Luck is killing the game

[Kuniworth]

This luck-thing is really killing the fun out of SC. And now I´m not talking about research, although unfair it got a model that will assure success for the one who tries.

But combat-roles is the real problem. Last night it really struck me how senseless the current model are. I was playing Sand castle and performed the dutch gambit on him. Some turns later he attacks a fully entrenched(level 2) french army outside Bruxells supply 9 with Hq Bilotte(rating) 4 with a german army strenght 8 from a river hex with supply 7. I presume he had a Hq but the results?

French army loses 2 points. German army none.

This is of course nothing big but at least for me it relieves how dependent the matches are on lucky rolls. This is IMHO the biggest flaw with SC.

Ok someone says, luck will even out or it´s a minor facor. Well problem is that this is a strategy game. IRL unforseen events constantly changed the outcome of battles eg terrain, surprise, entrenchment etc. In SC we already have that PLUS a lucky roll factor. This makes the game so frustrating. Honestly guys Ive never played a game were losing been so frustrating, and I think you will agree with me.

A change I would like to see is the total reducing of the luck factor. Grigsby's War in Russia holds a great combat model. Combat is modelled by a complex odds-system. The Player cant however calculate the outcome of the battle becuase he dont know how entrenched nor how many divisions there are in the corps he is about to attack. Instead it´s estimation which give him a probably odds of succeding which can of course change a lot.

So to reduce luck factor we need to have less information on enemy entrenchment and strength or else we can´t get rid of the luck-factor which I consider a must.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Its not the "luck" factor that has the wrong feel. A random factor has always been required to represent the "soft" factors of combat.

SC combat model is fine as long as there are no large differences in the experience ratings.

When there are large differences in the experience ratings, the more experienced unit will suffer little or no damage. Its evident in any Barbarossa campaign that reflects the combat effectivness of the Germans. The Russians can't bleed the Germans, even at twice or greater loss rates.

Flipping the soft attack and defense values of the units will solve the problem. So will redoing the combat model, but that requires software changes.

[Logan Hartke]

I don't remember the details, but I remember recently reading about a British destroyer that was hit and, I believe, sunk by a bomb dropped from a Ju 88. While this might not seem too lucky or random, it does when you consider the fact that the bombs were not aimed. The Ju 88 was being attacked by enemy fighters (Spitfires, I believe) and decided to abort its bombing mission since the element of surprise had been compromised. The Ju 88 crew decided to jettison their load of bombs to gain speed. By random chance, the bombs acheived a direct hit on a destroyer. The Ju 88's bombardier had just jettisoned the load without aiming at all. he ended up sinking a British destroyer. That is the kind of randomness that happens in war. While this cannot be accurately or fairly replicated in strategy games, one should nto complain when it does. The story of arguably the most important battle of the war is a story of a great deal of "lucky breaks." Midway was won because the American plan didn't happen as anticipated. When a Japanese scout plane found the American ships, its radio went out. When the torpedo bombers arrived too early without a coordinated attack and without fighter escort, it was considered disaster. This, however, allowed the Americans to win the battle. It kept the Zeroes on the deck while the Dauntlesses found four of the Japanese carriers, devestating 80% or the Japanese air power in one action. Things like that happen. One cannot predict it, nor can one rely on it, but the element of is there. Call it random chance, luck, or divine intervention, but whatever it is, it happens. While I don't think a game designer should work it into a game, it happens and there's nothing someone can do about it, so stop complaining.

Logan Hartke

[SeaMonkey]

And also remember Nagumo's change of bombs for torpedos that delayed the strike at the American CVs, which allowed the SBDs, who just happened to be arriving, to catch the Jap. carriers with fully loaded aircraft on the flight deck.

[Logan Hartke]

Precisely. Stuff happens. It's war. Get over it.

Logan Hartke

[wlweir]

Or play chess.

[zappsweden]

experience play too large role in SC. It works well up to 2 stars but become to large at 3-4 stars.

I would like a linear model up to 2 stars and then a non-linear over 2 stars.

