Printable View
At the net their was a hot topic on 'The quest for a new Florin standard' 2 days ago I posted some questions on the situational factors, and thier impact at 10k and under, the thread died in its tracks and ive not heard from any of the 10k and under guys; How come? (im not gonna let the issue die).....
Well, I think the thread died down because of it's nature, trying to find an ultimate florin level that everybody who isnt a noob MUST PLAY until RTW comes out. That never happened because it is going to be impossible to change people's minds without actually playing for some time. I dont think anybody "won" or anything.
If you want my opinion, I think that the situational factors will make more of an effect at lower settings because of the lower strength and morale of the troops. Since it is harder to survive a charge, hills would seem a bit more important for their charge-slowing ability. I do not know about rain, however. I dont know a lot about the stats and how things are calculated, because the game relies on a lot of voodoo math to calculate everything. If I had more than just a suspicion of something, I would have been more active in the thread.
How strong should situational factors be, in your opinion?
Also, I think that many of the people at the NET read only the "recent topics" list, and cannot be bothered to navigate to the forums when the link disappears beneath the bottom. Try bumping the thread.
The simple answer is that situational factors have the same impact no matter what florin level...but of course nothing is simple http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
The only thing that might mean more is the morale bonus for being uphill (+2 I think) A low morale unit that would rout while standing on level ground might only waver with that +2 bonus...but it still depends on how big the morale impact was for it to rout (maybe so big anyway that +2 is not enough)
The combat stats themselves are not really important. Its the difference that matters. 2 units each with 0 attack/defense will kill each other just as quick/slow as if they each had 20 in attack/defense.
The morale loss from lots of fatigue means more for low morale units as they are closer to the rout point of course. The first lost bar doesnt mean anything though..the second bar means -2 atk, third bar is -3 atk, -1 def plus -3 morale.
For those people who thinks 15k now has too much morale(with the +2 we got in VI) then 10k is the answer as that more or less means a general reduction in valour of 1 on most units..of course depending on what army you are using but from what I have seen and what Im using myself I see the same units being used just with one less valour.
Before the patch 10k was paradise for cavalry and gameplay was very different compared to 15k. But with swipe gone I feel the gameplay/army selection is the same as 15k, just with that -2 morale in general.
Think that was it?
CBR
Yes if we look at hills then they are important for swords if playing a low florins (all or most units being equal valour) The hill means cavalry has its charge reduced (dont know how much really...only my experience) and non-spear units will not lose that many troops and therefore not rout.
A spear unit wont feel that charge anyway so standing on a hill to survive against cavalry is not very important.
CBR
Well, doesnt less valour upgrades mean less defense, and a greater impact from strong charges? There is more than just a morale reduction, I think.
Well yes and no..
If playing at high florins then it will be a v1 cav charging a v3-4 foot. while a low florin game it could mean v0 cav versus v0 foot. If the valour is equal then the foot will have higher losses. The stats themselves are not important...its the difference that matters.
CBR
Ill repeat the post (I begin to become suspicions of the 10k under supporters motives in 5k7k10k, and I get no response).... the fact is the situastional factors will have an EXTREEM impact on games below 10k, the loss of one fatigue bar from marching the length of the map (or up-hill) results in (quite tired) -2 attack to the unit... that ladies and gents is 50% of a v0 CMAA's attack Plus the camping defender who remains quite fresh gets +1 to his attack.... add the combat penality for the attacker attacking up-hill, and the combat bonus to the defender for counter-attacking down hill; and the attackers are totally out classed....., anyone (imho) hosting a map with even moderate hills and defending (and camping) is basicly hosting a sucker game (1v1s) Are the supporters of 10k under going 1v1 attacking hills? When you begain to compile the other situtational factors the advantages enjoyed by hill campers are staggering....(Anyone willing to attack me best of 7 on Acre at say 7k)?
[I]
Hm Ill repeat my answer then.
The combat modifiers for fatigue and terrain have same effect for combat results. It doesnt matter what the actual numbers are (v0 or v4)
If a unit loses 2 in attack it will kill less enemies per combat cycle. Its calculated with the formula 1.9% x 1.2^(attack value - defense value) As the chance to kill per combat cycle.
