Battles don't seem to work properly when your not involved.

[Drift]

Although I only just made an account here, I've been playing M&B for a few years. I just got back into the game recently though, and was very much suprised and impressed by all the changes that have taken place since I last played

However there's one problem that still seems to exist, and maybe I'm wrong about this as it's rather large and I'm sure it would have been fixed by now if it was a problem... I have a party of say 25 men, plus a bunch of farmers who help out in this fight (defending against a raid) I went up against an enemy of around 200 or something, but thanks to the way M&B works the battle was split into multiple phases. I've noticed that when I'm in the battle, we manage to survive with only around 6 or 7 casualties, while the enemy sustains 60 or however many are in the battle.

However if I get knocked out in a round, and tell my men to continue without me, suddenly we've got 40-50 casualties and only manage to kill about 7 or so of the oposition. I know I'm not the one doing all the killing, even when I am in the battle, so whats going on here? No doubt an algorithm is at play that approximates how the battle would have gone as it isn't being played properly, but this algorithm seems completely out. Can anyone tell me if I'm just not understanding something going on in M&B or if this is acctually a problem?

EDIT: Continueing with this battle, first round managed only 3 casualties with enemy taking 40, and in next round I died, so in third ordered my units to attack, we lose 50 men, enemy loses 4. Something does seem wrong <_<
EDIT: This time in first fight we had only 1 casualty, and I was fine, and yet it wouldn't let me join the next round only allowd "order your men to attack while you stay back" which resulted in 50 of my men dieing and 3 of the enemy <_< I don't get the how the system here works at all, if anyone can explain whats going on please do.

 

[MasterNeo]

if u continue without you,i think it will randomly choose whose the winner base on who had the strongest army

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Well, the morale hit with their leader being done away with would be huge, maybe they broke and ran carrying you with them?
Also, I didn't know people still played the wave game anymore, just get the Battle Size changer.

 

[MasterNeo]

agreed...but maybe his computer cant support too many army..
and i think thats why a fighting scene without us should be implemented in this game
so we can see hows our army fighting..

 

[F50]

Can you link to the battle size changer? Can I make it work with mods other than native?

 

[MasterNeo]

Can you link to the battle size changer? Can I make it work with mods other than native?

lol...yeah it works with every single mod for M&B in this world...

but u must have M&B version 0.890---------->0.90x

https://www.mbrepository.com/file.php?cid=8&id=107

this should do the trick..

 

[Riptokus]

An Interesting way to test this theroy would be to stay out of the fight completly in one battle, load, repeat for three or four times, get an average of the results, simulate it, Load, repeat three or four times, get an average of the results, and then compare them.

 

[Archonsod]

The Autocalc is heavily dependent on the advantage factor. The side with the highest advantage will usually win, and the greater the disparity between the two scores the more casualties the loser takes. Troop levels also play a part.

Yet another reason to invest in tactics ...

 

[Merentha]

Yet another reason to invest in tactics ...

On the higher battlesizes, I would say this is the only reason to invest in tactics. 

 

[MasterNeo]

Yet another reason to invest in tactics ...

On the higher battlesizes, I would say this is the only reason to invest in tactics. 

Tactics skill is useless when we change battle size changer

 

[TheArgentPaladin]

The autocalc does seem weighted in favour of strength of numbers too much. For interest sake I've taken 10-15 Swadian knights into a battle where I was outnumbered 3:1 or more (even up to 7:1 in one case) by low level troops. I then just avoided combat and let them do all the work (no orders or anything). They generally win without taking many casualties- the most I've lost is 6. Yet let the autocalc run and they'll all die. That doesn't seem right.

 

[rageshrub]

well, i know if my leader sent me in while he hid back and the battle was against a huge army i'd cut and run. anyway, as the saying goes :

  "The devs work in mysterious ways"

 

[Neophyte]

Most likely you're playing the game on reduced difficulty (friendly troops take less than normal damage). The difficulty settings are not considered in battles you are not active in.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the types of troops in a party does not affect the amount of damage that party deals out, only the chances that your troops are injured/killed in the fighting.

 

[Khadmus]

Most likely you're playing the game on reduced difficulty (friendly troops take less than normal damage). The difficulty settings are not considered in battles you are not active in.

