Day 300 now your "vs Khuzait" is balanced for me. This is my favorite faction as I am real life horse archer. Day 300 I am with Aserai and khuzaits have conquered 2 empire cities 2 castle and sturgian Tyal and one sturgian castle and this is day 300. Also they have lost Odokh and Akalat recently. This is balance 1.5.7. I thought that they will nerf them more in 1.5.7 but I take my words back. This is balance now. And u r right when they fight almost equally on numbers in most cases they loose because of the terrain and speed. They are a bit slower now and empire specially sturgians are catching them in big armies. Sturgians are a bit harder for the khuzaits now.I gotta Say that in my latest campain it feels way more balanced. I have to help armies catch up Khuzait armies still to prevent snowballing but now i dont feel forced to deploy all my energy on Khuzait. Ive even noticed a 500 vs 500 battle where empire won vs Khuzait on the Battlefield (not auto calc, i was helping them with 30 troops only). It is slowly getting There and it makes the game significantly better.
What would make the most sense to me is that when a faction is in ITS territory it moves faster. Aserai would catch Khuzait in sand, Sturgia would catch them in snow and Battania would be faster than them in Forests, etc.Day 300 now your "vs Khuzait" is balanced for me. This is my favorite faction as I am real life horse archer. Day 300 I am with Aserai and khuzaits have conquered 2 empire cities 2 castle and sturgian Tyal and one sturgian castle and this is day 300. Also they have lost Odokh and Akalat recently. This is balance 1.5.7. I thought that they will nerf them more in 1.5.7 but I take my words back. This is balance now. And u r right when they fight almost equally on numbers in most cases they loose because of the terrain and speed. They are a bit slower now and empire specially sturgians are catching them in big armies. Sturgians are a bit harder for the khuzaits now.
Ye I like this. One does not just walk into the "sands of faith" or in the steppes or in the snow. Terrain speed advantage is balanced :> Again 1.5.7 I take my words back and I do apologize for my ragey comments about 1.5.6 for the stupid endless comebacks. They actually listen everyone in this forum. And that's why the community will love them more in future. Peace be upon you \/What would make the most sense to me is that when a faction is in ITS territory it moves faster. Aserai would catch Khuzait in sand, Sturgia would catch them in snow and Battania would be faster than them in Forests, etc.
Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.Virtually every battle is fought using autocalc and autocalc doesn't take any of this into account. It doesn't even distinguished between ranged and melee troops, let alone specific types of equipment. Except horses, that is.
In this way the calculation is not left to an arbitrary chosed formula, but strongly depends on the type of equipment.
I did not "ask" the formula, I suggested a calculation method applicable in a non-approximate and erroneous way only if the armor system is changed.Haha you could have saved your in depth formulas and simply joined the club of those of us been clamoring for a complete Auto-Calc do-over. Including all items, terrain, weather, region of map etc..
I did not "ask" the formula, I suggested a calculation method applicable in a non-approximate and erroneous way only if the armor system is changed.
Without changing that, my formula is not applicable.
The formula I wrote contains only the part relating to the variables related to armor, soldiers and their equipment.
To consider other variables just make some changes.
I'll post the link to the armor thread so you know what I mean.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)
Well, I know without a doubt that in any battle between my and the AI, the Khurzait's are OP. I took an Aserai army of 900 commanded by me with my setting set to only take 2/3 damage for mine and friendly parties against 900 Khurzaits. Also 200 of my troop, my personal army were Tier 5/6 elites. Despite what should have been an overwhelming advantage, my army got their buts kicked. We lost all 900 troops which the enemy walked away with over 300 still left alive. Also my army was very Horse Archer and Cavalry heavy so the normal Horse Archer/Cavalry advantage the Khurzait's have was negated AND WE STILL GOT WIPED OUT!!! I was completely shocked because against a similar sized Western Empire army, winning was a walk in the park with me taking less than 300 casualties. That is a huge power gap.Seriously im getting god damn tired of this snowball bull****. Rework their freaking map movement speed perk for christ sake, Khuzait needs to be balanced so that the other AI can fight them (i dont want ANY cuck boy replying to this thread with their personal idea on how to win vs khuzait as a player, no one cares, it has NOTHING to do with this thread, this thread is about AI vs AI). I'm tired of having to f****g restart campains hoping that the next one will not get snowballed by god damn Khuzait. Its been so many months and this stupid ass problem has been ruining my game experience since day one.
Why the **** doesnt Aserai ever declare war on them ?
Why the **** do they win every siege
Why the **** do they have a perk that makes them unreachable by other AI on the world map
Why the **** do they win every and any encounter with other AI.
Why the **** are they so well positioned on the map making armies starve to death before even reaching them.
Why the **** do all my lords vote against declaring war to them
Why the **** does Southern Empire and Sturgia still suck ass vs them ?
Bring the god damn nerf hammer upon these stupid ass Khuzait already, i think its pretty clear im getting sick and tired of this ****.
It does change it, a lot. Adding in those factors makes some sort of sense where the player is in a position to manipulate them to their advantage. It doesn't make sense otherwise.Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.
Including such a huge number of factors will almost certainly lead to a situation of noise factors (where neither side has an advantage) drowning out actual, meaningful advantages which leads to outcomes determined by bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier wins). Every additional dice roll you add to the autocalc is an additional weight pulling the final result towards "expected." Your proposal is a long, and spectacularly complicated method to essentially reproduce what we have now, where bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier) virtually always win, deterministically.The same system can be applied to any bullet and also to the melee.
