Why are simulations rigged against high tier troops?

[Skatan]

Well I would imagine that they are using the exact same simulator as you are. Therefore it is a level playing in that respect as they would be losing their best units first too. Then again it actually gives the advantage to the player if they fight the battles themselves. Basically players lose out if they are lazy and simulate, but gain something if they put in the effort and fight the fight themselves. Let's be honest here most battles against 20 looters takes about 1 min plus load times, so to not fight them is pure laziness upon the player. Therefore they lose any sympathy from me.

I wouldn't say "laziness" of the player is as much in question here as the "tedium" of fighting numerous, hundreds even, of these pointless battles just to level up your lowest rank units before an actual battle that matters. It was fun in the first playthrough, but the umpteenth? Not so much.

It's a core basic of the game same as in the old M&B, I accept that of course, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. The game is great _despite_ this part, not because of it. A functional autocalc that was balanced and fair would remove a lot of the tedium on your second, third and onwards playthroughs. Am I lazy then? Perhaps, but I prefer to call it impatient. I just wanna move on faster to the things that matter since I already know the outcome.

 

[markp27]

I wouldn't say "laziness" of the player is as much in question here as the "tedium" of fighting numerous, hundreds even, of these pointless battles just to level up your lowest rank units before an actual battle that matters. It was fun in the first playthrough, but the umpteenth? Not so much.

It's a core basic of the game same as in the old M&B, I accept that of course, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. The game is great _despite_ this part, not because of it. A functional autocalc that was balanced and fair would remove a lot of the tedium on your second, third and onwards playthroughs. Am I lazy then? Perhaps, but I prefer to call it impatient. I just wanna move on faster to the things that matter since I already know the outcome.

I am wondering why you need to fight hundreds of battles? If you herd the looters into one area that is a dead end, then you just need to do one battle as other looters are drawn in. After a short time in the game, you can then start only recruiting level 3 plus troops, as they start appearing in large numbers after about 1 year in game time.

 

[Skatan]

I am wondering why you need to fight hundreds of battles? If you herd the looters into one area that is a dead end, then you just need to do one battle as other looters are drawn in. After a short time in the game, you can then start only recruiting level 3 plus troops, as they start appearing in large numbers after about 1 year in game time.

Not in my games, there's still 90% level 1 recruits in the villages. I even had 2 parties running around doing quests on their own to increase the realtionships, as well as doing it myself, and sure I can find some tier 2 and sometimes 3, but that's a minority for me.

Herding is useful in some areas as you say, but I mean the hundreds of battles over a whole playthrough of say 10+ in game years or more. When I create a party from a companion, I feed them high level troops since they are semi-'tarded and die otherwise and recruit new for myself and level them up. Then again with the second party and third etc. The cycle of recruitment never ends with steward 200+ since it's hard to keep a high number of troops unscathed in battle (unless you play HA of course, but I'm talking about other factions).

nota bene, my latest playthroughs have been more infantry oriented factions since I found the HA/cavalry oriented factions to simple to win with. This of course affects my playstyle and challenges to replenish troops because even when I am outnumbering my opponents I still lose units.

 

[markp27]

Not in my games, there's still 90% level 1 recruits in the villages. I even had 2 parties running around doing quests on their own to increase the realtionships, as well as doing it myself, and sure I can find some tier 2 and sometimes 3, but that's a minority for me.

Herding is useful in some areas as you say, but I mean the hundreds of battles over a whole playthrough of say 10+ in game years or more. When I create a party from a companion, I feed them high level troops since they are semi-'tarded and die otherwise and recruit new for myself and level them up. Then again with the second party and third etc. The cycle of recruitment never ends with steward 200+ since it's hard to keep a high number of troops unscathed in battle (unless you play HA of course, but I'm talking about other factions).

nota bene, my latest playthroughs have been more infantry oriented factions since I found the HA/cavalry oriented factions to simple to win with. This of course affects my playstyle and challenges to replenish troops because even when I am outnumbering my opponents I still lose units.

The question then becomes are you fighting multiple battles one after another? As troops are still injured even though it does not show it, unless you give them time to heal.

 

[froggyluv]

There was a mod for mount and blade and perhaps sword of damocles also did - in which auto calc batteles literally check all the tiers as well as equipments of each soldier and terrain into consideration. This is why computers were made - to take raw data with 10 million stipulations and give us legible results.


Cmon TW - we deserve better here than that ultra lame system you got going now. It utterly cheapens the feel of the strategy game that is surely within your reach

 

[Skatan]

The question then becomes are you fighting multiple battles one after another? As troops are still injured even though it does not show it, unless you give them time to heal.

I guess I do quite often yes, it's contextual though depending on my surroundings and whatever war my faction is in or not. I try to keep aggression up mainly because there's really nothing else to do in between.

Today was the first time I've heard soldiers can be hurt even if they are not displayed as injured, as you mention (if I understand your comment correctly that is). Is this confirmed and does it mean some soldiers start without full HP?

Edit: my faction in question is battania and having wars ongoing against vlandia, the empires and azerai means most battanian nobles run around and recruit a lot which means mostly I find empty villages or recruits. I have cultivated one noble line village up to 40+ relation to get as many fians as possible, the rest range between 0-20 or so.

