Battle Simulation

Posted to early, there are errors on it. I need to sort out some problems with the SAM missile battery as at the moment it will shoot down defending fighters.

ferenginar:)
 
Just a suggestion!
Try including the river defense bonus and if possible include the difficulty level (it does not affect the inicial numbers in battle but affects the probability to win a strike during battle)
 
Ok i'd forgotten about the river bonus so that needs to be included. I'm not sure about the difficulty level, as far as I am aware the only battles affected by difficulty are those including Barbs, can you confirm? It should be included either way.

There are a number of other changes that need to be made, and it could do with tidying a good deal. I think that I will transfer more of the validation into code.

It could all do with a decent explanation too, particularly in the region of addative v multiplicative bonuses, and I need some time to run a few tests through the game itself to confirm my understanding. I will repost a new version and expanatory paper as soon as I can: in the mean time .. any more views?

ferenginar:beer:
 
Read my Combat paper in the War Acadamy, most of your questions will be answered there. Only one update needs to be made to it - I've tested to confirm there is NO attack bonus for a sneak attack. The rest of what is in the paper holds up to thousands of tests...
 
Cool spreadsheet! I made an excel sheet at home, but not one with a nice interface. It was strictly for crunching numbers while testing combat. My pipe dreams of making a full working VB program for it have as yet not materialized. Good work :cool:

One question: What is your motivation for doing this? To speed up testing, to use as a scenario design tool? Do tell...
 
Sodak,

Thanks for the link, but I had already read the original in the Apolyton discussion thread. There are a few things that I am still unconvinced about particularly in those areas where it is suggested that the manual is wrong.

I'm not disputing your paper but I am a little concerned how through forum discussions it is decided which aspects of the manual are correct and which are not.:confused:

The motivation was? Fun, I was a bit bored a work one lunch time and thought might be an interesting project to take on. I need to practice the VB a bit and this could provide a good example of structured programming. As it stands too much of the work is completed on the sheets themselves and not enough is in code.

The main reason for this is that it is in essence a draft / devolopment work to establish the parameters of the project. The spreadsheet took about 10 - 12 hours to reach its current stage, so a fully organised and structured VB approach should take at least twice that amount, so it may be a while before that file is posted.

ferenginar :beer:
 
Originally posted by ferenginar
I'm not disputing your paper but I am a little concerned how through forum discussions it is decided which aspects of the manual are correct and which are not.
Click to expand...
What points do you suspect as being fishy? Wherever something is stated as contradicting the manual, it's been game tested. Tell me what you doubt, I can tell you if it was tested or not, and how well. :cool: I'm open to updating the paper if anything new comes to light - for example, I did the sneak attack testing just a month ago. That had been assumed forever - it might even be suggested in the manual. In either case, it's now proven false.
 
Sodaq

I have read through your paper, here are my queries.

3.7
X2 defensive bonus of pikemen is limited to x1.5 against units with Move =2 HP=1 and FP=1 ? Where does this come from? I don’t recall see this anywhere before.
Also can you clarify exactly which units are effected, is it mounted or only horse, do chariots, or elephants activate this bonus?

3.7
A fighter cannot benefit from a SAM unless attacked by a missile. Fighters do not benefit from SAM because of the risk of the defending unit being shot down by the SAM. This is only possible if the fighter scrambles, so does the fighter scramble against fighters and bombers but not missiles.. please clarify.

3.7
Aegis = x3 air x5 missile. From experience this appears to be correct, if so why does it get referred to as a x2 bonus

3.8 Partisans x8 attack against non combat units, really ? this is cool.

3.2a Fortification bonus superceded by fortress or city walls?

General
Adjustment factors – additive or multiplicative.. +200% is not necessarily = x3 when combined with other factors.

My opinion of this is that where the manual refers to a bonus as +200% this refers to an adjustment of the base value, a X3 bonus refers to an adjustment of the total value calculated to date from other adjustments. Your comments please.

I have put together the bones of the VB version, I would like to get clarification on these so that I can write the rest of the code.