So on average the unit will kill only 69.4% of what it did without that -2 modifier. As all valour gives both defense and attack there is no difference in kills over time. A v4 CMAA will on average make same number of kills against another v4 CMAA as if they both were v0 and any modifiers (positive or negative) will give same effect no matter what they valour upgrade is.
CBR
perhaps i'm odd, or perhaps i'm just stubborn, but i do now, and have allways enjoyed higher cash games...afterall...i prefer to be able to afford to upgrade my elite troops....instead of just my peasants. *wondering how a v3 cmaa would do do against a v4 ms*
V4 MS wins http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by [b
Kokami,
I think you'll find v3 cmaa and v4 mil sgt to be closely matched. Those two units would have identical 7/7 att/def stats with the cmaa having higher morale and slightly less charge.
Lahll,
Some things I noticed in low morale games is death of the general is more likely to rout your army, units are more likely to rout at the 49%/50% casualty transition, casualties from ranged units are more likely to rout a weakened unit, outnumbered units don't hold as long and "positional" routs from enemy units standing on your flank or behind you are more likely. I don't think these things necessarily make taking hills more difficult at low moral in 1v1, but they can cause the conflict to be over sooner. If you have a flanking force on the way when your main battleline routs because it was outnumbered, that could make you want higher morale. The outnumbered penalty can help attackers take hills in team games.
As far as hills are concerned, it's just a handicap you grant the opponent or take for yourself. I think hills are quite difficult to take in both low and high morale 1v1 games, and it's more a case of being challenged than suckered. After all, if you loose attacking a hill, all the defender can claim is that he won with the help of a handicap. We know that given opponents of about equal skill and armies of about equal combat strength, the hill will make the difference.
not sure what this thread is meant to address. but my feeling about terrain is, although LJ had said the bonus associated with them are unchanged since stw/mi.. seriously most games i played in mtw or vi, the feel is that terrain is not as important as in stw/mi.. because i hardly see the manifestation of its bonus in battle outcome.. i.e. in theory one on higher ground should have the advantage in melee due to charging and fighting downhill.. and it also help boost morale fighting downhill. the only advantage i see is that missile shoot longer, thats all. i feel stw/mi give me a more realistic feel of the terrain impact on battle.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
i dont understand about the 'sucker game' issue when one host hilly map, and camp uphill. there is no official competitve ladder in mtw like in stw. if one is game for the challenge.. join the game then. if one doesnt like this type of battle.. well.. no one is forcing him to. even if he doesnt know till in the battle, just excuse politely that he doesnt like attacking uphill vs camper and leave the game.
Excellent thread. Thanks for answering some of my questions concerning morale and florins. After fighting lots of uphill battles (as well as snow and desert) my gut feeling was that at low florins it was much harder.
ichiRW
my point was, as you go lower in koku, the difference in combat modifiers percentage becomes more pronounced,(for CBR); your correct the -2 for fatigue stays the same but, at v0 for CMAA thats 50% of their attack, if it were a v4 CMAA it would be 25% of their attack..follow?
The chance to kill (CTK) on a strike depends on the difference between attack and defend, and not the percentage by which one value has been reduced.
v0 cmaa (4/4) vs v0 cmaa (4/4) is 4 - 4 = 0 is 1.9% CTK
v4 cmaa (8/8) vs v4 cmaa (8/8) is 8 - 8 = 0 is 1.9% CTK
Give the first unit -2 atk for being quite tired:
v0 cmaa (2/4) vs v0 cmaa (4/4) is 2 - 4 = -2 is 1.3% CTK
v4 cmaa (6/8) vs v4 cmaa (8/8) is 6 - 8 = -2 is 1.3% CTK
i think the discussion over at net was going good, but it did fizal out .. your question about hills is someth9ing i will look into and try to pay some attention to http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
Konnichiwa,
Isn't there also a fixed morale penalty for fatigue?