[ July 29, 2003, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Logan Hartke]

I don't know about that, zappsweden. I'd have to disagree. Experience actually might not play enough of a role in the game. Take, for example, the 4th Armored Division. Many examples of their successes can be cited, but one in my mind sticks out particularly well. After only 4 and 1/2 months (max) of fighting experience, the 4th Armored Division had to go up against the relatively inexperienced 5th Panzer Army. The 4th Armored was largely equipped with Sherman 75s at the time, while the 5th Panzer had recently been largely equipped with Panthers. The Shermans 75s, on the offensive ended up scoring incredibly high kill ratios against their less-experienced German counterparts. In one attack, 7 Shermans attacked 22 German panzers, knocking out 17 confirmed enemy tanks for the loss of only 1 Sherman. The other 5 German tanks fled. The result of the battle that the 4th Armored fought against the 5th Panzer near Arracourt between 19 September and 22 September 1944 was an American loss of 14 Shermans and 7 Stuarts and a German loss of 107 tank (many Panthers) and 30 StuGs. Experience matters; the numbers don't lie.

Logan Hartke

[Kuniworth]

Logan, I was suspecting answers like this. Let me first say that I am the greatest defender of SC and play this frustrating game day and night.

You gave me an example. A JU-88 dropping a bomb on a destroyer is not the same thing as destroying an enemy task-force fleet in SC.

Experience got nothing to do with luck either.

We are playing a strategy game here. Luck is sometimes totally out of proportion in SC which makes you frustrated with the game.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Logan Hartke:

I don't know about that, zappsweden. I'd have to disagree. Experience actually might not play enough of a role in the game. Take, for example, the 4th Armored Division. Many examples of their successes can be cited, but one in my mind sticks out particularly well. After only 4 and 1/2 months (max) of fighting experience, the 4th Armored Division had to go up against the relatively inexperienced 5th Panzer Army. The 4th Armored was largely equipped with Sherman 75s at the time, while the 5th Panzer had recently been largely equipped with Panthers. The Shermans 75s, on the offensive ended up scoring incredibly high kill ratios against their less-experienced German counterparts. In one attack, 7 Shermans attacked 22 German panzers, knocking out 17 confirmed enemy tanks for the loss of only 1 Sherman. The other 5 German tanks fled. The result of the battle that the 4th Armored fought against the 5th Panzer near Arracourt between 19 September and 22 September 1944 was an American loss of 14 Shermans and 7 Stuarts and a German loss of 107 tank (many Panthers) and 30 StuGs. Experience matters; the numbers don't lie.

Logan Hartke

In SC it is more like, "veteran unit suffered 0 points and green ones 3". Try yourself putting a 4 star Army attacking a green 0 star army. The ratio of losses you get in these kind of battles if you reroll the battles several times are perhaps 10:1 or even higher (I have not tested myself just going through experienced feel of the game).

[Logan Hartke]

See, zapp, this is where all that typically useless historical trivia comes in handy. There is a very effective way of killing very experienced units. The Red Army employed this method a lot and they weren't too bad at it. I assume that you run into this problem the most often on the Russian Front when playing as the Soviets. All you have to do is what the Soviets actually did. I like to call this the "Stalingrad" technique. Now, I'm not going to try to make this sound easy, because against a human, it's not. What you have to do is isolate X number of experienced units. There are two ways of going about this. One is to bait the experienced unit with a juicy target; say a city or an HQ. Leave only a narrow corridor of armies to advance down with no apparent cap at the end. Make sure that the enemy force is allowed to penetrate at least two hexes into your rear area or this tactic WILL NOT work. When said unit goes back into your rear lines, eliminated whatever inexperienced unit is following it, then plug the hole with a fresh army. This army is the most important one and will have to bear the brunt of an attack from two sides. Once you have isolated the unit in question, just wait until it runs out of supplies (say... 3 turns) then attack it. The playing field will have been evened and it will be an easy kill. Do this as many times as you can. The other way of isolating good enemy units involves killing the inexperienced units on its flank, then surrounding it, holding for at least two turns, killing the unit, then pulling back to your original lines and refitting. Also, when playing as the Germans, don't let yourself fall into the same trap. I've even been able to employ the first tactic on a very large scale against the computer. I put myself at a severe disadvantage against the computer who was playing the Axis. I opened a two-hex hole in my line to let 1-2 enemy units in to trap. Instead of 1-2 units, the computer sent a half-dozen including an HQ. At first, I didn't have to forces to react to this breakthrough. To make long story short, I destroyed 3-5 enemy units including an HQ and only let a couple break back through to their own lines. It put such a hole in their line and cost them so many experienced armies and panzer armies, that the computer never recovered on the northern front. Immediately after destroying the isolated units and refitting, I went for the recently plugged hole of green, second-line troops with my armies and tanks that gained experience killing off those incredibly experienced German armies. I punched a hole that was never patched; their whole front line broke down, and a few months later, I took Berlin. All the result of a small-scale trap I laid. That's how you slay the dragon.

