Sturigans is more weak after update?

[Go0lden_Archer]

Well, after latest update Sturgia situation... didn't change. In 7 test runs until 1100 Sturgia never made it. Nor even made it to 1095.

What did changed is imperial dominance. I ran additional 3 tests today, and so far one of the empires take over entite bloody map by 1150 or so. Before latest update it never happened at all, map was divided by 2/3 factions, never 1. Running 4th test atm

 

[xdj1nn]

So do you want to say that devs have no even half of brain, thats why tactic skill and autoresolve for player are completly useless, right?

oh my ****ing gawd.... No I'm not, I'm saying that they are already doing something way more complex than a basic rock paper scissor... Most of what we are fiddling with here are place-holders, but, I may be calling you half-brain

Well, after latest update Sturgia situation... didn't change. In 7 test runs until 1100 Sturgia never made it. Nor even made it to 1095.

What did changed is imperial dominance. I ran additional 3 tests today, and so far one of the empires take over entite bloody map by 1150 or so. Before latest update it never happened at all, map was divided by 2/3 factions, never 1. Running 4th test atm

Yep, as I've said, they need more complex autocalc, else the AI will never be not even close to balanced, there'll always be a underdog and a hey b0ss.

At least Khuzaits will be less bull**** now

 

[Pejot]

Well, after latest update Sturgia situation... didn't change. In 7 test runs until 1100 Sturgia never made it. Nor even made it to 1095.

What did changed is imperial dominance. I ran additional 3 tests today, and so far one of the empires take over entite bloody map by 1150 or so. Before latest update it never happened at all, map was divided by 2/3 factions, never 1. Running 4th test atm

Yep, as I've said, they need more complex autocalc, else the AI will never be not even close to balanced, there'll always be a underdog and a hey b0ss.

At least Khuzaits will be less bull**** now

The basic corrections in autocalc as it is right now should include different method of calcluating HP. Maybe something more of memorizing hits taken.
For example a shared HP pool for same stack of units. 10 vlandian knights have 1000 hp together and every time a vlandian knight is choosen to defend the hit he takes is taken from the pool. When HP pool drops by 100 one vlandian knight is dead or wounded depending on medic skill. This will change the calculation a lot.

 

[Koshkasa]

Actually i think You should calculate the chance that a random value between 1-100 land in range 1-15,6 and it's 15,6%.

To my understanding, the "damage" isn't actually damage and does nothing to the HP of the unit. So the only difference between cav and non-cav units defense-wise would be situations where a soldier of that tier would die and the cav wouldn't because of the bonus. That's the 1-1.3 range, not the 0-1.3 one.

Thanks for those tables, they're much more representative than plain text

Also take into account that party with more troops has higher chance to become attacker and land first hits and all HA counts as cavalry in autocalc giving advantage to armies relying on cav+ha like Khuzaits and sometimes empire.

I would... if I knew the actual dependancy, which I don't. No way to account for it without the formula which I don't have.
Another thing to consider if we were to make a correct comparison would be (shameless self plug from a few posts back)

I'm not sure about the exact distribution between the elite/common types, so a direct comparison with the Empire is impossible

With knowledge of how exactly the attacking side is picked and what the exact distribution is between elite and common troops in lords' armies, we could finally piece the puzzle together once and for all.

 

[Pejot]

To my understanding, the "damage" isn't actually damage and does nothing to the HP of the unit. So the only difference between cav and non-cav units defense-wise would be situations where a soldier of that tier would die and the cav wouldn't because of the bonus. That's the 1-1.3 range, not the 0-1.3 one.

It's not actual damage it's just a value that if higher or equal to RNG HP takes unit down (dead or wounded). So if You have 9 DMG done by the looter to T6 cav after all calculations of buff/debuff and the defending cav have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 8 or 9 generated than it will die. That's why You need to take full range.