I was referring to my speech, the validity of which exists whether we are talking about combat played or that it is simulated with self-calculation.It does change it, a lot.
There are not many factors that I have mentioned.Including such a huge number of factors will almost certainly lead to a situation of noise factors
It is just the opposite.complicated method to essentially reproduce what we have now
It is not deterministic because we are not evaluating the dynamics of events, it is probabilistic because we are evaluating factors that allow us to calculate a probability that is not arbitrarily posed.where bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier) virtually always win, deterministically.
Your previous description:There are not many factors that I have mentioned.
I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal. It is the extreme end of simulating more stuff for the sake of simulating more stuff, since the end result -- in your words -- is that better protected (which translates to higher tier in BL) troops:Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.
In summary, what I write in the thread is that the armor, net of having a different efficiency according to their structure and the type of material, generally with the same material and quality of armor, what mainly intervenes in protecting a soldier is the amount of covered area compared to the uncovered one.
Let's imagine two plate armor:
(1) One covers you for 80% and let's call it armor8 and the other for 50% and let's call it armor5.
Assuming that many forests of 20 arrows each arrive, statistically 16 will be blocked by armor8 and 10 by armor5.
So if we revise the armor system in such a way as to increase the number of hurtboxes (currently limited to arms, legs, torso and head) and ensure that not all armor can cover and protect them all (as it obviously is) , or that if they protect them, it is not said that they do it with great efficiency (for example not all joints can be covered except with full armor) then in the self-calculation it could be considered that in the case of a very heavy infantry (armor plates and wide shields) the probability that archers will be able to injure soldiers is equal to the number of hurtboxes multiplied by the (2) corresponding puncture defense value and divided by (3) the total number of hurtboxes, so as to give us a "weighted defense" in terms of "probability of being hit".
Multiplying this probability by the number of soldiers defending themselves gives us the number of victims.
The average damage the arrow would inflict on the average defense gives us the number of arrows it would take to take a victim.
If the arrows of the attacking army are equal to or greater than the number of arrows that would be needed (4), then the number of casualties will be just that calculated, otherwise it will be less and the calculation is a simple proportion.
The same system can be applied to any bullet and also to the melee.
In the case of blunt weapons vs plate armor just enter (5) some coefficient that takes into account the fact that certain types of weapons perform better against certain types of armor.
Other factors can be considered such as for example (6) the hp of the shields which would make the number of bullets necessary in order to kill a soldier much higher
The idea would be to have to break the shield, so in practice you have to take:
(hp of the soldiers + K * hp shields) / arrows damage, where K is a factor <= 1
In this way the calculation is not left to an arbitrary chosed formula, but strongly depends on the type of equipment.
This is without taking into account the benefits by personally playing the battle (or even 1 vs 1 fights).
Recreating the already existing mechanic of high-tier troops being harder to hit in autocalc and when taken out, being more likely to be wounded than killed (both autocalc and missions).will be less likely to be hit
I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.Furthermore, I have not talked about "dice" or "tier".
You skipped a few comments because I wrote in previous comments (to froggyluv user) that I suggest a modification of the armor system.I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal
I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.
LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY LINESKhuzaits are to OP and you guys need to embrace it. They are nomads and their fight tactics are different than empire or sturgia. They have Cavalry and Horse Archer units most which makes them OP + cultural map speed bonus + cavalry&horse archer map speed bonus. They putting all other factions to trash bin easly. But, I'm not sure about sieges tho. Khuzait should not be that OP in sieges. Like Khegits in Warband, Khergits was too op on field but not that great at siege. I think this siege/field balance can stop them doing snowballing.
Your previous description:
I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal. It is the extreme end of simulating more stuff for the sake of simulating more stuff, since the end result -- in your words -- is that better protected (which translates to higher tier in BL) troops:
Recreating the already existing mechanic of high-tier troops being harder to hit in autocalc and when taken out, being more likely to be wounded than killed (both autocalc and missions).
I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.
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.Im confused by your seeming desire for an over simplified auto-calc. So Tier level and troops is good enough for you?
I can tell you the result of what happens when you throw a lot of interesting variables into the oven: average. So you include as few as you can get away with to allow a reasonable variance in outcomes and focus on the meaningful ones. This isn't a new issue; wargames (both computer and hex-and-chit) have pretty well explored the ground and most settled on few factors while CK2 kept a slurry of variables that resulted in bigger numbers winning most of the time unless they happen to cross a river. It was stale, it was boring and the only way they "fixed" it was by allowing players to custom-build OP armies that would mash out the grab-bag AI armies. That's fine-ish for CK2 but the wrong solution for BL.To me -this is exactly what computers are built for -too allow us to throw alot of interesting variables in the oven and see what comes out
I can tell you the result of what happens when you throw a lot of interesting variables into the oven: average. So you include as few as you can get away with to allow a reasonable variance in outcomes and focus on the meaningful ones. This isn't a new issue; wargames (both computer and hex-and-chit) have pretty well explored the ground and most settled on few factors while CK2 kept a slurry of variables that resulted in bigger numbers winning most of the time unless they happen to cross a river. It was stale, it was boring and the only way they "fixed" it was by allowing players to custom-build OP armies that would mash out the grab-bag AI armies. That's fine-ish for CK2 but the wrong solution for BL.