Fatigue combat modifiers:
4 bars (fresh) no penalties
3 bars (quite fresh) no penalties
2 bars (quite tired) -2 atk
1 bars (very tired) -3 atk, -1 def, -3 morale
0 bars (exhausted) -4 atk, -2 def, -6 morale
0 bars (totally exhausted) -6 atk, -3 def, -8 morale
Map sizes are:
Large map = 31 x 31 tiles (25 x 25 minus red zone)
Medium map = 26 x 26 tiles (20 x 20 minus red zone)
Small map = 20 x 20 tiles (14 x 14 minus red zone)
Fatigue rate due to walking tested on large, flat, arid map:
1st bar is lost at about 4:40 min
2nd bar is lost at about 11:15 min
3rd bar is lost at about 30:45 min
Fatigue rate due to standing:
1st bar is lost at 20 min
2nd bar is lost at 40 min
Time required to walk edge to edge on a large map:
Speed 4 unit takes 14:30 min
Speed 6 unit takes 9:40 min
Speed 9 unit takes 6:30 min
Time required to walk edge to edge on a small map (56% of large map):
Speed 4 unit takes 8:07 min
Speed 6 unit takes 5:25 min
Speed 9 unit takes 3:38 min
The walking fatigue is recoverable up to whatever ceiling the standing fatigue imposes. So, the player who has been moving his units can equalize fatigue with a player who has never moved, but it takes time.
Thanks Yuuki,
A unit at 1 bar suffers a morale penalty of 3. This is the same for a v0 and a v3 unit. Since the routing point is equal for both and v3 has 6 more morale than v0, the penalty will (relatively) hurt the vo unit more than v3. In other words: more likely that -3 causes morale to drop below the routpoint.
The same is of course true for other penalties like enemy units nearby, no flank support.
Morale is present in high florin games, but units will endure more before breaking. So other elements will kick in to decide a victory.
Your feeling seems right ichi san.
Ah yes, but as Yuuki just stated you can always return to the point of the camper's tiredness by waiting a while. So in essence fatigue due to the size of the map should be a point. Unless the camper takes his chances and rushes down to fight you. But then he isn't really a camper anymore is he?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
But I see the point that he will win if you wait too long (getting the bonus to morale of being on a hill while you get the penalty). But honestly I haven't felt it that much. Flanking and other factors are still vastly more important.
Yuuki,
thanks for the fatigue stats.
CBR is correct about the fact that only the difference in combat ability matters, due to the voodoo math of the combat equation-- but that is essentially splitting hairs. The fact remains that a -2 attack modifier for going uphill added to fatigue is a significant disadvantage.
"theoretically" you can equalize fatigue by standing around for 40 minutes. Is that acceptable in most games? Hardly. So I think, realistically, fatigue plays a very important role in low florin games unless you want to play a 2 hour game.
If you lose your 3rd bar while you are fighting uphill (which is likely if you dont wait the 40 minutes to achieve equalized fatigue), that is -3 morale, -5 attack, -1 defense all at once. How long do you think it will take to reach the 50%unit-strength morale penalty at -6 combat? Not very long, certainly you will reach that before the camper loses his 3rd bar--at which point you will rout, esp. at 5k.
Even where the matchup is exactly even, the -6 combat and -3 morale is going to have a SERIOUS effect on what would otherwise be evenly matched units. The disadvantage to the attacker is roughly equal to a a v0 chivman (attacker) fighting a v2 +1W Chivman (defender) on flat ground.
Do any of us doubt the v0 is going to lose?
Now magnify that effect across the entire army (because you are attacking uphill with everything) and I don't see how the attacker can win against an equally skilled defender. This does not take into account the increased range and accuracy of the defenders ranged units due to height.
So I think lahll makes good points. My conclusion: If you play at 5k and you are asking people to attack your hill, that sounds like a scam to me. If you want to fight on hills at such low florins then at least have the decency to be the attacker.
You do not have to wait 40 minutes at all... Try it out. Take a unit of infantry (as they are often those that suffers the most) and run it until it has lost 3 bars (takes a good time I would say). Then wait. The wait isn't much longer than the time, if at all, you run around.
So if it takes you 5 minutes to walk to the foot of the hill, then wait for another 5. 5 minutes is not much.
No I dont think its splitting hairs..
There are basically only 2 ways you gonna win a 1v1 uphill battle:
a) The opponent is a newbie who has such a bad army that you gonna win by simple frontal assault.
b) You are either more skilled or opponent has bad day (watching sudden nudity on TV etc etc) and somehow outmaneuver him so you can get flank or even rear attacks or some very good unit matchups (depends on how steep the hill is of course)
And that doesnt really change with florins. What does change is the consequences of making mistakes: morale 10 units can take a lot of abuse before routing.