I would... if I knew the actual dependancy, which I don't. No way to account for it without the formula which I don't have.
Another thing to consider if we were to make a correct comparison would be (shameless self plug from a few posts back)

Yep this is questionable but jidging by own autocals results i assume it's 100% chance to be attacker if You have more troops. Tested it attacking smaller and bigger looter parties with 50 man T6 cav and doing autocalc. In all cases where i attacked smaller ones i won without casualties and when the enemy party was bigger i had casualties. However it's still just my assumption.

 

[Koshkasa]

It's not actual damage it's just a value that if higher or equal to RNG HP takes unit down (dead or wounded). So if You have 9 DMG done by the looter to T6 cav after all calculations of buff/debuff and the defending cav have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,7 8 or 9 generated than it will die. That's why You need to take full range.

In that example, infantry would die if it rolled 1-15.6 (15 if it's integers, I guess) and cav would die if it rolled 1-12. So the advantage cav gets is that it doesn't die in the 12-15.6 range where infantry still does.

Either that, or I'm missing the point you're making

 

[Koshkasa]

Yep this is questionable but jidging by own autocals results i assume it's 100% chance to be attacker if You have more troops. Tested it attacking smaller and bigger looter parties with 50 man T6 cav and doing autocalc. In all cases where i attacked smaller ones i won without casualties and when the enemy party was bigger i had casualties. However it's still just my assumption.

Then any autocalced battle would be a massacre only for the losing side, since if they had less troops and were always getting the defensive side of the coin, they would never land a single attack. And since even 1 looter can occasionally wound someone in my 160 soldier army, I guess there's never a situation where the game denies you to be the attacker completely. That is also pure conjecture, though.

(Sorry for the double, I missed that part completely somehow)

 

[Pejot]

In that example, infantry would die if it rolled 1-15.6 (15 if it's integers, I guess) and cav would die if it rolled 1-12. So the advantage cav gets is that it doesn't die in the 12-15.6 range where infantry still does.

Either that, or I'm missing the point you're making

I get Your point but something bothers me in this value.
Actually if You compare same tier units You have always the same difference. T6 cav has 65% chacne to kil T6 inf while T6 inf has 38% to kill T6 cav so the advantage is 27%. and if You compare different tiers than there's more inf tiers that are 100% killed by cav than cav tiers that are 100% killed by inf.

Then any autocalced battle would be a massacre only for the losing side, since if they had less troops and were always getting the defensive side of the coin, they would never land a single attack. And since even 1 looter can occasionally wound someone in my 160 soldier army, I guess there's never a situation where the game denies you to be the attacker completely. That is also pure conjecture, though.

Yep but army compositions are never built on one tier so it's not possible for the AI. I just run it to test how it's decided. However i admit that it might be just pure coincidence.

Edit:
one more thing is that i don't think that cav and inf should be equal but current RNG HP system makes it totaly unbalanced and gives higher chances to cavalry based armies even if inf based has number advantages. There are not enough factors taken into calculation to call it balanced and closer to real battle results which it should simulate.

 

[Dusk Voyager]

Sturgia being weaker makes sense actually. Unlike other factions, they don't know anything but fighting, least of all how to sustain their faction. They're basically supposed to be the Sparta to the others' Athens.

 

[Koshkasa]

I get Your point but something bothers me in this value.
Actually if You compare same tier units You have always the same difference. T6 cav has 65% chacne to kil T6 inf while T6 inf has 38% to kill T6 cav so the advantage is 27%. and if You compare different tiers than there's more inf tiers that are 100% killed by cav than cav tiers that are 100% killed by inf.



Yep but army compositions are never built on one tier so it's not possible for the AI. I just run it to test how it's decided. However i admit that it might be just pure coincidence.

Edit:
one more thing is that i don't think that cav and inf should be equal but current RNG HP system makes it totaly unbalanced and gives higher chances to cavalry based armies even if inf based has number advantages. There are not enough factors taken into calculation to call it balanced and closer to real battle results which it should simulate.

These specific values are T1 vs T5 and T1 vs T5M in your table. Generally the more damage there is, the larger the margin cav is getting becomes in absolute numbers. In relative terms however, it is still a 30% increase, true that.

