Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RNG Combat

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RNG Combat Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RNG Combat - 11/1/2017 4:25:10 PM   
grenadier98

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/25/2017
Status: offline
Is there a way to switch the off RNG for combat results? If I understand this correctly, the combat results are calcultaed and AFTER the calculation is done, it adds or subtracts one for each side. I think this is a bad implementation, because it alters the combat results by a total of one point, regardless what the percentage chance was.

Additionally, if your expected casulaties are greater than 0, the RNG can give you an advantage or disadvantage. If the expected casualties are 0, than it can only be a disadvantage. Because of that, I think an expected casualty of 0 shouldn't be randomized at all. I end up having a lot of silly one point casulaties where normaly I would steamroll weak and cheap enemy units with very strong and expensive units of my own, mostly tanks against garrisons/waek corps, with expected losses like 0:6 or even higher. Losing points on these units when there shouldn't have taken any casualty at all ist really anoying and expensive.

Post #: 1
RE: RNG Combat - 11/1/2017 6:40:42 PM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 354
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline
I could give my opinion ... if you could expand your TLA.

(in reply to grenadier98)
Post #: 2
RE: RNG Combat - 11/1/2017 8:19:19 PM   
PJL1973


Posts: 133
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline
Personally I'd argue the opposite - all combat should have a minimum of 1 step per attack for both sides to reflect attrition and wear and tear. To compensate you could bump up the steps of damage to the unit being attacked in favourable conditions.

_____________________________


(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 3
RE: RNG Combat - 11/1/2017 11:15:00 PM   
Christolos


Posts: 817
Joined: 4/24/2014
From: Montreal, Canada
Status: offline
Hi grenadier98,

I also don't know what you mean by "RNG"...

C

< Message edited by CC1 -- 11/1/2017 11:17:29 PM >


_____________________________

“Excellence is never an accident. It is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, and intelligent execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives - choice, not chance, determines your destiny.”

-Aristotle-

(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 4
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 8:04:44 AM   
grenadier98

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/25/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PJL
Personally I'd argue the opposite - all combat should have a minimum of 1 step per attack for both sides to reflect attrition and wear and tear. To compensate you could bump up the steps of damage to the unit being attacked in favourable conditions.


That would mean a full strength, fully supplied, highly upgraded tank with high morale under the command of a 9 or 10 HQ should allways suffer one point of casualties, even when fighting against weakend garrisons or this junk Soviet Corps with no upgrades, low morale, no entrachement and not being under a HQ.
One point of strength on a tank like this costs more MPP than the rest of the other unit. I strongly disgraee with you're point.
As I mentioned before, some losses make no sense to me. Like my above mentioned tank example. Also bomber losses when bombing subs...

(in reply to PJL1973)
Post #: 5
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 8:10:07 AM   
grenadier98

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/25/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CC1

Hi grenadier98,

I also don't know what you mean by "RNG"...

C


Hi, I mean random number generator.

(in reply to Christolos)
Post #: 6
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 11:47:28 AM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 856
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grenadier98

As I mentioned before, some losses make no sense to me. Like my above mentioned tank example. Also bomber losses when bombing subs...



Subs have AA guns, most WWII subs spent more time on the surface than submerged

(in reply to grenadier98)
Post #: 7
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 1:39:04 PM   
Hubert Cater

 

Posts: 4067
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline
Hi Grenadier,

The intent of the +/- 1 system is to not only reflect some of the randomness in combat but also wear and tear and other damages that can occur from military actions due to combat, i.e. unexpected vehicle damage from use such as hard landings and so on.

But this can be disabled and the only way to do this is to create a customized campaign via the Editor.

1) Launch the Editor and select the desired campaign and then select File->SaveAs and save it as your customized name of choice.

2) Then Campaign Data->Combat Data and under General set the 'Combat Losses +/- (Attacker/Defender)' values to 0.

3) Then click on Apply Data, and in the Select Data column, select/highlight the 'Combat Losses +/- (Attacker/Defender)' entries, and then under the Select Targets column, click on 'Select All'. Then Ok and this should set the data for all combat for all unit types.

4) Exit these screens, File->Save and you are done.

5) Load this customized campaign in game and it should then work as you've desired.

Hubert

_____________________________


(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 8
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 1:48:42 PM   
grenadier98

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/25/2017
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

Subs have AA guns, most WWII subs spent more time on the surface than submerged



Yes, I know they do. But for good reasons they preferred to crashdive instead of fighting it out with the enemy planes on the surface.


< Message edited by grenadier98 -- 11/2/2017 1:50:18 PM >

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 9
RE: RNG Combat - 11/2/2017 2:02:28 PM   
OxfordGuy3


Posts: 856
Joined: 7/1/2012
From: Oxford, United Kingdom
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grenadier98

quote:

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

Subs have AA guns, most WWII subs spent more time on the surface than submerged



Yes, I know they do. But for good reasons they preferred to crashdive instead of fighting it out with the enemy planes on the surface.



True, but planes were still shot down by subs, see: https://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm

There's also always the danger of accidental loses (e.g. mechanical failure) on combat missions over sea.

(in reply to grenadier98)
Post #: 10
RE: RNG Combat - 11/15/2017 2:25:10 PM   
grenadier98

 

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/25/2017
Status: offline
Sorry for the late answer, but I couldn't post for several days, because the forum told me I had to wait seven days.

at Hubert Cater
Thanks a lot.

at OxfordGuy3
That's true. You're right. I just felt that regarding the large scale of units, which are resembled in this game, the chance of losing a whole point of accidental losses for every combat is too much. But it seems noone else has any problems with that, so maybe I need to reconsider and learn to live and play with these unexpected losses. After all I don't want to spoil the game balance and ruin the fun.

(in reply to OxfordGuy3)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RNG Combat Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.148