Playing at valour 0 does not suddenly mean there is magic in the air and your units start running on contact. That will require some insane fatigue and/or losses for that. There is time enough for some units to hold while you outflank somewhere else.
The lower morale game can mean that a unit will rout because its charged in the flank..that actually means maneuver is more of a battle winner compared to the high morale units that keep on fighting. And its the same thing with hills: a good attack can mean a quick victory with less fighting. Which is actually my experience so far when dealing with hills in low florin games.
Of course I havent been online much lately but I dont remember seeing many 1v1 5k hosts using sucker maps, nor 10k or 15k so whats the problem? If one is allergic to maps with knolls on (hint: anything not called Steppe or Plains)...well then dont join them.. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif
CBR
Krax,
I can never fully restore my tired units fatigue bars. I can only wait until my enemy's fatigue drops down to my level and stabilizes. I cant ever get back to fresh. Also, you will notice that if I restore a bar and then start marching immediately, the bar will go away again. So just because you get a bar back doesnt mean you are equal with your enemy. To actually reach equality you must allow the fatigue to stabilize. That takes a minimum of 20 minutes, right?
CBR,
It seems we agree that you have to outclass your opponent to win an uphill battle. I'm not talking about only 1v1's, but 4v4's too. If you are counting on locally outnumbering the defenders to win, then you are also trying to outclass them with manuever.
It is splitting hairs because in the final analysis the fatigued uphill attacker is stil -6 combat and -3 morale. At -6 combat the attacker will die very fast and that adds morale pressure to the already low -3 morale, so there is certainly a "feedback loop" between combat and morale penalties.
In a higher florin battle this feedback loop wont rout your entire army, or even the unit under the pressure...but at low florins a hiccup will rout everything. -3 morale is a significant disadvantage at 5k-- an additional -2 to combat decreases the staying power of the unit even further due to "kills per frame" penalty and reaching the 50% rout point faster.
Anyway, I agree that you should avoid games you wont enjoy-- but there seems to be a drive by many in the community to promote a single florin level. I dont know why, but everyone seems to want a "standard" florin level. To the extent that I don't enjoy uphill fights at 5k (but I do at 10k), I oppose a 5k "across the board standard", with argumentation if necessary.
I think it is cheesy to expect people to attack uphill at 5k--thats all I'm saying-- and I think I have a good reason for it. It seems you agree? At least you agree that the defender has a significant advantage, which is magnified at 5k? The morale effect of the variance in combat stats between attacker and defender is magnified at 5k. That is all I'm trying to say, and that was lahll's main point.
The fact that lahll was talking about -2 to "attack stat" and we are talking about -2 to "variance in combat stat [att+def]" is splitting hairs.
I have two uphill fight replays. One is 10k one is 5. Judge for yourself and then discuss.
5k hill attack
10k hill attack
gah-- homework.
blech.
Ill take a look, but only if my grade depends on it heheh
Puzz@CBR....the precent of numbers does matter, if my v0 CMAA is quite tired....he is 50% weaker in attack than yours (v0 CMAA that is fresh.....if my v4 CMAA is quite tired he is 25% weaker than your v4 CMAA....
Lahll:Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
No offense but why dont you actually read what we are saying or even just try and do your own calculations as the formula is right there?
A v0 CMAA will kill another v0 CMAA just as quick as a v100 CMAA versus another v100 CMAA. If any modifiers are involved they will have precisely same impact, meaning a -2 to attack will give same number of kills both in the v0 CMAA and the v100 CMAA example.
As you can see from the formula its 1.9% x 1.2^(attack-defense) the main thing is the (attack-defense), no matter what the actual values are its always the difference between attack and defense values that are important.
If we use the -2 attack example again. Find a calculator and check what 1.2^(-2 -0) and 1.2^(98-100) will give..the result is 0.694 for both. That 0.694 is multiplied with 1.9 to give the percentage chance for a soldier to kill another soldier.
As a valour upgrade gives 1 attack AND 1 defense to a unit you can see that a valour upgrade only increases a units's killpower if the unit its fighting against has less valour upgrades. If they have the same upgrades then there is absolutely no difference in kill rate compared to v0 and as you can see from the calculation examples any modifiers have same impact no matter what upgrading or actual attack/defense values a unit has.