 

[mylittletantan]

As troops are still injured even though it does not show it

Is this confirmed and does it mean some soldiers start without full HP

Just had a look at the MobileParty class. They have a TroopRoster that stores CharacterObjects. COs have a property called hitpoints but it just returns maximum health so troops should always either be wounded or at maximum health. If the characterObject is a hero, a Hero object that does store health is used to return actual health.

So unless @markp27 can provide a source (the code that shows non hero unit hp being stored between battles/spawning without maximum health), troops do not store health between battles and should always spawn with maximum health.

 

[Skatan]

Thanks! That's what I always thought, so I'm glad an thankful you confirmed it @mylittletantan

 

[markp27]

Just had a look at the MobileParty class. They have a TroopRoster that stores CharacterObjects. COs have a property called hitpoints but it just returns maximum health so troops should always either be wounded or at maximum health. If the characterObject is a hero, a Hero object that does store health is used to return actual health.

So unless @markp27 can provide a source (the code that shows non hero unit hp being stored between battles/spawning without maximum health), troops do not store health between battles and should always spawn with maximum health.

Cannot provide proof as I do not look at coding of the game. However I did a test on this in game. Fought small groups of looters first fight no deaths, second fight 1 death, third fight 6 of my troops dead. So that leads to the conclusion that the troops injuries are accumulating. As to the groups sizes the first I fought was 8 looters, second battle 4 looters and 3rd battle was against 8 looters again. My own troops remained at 15 lowest level troops.

P.S. do you know when I.S. is doing his next campaign for this game?

 

[mylittletantan]

However I did a test on this in game

For an explanation on how simulated battles work check out the detailed description in Light Combat Mod Collection.

"And the Damage is compared to another random number between 0 and the striked max hitpoints (usually 100). If the Damage is higher, the striked instantly dies, and if it's lower, nothing happens."

Simulated battles are very random, those results could have come in any order.
Instead of claiming mechanics work a certain way based on a small sample size, you could ask if they do / for confirmation. Several people on the forum have investigated / posted / explained the code for various features/mechanics so someone would likely answer you. The less misinformation on the forums the better.

And no, last I heard was when the next patch drops so soon(hopefully).

 

[markp27]

"And the Damage is compared to another random number between 0 and the striked max hitpoints (usually 100). If the Damage is higher, the striked instantly dies, and if it's lower, nothing happens."

Simulated battles are very random, those results could have come in any order.
Instead of claiming mechanics work a certain way based on a small sample size, you could ask if they do / for confirmation. Several people on the forum have investigated / posted / explained the code for various features/mechanics so someone would likely answer you. The less misinformation on the forums the better.

And no, last I heard was when the next patch drops so soon(hopefully).

That was last updated when 1.4.1 came to beta, can you confirm that the way it works is still the same? as 1.4.1 was when TW made auto-battle improvements.

 

[mylittletantan]

can you confirm that the way it works is still the same

Yes, just checked the 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 dlls. In the function ApplySimulationDamageToSelectedTroop(), if it is not a hero the check MBRandom.RandomInt(this._selectedSimulationTroop.MaxHitPoints()) < damage is used to determine outcome. If true the troop is either wounded or killed, if false nothing happens.

So the part I quoted is still accurate.
I haven't seen the mounted bonus so that might have been removed (or I missed it) meaning mount doesn't matter.
I think they removed the different number of round calculation for player battles, it looks like all battles are calculated the same way now.
The number of rounds calculation seems to have been changed, at least for non settlement battles. In his description it seems to be Pow(number of troops, 0.6). Now it's
if (numDefenders <= 10)
defenderRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)numAttackers * 3f, (float)numDefenders * 0.3f));
attackerRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)numDefenders * 3f, (float)numAttackers * 0.3f));
else
defenderRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)(numAttackers * 2), MathF.Pow((float)numDefenders, 0.6f)));
attackerRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)(numDefenders * 2), MathF.Pow((float)numAttackers, 0.6f)));

 

[markp27]

Yes, just checked the 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 dlls. In the function ApplySimulationDamageToSelectedTroop(), if it is not a hero the check MBRandom.RandomInt(this._selectedSimulationTroop.MaxHitPoints()) < damage is used to determine outcome. If true the troop is either wounded or killed, if false nothing happens.

So the part I quoted is still accurate.
I haven't seen the mounted bonus so that might have been removed (or I missed it) meaning mount doesn't matter.
I think they removed the different number of round calculation for player battles, it looks like all battles are calculated the same way now.
The number of rounds calculation seems to have been changed, at least for non settlement battles. In his description it seems to be Pow(number of troops, 0.6). Now it's
if (numDefenders <= 10)
defenderRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)numAttackers * 3f, (float)numDefenders * 0.3f));
attackerRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)numDefenders * 3f, (float)numAttackers * 0.3f));
else
defenderRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)(numAttackers * 2), MathF.Pow((float)numDefenders, 0.6f)));
attackerRounds = MBRandom.RoundRandomized(Math.Min((float)(numDefenders * 2), MathF.Pow((float)numAttackers, 0.6f)));

Thank you for the clarification. My intent was not to mislead but the state what I seen in the few times I have used simulated battles. Which I will admit is very occasional. Now I just need to find a way to take my luck on this game and use it in that mythical world called real life