My logic is that cav has 12% chance to die and inf has 15% chance to die. Since we are rolling a number from 1 to 100 (might actually be 1 to some other number due to HP perks, though), in case we get the exact same roll:

- with 85% chance neither T5 nor T5M die from the T1 unit (the bonus had no effect)
- with 3% chance only T5 dies (thanks to the bonus)
- with 12% chance both T5 and T5M die (the bonus didn't prevent that)

So even though the cav is 30% stronger, because of the coin flip nature of the process we get much less raw defensive advantage, because we also need to account for cases where neither T5 nor T5M die and therefore the bonus doesn't really do anything

As for autocalc being inaccurate game-wise, it's true. So far it isn't an attempt to simulate a battle, really, just a lot of cropped coin flips.

 

[Pejot]

These specific values are T1 vs T5 and T1 vs T5M in your table. Generally the more damage there is, the larger the margin cav is getting becomes in absolute numbers. In relative terms however, it is still a 30% increase, true that.

My logic is that cav has 12% chance to die and inf has 15% chance to die. Since we are rolling a number from 1 to 100 (might actually be 1 to some other number due to HP perks, though), in case we get the exact same roll:

- with 85% chance neither T5 nor T5M die from the T1 unit
- with 3% chance only T5 dies
- with 12% chance both T5 and T5M die

So even though the cav is 30% stronger, because of the coin flip nature of the process we get much less raw defensive advantage, because we also need to account for cases where neither T5 nor T5M die and therefore the bonus doesn't really do anything

As for autocalc being inaccurate game-wise, it's true. So far it isn't an attempt to simulate a battle, really, just a lot of cropped coin flips.

Yep and those coin flips are more on the side of armies with higher percentage of cavalry in composition. In 2 test games I calculated the % of cav+ha in armies of Sturgia and Khuzait. Khuzait had average of 40% cav in army composition while Sturgia had 12%. This gives Khuzait higher advantage in equal battle. 100 vs 100 in such compositions Khuzait have 28% advantage (higher killing chance) just because they have more cav and HA in army. Since there are no other factors Strugians are always on the losing side. If the system was developed to be coin flip then it will be always 50/50 when odds are equal. But loosing advantage just because they're less reliant on cav is not good since they have no option to counter that. In real battle You have tactics, terrain, formations etc. In autocalc You better have cav and that's all there is to autocalc. All AI battles are autocalc giving "higher ground" from start to cav based armies with no equal benefit to others. Especially that Tactics skill and perks related, don't work. Maybe if they worked it could balance things a bit or unbalance them further.
The point is still that current autocalc is bad and it takes away any possibility to rely on Your AI allies cause they can lose a battle that seems to be won. It makes kingdom defence a big problem wherever You're a King or vassal. You either take part in every battle or give up. This also works in another way allowing You to lose best troops in fights that are impossible to get any casualties (looter fights etc.). So right now it looks bad both ways.

 

[Koshkasa]

-snip-

You know, if we were to delve deeper into the matter, mexxico posted a table of average army compositions by tier in 1.3.0. We could also try toying with those.

While I don't disagree that Cav provides raw power (one unit is stronger than another in its tier and it's all there is to it), I can't safely equate having cav to winning battles because of not being familliar with how attacker/defender is picked every round. If having 20 more dudes (even when they are the crappiest T1 possible) allows you to attack more and be attacked less, how substantial Cav bonus is in real battle would depend on how often you get to use it.

That's not to say you were wrong in saying it's stronger by its own merit, I'm just curious how much other factors would tip the scales.

Imagine if joining with 50 T1 lobsters in a 500 vs 500 battle (and doing send troops) would affect the probability of your allies attacking enough to negate tier advantage or cavalry advantage for that matter.

Or if the numbers advantage you've created is itself negated by your T1s being picked to attack and doing meagre 12% kill chances, making your army have MORE, but LESS EFFECTIVE rolls.