CBR
however, another way to interpret Lahll's point is that a very tired unit compared to one that is quite or not tired has lower morale, and is more readily to rout (translating to weaker attacking power).. is most obvious for low base morale units because the drop bring them nearer to the rout threshold than those at higher base morale.
EDIT: oops, didnt know this point was brought up on previous page.
attacking uphill should always be a tough job.
is there a campaign to drive for a standard florin level? imo people will play at levels they are most comfortable with.. if 5k is no fun, no one will play it. if 99k is no fun, no one will play it.
15k is what most are comfortable with now. i'm seeing more getting comfy with 10k.
for whatever reason, naturally over time the one with better appeal to most will dominate.. i think its quite meaningless to argue whats fun and whats not fun 'cos its entirely personal.. but the general perference of the mass will prevail.
ok, god damn it, the math,
a v0 CMAA (attack of 4), quite tired is 4-2=2.that is a 50% reduction.....
a v4 CMAA (attack of 8), quite tired is 8-2=6.that is a 25% reduction.....
A 25% reduction is a long way from 50%.....8vs6 is NOT the same as 4vs2.....these are hard numbers, it is born out in the game, Everyone knows that the combat factors are adjusted for fatiuge, and that attack factors are taken away form a unit that is quite tired correct? That said unit will will always lose -2 attack; and it does not matter what its base attack is? And this has NOTHING to do with morale, it is the combat tables. We are NOT compairing two identical units of the same type with the same combat factors; one (the quite tired one) has -2 attack points taken away, If both units base stats were at 100, and 1 unit gave up -2 that is an insignifiant 2%, and will have little impact on the outcome, if both start at 4 and one gives up -2 that is half of ones attack (50%), if a unit gives up half its attack, what can we expect it to do? THE FACT IS, at lower florins levels, because of lower valor (combat factors, not just morale) levels, the impact of conditions like fatigue DO have a greater impact. Anyone attacking a hill camper at 5k has a much more difficult task than someone attacking a hill camper at 99999k...morale and other factors aside...the situational factors of fatigue, and hill attack penality, (and opponents (bonus) loom much larger at low florins, and much less at high...
Hi Lahll.
What you have shown is the adjustment to the attack bonus. you are right that the attack strength is reduced by 50% and 25% respectively for v0 and v4 CMAA under the said condition.
However the combat resolution doesn't look at just attack points, and the math doesnt depends on the relative strength of one vs the other, but the absolute difference of the two.
A success kill is determined by the probability
1.9% x 1.2 ^ (att - def). In both situations, the probabilty to kill remain the same.. which means that if the system is to ignore the effect of morale, both units will behave identically whether if they are at v0 or v4. This is because for both situations, the quite tired CMAA will have a kill probability of
1.9% x 1.2 ^ ((4-2) - 4)) or 1.9% x 1.2 ^ ((8-2) - 8)
= 1.32% chance to kill
Lahll,
Yes 2 is 50% of 4 and 25% of 8, but those percentages are not what is used to calculate the chance to kill. The chance to kill is not the ratio of the attack values. It's the difference between them. A 4/4 unit and an 8/8 unit both loose the same combat power if you take 2 points off their attack value.
Given that CTK = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (att - def)
v0 cmaa (2/4) vs v0 cmaa (4/4)
CTK = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (2 - 4) = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ -2 = 1.9% * 0.69 = 1.3%
v4 cmaa (6/8) vs v4 cmaa (8/8)
CTK = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ (6 - 8) = 1.9% * 1.2 ^ -2 = 1.9% * 0.69 = 1.3%
The 2 point disadvantage on attack means you are 44% weaker on the strike, and no weaker on the parry. You won't die faster from a reduced attack value until well into the melee when you are outnumbered by a significant number of men, and this is independent of overall valor level. While a 44% disadvantage is significant and will cost you 8 out of every 10 encounters, I don't see the need to incur that disadvantage except out of impatience. In anycase, the combat power disadvantage is no greater at 5k than it is at 15k, and this goes for the downhill/uphill combat power advantage as well. I roughly measured this as 1.5:1 for a 45 degree slope, but it's a very tentative measurement and would require more testing to nail it down. Even if higher morale allows the hill attacker to hang in their longer because some units fight to the last man, it doesn't mean he was closer to winning the battle. Higher morale shifts the game towards attrition and away from position, but the hill attacker is at a disadvantage in attrition, so I don't see raising florins as helping this aspect.