Slowthinker - I have not tried Boco's Calculator. Thanks I will.

Many thanks

Ferenginar
:)
 
I'll respond now to what I know from memory. For other details, I'll hafta look for the virtual paper trail on my home pc...
Originally posted by ferenginar
Sodaq
3.7
X2 defensive bonus of pikemen is limited to x1.5 against units with Move =2 HP=1 and FP=1 ? Where does this come from? I don’t recall see this anywhere before.
Also can you clarify exactly which units are effected, is it mounted or only horse, do chariots, or elephants activate this bonus?
Click to expand...
Play testing. It is triggered by horsemen, chariots, elephants, knights, and crusaders.
Originally posted by ferenginar
3.7 Aegis = x3 air x5 missile. From experience this appears to be correct, if so why does it get referred to as a x2 bonus
Click to expand...
Did I leave a typo in? The x3 and x5 stood up to testing... When first putting the paper together, I had the AEGIS bonus as a +200%, then later switched it to x2. SlowThinker caught my typo - it should have read x3, of course. :o
Originally posted by ferenginar
3.8 Partisans x8 attack against non combat units, really ? this is cool.
Click to expand...
True, discovered by SlowThinker! Try attacking a settler with a partisan that has 1/3 movement left... :evilgrin:
Originally posted by ferenginar
3.2a Fortification bonus superceded by fortress or city walls?
Click to expand...
In other words, you get the best of the three that applies to your unit, not a combination of them.
Originally posted by ferenginar
General
Adjustment factors – additive or multiplicative.. +200% is not necessarily = x3 when combined with other factors.

My opinion of this is that where the manual refers to a bonus as +200% this refers to an adjustment of the base value, a X3 bonus refers to an adjustment of the total value calculated to date from other adjustments. Your comments please.
[/B]
Click to expand...
Most test results matched the x# form, except the river terrain bonus. Additive bonuses didn't work out with the calculations. For example, compare the vet pikeman in a forest:

Additive: 2(base) + 1(vet) + 1(terrain) = 4
Muliplicative: 2(base) x 1.5(vet) x 1.5(terrain) = 4.5

The latter matched calculated expectations, the former did not.
 
Originally posted by ferenginar
Sodaq
3.7
A fighter cannot benefit from a SAM unless attacked by a missile. Fighters do not benefit from SAM because of the risk of the defending unit being shot down by the SAM. This is only possible if the fighter scrambles, so does the fighter scramble against fighters and bombers but not missiles.. please clarify.
Click to expand...
I'll try to dig up some useful info later. The "Can attack air units" effects was by far the most difficult set of statements to pin down. I will probably state something incorrectly if I try to do it from memory...
 
A fighter (air unit, "can attack air unit" flag, range=1) gains:
  1. x4 defense against air unit with range<>1 (i.e. bomber or helicopter)
  2. x2 defense against air unit with range=1 (i.e. fighter)
  3. x2 SAM adjustment when attacked by a missile ("destroyed after attacking")
Now that you ask, the x2 defense vs missile could be either point 2 (missiles are also air units with range=1) or 3. I don't remember if the tests included a missile attacking a fighter without a SAM... I didn't run this test myself, it was reported to me.

ST, did you test this portion? If so, do you remember the conditions?
 
Did I leave a typo in? The x3 and x5 stood up to testing... When first putting the paper together, I had the AEGIS bonus as a +200%, then later switched it to x2. SlowThinker caught my typo - it should have read x3, of course.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I did not make this clear, This is referrred to as a x2 bonus in the rules.txt and also in the pedia(i think, though cannot check whilst at work).
; 010000000000000 = x2 on defense versus air (AEGIS)


Play testing. It is triggered by horsemen, chariots, elephants, knights, and crusaders.
Click to expand...

? Dragoons, Cavalry..
what about extra land unit ? do you know what triggers this?

Many thanks for your help with this

ferenginar
 
As you remarked, the pikeman bonus works against units with move=2, hp=1, fp=1. Dragoons and cavalry have 2hp, they do not trigger it. The extra units will also trigger it if they meet the conditions, it is not dependent (as far as I know) on the unit slot in the units.gif.

