I am indeed ****ting on them. And you as well by the looks of it. Good to see you were clever enough to pick up on that. I was wondering if I had been too subtle you know?Uh no. Autocalc is not the same as it was in Warband. If it was I wouldn't have a problem with it myself, in fact ideally I would like it to be tuned to get there.
Also, I don't appreciate your tone. If you think that this thread is of low quality this is no way to try and improve it. You are pretty much ****ting on people just for having a different opinion.
Are you referring to Total War or Bannerlord here? I got a pretty tight cluster of autocalc results in BL and all the outliers were attributable to a different number/mix of outside parties jumping in.It's also exploitable. I've recalculated/reloaded an auto-siege over and over to see the spread of results. You end up with a bell curve of casualties - the majority of results clustered around the same place, but occasionally you end up with a result well outside the bell curve, even better than you could get if you managed the battle yourself.
You might be into something hereImagine if they made auto calc for the player a minni game where you troops get divided into cards or such and the tactics skill/perks gave you bonus cards or buff or such and you had to choose which card to count the AI enemies card like "10 infantry" and you counter "10 archers" then it plays out in short and on until one side give up or is out of cards..... that would at least be fun.
Are you referring to Total War or Bannerlord here? I got a pretty tight cluster of autocalc results in BL and all the outliers were attributable to a different number/mix of outside parties jumping in.
Oh, you meant the spread between wounded and killed. I thought you meant the total casualty numbers.Bannerlord. When we're talking probabilities, there is always going to be a spread of results. Occasionally, really bad for the player, occasionally really good. For example, I've auto calculated a battle between my army of 1000 and the opposition army of about 600. My party of 200 might expect to have about 20-25 deaths a majority of the time. But occasionally it throws up 35, occasionally it throws up 5. The same is also true of injuries. You might find one result to be 20 deaths and 40 injuries. An occasional result might throw up 5 deaths and 55 injuries.
Yeah, I've not really seen a huge variance there. That's what I was referring to. There is some spread but very few outliers and all of them centered around different parties wandering in. Just to be clear, I was saving games before purely AI on AI battles and watching them, so there might be other things going into player-on-AI autocalcs that cause more variation.The total casualty rate also being spread within it's own bell curve.
I disagree. I've a force of 182 men, including 40 knights, 50 archers, and the rest sergeant foot soldiers. It's all top tier troops vs looters. I attack a looter group of 15. Approx 15% of battles result in a loss of a knight or more strangely, a sharpshooter.It must be unpredictable by nature. It is war. I have lost soldiers fighting looters. I've even been downed myself. It is not unbalanced, because you don't lose the battle to looters ever, and the majority of the time you do it, you wont lose anyone at all. But now and then a looter gets lucky with a sharpened broom and pokes someone in the eye. The unpredictability is the most important part - if there was no risk, it would be boring and unrealistic.
And units dying in combat is not something that shouldn't happen.
And yeah. I haven't mistaken this thread for the straw man convention. I've made a fairly accurate judgement.