Of more import to the question of difficulty in attacking is the morale. There is divided opinion on this, and what I see is more defensive capability at high morale than at low morale. Isn't this increased defensive capability exactly what some vets were complaining about when mtw v1.1 moved from 10k to 15k. Since you can't rout a whole army as easily at high morale with a quick flanking move, the gameplay shifts away from one of position to one of better matchups and attrition. I was in a vi v2.01, 8k, 4v4 team game recently where a long term vet got 50 kills total and a kill ratio of 1:10. It was a quick rush by the attackers, one of them being me, that caught the defenters off guard. These were not a bunch of newbie defenders. The game was decided in the first 2 minutes of play. Although, it took about 20 min total to finish off the remaining defenders. The only challenge was in the initial setup and getting the drop on the opponents as a gunslinger would in a showdown. That's a concern I have about low morale team games that allies don't have enough time to respond to a double team threat.
Attacking hills is hard in 1v1 at 5k and at 15k. The thing is at 5k you can't spread your units out as much as you can at 15k because they start loosing morale support. Spreading out is something a player attacking a hill might want to do to give himself more angles of attack. I still don't really understand what the big deal is about attacking hills in 1v1. Do people do that in serious games?If the players are evenly matched the hill will decide the winner at any florin level.
Dion,
I made some measurements on fatigue recovery rates on fine day in temperate climate which should be the same as arid and lush. I have removed what was a faulty analysis and will give those measurements here instead. The main fault in the analysis was the assumption that the recovery rates were constants for each fatigue level. After making the mesurements, it looks like the recovery rate is a feedback system where the rate depends on how far the unit is below the recovery point.
If the potential recovery point has not dropped below 4 bars, the time for a standing unit, which has become fatigued from running, to recover all the way through the very tired (1 bar) and quite tired (2 bar) levels was:
exhausted to quite tired (very tired range) took 3:15 min
very tired to quite fresh (quite tired range) took 6:30 min
After 20 min, when the potential recovery point is sitting in the quite tired range (I actually waited a very long time to be sure the standing fatigue had equilibrated) the time for a unit, which I ran to exhaustion, to recover all the way through the very tired (1 bar) level was:
exhausted to quite tired (very tired range) took 6:45 min
Again, I waited a long time for equilibrium and I did a walking test from the standing fatigue recovery point and it took 6:55 to drop to very tired. I tried to walk the unit to exhaustion, but could not after 40 min of continuous walking. When the unit stopped walking, it took 4:40 min to get out of the very tired level (1 bar) back up to quite tired (2 bars).
I have a measurement which indicates that the recovery rate depends upon how far below the recovery point a recovering unit is. That measurement was made when the recovery point was in the quite fresh (3 bar) range.
exhausted to quite tired (very tired range) took 3:55 min
very tired to quite fresh (quite tired range) never got to quite fresh and after 20 min the recovery point dropped into the quite tired (2 bar) range.
This result clearly indicates that the recovery rate declines as the recovery point drops.
Note on running fatigue:
While all units fatigue at the same rate while walking, there is a small difference between cav and inf when running. The running fatigue rate for cav is less than for inf. That change was made in the mtw v1.1 patch
What would be very informative for me is for the 15k people to describe the technique they use to win a hill attack. If I have a hill of any significant size at 15k, you are going to have to kill practically all my men because you are certainly not going rout me off the hill. Is this about purchasing an army of greater combat power than the hill defender, and playing at high morale so that attrition decides that outcome?
Playing a 1v1 at 15 vs a hill camper, I'm clearly going to try to win the shootout and cause more attrition. To that end, I have to pick more missile troops at cost of cav and really pump up the combat power of my infantry while taking some v0 cav to counter a raid or to use as flanking force once I start the uphill battle.
One could take a more standard army and try to outmaneuver the opponent, but that depends on the location of the hill and surrounding terrain in general, as well as the skill level of the opponent. A skilled player camping on a hill (not that any would do that, god forbid http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif) is practically prepared for anything so you have to go for attrition.
Brutal DLX,
Yes, that army purchasing strategy of taking more ranged units than the enemy which allows you to field fewer but more powerful hth infantry doesn't work at 5k since you don't have the option of fielding hth infantry at 4 times the cost of ranged like you do at 15k. At 15k, each hth infantry unit you replace with a ranged unit saves you about 900 florins which is enough to pump one 1200 florin hth unit up +1 valor.