Logan Hartke

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Kuniworth:

[QB] This luck-thing is really killing the fun out of SC. And now I´m not talking about research, although unfair it got a model that will assure success for the one who tries.

But combat-roles is the real problem. Last night it really struck me how senseless the current model are. I was playing Sand castle and performed the dutch gambit on him. Some turns later he attacks a fully entrenched(level 2) french army outside Bruxells supply 9 with Hq Bilotte(rating) 4 with a german army strenght 8 from a river hex with supply 7. I presume he had a Hq but the results?

French army loses 2 points. German army none.

In case there was something amiss I ran a simple test using the Campaign Editor to reproduce the situation above (while I admit it may not be exact) I came up with an expected combat loss ratio of 1 : 1. With the +/- 1 point variation it is more than possible to produce a 0 : 2 ratio as you've experienced.

While combat formulas take many factors into account (i.e. experience, attack and defence types, defensive bonuses, entrenchment, HQ ratings, rivers etc) and are well defined in the manual, after that there is a +/- 1 point variation thrown into the mix to add some randomness to the battle and overall replayability.

As stated in a recent Tech thread, while at the time of design I belived a +/- 1 point variation was small enough to produce reasonable variety without overly skewing combat results, it is not to say that I did not expect others may not like it .

Funny thing is I remember playing Panzer General (way back when) and they included a random "rugged defence" factor that could knock down a 4 stared King Tiger from 15 strength to 7 every once in a while, and I always thought that was excessive :eek:

Hubert

[ July 29, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[KDG]

Thanks for the info, Hubert. I know some people would like a toggle switch to turn off the ± 1 in combat results.

The big question is this though. If a 3 exp. army attacks a 0 exp. corps., the expected combat ratio is 4.3 : -.6 How does this relate then with the randomness of combat.

Does this mean that equation can be either 5 : 0 or 4 : 0, with no chance of the army taking any damage?

Or do you set the equation at 4 : 0, then use randomness thus allowing the results to be anywhere between 5 : 0 to 3 : 1?

I think almost all players believe that the army should be able to take 1 point in damage during the attack.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Logan Hartke

Numbers don't lie, but they can be used to prove whatever you want.

You missed the point. Experience matters, but in SC, at a certain point, experienced units will suffer no losses. Your method of cutting off and isolating experienced units doesn't work against experienced players.

The Germans should start the '39 campaign with at least one experience bar, to reflect doctrine and training superiority. Try it. By the time of Russian invasion, the 3 bar and 4 bar experienced units will be unstoppable. Thats why experienced players run around with 4 to 6 str pt units. You can't hurt them from the ground.

Historically, that is what happened (as well as other factors). But the Germans did suffer losses which atritted away the German experienced manpower. We can't reflect that in SC.

Some of the older threads have worked out the combat formula and have isolated the affects the various factors have.

Mr H

Thanks for the response.

KDG

Excellent. Agree about the min 1pt of damage.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by KDG:

Thanks for the info, Hubert. I know some people would like a toggle switch to turn off the ± 1 in combat results.

True, this might make for an interesting option but from my design philoshpy/point of view it would run the risk of having the results of some battles completely known to both players before they even fight them.