The x2 against any fast unit first came into question when scenario designers tried making things like anti-tank units - something like a def=8* unit against tanks with attack=10 or more. Instead of consistently winning, the defenders got mowed over like any other. Players figured out that the x2 was something else...

As for the rules or pedia or manual, I don't put much faith in what is stated there. Some things appear to have been described in a simplified way to just explain what that game element does, not actually to provide the true values used. It is accurate enough for most purposes, but not for all.
 
I read somewhere that the unit with the highest defence strength defends, is this true?

This is important because in recent tests a rilfeman fortifed behind city walls defended in preference to an unfortified marine.
the base defence values are 4 and 5 repsectively, this means that for the rifleman to defend then fortification behind city walls is cumulative and not superceded.

A similar test with the same units in a fortress had the marine defending each time, indicating that in this case fortification was superceded by the fortress.

This would seem to make sense as attacks by "Ignores city walls units", eg howitzer can better be defended by fortifying units within the city, but is not necessary in a fortress because the ignores city walls does not effect fortresses.( Or does it?)

Either way it seems that i am going to have to conduct extensive tests to confirm the expected statistical outcome.


ferenginar:confused: :D
 
Yes - this is definitely the case.
I think, however, that a non-combat unit would be superceded by a combat unit even if it had a higher defence. Lucky said that the engineer has a defence of 2, but I once had an engineer stacked with an out-of-date-by-years horseman and when a barb came along, it was the horseman who defended the attack. It could have been costly, but they had just built a tactical fortress on a mountain so I won anyway. :D
 
Originally posted by Sodak
As you remarked, the pikeman bonus works against units with move=2, hp=1, fp=1. Dragoons and cavalry have 2hp, they do not trigger it. The extra units will also trigger it if they meet the conditions, it is not dependent (as far as I know) on the unit slot in the units.gif.

The x2 against any fast unit first came into question when scenario designers tried making things like anti-tank units - something like a def=8* unit against tanks with attack=10 or more. Instead of consistently winning, the defenders got mowed over like any other. Players figured out that the x2 was something else...

As for the rules or pedia or manual, I don't put much faith in what is stated there. Some things appear to have been described in a simplified way to just explain what that game element does, not actually to provide the true values used. It is accurate enough for most purposes, but not for all.
Click to expand...

Is the "Pikeman" bonus really negated by FP > 1? Or is it only negated when the HP>1? The reason I ask is because I noticed Kobayashi uses the pikeman flag on some units in his scenarios and most of his units are HP=1, but FP=2 or more. I just wonder if anyone has tested these types of units to see if the defense against a move2, hp1, fp2 is still doubled. I don't think there are any Move2, hp1, fp2 units in the base game, so it would have to be with an altered rules file like in a scenario.
 
Originally posted by TimTheEnchanter
Is the "Pikeman" bonus really negated by FP > 1? Or is it only negated when the HP>1? The reason I ask is because I noticed Kobayashi uses the pikeman flag on some units in his scenarios and most of his units are HP=1, but FP=2 or more. I just wonder if anyone has tested these types of units to see if the defense against a move2, hp1, fp2 is still doubled. I don't think there are any Move2, hp1, fp2 units in the base game, so it would have to be with an altered rules file like in a scenario.
Click to expand...
Excellent point. I've never tested a move=2, hp=1, fp=2 unit. Test it and let me know what you discover! :scan:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blake00
Comparison of C-evo to Civ 2
Replies
15
Views
2K
Rambo919
R
N
Russia and Rus civilizations thread: suggestions and discussion.
Replies
7
Views
1K
Apple111111
A
M
Mod: Full Civilization Progression Plan (120 Civs) (5 ages)
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
tman2000
T
T
Narrative Event Suggestions
Replies
7
Views
363
luca 83
luca 83
H
Combat mechanics overhaul tied with the three eras
Replies
4
Views
556
wolverine2112
W
Back
Top Bottom