Do the simulations take into account captain's bonuses?

[Andreypride]

Do the simulations take into account captain's bonuses? There are a few questions.

1.Do the captain's bonuses work in the simulation when fighting AI vs AI?
2. If the bonuses work, what formation will the AI choose in the simulation? The first one, or does it depend on the gear?
3. If the choice of formation depends on equipment, then it wouldn't make sense for children/companions to learn weapon skills if they were on the horse? Will they get into a formation with cavalry and only give bonuses to riders? Would their infantry skills be useless?

I spent a lot of time upgrading my brother's and sister's weapon skills. I gave them a horse and created a party. After a while I thought maybe I shouldn't have upgraded weapon skills if they were on horses.)

Developers are unlikely to respond, but suddenly there are players who can find out.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

Interesting, would like to know this as well.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I don't think it does. I think captains and perks that don't specify "simulated battle" don't exist in auto calc battles.

 

[Andreypride]

A little report.
I reset all my skills except for tactics and did some simulations.
Result: the simulation was affected only by the level of tactics. The presence or absence of other skills had no effect on the simulation result. The main hero most likely does not participate in the battle and does not give bonuses.
Before the simulation, I got off my horse, went into combat, set myself as captain of the first formation and exited combat to save my settings. I had only infantry. Next I attacked the same enemy many times.

 

[Andreypride]

I don't think it does. I think captains and perks that don't specify "simulated battle" don't exist in auto calc battles.

So it makes no sense to upgrade the leaders of the party weapon skills.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

So it makes no sense to upgrade the leaders of the party weapon skills.

When raising NPC wanderers I look at what will give them a measurable advantage first and what can actually be learned, so that means steward skill. Steward can be raised just by setting them as your own quartermaster with good food variety, so there's no ****ing around, it goes up and their party size goes up, it's measurable advantage and it's versatile. If they gain levels after that I'll sprinkle in some skills like scouting, medicine, tactics, that they will gain a little of as they lead a party, but it's a slow process and often with wanderers you have very limited level to work with. For ones that are in you party for the long haul it's good to raise up a ranged weapon and riding, but anyone who going to be a vassal I give steward first. Using captains that match you troops type in your actual party is good of course.

Really, most wanderers are very stunted compared to AI lords so getting little bulk from steward is the best they're gonna do as a vassal/pt leader, however their side members that spawn have good skills.

 

[Ask]

So it makes no sense to upgrade the leaders of the party weapon skills.

Only a tiny little bit since there's a few perks for weapons that give useful things like increases in party size limit which in turn should give you an advantage in simulated fights, however they are so high up in the skill requirements that it's not worth it unless your companion already has high weapon skills.

It's really upsetting because when your companion parties get into fights they seem to level up combat skills/riding/athletics really fast in comparison to tactics, that should really be changed.

Their equipment does influence simulated battles though, so I guess that in a very minimal way having say high bows/riding would allow you to equip your companion with better ones which would affect their performance, but since there's no skill requirements for armor or melee weapons yeah, it's largely irrelevant.

 

[Andreypride]

Report.
Auto battle AI vs AI and auto battle player vs AI are different.
In battle AI vs AI improves weapon skills. Depending on the equipment, but priority is given to the bow. If there is a bow in one of the slots, then nothing but the bow will be improved.
With the player this does not work. Your weapon skills are not improved in auto-fight.
So there is a chance that the captain's bonuses may work in auto battle between AIs.

 

[Nogand]

Report.
Auto battle AI vs AI and auto battle player vs AI are different.
In battle AI vs AI improves weapon skills. Depending on the equipment, but priority is given to the bow. If there is a bow in one of the slots, then nothing but the bow will be improved.
With the player this does not work. Your weapon skills are not improved in auto-fight.
So there is a chance that the captain's bonuses may work in auto battle between AIs.

This makes sense for the player, because player autocalc is "Send troops" i.e. the player stays in camp while the troops and heroes fight it out. That's why the PC never gets kills in autocalc either. Try making a companion captain, resetting his skills & compare results?

 

[Andreypride]

This makes sense for the player, because player autocalc is "Send troops" i.e. the player stays in camp while the troops and heroes fight it out. That's why the PC never gets kills in autocalc either. Try making a companion captain, resetting his skills & compare results?

Report.
A companion with zero weapon skills and a companion with 300 weapon skills gave the same results. The difference was 1.5%. Error level. Maybe they acted as an additional warrior and the companion with 300 skills was a more effective warrior. Hence the 1.5% difference. Such a low percentage can't apply to captain's bonuses. They probably don't work.

 

[CallmeWayne]

Thats nice research u got here. Keep it up.

May I suggest you report it as bug and ask if it is intended.

 

[Ironic Golem]

Extremely shameful autocalc it sounds, to be honest
Tracks with the year+old report where auto-calc just assigns a unit a power level ranging from like 0.66 to 2.99 based on tier + mounted status, then attacks a random enemy unit with some very basic PL comparison, but doesn't even track individual health.
Expecting captains to work here? No way, bro. It doesn't even track formations.

 

[CallmeWayne]

I mean its not about expecting is more like, Investigating

 

[Ironic Golem]

That was more me grumbling about the state of the situation. One would expect captain benefits to work in some fashion but it sounds like they don't, though proper code diving is still necessary to confirm.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Report.
A companion with zero weapon skills and a companion with 300 weapon skills gave the same results. The difference was 1.5%. Error level. Maybe they acted as an additional warrior and the companion with 300 skills was a more effective warrior. Hence the 1.5% difference. Such a low percentage can't apply to captain's bonuses. They probably don't work.

Thank you for your effort.

I am a bit more concerned about (AI companion) party leaders myself so if you happen to do more tests on what works or does not work for those it would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Ask]

Actually I don't think they work because in order for a companion to count as a captain they must be assigned during OoB no?

 

[froggyluv]

Extremely shameful autocalc it sounds, to be honest
Tracks with the year+old report where auto-calc just assigns a unit a power level ranging from like 0.66 to 2.99 based on tier + mounted status, then attacks a random enemy unit with some very basic PL comparison, but doesn't even track individual health.
Expecting captains to work here? No way, bro. It doesn't even track formations.

I find this to be utterly depressing underdeveloped part of the game. Id rather it be overkill, taking absolutely everything into account - that way monitoring AI vs AI lord battles would be interesting. You'd want to know "huh i wonder how that Cav heavy troop did against that pikeman group in open terrain with those Lords specific tactics and skills taken into account as well as weather and terrain.

The way it is now its "who cares. Lord _x beat Lord _Y -little rhyme or reason. Rinse repeat. Nothing matters. Apathy.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I find this to be utterly depressing underdeveloped part of the game. Id rather it be overkill, taking absolutely everything into account - that way monitoring AI vs AI lord battles would be interesting. You'd want to know "huh i wonder how that Cav heavy troop did against that pikeman group in open terrain with those Lords specific tactics and skills taken into account as well as weather and terrain.

The way it is now its "who cares. Lord _x beat Lord _Y -little rhyme or reason. Rinse repeat. Nothing matters. Apathy.

I would be good, especially if matched with some love and care to the actual skill spread of the lords and wanderers, so that factions have am mix of a few powerful lord, some okay ones and some bench warmers, but of course they would need to not pile everyone into armies and have more 1 v1 fights too.
As is, most npcs lords are waaaaay to good then they deserve to be (on paper), like they would need 100+ years in game to gain the skills they start with, it's fake and cheaty, then you have some that are just junk and will barely improve, then wanderers which most are underpowered and wonky.