So, let's say you take 6 ranged and 6 hth infantry and 4 cavalry while the hill defender takes 4 ranged and 8 hth infantry and 4 cavalry and the cav are equivalent. You could have parity in 4 of your hth units with 4 of the defender's hth units and +1 valor advantage in 2 or your hth units vs the other 4 of the defender's hth units or you could get a +1 weapon (20%) advantage for 450 florins distributed across all 6 of your hth infantry facing 8 of the defender's hth infanty. Two v4 cmaa are not better than 4 v3 cmaa, and 6 * 1.2 = 7.2 is less than 8, so there is no overall advantage in the attacker's hth units. I guess it would come down to the attacker's 6 ranged vs the defender's 4 ranged to demonstrate an advantage, but I don't see it because the defender's ranged has height which means it will shoot farther and with more accuracy. I think it would depend on whether you can position your 2 extra ranged in such a way as to shoot the defender's hth infantry, and then will you be able to kill enough of them to offset the defender's hth advantage? I think it's unlikely from a position of lower height.
At 5k, you have the option of foregoing ranged completely since hth infantry and ranged are about the same price, and directly attacking the hill. You could have 12 hth infantry to the enemy's 8 hth infantry which is almost 150% more hth power if you assume ranged have almost no hth power. The question would be can you get up the hill before you loose too much of that hth advantage? I'm not sure that this is more difficult to achieve than is your 15k strategy.
Lahll,
Its voodoo math and its an arbitrary equation that has no real relationship to anything. Why 1.9? Why 1.2? No reason.
Let me see if I can explain the math in a simpler way. We dont need to actually calculate anything to understand what is happening. The combat equation is:
CTK = 1.9% * 1.2^CF
CTK is "Chance to Kill"
CF is "Combat Factor" and is equal to Attackers Melee stat minus Defenders defense stat. [att-def]. 1.2 with an exponent of CF.
Lets forget about fatigue for a minute.
If you have v0Chivman (attack=4) attacking my v2chivman(Defense=6), the CF is = -2.
If you have v1Chivman (attack=5) attacking my v3chivman (defense=7), the CF is still = -2.
Since the CTK is completely driven by the CF, the CTK remains constant even though valor has increased across the board by 1.
It's all relative. A v0 chivman has the exact same chance to kill a v2 chivman as a v1 has to kill a v3.
Edit:
Yuuki,
I'm also fascinated by the fatigue system because it does work fairly well (although it could be tweaked) and it meshes fairly well with the morale system (which is equally fascininating).
What your analysis suggests is that "standing fatigue" is a constant that applies to EVERY unit on the field, equally, based on the time since the game started. For example, your spear can walk 6 mins, rest 3, and get back to "fresh" BUT ONLY if the standing rate hasn't dropped below "fresh" yet
If more than 20 minutes have elapsed since game start, the spear can no longer achieve a "fresh" state.
Is this correct--"If you play a long battle, say 1 hour, and then you want to rest your units they can never get back to fresh because "standing fatigue" has already fallen below "fresh" and there is no way to recover standing fatigue.
Soooo hmmmm... ok, now I see where you are coming from on the "rest until equal" angle and perhaps you are correct that I dont have to wait 30-40 minutes to reach fatigue equilibrium.
I propose a test to you. Hypothesis: After 20 mins of game time the maximum "freshness" of troops is "quite fresh" Therefore, if an attacking unit of spears marches for 6 minutes and then rests for 3, it need only wait another 11 minutes and the defenders units will all drop to "quite fresh" at the SAME TIME the attacker does.
If we take it a step further, and forgive me for not following your ratios exactly--
Hypothesis: At the instant the standing fatigue reaches "quite fresh" all units above "quite fresh" become equalized. So maybe the spears can walk 12 minutes, rest 6 minutes (to achieve "fresh"), wait only 2 minutes, and be assured of fatigue equality. That would be a 8 minute wait for the defender, which is arguably acceptable.
Interesting.
Dion,
I edited my post above with that recovery rate analysis because the analysis was wrong. I've substitued some measurements I made tonight on recovery rates.