It's also probably worth mentioning that the types of troops in a party does not affect the amount of damage that party deals out, only the chances that your troops are injured/killed in the fighting.

Though this makes sense, I feel that it is insanely disproportionate. A group of traveling farmer should not get any kills against my all-elite group, but guess what happened...

 

[F50]

especially if that group is all hired blades who can't be damaged by the poor peasants

 

[Drift]

lol well I think we pretty much know the problem now, it seems to be the calulation only really takes into account the number of units, rather then the types. Ideally the algorithm should even take into account what happens when units like spearmen go up against horses (obviously spearman have an advantage), but I doubt it touches on that atm.

As for men running and not working properly due to death of thier leader, this isn't really relevent, as the opposing force works just as well when you kill thier leader. I'd say the lack of a leader could be taken into consideration, but then you'd want an altered reaction from your enemy as well when thier leader dies. Also, lack of a leader may make your units fight in a less organised manner (although they kinda already do that anyway if you don't give them orders ) but aside from a tendency to flee, it shouldn't stop them from defending themselves. After all, leader or no leader, who wants to die? <_<

 

[F50]

(obviously spearman have an advantage)

Always be wary when you say something is "obvious". It is most likely not so obvious as you would think. A 8 foot spear vs a 10 foot lance? I think the spearman would rather have a sword (or anything longer than a dirk and shorter than six feet) in order to deflect said lance.

 

[Khadmus]

(obviously spearman have an advantage)

Always be wary when you say something is "obvious". It is most likely not so obvious as you would think. A 8 foot spear vs a 10 foot lance? I think the spearman would rather have a sword (or anything longer than a dirk and shorter than six feet) in order to deflect said lance.

And even with a sword, I find it easy to slay any sort of footman(including spearmen) should I be mounted.
((Of course, maybe I should set the AI to harder...)

 

[Neophyte]

lol well I think we pretty much know the problem now, it seems to be the calulation only really takes into account the number of units, rather then the types. Ideally the algorithm should even take into account what happens when units like spearmen go up against horses (obviously spearman have an advantage), but I doubt it touches on that atm.

It definitely doesn't. The only consideration that's made to the actual troops present is their level.

Basically it works like this:

- The defender makes a number of attacks equal to the number of troops they have (but not less than 30)
- Each attack is made against a random member of the opposing party
- The chance the attack has an effect is  1 / n+5 (where n is the targets level)
- Attacks that have an effect will be 50-50 wounded / killed target
- After defender makes all their attacks the attacker-party repeats the procedure (only counts troops not wounded/killed by the defenders attacks)


Farmers have a level of 4, which gives them an 11% chance of being affected by an attack ( 1/(4+5) = 1/9 = 11.111%). On pretty much the other end of the spectrum are the Hired Blades, which at level 25 has about a 3% chance of being affected by an attack (1/(25+5) = 1/30 = 3.333%).


On average, 10 Hired Blades attacking a party of 100 farmers would expect to see an average result something like this:
- 100 farmers make 100 attacks
- Each attack has a 3.33333...% chance of inflicting a casualty, so 3 Hired Blades would be hit by the attacks. You'd expect to see 1 wounded, 1 killed, and 1 either wounded or killed.
- The remaining 7 Hired Blades (wounded troops don't attack) make 30 attacks (a party never makes less than 30 attacks).
- Each attack has an 11% chance of inflicting a casualty, so with 30 attacks you'd expect to see 3.3 casualties. So 1 wounded, 1 killed and 1 either wounded or killed.


The scripts themselves are fairly straightforward, and shouldn't be too hard to mod if someone felt motivated to do so.

 

[Archonsod]

On the higher battlesizes, I would say this is the only reason to invest in tactics. 

Nope, advantage still comes into play even in the larger battles. Even with maxed out battlesize you can still end up without your full army deployed if the advantage disparity is large enough.

lol well I think we pretty much know the problem now, it seems to be the calulation only really takes into account the number of units, rather then the types.

The only numbers which come into play are in the advantage calculation, with the numerically superior side receiving an advantage bonus depending on precisely how much they outnumber the enemy by.