Now, you've got me curious, sir xD

 

[Pejot]

You know, if we were to delve deeper into the matter, mexxico posted a table of average army compositions by tier in 1.3.0. We could also try toying with those.

While I don't disagree that Cav provides raw power (one unit is stronger than another in its tier and it's all there is to it), I can't safely equate having cav to winning battles because of not being familliar with how attacker/defender is picked every round. If having 20 more dudes (even when they are the crappiest T1 possible) allows you to attack more and be attacked less, how substantial Cav bonus is in real battle would depend on how often you get to use it.

That's not to say you were wrong in saying it's stronger by its own merit, I'm just curious how much other factors would tip the scales.

Imagine if joining with 50 T1 lobsters in a 500 vs 500 battle (and doing send troops) would affect the probability of your allies attacking enough to negate tier advantage or cavalry advantage for that matter.

Or if the numbers advantage you've created is itself negated by your T1s being picked to attack and doing meagre 12% kill chances, making your army have MORE, but LESS EFFECTIVE rolls.

Now, you've got me curious, sir xD

I can say the same to the point I'll actually do some tests and math on this xD

I'm still not sure how the round is. From experience I assume that attacker getting first round won't get more tries in round he just gets first hit but can attack each unit only once and then goes defender round.
So if I have 100 vs 50 I will get first hits but not 2 hits per enemy but only 1 hit per enemy. So 50 of my guys tries to kill enemy they succeed in 10 cases and 40 remains. Now starts the round for enemy and his 40 guys tries to kill 40 of my guys they succeed in 10 and I have 90 remaining etc. That's how I understood the system and judging by fights with looters I'm close to truth with this.

 

[Koshkasa]

I can say the same to the point I'll actually do some tests and math on this xD

I'm still not sure how the round is. From experience I assume that attacker getting first round won't get more tries in round he just gets first hit but can attack each unit only once and then goes defender round.
So if I have 100 vs 50 I will get first hits but not 2 hits per enemy but only 1 hit per enemy. So 50 of my guys tries to kill enemy they succeed in 10 cases and 40 remains. Now starts the round for enemy and his 40 guys tries to kill 40 of my guys they succeed in 10 and I have 90 remaining etc. That's how I understood the system and judging by fights with looters I'm close to truth with this.

It's either that, or every individual fight between two units is a round, so first you roll to decide which side is attacking, then roll to determine who is going to be the attacking unit, then roll to see who's the defending unit, then roll the [random(1, HP) ! damage] comparison. I don't have the code snippet to check, and I don't really see how to differentiate between the two theories in testing.

 

[CZII]

-

I don't think that Sturgia has a real cav disatvantage as of the latest version of the game. It's Khuzaits vs everyone else now really. Sturgia and Aserai were at a disatvantage due to cav bonuses when lords respawned with more units and the composition of those troops was different for different factions. Sturgia would get almost no cav at all while Vlandia they start the game at war with would get loads of cav. With a significant amount of troops often being those initial parties lords spawned with, Sturgian were set up for failure in the long run.

They have problems with noble units since they have some isolated villages rarely visited by lords and of course those end up being the ones with noble recruits, but that's irrelevant in the big picture and it's a part of a bigger problem where it's easier to get from the Western part of Sturgia to the Aserai than to the Eastern part of Sturgia.

 

[Pejot]

It's either that, or every individual fight between two units is a round, so first you roll to decide which side is attacking, then roll to determine who is going to be the attacking unit, then roll to see who's the defending unit, then roll the [random(1, HP) ! damage] comparison. I don't have the code snippet to check, and I don't really see how to differentiate between the two theories in testing.

The biggest problem in what i wrote is getting one hit per enemy while having 2 to 1 odds. This means that half of my army is unused in first round and number advantage gives me only first hit. How it should work (if i'm right about how it's working now) is if i have 2 to 1 odds i should get 2 chances per enemy to kill in first round so each one of my 100 men hits one of enemy 50 man.
In situation when i get only single hit per enemy there is a chance for worst case scenario where i don't kill any enemy in first round (only low tiers where selected to attack) and he kills 50 men from my army when he's attacking.

