... especially after over Guadalcanal still multiply.

[Boarspear]

Do you think this happens in real life? The odds are estimates -- due to the fortunes of war, things turn out differently. Look at the battles of Frederick the Great -- he expected to win all of them, but sometimes he barely escaped being captured as his army was routed! Lighten up!

[IainMcNeil]

The way these games work is they make a number of rolls and each can hit or miss.

E.g. If I make 10 combat rolls and each has a 50% chance to hit, the average damge is that half will hit and you do 5 damage. This is the prediction.

However in reality you can 0-10 hits. You are more likely to get 5 hits than another single result but the chance of getting the predicted result is actually quite low - maybe 20% (its quite complex math to work it out and i can't do it in my head!). That means around 4 out of 5 combats will not give you the predicted damage. On top of that you have the damage from the other side. This could be influenced by the damage it received if one side shoots first. The chance of both numbers being correct now drops to around 5% (its a guess as its too complicated to work out!). That means 19 out of 20 times the prediction will be wrong.

However it is still the most likely outcome and the only number that can be reported. Hope that makes sense!

Probability is tricky thing to get across in games.

[KeinGeneral]

everything that is said is clear to me. But what I'm upset me apparently not. deviations will always exist, but not just so extreme on one side (the Americans) and so often as here in this battle. alone in "War Plan Orange 3" in each round with my attacks come barely (perhaps 10%) to the announced losses on the enemy. which is abnormal.
then the display should show rather less and it would be even more so if the number of hits are higher. so in any case arises frustration.

and boarspear, even if games do not reflect the reality, so should be as realistic as it gets. a bomb strikes in a group of people, calls for at least 80 percent dead ... but never only 0 or always 100 percent. but as a play should be constructed, which will be at least 50% of predicted and observed and not just as the values IainMcNeil thinks 5%. That's unrealistic.

[Mercutio]

I personally like the results and not the 5+ kills all the time in PzC depending on who attacks. I also like seeing the base odds before I move as that eliminates a lot of the undo excuses. It is frustrating that you think you killed something and the bugger is still alive! No doubt, but if you are next to them they can't repair much. I feel OOB is far superior with the UI, combat, supply and reinforcement. I went to play a game on PzC and was stunned to see I could both shot and then move. I also like separate attack and defense for units. Overall, OOB is far superior in game play.

Now if they would fix the resign and objectives in MP as well as that weird bug on not being able to attack a train in the fork with a ground unit.... another story.

I really want more content and more company feedback in these forums. I realize they are a small group and have limited resources. A couple of replies while having a beer isn't asking for much. The forums are not that active! (Kudos to Ian for responding here btw)

[IainMcNeil]

Probability just doesn't work like that so unless you change the combat model you can't change the predictions. The more die rolls you make the more average they will be. You could change everything to 100 strength points then the combats would be much more predictable but then you end up with a game of chess where there is no randomness. I like it the way it is and I suspect most players do or they'd be playing a game of chess. How you deal with bad luck is a big part of being a good player. Risk management and contingency planning is what it is all about. People often put lucky rolls down to good generalship and bad luck they feel is bad luck, so they can feel like the system is against them. It's not.

If you can report any bugs in a separate thread the team will more likely notice them. Lukas is very active and will look in to any issues he is aware of but may not have time to ready every thread and see a bug inside this discussion.

[BiteNibbleChomp]

so I have a feeling you do not know what you're talking, right?

I've got a good idea of how the game runs - but it is hard to remember everything without having the game open

What extreme results are you talking about? Your screenshots didn't show any vastly unpredicted results. 1-2 points difference is to be expected.

- BNC

[adherbal]

@Mercutio: We read pretty much every thread and always check/note down bug reports even if we can't fix them right away. The MP issues you mentioned are fixed and a new patch should come out this week to address them (just fixes this time, no new features ).

[Mercutio]

@Mercutio: We read pretty much every thread and always check/note down bug reports even if we can't fix them right away. The MP issues you mentioned are fixed and a new patch should come out this week to address them (just fixes this time, no new features ).

Thanks!

[KeinGeneral]

Just funny that are battle or fight coincidences always the same no matter how many times you repeat the battle or the fight as such. This can also not be intended, right?
Here the dog bites itself in its tail and we are playing chess, because I have this fight done exactly 103 times, just to prove that the change battle or struggle not be coincidences. and that's what happened.
Well, now I guess we're right where I wanted to go. There is a hidden fault which allows the attacking troops are not to destroy enemy troops, as indicated !!!
And that has nothing to do with bad luck !!...

[Erik2]

I like the way combat is currently handled. Unpredictability is good.

But a 'chess' mode could come in handy when you are testing scenarios for play balance.

[bebro]

If I get the pics right in the second case, the attacker scores a 2:0 after a prediction of 3:0. That is not too far off in my book, agree with BNC here.

In the 1st case you attack with a unit (AT gun dropped to "orange" state) which has already lost efficiency? I wouldn't expect wonders from such an attack either. To maintain a unit's efficiency is a key element of the game, and if efficiency drops it will fight worse than under normal conditions.

One could ask whether the prediction should take the bad condition of the attacker into account better though.

[VPaulus]

There is a hidden fault which allows the attacking troops are not to destroy enemy troops, as indicated !!!.

It's not a hidden fault. From the previous responses you should have already understood that it's the way it's meant to be played.
This is not a chess game.

[Mercutio]

Any word on that patch? A friend hooked me up with Delta 66 to play PzC. Man what a totally different game. Forgot about the major differences. The only thing about PzC I like is fighters can do some damage on ground units in the open and in OOB it is pretty pathetic until later units come on. Also I am not a fan of fighters getting nerfed attacking heavily damaged are assets. I get your reasoning, but given the logic this would happen. Send lots of small units instead of large formations to mitigate the damage. In OOB BoB I spent most of my time damaging the enemy units as much as possible, but not killing them right off. That mitigates the damage they can do. Eventually the enemy has spent all their point reinforcing and run out of points to reinforce or buy new ones. Strange way to have a war.

Of course, that said, it was rare for any unit in history to get wiped out except against overwhelming odds and no line of retreat.

That said, everything else about OOB is superior. I like that it isn't massive damage on an attack. I like the efficiency and supply a lot more. Not sure on Arty not giving defense bonuses. On the one hand, it keeps you from milking all of arty supply by attack units with tanks and such. On the other, it would be nice to have some kind of defense bonus as that is what artillery is for! I like AT supports though, nice add! Anyway, keep it up! DLC or new expansions are a must buy!

[KeinGeneral]

If I get the pics right in the second case, the attacker scores a 2:0 after a prediction of 3:0. That is not too far off in my book, agree with BNC here.

In the 1st case you attack with a unit (AT gun dropped to "orange" state) which has already lost efficiency? I wouldn't expect wonders from such an attack either. To maintain a unit's efficiency is a key element of the game, and if efficiency drops it will fight worse than under normal conditions.

One could ask whether the prediction should take the bad condition of the attacker into account better though.

False only that the infantry attacks. The AT has nothing to do with this attack

It's not a hidden fault. From the previous responses you should have already understood that it's the way it's meant to be played.
This is not a chess game.

I hope you have also read that this behavior after 100 attempts occurred always the same effect. This is not chess, or ???
Please take a closer read Mr employees Slitherine

[bebro]

The AT has nothing to do with this attack

Ok, I misread the 1st pic. But the fact remains that the prediction in this game is just that - a guess about the expected combat result. It's not a prophecy that becomes true to 100%.

If you want to lobby for a chess-mode that works more like "prediction = combat result" that's fine of course, but so far the game works as intended.