Cavalry advantage in simulations is reduced to 20% from 30% - Shouldn't these calculations be more complex?

[StewVader]

Regarding the recent patch note:

"Cavalry advantage in simulations is reduced to 20% from 30%"

Shouldn't these values be more complex? Shouldn't advantages and disadvantages be determined by battle type (field / siege), and location type (open field/ town/forest etc etc).

I would have expected to see something like Cav advantage in simulations: in forest reduced by 50%, during siege offense by 70%, in siege defense by 80% (these are hypothetical numbers)

Are the simulation calculations effected by environment at all?

 

[durbal]

Why should they be? Real battles aren't. If real battles start to become more heavily affected by terrain then they can add it.

Sieges give a 1-3x advantage to defenders already depending on wall strength/level and siege engines.

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Why should they be? Real battles aren't. If real battles start to become more heavily affected by terrain then they can add it.

Sieges give a 1-3x advantage to defenders already depending on wall strength/level and siege engines.

They are affected by terrain. Cavalry are no where near as good on cliffs and in dense forests. Why should they get a bonus during sieges. They are not even mounted during them. When have you seen lancer units climbing a ladder on a ****ing horse.

 

[Carabus]

When have you seen lancer units climbing a ladder on a ****ing horse.

Here (link)

 

[froggyluv]

If terrain isnt counted in auto-calc that would be depressing. Please copy paradox games TW and make real strategy alongside your glorious first person combat

 

[AfLIcTeD]

Here (link)

Well, I stand corrected.

 

[avenger1024]

If it works, it doesn't matter. Complexity for complexity's sake is stupid.

 

[StewVader]

If it works, it doesn't matter. Complexity for complexity's sake is stupid.

Yeah its not about being complex for complexities sake. Its about immersion and strategy. If my enemy has lots of Cav I should be able to move into a forest or try to fight in a forest to reduce thier advantage.

Please don't be a fanboi

 

[BannerJamminRaps]

Look, it's widely known that the autocalc for combat is unsatisfactory.

This is a stopgap patch and all we should be looking for is for TaleWorlds to let the community know which current systems they plan to flesh out and work on, and which ones they do not foresee time to make more robust.

This will letthe modding community focus on fleshing out the game as a whole instead of blazingout half-baked pottery fixes for things TW are currently working on.

 

[ste636]

Agree, in Warband there are mods that do exactly that....
bannerlord seems to me really depending on RNG and % sadly....

 

[froggyluv]

If it works, it doesn't matter. Complexity for complexity's sake is stupid.

Dumbest comment ive yet to see on these forums. Congrats!

 

[Apocal]

If it works, it doesn't matter. Complexity for complexity's sake is stupid.

It isn't complexity just for complexity's sake. Terrain has a meaningful effect on battles in-game; just take a cavalry-centric party through that goddamned northern forest village map if you want the clearest possible example. But in autocalc there is nothing to account for it. It is just a series of 1 on 1 duels, with a diceroll chance to die for any given unit.

Adding terrain effects to the calculation would help a great deal in producing outcomes that are more believable than 500 imperial infantry, defending in a densely-packed forest, getting slaughtered en masse by 80 high-tier cav.

 

[paladinx333]

I don't use any simulated battles since the death rate spike. 200 top tier troops fighting 20 looters should not result in any deaths. This is even more vexing since my surgeon has 200 skill.

 

[Kipch@k]

I wonder if there is anything like rock-paper-scissor system in the game. Or should there be?

 

[luisedgm]

Shouldn't these values be more complex?

Its very disappointing indeed, modders are starting to fix it, but so far I haven't seen any mod that makes all the checks on troop type.

Why should they be? Real battles aren't.

What? Is your game modded so every terrain is 100% plain with no features?

 

[Rconner]

Dumbest comment ive yet to see on these forums. Congrats!

I totally disagree on this point.
Look up "Ancient Warfare" from 1975
and De Bellis Antiquitatis from 1990.

The authors of the second one were involved in developing the first one. The first one had VERY complex rules and unit types, special attacks etc. battles could take days to play and required hundreds of miniatures.

DBA was based on those battles and it was realized that it could be abstracted down to some very simple rules that took the thousands of pages of core rules and army lists and boiled it down to 16 pages, and required only a few dozen miniatures per army.

Simplicity is elegant

 

[StewVader]

I totally disagree on this point.
Look up "Ancient Warfare" from 1975
and De Bellis Antiquitatis from 1990.

The authors of the second one were involved in developing the first one. The first one had VERY complex rules and unit types, special attacks etc. battles could take days to play and required hundreds of miniatures.

DBA was based on those battles and it was realized that it could be abstracted down to some very simple rules that took the thousands of pages of core rules and army lists and boiled it down to 16 pages, and required only a few dozen miniatures per army.

Simplicity is elegant

I think simplicity can be elegant. In this case, giving units advantage and disadvantages based on terrain for simulations...seems pretty simple though......

 

[Apocal]

I wonder if there is anything like rock-paper-scissor system in the game.

There is not.

 

[froggyluv]

I totally disagree on this point.
Look up "Ancient Warfare" from 1975
and De Bellis Antiquitatis from 1990.

The authors of the second one were involved in developing the first one. The first one had VERY complex rules and unit types, special attacks etc. battles could take days to play and required hundreds of miniatures.

DBA was based on those battles and it was realized that it could be abstracted down to some very simple rules that took the thousands of pages of core rules and army lists and boiled it down to 16 pages, and required only a few dozen miniatures per army.

Simplicity is elegant

When the results from oversimplifying battles are utterly unrealistic then more variables need to be applied

 

[Kipch@k]

There is not.

i just read it. Indeed its sad. I always thought it has a simple r-p-s system. i guess not.