 

[Alenovic]

Has anyone played CK2? the Autocalc is not perfect (When is it?). But I like it and is close to reality. Also there is room for random events. A bigger army is not always the victor. For example;

The following factors affect auto calc in ck2:
1. Battle phases: you have different battle phases (Ranged, shock, melee) (I believe for bannerlord another phase should be added, namely a short skirmish phase right before melee or shock phase) only units with throw weapons engage in this phase)
2. Combat Role:you have different roles to the battle phases namely: you are either attacking or deffing. (this changes non stop in the game and can be affected by overal strategy and who was the original attacking army. This army will always be forced to attack if both armies picked Defensive strategy).
3. Unit Types:There are different unit types (archer, light inf, heavy inf, spearman, light cav, heavy cav, Horsearcher, special units (like elephants)
4. Unit type stats:all unit types have different stats for the battle phases, these stats are also different based on the role they have at that moment. The stats are also changed based on who they are fighting against. For example spearmen get a 100% bonus to stats when engaging cavalry and special units) Archers get a small bonus against light troops.
5. Flanks:there are multiple flanks (Left, middle, right)
6. Flank effectiveness: the effectiveness of each flank is partly based on the competence of the leader/ general/ sergeant. its unit type make up and offcourse the flank its fighting against.
7.Overall combat Effectiveness: overall effectiveness is partly based on the main general, which can also compensate for any terrain or weather effects or worsen these effects). This is greatly intertwined with the armies starting morale. Armies that start at low morale just start off badly from the bat. Reducing overall chances to win... So big armies with low starting morale can cause a army 2-3x smaller to win.
8. Damage allocation:each unit deals dmg in a particular phase (archers deal dmg in all phases, but not the same dmg), so more units is more dmg. the dmg is allocated to a specific flank. if that flank has no units to take dmg the dmg is added to other flanks. So for example having a strong right flank and the other has no right flank will cause your right flank to also deal dmg to the enemy mid flank, while the enemy mid flank is only dealing dmg to your mid flank. leaving your right flank free of dmg to assist the flank next to it. (and perhaps extremely increase the chances of a bigger army to win)
9. Weather effects: weather effects. (night reduces vision, snow reduces movement speed, rain reduces accuracy and heavy infantry effectiveness etc)
10. Terrain effects: terrain effects (one of the party get a specific bonus or debuf. for example crossing river is negative. holding high ground is always preferable etc.), woodland heavily reduces ranged and shock phase effectiveness) combined with weather effects, this can be extremely devastating. for example fighting during a rainy night in a forest will be awesome for an army consisting of light infantry with skirmish capabilities) while being devastating for ranged units.
11. Morale: morale (Very random and mutating factor, this changes during the course of the battle, in favor of bigger armies, adds to the randomness of a auto-calc) it is also a type of damage, which doesnt affect the HP of the units but its morale HP. Shock phases are especially effective in reducing enemy morale. and heavy cav shock phase are particalarly effective against ranged units. If moral HP reduces to 0 the unit flees. there is a chance the unit survives the retreat, however if all the flanks retreat and enemy with high cav units will engage with shock phase devastating all units with no morale.
12. Strategy focus: the main strategy (aggressive, balanced, conservative) as the names indicate, decides what strategy you choose, it decides which phases are more likely to happen during combat. Both sides pick a specific strategy focus and a random dice based on unit weight decides what happenes. usually the bigger army dictates what happends. Going aggressive is a full on charge from the start. reducing the ranged phases trying to get mainly in melee or shock phases. Balanced is a nice mix, depending on the situation. Conservative, is mainly holding ground and def. Especially great against cav armies if you got spearman unit types (they deal 100% dmg against horses) any horse in shock phases against a def army with spears is total butchery.
13. Overall strategy effectiveness: The effectiveness of the overall strategy is further enhanched or nerfed by the traits of the main general and its commanders. Great Def generals are great well.. at conservative strategies, giving def boosts to soldiers.
12.(There are probably other factors coming into play, not mentioned by me)

