Sturigans is more weak after update?

[Alenovic]

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.

Let's be honest... normally the biggest army wins.It's as simple as that. Especially in a simulation, however adding elements which can overrule the standard rule of thumb, makes things more interesting.

You need quite some factors stacked in your favor to normally win battles with huge differences. History isn't all 300 Spartans..(Actually in RL the Spartans lost that fight..)

 

[Koshkasa]

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

Interesting, thanks for the data.
You're basing these on the theory that the whole party is selected to be either attacking or defending, right?

 

[Pejot]

Interesting, thanks for the data.
You're basing these on the theory that the whole party is selected to be either attacking or defending, right?

Yes. I will later try it with mixed attacks. So unit from army 1 attacks than unit from army 2 attacks and again unit from army 1.

 

[xdj1nn]

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.

that can be counter-maneuvered by adding wild variables depending on perks from commanders and harsher dice rolls (overlapping numbers, disadvantageous guy gets the chance to roll the same or higher number than the one with advantage). CK2 has a perfect base-line, not a perfect system. It's a matter of implementing it then tweaking to be more interesting. Remember, CK2's focus was never and never will be combat.

What I mean by overlapping dice rolls is giving the equation something like this: 1-150 against 50-200. so there's a significant chance of the one with the upper hand on numbers to get smashed by the underdog, while still maintaining numerical superiority. Then through perks and more detailed troop systems you can add tactics and counter-tactics that can compensate, you also take into the equation the troop quality and cultural specialization. It's done done...

 

[Sarissofoi]

One of the main problems with Sturgia is their towns have less prosperity. Currently I am examining lords going bankrupt issue. This is rare but when happens its damage is huge. Lords even cannot buy food, so all troops are starving and lords are wandering with wounded troops all time. In my tests I see that Sturgia and Aserai are the poorest kingdoms they both have towns with low prosperity at game start because of geographical disadvantage. Even their clans which have more than one castles and towns cannot make enough income because of low prosperity (especially towns). So they leave their fortifications with less number of garrisons also. I will think solutions.

Do you look at how defeat in battle affect Lords finance?
I mean cash reserves are clan based so if Clan lose few battles their also lose their gold. few lord from clan lose battles and get their gold plundered to the point they are out of gold.
Lord getting respawned after they quuickly escape could lead to them getting beaten few times in the week. Gold plundered is capped to 10k I think but still few beatings could dry clan finance fast especially if they are on losing side.

 

[Pejot]

...

So i finally build a calculator for mixed attacks. I've run some simulations in it and in game and compared. Seems like that's exactly how it works.

So the difference between attacker and defender is only in first round between two units. Attacker gets first hit nothing more. After that it's mixed rounds.

I've run some simulations on the same army compositions as before.

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

In both cases Army 2 was victorious. Average of left troops in 100 simulations when Army 2 was the attacker is 66. Average of left troops in 100 simulations when Army 2 was defender is 54.

In both cases Army 2 wiped out Army 1 cause of cav. Cav units no matter the tier won 75% of defending rounds and 82% of attacking rounds.

This makes a big difference in autocalc for battles of cav vs no cav armies.

 

[Koshkasa]

-snip-

Mighty interesting. Are the army compositions semi-random, or are you basing them off a composition you've seen in game?

 

[Pejot]

Mighty interesting. Are the army compositions semi-random, or are you basing them off a composition you've seen in game?

Both at the same time. Actually i observed some army compositions in regard of how many Inf, ranged and cav they had however tiers in it are totaly made up. Next tests will be based on some real armies i'll look for in game.

Edit:
Funny thing to note. There's only 20% chance to win a fight with looters having only T6 cav in same or higher number than enemy without any casualties.

 

[Koshkasa]

Edit:
Funny thing to note. There's only 20% chance to win a fight with looters having only T6 cav in same or higher number than enemy without any casualties.

That's a testament to why autocalc in its current state is a questionable mechanic and produces vastly differing results from real combat xD

 

[Pejot]

That's a testament to why autocalc in its current state is a questionable mechanic and produces vastly differing results from real combat xD

Tested it again with 2 armies of 100 man. Compositions based on NPC parites.

Spoiler: Armies composition

Tier	Army 1	Army 2
T1	13​	14​
T2	22​	19​
T3	18​	21​
T4	16​	9​
T5	11​	6​
T6	10​	6​
T4 Cav	4​	9​
T5 Cav	3​	8​
T6 Cav	3​	8​

Army 2 won in 87% of simulations as defender and 91% as attacker (both options run 100 times). This time cav had 20% bonus as it is currently. Again cav was major cause of victory. Without any counter they get flat buff and in autocalc they are champions even with RNG health.
Unfortunately current autocalc favors cav depended armies a lot. So for me it is clearly one of the factors making infantry based factions weaker just because they have no cavalry.
This calculation need to be rethinked and reworked from scratch in my opinion.

Edit:
Army 1 was based on Sturgian NPC lord and Army 2 was based on Vlandian NPC lord. I especially looked for lords with 100 man parties.

 

[hruza]

LOL, and another "Sturgia is weaker" game. This is new game started on 1.4.0.

 

[Maximum997]

current autocalc favors cav depended armies a lot. So for me it is clearly one of the factors making infantry based factions weaker just because they have no cavalry.
This calculation need to be rethinked and reworked from scratch in my opinion

They should get rid of this bonus. It doesnt make sense.

 

[Locklave]

This Autocal situation seems like a glaring oversight and most certainly contributes to both snowballing and specific to this thread Sturgia getting stomped.

If they haven't tested it, I'm at a loss for words. If they have tested it then why isn't this a major priority? This literally impacts the entire flow of the game and it seems like a unrefined crude mechanic at best.

 

[Fungo]

I just started to play on 1.4 and now the sturgians seem much stronger. I never use to loose much in battles, but now I do. Especially my cav get butchered. On realistic.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

So how about them Sturgians now?

 

[hruza]

So how about them Sturgians now?

"Even weaker then before". There is no help for offended Nord fan club here, no matter what is actual reality, they will always feel insulted by the fact, that Sturgians are not Nords and they will complain. According to them, Sturgia gets weaker after every patch.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

"Even weaker then before". There is no help for offended Nord fan club here, no matter what is actual reality, they will always feel insulted by the fact, that Sturgians are not Nords and they will complain. According to them, Sturgia gets weaker after every patch.

Meh, tbh all this 'complaining' has resulted in a beefy little buff to Sturgia.

 

[Maximum997]

So how about them Sturgians now?

They fixed:

1) Ulfhendars got armor. Now they are atlest better then t4
2) Archers got armor, now they are atlest better then t4
3) Spearmen got a decent shields, but they still have sh***y t2 armor.

 

[hruza]

They fixed:

1) Ulfhendars got armor. Now they are atlest better then t4
2) Archers got armor, now they are atlest better then t4
3) Spearmen got a decent shields, but they still have sh***y t2 armor.

Yea, as I said, you always find some reason why Sturgia is weak and weaker. Now it's t2 armor.

 

[hruza]

Meh, tbh all this 'complaining' has resulted in a beefy little buff to Sturgia.

It's not little buff, especially because other factions got nerfed. In particular imperial t5 units got their armors degraded. I wonder what will "Strugia is weak" little crowd invent this time.