Black Boxes and Stat Calculators

[Dachs]

How would you handle Auerstadt: 60,000 Prussions and 22,000 French? Do you count the fact that Davout stayed and fought a 'surprise'?

Minor tech advantage, organizational advantage, some surprise, probably. That and terrain.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Minor tech advantage, organizational advantage, some surprise, probably. That and terrain.

I don't see the any tech or terrain advantage for the French. Who would you make the attacker? I see it as the French. Zero Surprise.

From Chandler:
French: 27,000 trrops, 8 --> 40 guns
Prussians: 63,500 troops 230 guns Lots of cavalry, but I don't know ATM how many.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Thanks to Matt and Flying Chicken, errors in the previous RNG have been found and hopefully fixed. I've posted new files below.

The attached Excel file is my first second pass at an automated combat calcualtor. It is in Office 2007 and has active macros and VB functions. To work, macros must be active. If they are not, you will see #NAME in the RNG cells.

Questions and comments are welcome. Basically, you enter the two army strengths and whatever modifiers you want to create an Attacker Advantage number. For NESing the various modifiers would come from a nation's stats or orders. That number is made into a percent: 1=10% 2.5=25% etc.

Then you activate the RNG and the % it rolls is added to the Attacker Bonus %. If the total is over 100% the attacker wins. If not, he loses. The model has notes and explanations.

I included two models, one for armies and one for naval battles. Have fun and let me know how it works for you or ideas you have for making it better.

 

[Dachs]

I don't see the any tech or terrain advantage for the French.

Prussian use of 1757 muskets, which were somewhat inferior. As for terrain, the French were partly operating with a height advantage, at least on the northern wing of the engagement.

Who would you make the attacker? I see it as the French.

Problem: the French initially repulsed an attack, switched to the offensive, were forced to repel the Prussians again, and then finally went back over to the attack at the end of the engagement.

Zero Surprise.

Hmm, agreed. If anything surprise would be partly on the side of the Prussians, due to the initial fog, in which Davout's van was defeated.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Prussian use of 1757 muskets, which were somewhat inferior.

Given the nature of flintlocks in general, I see little difference between the French Charleville 1777 musket pattern (used by the French) and the 1757 Prussian pattern. The standardization of arms that took place in Europe during the 18th C all but stopped significant change in firearms until the percusssion cap was introduced in the 1820s.

As for terrain, the French were partly operating with a height advantage, at least on the northern wing of the engagement.

I've not seen such an advantage mentioned in battle descriptions. Certainly the French did not have enough guns to use it to offset the 230 Prussian guns. And once the French took the offense, any advantage would be lost.

Problem: the French initially repulsed an attack, switched to the offensive, were forced to repel the Prussians again, and then finally went back over to the attack at the end of the engagement.

Hmm, agreed. If anything surprise would be partly on the side of the Prussians, due to the initial fog, in which Davout's van was defeated.

I think that Auerstadt was all about troop discipline and the quality of leadership at all levels of the organization in both armies.

 

[Dachs]

Given the nature of flintlocks in general, I see little difference between the French Charleville 1777 musket pattern (used by the French) and the 1757 Prussian pattern. The standardization of arms that took place in Europe during the 18th C all but stopped significant change in firearms until the percusssion cap was introduced in the 1820s.

Going by a brief mention by Nash in his History of the Prussian Army; I don't have context, though, given the nature of my own source.

I've not seen such an advantage mentioned in battle descriptions.

Take a look at the map of the battlefield.

Certainly the French did not have enough guns to use it to offset the 230 Prussian guns. And once the French took the offense, any advantage would be lost.

Attacking down a hill isn't advantageous?

I think that Auerstadt was all about troop discipline and the quality of leadership at all levels of the organization in both armies.

Oh, well, yeah. Of course. That was the main factor, I was just pointing out the Other Stuff.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Take a look at the map of the battlefield.

Attacking down a hill isn't advantageous?

In Napoleonic warfare where troops lined up and fired at each other, downhill was not such a great advantage. For cavalry charges it would be important. But be very careful interpreting maps of Napoleonic battlefields. They are very misleading. Look at the Hassenhausen area on Google earth. It is gently rolling fields. with very little dramtic changes in terrrain. I did find a picture of the area. You'll notice the changes in elevation are not dramatic. Mapmakers and artists are famous for over dramatizing terrain.

EDIT: in this photo the marker shows where a Prussian formation was stationed and the French were on the "heights" in the background.

