ALT key Roll-Over Combat Calc Bug

[Arathorn]

Here is the combat log for a Musketman (w/ 50% vs Archers) verses an Archer on Grassland.

Where? I don't see it. [EDIT: Oh, NOW I do. I'm such an idiot sometimes.] I wish I could just delete this post....

[EDIT again:]
Does grassland have a 0% defensive bonus? I did not know that.

Does the "bonus against ________ unit type" always do a subtract? Or is sometimes an add and sometimes a subtract? As I've noted a few times, there's a big difference between the two.

Arathorn

 

[snepp]

Another log

 

[snepp]

Can you build wounded units?

Unfortunately there's no way to make a wounded unit, tried doing that earlier.

 

[BomberEscort]

...Does the "bonus against ________ unit type" always do a subtract? Or is sometimes an add and sometimes a subtract? As I've noted a few times, there's a big difference between the two.

Check some of my pictures on the first page. It only happens in certain cases of a unit attacking (with Musketman +50% bonus v. Archers for example).

But doesn't calculate the same for an Archer attacking the same Musketman.

In the attacking Musketman example the 50% is removed from the Archer instead of being added to the Musketman's attack; while in the attacking archer example the 50% is added to the Musketman's defense as it should be.

 

[snepp]

Speaking of inconsistancies, this is driving me nuts, there must be a reason for it...

Grassland
Knight w/cover 10 --> Archer 2.4
Archer 3 --> Knight w/cover 12.5



Edit: Bomber just said the same thing I did.

 

[Arathorn]

Even without rounding, there's a difference. It's the difference between adding to a large number or subtracting from a small.

A 7.6 health knight with pinch attacking an archer in woods.

Adding strengths gives 9.5 vs. 4.5. Big,visible difference is the archer only does 13 damage in this case. Because the 25% has more difference when added to the larger number than when subtracted from the smaller.

The way it was done, the two percentages were added to give the archer a 25% bonus. That's just really odd.

Is there a pattern? Is the combat diffferential always done to the weaker unit? Always to the defender? Generally to the right unit but promotions affect only the defender? (At least the bolded one fits the examples so far.) ?????

Arathorn

 

[Arathorn]

I think we can do the experiment without injured units. A 37 strength unit (with pinch) attacking a 30 strength unit in woods will show the discrepancy, too. Which way it's done matters tremendously to the odds of who wins.

Can we try it with something besides pinch? How about bonuses vs. melee units? Bonus attacking a city (of course, that one is really only one way)? General strength bonus (who is affected when the attacker just has a 10% bonus)? Bonus vs. gunpowder units?

A pattern would be nice.

Arathorn

 

[Arathorn]

Knight w/cover 10 --> Archer 2.4
Archer 3 --> Knight w/cover 12.5

OK, now I'm even more confused. That 2.4 is especially confusing to me. 3*.75=2.25. How does 2.4 come into being?

The next annoying thing is that those are the same odds!!!!! Somehow, that weird calculation to get 2.4 that I don't understand at all...works. But only because there's no other factors on the combat, I think. But I don't understand the 2.4 in the first place, so....

Arathorn

 

[BomberEscort]

...Is there a pattern? Is the combat diffferential always done to the weaker unit? Always to the defender? Generally to the right unit but promotions affect only the defender? (At least the bolded one fits the examples so far.)

It appears if the defender is a unit the attacker has a bonus against, then the calc are incorrect. This appears to be the only case. In earlier tests I did:

Musket (+50% v Archers) attacking Archers -- Not Correct
Archers attacking Musket (+50% v Archers) -- Correct
Knight (w/ Cover promotion +25% Archers) attacks Archer in Forest -- Not Correct
Praetorian attacks Archer in Forest -- Correct

 

[BomberEscort]

...General strength bonus (who is affected when the attacker just has a 10% bonus)...

Is covered here, all is well.

 

[snepp]

OK, now I'm even more confused. That 2.4 is especially confusing to me. 3*.75=2.25. How does 2.4 come into being?

The next annoying thing is that those are the same odds!!!!! Somehow, that weird calculation to get 2.4 that I don't understand at all...works. But only because there's no other factors on the combat, I think. But I don't understand the 2.4 in the first place, so....

You're not the only one a bit confused. The combat log shows an unrounded 2.4 also. Damage was as expected, 37 and 10.

Wait, I know where the difference is coming from. I recall reading that there is an inherent 10% defense bonus, I'm going to assume it only comes into play when no other defensive bonuses are present.

 

[Arathorn]

I recall reading that there is an inherent 10% defense bonus, I'm going to assume it only comes into play when no other defensive bonuses are present.

Regardless, that doesn't explain 2.4! If the defender had a bonus, it would be 3*.85 = 2.55, not 2.4! Since knights get no defensive bonus, it wouldn't affect the 3 on 12.5 attack, I imagine.

So...at this point, we have that it's always correctly adding, except when the attacker has a bonus against the defender, and then it's subtracted from the defender? Is that the case?

Arathorn

 

[snepp]

Regardless, that doesn't explain 2.4! If the defender had a bonus, it would be 3*.85 = 2.55, not 2.4! Since knights get no defensive bonus, it wouldn't affect the 3 on 12.5 attack, I imagine.

Your guess is as good as mine on the hidden bonus. And correct on the knights, they do not get the 10%.

So...at this point, we have that it's always correctly adding, except when the attacker has a bonus against the defender, and then it's subtracted from the defender? Is that the case?

Basically.

 

[BomberEscort]

City's seem ok when there are no unit bonuses (Marine v Archer), but not when unit bonuses are involved (Musketman +50% v Archers verses Archers)

 

[BomberEscort]

...
Grassland
Knight w/cover 10 --> Archer 2.4

Archer 2.4 comes from 3.0/1.25 = 2.4.

Actually I noted this anamoly here in my first post

 

[Arathorn]

OK, that's ANOTHER 2.4 I don't understand. How in the world is that 2.4 calculated? [EDIT: Oh, that's odd. Instead of subtracting the percent from 100, they add up the negatives and then divide. Counterintuitive to me. But even having negatives is counterintuitive to me.]

And, no, this time, it's not right. It doesn't give the same odds as 9*1.5 vs. 3*1.25 would.

This seems like such a simple thing to get right. It completely mystifies me.

Arathorn

 

[snepp]

Here's one I'm not understanding...

Grassland, unmodified units
Cossack 18 +50% vs cannon
Cannon 12 no defensive bonuses

Scratch that, I'm less confused now.

18/8 is the appropriate ratio, though a less intuitive way of seeing it.

 

[BomberEscort]

I get 18 v 8.

18 + 50% = 27
12 for cannon

27/12 = 2.25
18/8 = 2.25

[edit: you noticed 18 v 8]

Maybe they are reducing fractions when possible???

 

[snepp]

Archer 2.4 comes from 3.0/1.25 = 2.4.

Actually I noted this anamoly here in my first post

Ahhh, this explains my Cossack/Cannon issue too. I'm beginning to understand what's going on here, will expand on my thoughts once I get them organized.

Nevermind, no expanding, my brain hurts. Initially I was expecting the Cossack/Cannon to be 18/6, thus my ever expanding confusion.

 

[Arathorn]

With BomberEscort's notation on how "negative" percantages are handled, that makes sense. The cannon's defense is -50% in total, which means we divided by 1.5

12/1.5 = 8.

And, with no other terrain modifiers, that 18 vs. 8 is going to match 27 vs. 12. It's only when there are other modifiers that the odd subtraction makes a difference in the odds.

Arathorn