Overwhelming Numbers Rule

[pzgndr]

I have gotten trivial combat to work for overwhelming numbers. The official optional rule is for a 5:1 or better ratio with an exception to allow possible defender withdrawal. Since the rule is optional and the defender withdraw is problematic to code, what I have done in v1.22.01 that I'm working on is to implement overwhelming numbers with a 6:1 ratio. I can easily change this back to 5:1 but I think making it mandatory at 6:1 should be an acceptable compromise.

I am steadily tackling issues. I posted the v1.22.00 beta that focused on PBEM and 3rd Party Combat issues. I'm working on v1.22.01 focusing on kingdom issues and combat issues. Getting overwhelming numbers to work is a plus. I have also made improvements to piracy. My ToDo list also has improvements to naval combat, getting AI-AI field combats with chits to work, and getting AI to attempt reinforcement during combat. Slowly getting there...

[Pans]

thanks a lot - that sounds really good

[pzgndr]

The defender withdrawal problem was bugging me. I think I've got it resolved now where the program performs an automatic attempt to withdraw, so if the attacker has 6:1 then the defender retreats or else the battle goes to trivial combat as I had it. I need to verify it works. Good news is with this issue resolved I'll move on to AI-AI chit combat and wrestle with that for a while.

[Pans]

great to hear any Progress. Thanks Bill.
Did David told you about our river crossing issue?

cheers
Andreas

[pzgndr]

Yes, the good news is I found and fixed the reported river crossing and pursuit issues already. The bad news is my testing today verified the overwhelming numbers withdrawal scheme I thought might work failed to do so. Basically trying to use the combat_retreat_units combat function during the land movement phase really screws things up. I might be able to get this to work during the combat phase prior during resolution of trivial combat, as a pre-combat check. I just need to find the correct place(s) in the code to do this and this is problematic. If I cannot get withdrawal to work, then 6:1 trivial combat without defender withdrawal attempt will have to do.

[alexvand]

Just glad to hear that you are still plugging away at this!

Thanks for the effort!

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: alexvand
Just glad to hear that you are still plugging away at this!
Thanks for the effort!

You're welcome! I hope you and others are enjoying the game again.

Alright, an update. I have gone back to the 6:1 without defender retreat attempt. One thing I tried had the defender disappearing. Another thing I tried had every unit on the map disappearing; I considered this to be double-plus bad. The problem with the combat code is that it is spread out in multiple routines to cover the various possibilities (hotseat, human vs AI, AI vs human, AI vs AI, PBEM regular combat, PBEM quick combat, third party combat, etc.) I am not at all convinced that I could find every instance of trivial combat called for and implement a defender withdraw attempt (automatic or otherwise) without missing something or introducing something bad. And, frankly, it's not worth it. We're talking about 6:1 superiority, so it's simply making combat resolution quicker without a field combat resolution. It will have to do.

[Daniel Amieiro]

Trivial combat could be an option for the game like others options?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Daniel Amieiro
Trivial combat could be an option for the game like others options?

Could be, yes, but I found the options code to be confusing and chose not to mess with it. Making it effective at 6:1 keeps it simple, and really shouldn't adversely affect anything?

[Daniel Amieiro]

the trivial combat rule has the problem of being mandatory and do no let withdraw. It makes that high withdraw leaders (like nappy or welly, especially wellington because has no two turn move) with a bad first combat result will be being trapped with an big force on next turn without needing to throw dice... Moore's escape from Corunna (i live in corunna) will be imposible because will be crushed without withdrawal..

[pzgndr]

I hear what you're saying. But I question why anyone would risk a key leader outnumbered 6:1 or more. Seems like quite a gamble and probably would never happen; would you actually do this in a real game? Again, I had problems trying to make this an optional rule and trying to implement withdraw. I think 6:1 without withdraw is a reasonable compromise to the 5:1 with withdraw rule. Pans and alexvand above say OK, and you have a concern. I can keep the change as is, or at some point later undo it or adjust the threshold to 7:1 or something (like maybe make an exception if the smaller force has a leader present). I'll be interested to see additional feedback once players start using v1.22.02 when it is officially released shortly. Is 6:1 a major problem for players or an acceptable new feature? Let's see how it goes for a while.

[Daniel Amieiro]

It's a menor detail. I can go for mandatory trivial. I only said optional if it was an easy option.

In real games, the main issue of 553 wellington is their withdrawal. It's a fairly commom maneuver use wellington back to france with little infantry and escape and let Charles do the big front with russians and prussians (cavalry).

France usually goes with one corp more than wellington has and expect luck to their assault or similar tactic (usually a davo or similar leader) because welly goes with lesser factors. But if i'm france and i can go with (for example) 5 corps vs 1 with welly assuring no withdrawal i will use it...

Vs the computer is not important. The AI does bigger mistakes