 

[flyingchicken]

If by "surprise" you include anything unexpected from the death of a general to a morale break on your left flank, then the factor is mearly a way to compensate for the weakness of the model.

Seeing that the only reasonable way of using surprise in a NES is through randomizers (which you use quite freely), or to heighten drama (don't we all love doing this?) while keeping it believable, I don't see it as a weakness of the model. SLANDER!

At Austerlitz, the 'surprise' to the allies was that the French attacked at all and they were unprepared for it. I would attribute that to Napoleon as a general. The fact that his generals carried it out under a morning fog shows their tactical expertise and leadership.

Assuming you've read my suggestions on surprise before this post: So if a very good basketball player took a very difficult shot even for his ability and got it, you'd attribute it to him being so awesome and not to luck (or God heightening the drama)?

How would you handle Auerstadt: 60,000 Prussions and 22,000 French?

1.9 multiplier for Napoleon's leadership, a 1.2 multiplier for French training, and the slight tech advantage (if we can get OLI-relevant stats for the weapons), both on the attack, and substantial to minor surprise for the death of two commanders , mostly based on Dupuy's Austerlitz analysis.

Do you count the fact that Davout stayed and fought a 'surprise'?

Me? No. That ain't game-breaking, unlike the loss of two Prussian commanders (in a game situation the Prussians would have been unlucky, or the mod was being EVIL).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Seeing that the only reasonable way of using surprise in a NES is through randomizers (which you use quite freely), or to heighten drama (don't we all love doing this?) while keeping it believable, I don't see it as a weakness of the model. SLANDER!

Yes, terrible French luck at either Auerstadt or Austerlitz would have been a big surprise and could have cost the battles.

Assuming you've read my suggestions on surprise before this post: So if a very good basketball player took a very difficult shot even for his ability and got it, you'd attribute it to him being so awesome and not to luck (or God heightening the drama)?

Yes, Michael Jordan taking and making difficult shots was not a surprise.

1.9 multiplier for Napoleon's leadership, a 1.2 multiplier for French training, and the slight tech advantage (if we can get OLI-relevant stats for the weapons), both on the attack, and substantial to minor surprise for the death of two commanders , mostly based on Dupuy's Austerlitz analysis.

I knew we were never very far apart in all this.

 

[Matt0088]

To get back to the black box calculator, I remember that Abbadon(or maybe someone esle?) mentioned that nations don't rise and fall quickly enough and that cultures on the other hand, rise and fall quite quickly and that it should realistically be the other way around. Did you have a plan to solve this problem? Also, becuase I'm not going to read through almost 100 pages of the FoE General thread, were they're any other issues regarding FoE that were brought up? Just looking to help out.

Don't know if I brought this up before, but do you have a list of all the tech that a nation possesses at the bottom of the each's nations stats? Or do you just keep a list in your head?

EDIT: Big question, I remember you saying that the calculator is only built for 1000 B.C to 1400 A.D. Is that true? What did you planned to do after 1400 A.D?

 

[Birdjaguar]

To get back to the black box calculator, I remember that Abbadon(or maybe someone esle?) mentioned that nations don't rise and fall quickly enough and that cultures on the other hand, rise and fall quite quickly and that it should realistically be the other way around. Did you have a plan to solve this problem? Also, becuase I'm not going to read through almost 100 pages of the FoE General thread, were they're any other issues regarding FoE that were brought up? Just looking to help out.

FoE was an earth-like fresh start NES in which players created their own cultures and nations. Many players felt that the play was too static and in the 400 or so years covered, there was not enough cultural influence and that nations did not collapse as readily as they should have. The game was not dynamic enough. Wars were to indecisive. The Calculator will help in resolving wars.

Don't know if I brought this up before, but do you have a list of all the tech that a nation possesses at the bottom of the each's nations stats? Or do you just keep a list in your head?

No, each nation had a list of its tech advances in column G on lines 42-46.

EDIT: Big question, I remember you saying that the calculator is only built for 1000 B.C to 1400 A.D. Is that true? What did you planned to do after 1400 A.D?

Not at all. You can use it for any era. My current model has the following items for input:

Troop strength
Troop Mix balance
Weapons bonus
Military leadership
Troop Quality
General
Defence
Supply

But you could change those to fit the era of the game. There is no reason you couldn't break out the armies by troop type like so, if you wanted:

Infantry
Artillery
Cavalry
Terrain
Defenses
Training
Experience
Leadership
Weather
Surprise

As long as the formulas add correctly, you can have as many lines of inputs as you want. I think that some of the inputs should match stats that players control and others should reflect the orders that players provide. Better orders or plans might improve the odds of victory; sloppy or confusing orders would reduce the chance of winning.