For example during a normal battle, all your flanks engage. your range units start of the battle. so it usually starts with a ranged phase. in this phase ranged units dish out damage against its opposing flank. The duration of a phase can vary, so if somehow an overwelming archer army stay for prolongued time in ranged phase, against an melee army. They will completly devastate them.
Archers will randomly hit units in the opposing flank. however in the Ranged phase only ranged units can attack. Meaning that it doesn't matter if a cav t6 is present or not. if 50 archers are engaging 20 melee cavalry in the ranged phase (the melee cavalry will deal 0 dmg while take, lets say 30 dmg per arrow during range phase each archer shoots 2 arrows = 2x30x50= 3000 dmg... the combined hp of the horses (lets say an soldier is 100hp a cav is 130) 20x130 = 2600 hp. meaning that the full cav dies and another 400 dmg is dissed out to other flanks. The cav flank was not even able to enter melee and shock phase.. This will completely affect the following melee or shock phase, as the opposing side lost its horses before they could dish out damage. However fighting in woodland while raining, while night, it will decrease the amount arrows per archer to be shot during ranged phase, while also further reducing the ranged phase duration because of the woodland type, and because its night and because its raining. causing for example archers to be able to shoot 0.3 arrows per archer instead of the 2 arrows in perfect conditions. The night and rain do not affect melee phases while the night phase gives a boost to cavalry shock phases, causing the archers to be hard hit if not obliterated.

 

[xdj1nn]

Has anyone played CK2? the Autocalc is not perfect (When is it?). But I like it and is close to reality. Also there is room for random events. A bigger army is not always the victor. For example;

The following factors affect auto calc in ck2:
1. Battle phases: you have different battle phases (Ranged, shock, melee) (I believe for bannerlord another phase should be added, namely a short skirmish phase right before melee or shock phase) only units with throw weapons engage in this phase)
2. Combat Role:you have different roles to the battle phases namely: you are either attacking or deffing. (this changes non stop in the game and can be affected by overal strategy and who was the original attacking army. This army will always be forced to attack if both armies picked Defensive strategy).
3. Unit Types:There are different unit types (archer, light inf, heavy inf, spearman, light cav, heavy cav, Horsearcher, special units (like elephants)
4. Unit type stats:all unit types have different stats for the battle phases, these stats are also different based on the role they have at that moment. The stats are also changed based on who they are fighting against.
5. Flanks:there are multiple flanks (Left, middle, right)
6. Flank effectiveness: the effectiveness of each flank is partly based on the competence of the leader/ general/ sergeant. its unit type make up and offcourse the flank its fighting against.
7.Overall combat Effectiveness: overall effectiveness is partly based on the main general, which can also compensate for any terrain or weather effects or worsen these effects). This is greatly intertwined with the armies starting morale. Armies that start at low morale just start off badly from the bat. Reducing overall chances to win... So big armies with low starting morale can cause a army 2-3x smaller to win.
8. Damage allocation:each unit deals dmg in a particular phase (archers deal dmg in all phases, but not the same dmg), so more units is more dmg. the dmg is allocated to a specific flank. if that flank has no units to take dmg the dmg is added to other flanks. So for example having a strong right flank and the other has no right flank will cause your right flank to also deal dmg to the enemy mid flank, while the enemy mid flank is only dealing dmg to your mid flank. leaving your right flank free of dmg to assist the flank next to it. (and perhaps extremely increase the chances of a bigger army to win)
9. Weather effects: weather effects. (night reduces vision, snow reduces movement speed, rain reduces accuracy and heavy infantry effectiveness etc)
10. Terrain effects: terrain effects (one of the party get a specific bonus or debuf. for example crossing river is negative. holding high ground is always preferable etc.), woodland heavily reduces ranged and shock phase effectiveness) combined with weather effects, this can be extremely devastating. for example fighting during a rainy day in a forest will be awesome for an army consisting of light infantry with skirmish capabilities) while being devastating for ranged units.
11. Morale: morale (Very random and mutating factor, this changes during the course of the battle, in favor of bigger armies, adds to the randomness of a auto-calc) it is also a type of damage, which doesnt affect the HP of the units but its morale HP. Shock phases are especially effective in reducing enemy morale. and heavy cav shock phase are particalarly effective against ranged units. If moral HP reduces to 0 the unit flees. there is a chance the unit survives the retreat, however if all the flanks retreat and enemy with high cav units will engage with shock phase devastating all units with no morale.
12. Strategy focus: the main strategy (aggressive, balanced, conservative) as the names indicate, decides what strategy you choose, it decides which phases are more likely to happen during combat. Both sides pick a specific strategy focus and a random dice based on unit weight decides what happenes. usually the bigger army dictates what happends. Going aggressive is a full on charge from the start. reducing the ranged phases trying to get mainly in melee or shock phases. Balanced is a nice mix, depending on the situation. Conservative, is mainly holding ground and def. Especially great against cav armies if you got spearman unit types (they deal 100% dmg against horses) any horse in shock phases against a def army with spears is total butchery.
13. Overall strategy effectiveness: The effectiveness of the overall strategy is further enhanched or nerfed by the traits of the main general and its commanders. Great Def generals are great well.. at conservative strategies, giving def boosts to soldiers.
12.(There are probably other factors coming into play, not mentioned by me)

