Khuzait still snowballs

[darksoulshin]

No. But the formula @darksoulshin offered up literally recreates the exact same feature already existing in autocalc -- high tier troops are harder to kill by low tier troops. It just has a bunch of additional factors thrown in.

sorry eh but "self-calculation" means "do the calculation for me" and not "make everything homogeneous".
If two armies collide and one is inferior to the other in every characteristic and after 100 fights it turns out that 90 A has lost them, it appears that the probability that A wins against B is 10%.
You cannot artificially "homogenize" the distribution of victories just because otherwise the weak army risks never winning.
The problem is that the weak army HAS NO OTHER WAYS except the battle to SLOW DOWN OR STOP an enemy army, large or small, well equipped or badly equipped.
If A wants to win against B he has to find another way to beat him and here would need MECHANICS THAT ARE NOT PRESENT IN THE GAME currently.
Supply and logistics lines, march formations and geographical coverage.

ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
In this thread there are 4 very detailed THREADS which also talk about "how to make war without fighting" and "how to stop armies without facing them".

 

[Apocal]

So then whats your solution? As it is its stale as 2 day old bread left in the Sun -there is absolutely nothing interesting in Bannerlords auto calc results. Seems like you like to say no -but what have you offered up?

I already posted a thread but:

• wildly reducing the number of autocalc rolls
• use the existing IsRanged and RangedPower to get a number for the two sides, then rolling once for a skirmish phase
• do the same for melee troops and the melee phase, then one dice roll for melee
• terrain as a factor in damage reduction, as a bonus applied to the roll
• party morale and leader tactics contributing to damage dealt
• fake the separate rounds for player benefit (time to respond on the campaign map)
• done

The more involved, this-will-never-happen version is where units retreat before annihilation and includes a pursuit phase where the probability of being wholesale slaughtered exists but is very, very unlikely except in the specific case of a pursued force having very few or no mounted troops remaining while the pursuer has plenty.

And are you telling me hex games and other strategy games do not take unit type and effectiveness vs other units into equation? Sounds like the guy is using an armor system not unlike a Tank Armor penetration rates. I find realistic Tank penetration systems extremely important extremely desirable in my war games and would hate to think its as simplified as you seem to be advocating.

Tactical wargames cover stuff like armor penetration, but generally by using damage tables and applying a bonus or penalty to the different weapons. Speaking in general, they don't get very granular in their detail because it is pointless when you can easily produce the same effects as a simulationist approach with a Hit table and the right bonuses. Operational-level wargames usually care somewhat about unit types but for our purposes, every faction is currently running broadly similar parties -- a plurality of infantry, some archers, some cavalry, some horse archers or javelineers -- so it doesn't need to factor that in, because it is noise.

(The player's party being the big exception there but most players don't touch the autocalc unless it is a foregone conclusion anyway.)

Edit: heres a good read for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandbl..._you_should_know_about_auto_calc_kind_of_sad/

Its simplicity is almost nauseating i can literally see no justification for worrying about adding more variables

What makes you think I haven't read it? You can see my posts in there.