Troop strength (stat)
Troop Mix
Weapons/armor bonus
Campaign planning (orders)
Battle planning (orders)
Military leadership (stat)
Troop Quality (stat)

 

[Matt0088]

FoE was an earth-like fresh start NES in which players created their own cultures and nations. Many players felt that the play was too static and in the 400 or so years covered, there was not enough cultural influence and that nations did not collapse as readily as they should have. The game was not dynamic enough. Wars were to indecisive. The Calculator will help in resolving wars.

So this goes back to our earlier discussion in this thread.

No, each nation had a list of its tech advances in column G on lines 42-46.

Those are what I was mentioning, it seems to me, that for each nation, they had their own unique tech stuff. This made me think that you had, a list for the hug amount of possible tech that can be researched, which is why I asked the question. Do you have a list for all of this, or do you just go along with what the players themselves want to research?

Not at all. You can use it for any era. My current model has the following items for input:

Troop strength
Troop Mix balance
Weapons bonus
Military leadership
Troop Quality
General
Defence
Supply

But you could change those to fit the era of the game. There is no reason you couldn't break out the armies by troop type like so, if you wanted:

Infantry
Artillery
Cavalry
Terrain
Defenses
Training
Experience
Leadership
Weather
Surprise

As long as the formulas add correctly, you can have as many lines of inputs as you want. I think that some of the inputs should match stats that players control and others should reflect the orders that players provide. Better orders or plans might improve the odds of victory; sloppy or confusing orders would reduce the chance of winning.

Troop strength (stat)
Troop Mix
Weapons/armor bonus
Campaign planning (orders)
Battle planning (orders)
Military leadership (stat)
Troop Quality (stat)

I meant the black box calculator.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Those are what I was mentioning, it seems to me, that for each nation, they had their own unique tech stuff. This made me think that you had, a list for the hug amount of possible tech that can be researched, which is why I asked the question. Do you have a list for all of this, or do you just go along with what the players themselves want to research?

I pretty much followed what the players wanted to do and tempered it with what I felt was reasonable and possible.

I meant the black box calculator.

You mean for nation stats?

 

[Matt0088]

You mean for nation stats?

Yes!
Ten Char.

 

[Birdjaguar]

From a FoE player:

This is the most important thing I can stress: You shouldn't protect the weaker players or nations.

In NK's NES for example, I have had TWO of my nations destroyed. Am I sad?? Did I leave the NES? No, it makes me strive harder next time.

I did everything I could in FoE, yet never grew significantly bigger than another nation so that that I could wage war with them and expect to win!

Most NESers are aware of the status quo and will band together to ensure no one power gets too powerful.

I was too conservative and protective as a mod.

 

[Matt0088]

I was too conservative and protective as a mod.

Nothing really wrong with that. Just your modding style.
But still, I remember you saying that the black box calculator is only built for 1000 B.C to 1400 A.D. Is that true? What did you planned to do after 1400 A.D?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes!
Ten Char.

I think that the stats wil work for a later time, It all depends upon exactly what era you are playing. In the upcomong BirdNES 3 where the time span will be short 1480-1700, certain stats are less important or not needed. New ones though will need to be added to reflect the specifics of the time. What is the time period you will set for your game?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nothing really wrong with that. Just your modding style.
But still, I remember you saying that the black box calculator is only built for 1000 B.C to 1400 A.D. Is that true? What did you planned to do after 1400 A.D?

I probably wouldn't have made significant changes.

That protective style though will change in the future.

 

[Matt0088]

I think that the stats wil work for a later time, It all depends upon exactly what era you are playing. In the upcomong BirdNES 3 where the time span will be short 1480-1700, certain stats are less important or not needed. New ones though will need to be added to reflect the specifics of the time. What is the time period you will set for your game?

Didn't notice the question here, reason for late response.
It will be a non-earth fresh start, starting around 1,000 B.C with 50 year turns.(Sounds familar, huh) Of course this is all subject to change.
Edit: It will also be a single large cradle, with around 13 to 17 players.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Didn't notice the question here, reason for late response.
It will be a non-earth fresh start, starting around 1,000 B.C with 50 year turns.(Sounds familar, huh) Of course this is all subject to change.
Edit: It will also be a single large cradle, with around 13 to 17 players.

Then you should be fine. If you plan on using the trade tab and trade route rules I developed, make sure you understand how the tabs interact and how to add trade routes to a nation.