Take for example the opening moves for Poland, with exact results each time, a cookie cutter approach to this game (or any game under the same circumstances) would become even more enhanced and IMO directly affect replayability. While some may enjoy exact combat results each time, from the most simplistic of views, I felt it did not reflect the reality of combat, i.e. where a good player/commander-in-chief has to always adapt to the results of the battlefield and maintain an overall dynamic strategic approach that is essential to success (regardless of initial plans or anticipated results).

The big question is this though. If a 3 exp. army attacks a 0 exp. corps., the expected combat ratio is 4.3 : -.6 How does this relate then with the randomness of combat.

This would result as expected, initially the ratio is rounded to 4 : 0 and can then have results as follows (with the +/-1 variance):

5 : 0, 4 : 0, 3 : 0, 5 : 1, 4 : 1, 3 : 1

and results with a -1 for the defender would be thrown out and replaced by 0.

Hope this helps,

Hubert

[Logan Hartke]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Logan Hartke

Numbers don't lie, but they can be used to prove whatever you want.

So am I misconstruing facts and figures to prove an unrelated point? That's typically what that statement implies. I was trying to show that in some cases, there should be no losses taken. Those 134 AFVs lost by the Germans would take them months to replace, but Americans, at the height of wartime production were producing more than 50 tanks a day. A loss of 21 tanks would be a drop in the industrial bucket, and, on average, only one crewmember died when a Sherman was hit, so manpower losses to the Americans in a battle like that would've numbered less than 40. If one point of damage was taken, it would require, what, about 20-30 IPPs to replace, which, in this game, is about 15% of US production in a turn, which is a ridiculously high amount of industrial expenditure to replace losses like that. It just wouldn't be accurate. That system would not accurately reflect combat losses. The current system, works, but I think that there should be a manpower limit placed on countries. Germany shouldn't be able to create a border to border force on the Russian Front; they didn't have enough people. A country should not be allowed to create as many units as its industry can equip. THAT is what's not realistic or fair about the Russian Front fighting.

Logan Hartke

[Shaka of Carthage]

Logan Hartke

So am I misconstruing facts and figures to prove an unrelated point? That's typically what that statement implies.

Take a chill pill. All it meant was that your example doesn't prove that some combat should result is no losses.

The point about US production has been covered many times here. Not relevant to the discussion about the combat results.

Manpower issue as well. I totally agree about the ability to produce units not being realisitc. Greys and Reds have no limits on the units, unlike the Germans and Russians who did. I will agree that its produces a unrealistic Eastern Front. Thats why when I play SC, I almost always have to play with options on the air and ground units.

Just so we are clear in future discussions, manpower losses would be the Infantry. Armor losses would be more in equipment, not manpower, but SC doesn't really make that distinction.

The random factor of +/- 1 works fine. The problem as KDG (and others) pointed out is that when you get a 3bar exper unit going against a 0bar exper unit, that 3bar unit doesn't receive losses. Per Mr H's example, there is a possiblity of it receiving a 1str point loss. I'm reluctant to say I don't believe it, because I understand the issue with standard deviation. Lets just say that in all the games I've played, I don't remember any 3 or 4 bar unit taking losses in ground combat against a 0 bar unit. And I've created a scenario that produces those results and have played it against humans quite a bit.

As I stated earlier, one of the main issues with the Eastern front fighting, was that it attritted away "experienced" German manpower. That doesn't happen in SC.

[Logan Hartke]

I'll agree there. I think that we both see the problems in generally the same way.

Logan Hartke

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:

Lets just say that in all the games I've played, I don't remember any 3 or 4 bar unit taking losses in ground combat against a 0 bar unit.

Good point, I wanted to double check this just to make sure I wasn't telling SC stories here... and ran a quick test (which can be easily duplicated) with the 1939 Fall Weiss Campaign by setting all front line German units to 3 bars of experience and took 1 point hits on three of the six units I tweaked (all ratios 0 : x) so it does look like things are acting as expected.

Hope this helps,

Hubert