For example during a normal battle, all your flanks engage. your range units start of the battle. so it usually starts with a ranged phase. in this phase ranged units dish out damage against its opposing flank. The duration of a phase can vary, so if somehow an overwelming archer army stay for prolongued time in ranged phase, against an melee army. They will completly devastate them.
Archers will randomly hit units in the opposing flank. however in the Ranged phase only ranged units can attack. Meaning that it doesn't matter if a cav t6 is present or not. if 50 archers are engaging 20 melee cavalry in the ranged phase (the melee cavalry will deal 0 dmg while take, lets say 30 dmg per arrow during range phase each archer shoots 2 arrows = 2x30x50= 3000 dmg... the combined hp of the horses (lets say an soldier is 100hp a cav is 130) 20x130 = 2600 hp. meaning that the full cav dies and another 400 dmg is dissed out to other flanks. The cav flank was not even able to enter melee and shock phase.. This will completely affect the following melee or shock phase, as the opposing side lost its horses before they could dish out damage. However fighting in woodland while raining, while night, it will decrease the amount arrows per archer to be shot during ranged phase, while also further reducing the ranged phase duration because of the woodland type, and because its night and because its raining. causing for example archers to be able to shoot 0.3 arrows per archer instead of the 2 arrows in perfect conditions. The night and rain do not affect melee phases while the night phase gives a boost to cavalry shock phases, causing the archers to be hard hit if not obliterated.

hmmmmm

 

[Pejot]

...

So i made i round calculator for autocalc battle. Below You have the results.

Spoiler: Armies composition

Tier\Army	Army 1	Army 2
T1	30​	20​
T2	40​	20​
T3	50​	20​
T4	20​	20​
T5	10​	10​
T6	15​	5​
T4 Cav	0​	30​
T5 Cav	0​	25​
T6 Cav	0​	15​

Both armies have 165 troops total. Army 2 have 42% cav in composition. Both were on the Attacking and defending side. Below avg score (troops left on defender side after round is over)

Spoiler: Results

Attacker	Defender	AVG troops left in defender army
Army 1	Army 2	90​
Army 2	Army 1	44​

Both situations where run 100 times and the score is average of 100 rounds.
This test is based on Cav Buff of 30%.

I can run tests for other army compositions.

 

[Apocal]

Has anyone played CK2? the Autocalc is not perfect (When is it?). But I like it and is close to reality. Also there is room for random events. A bigger army is not always the victor. For example;

The following factors affect auto calc in ck2:

hmmmmm

CK2's combat system sounds good, but in practice it included so many noise factors that battles boiled down to whoever had more dudes would win in the overwhelming majority of cases.