PDA

View Full Version : Slight change in attack calculations



Mickey
09-14-2005, 11:02 PM
I made a very small change in the way that attacks happen, but it will be pretty evident on attacks where two large armies go at it.

Before, the damage dealt to an army was a random number between 1-50. Now, I figure out which army is smaller, then make the max damage be 25% of that armies size.

For example, if a 100 troop army was attacking a 500 troop army, the max that would be taken out of either army per turn would be 25 (25% of the smaller army).

If a 20,000 troop army was attacking a 50,000 troop army, the max that would be taken out of either army would be 5,000 (again, 25% of the smaller army).

The reason for doing this is to make large battles finish in a more reasonable amount of time and not scroll down the screen for pages and pages.

Let me know if you see any glitches with this.

Thanks,
Mickey

War_Peace
09-14-2005, 11:11 PM
If this means that 125 troops attack to 100 troops and win with 25 troops left, then it is cool...

Mickey
09-14-2005, 11:40 PM
If this means that 125 troops attack to 100 troops and win with 25 troops left, then it is cool...

Not necessarily. War isn't that simple. In this case, it would mean that any given attack would take between 1-25 troops away, back and forth (randomly) until one side was dead.

The 125 troop army would win more often than not, but not every single time.

War_Peace
09-15-2005, 11:49 AM
You still stick with the gamble thing!

The city of Atlanta, Georgia, USA was attacked by Mr. Boombastic. No defending armies (587 troops) were killed in the battle. 1,235 attacking troops were killed. Mickey retained control of the city.

1235 troops kill 587 troops! That is unacceptable man!

More troops kill less troops or a ranking system... Please...

blitzkrieg
09-15-2005, 11:56 AM
You still stick with the gamble thing!

The city of Atlanta, Georgia, USA was attacked by Mr. Boombastic. No defending armies (587 troops) were killed in the battle. 1,235 attacking troops were killed. Mickey retained control of the city.

1235 troops kill 587 troops! That is unacceptable man!

More troops kill less troops or a ranking system... Please...


I've liked some of the stuff you've said W_P - you've really upset the "pat yourself on the back" vibe that's been going around a bit, but I don't think you're right this time. I like the randomness of it, it is certainly closer to a real life situation (oops my troops were too close together and got mortared, suddenly my numerical advantage is gone (and probably some morale)). Although I believe the defending army needs to be able to get an advantage by being camped in a city. City Walls? See another thread by me.

Timmetie
09-15-2005, 02:28 PM
darn i think my dozens of 100 man armies just lost their advantage : )

War_Peace
09-15-2005, 02:34 PM
Random: NO! Ground rules: YES!

Armies in a city has %25 advantage by numbers...

The more the troops fight, the more they get experienced and get ranks... There are ranking levels and can be seen by anyone...

Again, RANDOM: NO!...

Lukepuuk
09-15-2005, 03:01 PM
yes! Just like in real life all is about having luck

Mickey
09-15-2005, 03:07 PM
Armies in a city has %25 advantage by numbers...
That's very possible. I may include some kind of calculation that gives defending armies a slight advantage.


The more the troops fight, the more they get experienced and get ranks... There are ranking levels and can be seen by anyone...
This is also something I'd like to implement, along with upgrades (tech levels?) that you can purchase for individual armies.

palau
09-16-2005, 05:53 PM
That's very possible. I may include some kind of calculation that gives defending armies a slight advantage.


Great! But only when defending inside the owned city i guess ;)

War_Peace
09-16-2005, 08:36 PM
What else may it be!!?

michael fontenot
09-18-2005, 07:09 AM
Tech levels would be a great idea, experienced warriors should have an advantage, also if this is emplemented is should be visual also to let others know what they are up against, maybe the color of the tent icon depicts the tech level of that army.

anthonywitt
09-18-2005, 08:06 AM
Tech levels would be a great idea, experienced warriors should have an advantage, also if this is emplemented is should be visual also to let others know what they are up against, maybe the color of the tent icon depicts the tech level of that army.

Good idea but the color of pup tents. We dont want the enemy to know what kins of unit we are sending their way. What would happen if this was done is real war?

anthonywitt
09-18-2005, 08:18 AM
Not necessarily. War isn't that simple. In this case, it would mean that any given attack would take between 1-25 troops away, back and forth (randomly) until one side was dead.

The 125 troop army would win more often than not, but not every single time.

This is true. There are many elements that dictate the outcome of loss in ground attacks. Element of surprise, equipment, armorment, training levels, type of unit engaging, desire not to be defeted (Nam), the amout of forse allowed to be used, intel and on and on.

michael fontenot
09-20-2005, 06:51 AM
good point witt,
i was just thinking of the intimidation factor.

RossumsChild
09-20-2005, 04:08 PM
More troops kill less troops ...

Um. . . I hate to kibitz, but your statement lacks. . . education.

start with the classics and work your way forward through history.

The battle of Thermopylae. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Thermopylae)

7,000 men inflict 30,000 casualties on an army of 170,000+, with 300 doing most of the work.

moving on, we have the Battle of Cannae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae).

50,000 Carthaginian soldiers destroy 70,000 Roman soldiers in the engagement.

Carthage takes losses to the tune of 5,700, Rome takes it on the chin for 60,000 killed or wounded, and another 10,000 captured.

Then there's the Battle of Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt) .

A decisive English victory. Number of English soldiers? between 5 and 9 thousand. Number of French soldiers? Between 12 and 30 thousand.

I could go on, there are many other battles where the smaller side lost the ground they were defending but managed to make it a pyrrhic victory, inflicting such heavy losses on the attacking army that the army effectively collapsed in the aftermath.

Often such small forces inflict double or triple their own number in casualties. The battle of the Alamo is a great example.

In short, War is not as simple as "more men means we win."

RossumsChild
09-20-2005, 04:13 PM
I may include some kind of calculation that gives defending armies a slight advantage.

In Risk (this isn't risk, I know) the advantage was the 'tie goes to defender' advantage. That meant that in a possible 12 outcomes, there was a 1/12 chance the defender had that the attacker didn't, thus a 8.25% advantage. A similar statistical 'edge' could be given to defenders, but perhaps there should be a way to make that advantage come with a price?

perhaps armies within a city could be in two states "mobile" where they can retreat at any time, but have the same power as a normal army, and "dug in" where they have a 10% fighting advantage, but cannot move for 24 hours after a move-out order is given?

Timmetie
09-20-2005, 04:33 PM
The defender has the disadvantage of losing the control of a battle, thus giving the attacker time to prepare, ofcourse now with just being able to send armies in, or buy em in the city itself this wont work.
but in the real world, defensive position means you lose control and can only wait.