FfH2 0.23 Balance Feedback

[TheBoatman]

It may seem strange, but my combat outcomes go pretty well with combat odds. I've been playing Lurchuip lately.

 

[Sureshot]

one 90% battle is nothing heh, i lose 4 90% in a row often now: (1 - 0.9)^4 = 0.0001

the problem is losing 99.x% battles often, when it should be (10-x) times in a 1000.

the pattern being, things around 1 in 1000 are happening with regularity.

theres a very noticeable difference between BtS and FfH0.23c currently.

 

[TheJopa]

If you ask me, any battle with 85% odds should be 100% win for attacker, only uncertain would be how damaged attacker would be. 100% would mean attacker wouldn't be damaged at all.
Hate the idea, but that is what I call strategy, nasty defeats wouldn't be there (Of course accumulating necessary % would somehow need to be harder)
I think this isn't even had to mod. If odds are >85%, and attacker loses, defender loses instead and attacker is left with 1 HP.
What do you think?

 

[Sisonpyh]

If you ask me, any battle with 85% odds should be 100% win for attacker, only uncertain would be how damaged attacker would be. 100% would mean attacker wouldn't be damaged at all.
Hate the idea, but that is what I call strategy, nasty defeats wouldn't be there (Of course accumulating necessary % would somehow need to be harder)
I think this isn't even had to mod. If odds are >85%, and attacker loses, defender loses instead and attacker is left with 1 HP.
What do you think?

Would make the game completely boring.

 

[Micky Onimusha]

one 90% battle is nothing heh, i lose 4 90% in a row often now: (1 - 0.9)^4 = 0.0001

the problem is losing 99.x% battles often, when it should be (10-x) times in a 1000.

the pattern being, things around 1 in 1000 are happening with regularity.

theres a very noticeable difference between BtS and FfH0.23c currently.

Heh, I recallled a lucky Orc in my previous game.

First Attack: Warrior vs Orc Spearman, 97.3%* odds in my favour. He dies and the Orc loses no HP in the process. Next Attack, Warrior with the exact same promotions, still 97.3% odds in my favour. He dies, Orc loses a little bit of HP. And then on the next turn he used his newly gained promotions to wallop my next two units (who admittedly only had 60% odds of victory). Eventually he fell to an Adept.

*I remember that number because it haunted me, heh.

Would make the game completely boring.

I'd prefer it personally. Considering that most units in this game aren't "throw-away", due to the promotion system, losing units to simple bad luck can be ridiculously frustrating.

 

[Jono]

Gaining XP with adepts via-combat is way too easy. They shouldn't allowed to attack and should only defend on occasion (while most units are formed of a multitude of soldiers, arcane units represent a single person).

 

[Nikis-Knight]

I wouldn't object to lowering their strength a notch.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

How about just lowering their attack strength? It's easy enough for assassins to kill archmages as things are...

 

[Sarisin]

If you ask me, any battle with 85% odds should be 100% win for attacker, only uncertain would be how damaged attacker would be. 100% would mean attacker wouldn't be damaged at all.
Hate the idea, but that is what I call strategy, nasty defeats wouldn't be there (Of course accumulating necessary % would somehow need to be harder)
I think this isn't even had to mod. If odds are >85%, and attacker loses, defender loses instead and attacker is left with 1 HP.
What do you think?

You brought up a point that hasn't been mentioned much in this discussion of combat odds.

In addition to losing too many battles where you are heavily favored, I have found the damage you take in battles can often be excessive.

I mean do you really think when the combat odds of your XP-maxed out Dwarven Soldier killing a plain ole barb goblin are 100% you should then be dealt damage that takes 4 turns to heal? This is just an example. Again, in the past, you expect some damage, but now IMO it seems like it is more than it should be.

I always thought when the combat odds were high like 90% or more there should be NO damage. If you are lucky enough to win a battle where the combat odds are low, yes, pile on the damage. But, when you are battling a much more inferior unit, get those high odds, you just shouldn't take on damage.

Anyone else notice higher damage in .23c?

 

[TheJopa]

You are right, however that is not 0.23 problem, it is Civ4 problem, it was like that in all versions and also in BtS. Playing BtS yesterday, I use my Rifleman to attack some obsolete and damaged unit, I think crossbowman, and odds are ~98%, I win but loose more than half of HP, meaning my Rifle got killed in counterattack. Same thing happened with Cavalry few turns latter, and generally often while playing. This isn't as bad as losing but it struck my mind, this happens quite often, and had i lost just one more round I'd lost the battle. In my mind this happening once in a while is tolerable thing, but anything worse than this should be prevented.
This brings me again to FfH. I know I played many games with friend in hotseat, and he was attacking with hero (usually it was Bambur, heh) and he had 100% odds, but in battle he would be left with 10-15 HP. I know that one time he had 100% battle and left with 1 HP. That shows combat odds are a bit wrecked. It took him 10 turns to heal properly.

I reckon that not everyone would like the proposal but I dont think my system would be boring. I just dont have fun frustrating and cursing after such battle, if you do you can use worldbuilder and remove few of your units at random

 

[Gamestation]

About the whole "losing critical units at ridiculous odds" thing, I've got an idea. I noticed while playing the Afterworld scenario, a mechanic was in place that made it possible to actually go through 1000s of battles with only 5 units and not succumbing to the mentioned problem. All the battles are cut short and forced the attacker to withdraw. I guess it's like there is a maximum damage limit to each encounter for each unit and that one of the units can only be damaged that far and as soon as that limit is reached by either unit, the battle stops immediately. To cause further damage, the attacker must attack again. A unit had to be beat up already before it could be finished in a battle. I think this idea could be applied to some units such as heroes and maybe some national units to prevent them from being so vulnerable to bad luck.

 

[brainpan]

You could also look at the statistics this way: If you have 6 times a 90% battle, chances are at ~50% you lose one or more.

Yeah, I think it could and should be looked at that way.

It should be an extremely unlikely occurrance to not lose a single 90% or greater battle in a game unless you manage to avoid combat. 90% odds should not be seen as a "sure thing."

Then again, with gamers experiencing 1 in 10,000 odds on a regular basis, it seems like there is something more at play than a misunderstanding of probability.