To answer your question: the fatigue of a unit is a parameter with a value on a much finer scale than the coarse fatigue levels (bars and text reports) that we see, and you are correct that a unit could be near the bottom of the indicated range, near the top or somewhere inbetween. So, as you say, just getting into the same range as an enemy unit doesn't mean the two units have equal fatigue. The combat and morale penalties are fixed values for each fatigue range, but the fatigue itself isn't.
Yes standing fatigue applied to all units, no matter their armor rating... etc... And there is no way back, and you can't recover from it.
I think we start looking at it some time ago, after playing some very very long game (skip the silly consideration about temporary fatigue in the topic)...
Fatigue in very long game
Temporary fatigue is... temporary and can be recovered.... I think fairly quickly.
I think there is a relation between recovery rate and standing fatigue, but I have never been able to prove it; just a gut feeling from long time game.
IMO, the closer you are from your standing fatigue cap, the slower is the recovery rate.
If you get a unit to very tired right at the start of the game, it will go back to quite tired, after say 1 min, then quite fresh, etc...
If you get a unit to very tired after 20 minutes, I think it will need more time to go back to quite tired and even more time to go to quite fresh.
After 40 minutes, it will take an even longer time to go to quite tired, and it won't be possible to go to quite fresh.
Louis,
Hm. You didn't specify the florin level, or did you?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Anyway, I don't understand your last paragraph where you state that you can forego ranged units but then talk about attacking with ranged units uphill?
It goes without saying that when you want to do an attrition war, you have to place your hth units out of the range of the enemy units, so if they want to fire upon your hth they'd have to give up the hill position. If they don't you have a shootout between let's say his 4 missile unit vs your 6 or 7. You should win that one, despite the hill bonus the defending ranged units get. So you can either focus on the def's missiles or order one or two units to attack any infantry in range, which is hard to do and they are probably deployed a bit back on the hilltop. So you really have to get rid of of the enemy's ranged units. Either that will force them to go to attack or you can target his infantry after the shootout.
You might as well pick only one or two pavs and take 12 infantry plus two cav and rush the hill. It might work, it might not. The hill advantage of the defs plus the morale malus from missile fire can break a unit attacking uphill rather quickly, be it 15k or 5. I would think that you will see a 5k hth army rushing a hill rout much more quickly though due to the lower morale/armour. But it all depends.
Perhaps we can do a few tests on that, just to see which strat could be more effective. (However, the camping army's composition is always unknows, this can be a big factor in an actual battle)
Edit: Oh you did specify Apologies here. But you didn't state you want to compare 5k and 15k sttacking strats.
Brutal DLX,
Quote (Puzz3D @ Oct. 28 2003,17:49)
At 5k, you have the option of foregoing ranged completely since hth infantry and ranged are about the same price, and directly attacking the hill.
Sorry, I misstated when I said 12 ranged vs 8 ranged. I meant 12 hth infantry vs 8 hth infantry.
The subject of the thread is whether it's more difficult to attack a hill at low florins than it is at high florins. I'll grant that the attacker will probably rout sooner at 5k than at 15k, but I don't see how routing sooner means more difficult. Hanging in their longer doesn't mean you were closer to winning.
With your 15k strategy, even if you as attacker succeed in neutralizing the defender's 4 ranged with your 6 ranged and killing a few of his hth infantry, you still have weaker (meaning less total hth combat power) infantry than he does for the final assault. At 5k you can have significantly stronger (meaning more total hth combat power) inf than a hill defender who takes 4 ranged, but your infantry will be under fire as they move up the hill. This actually points up a problem with 5k games which is that you can get a significant combat power advantage by not taking ranged units because they are so expensive.
Okee, jumping in ---
First off, can we simply agree a person defending on a hill should have a bonus? It is the nature of having the high ground. If one wants to have "totally fair fights," then yes you need to play on "Green." But that gets boring and hills, trees and weather add spice and simply become disadvantages one accepts when joining a game. Fatigue as a defender can be overcome, but again, it is a combat situational disadvantage you accept being the attacker.
-----------
LAHLL / CBR
As for the LOW koku hill attack vs. HIGH koku hill attack:
I think you LAH is correct that the low koku hill attack is more difficult than a higher koku hill attack -- but for the wrong reason. It is Morale not the Combat that is making the difference. The Combat value is exactly the same as Yuuk has pointed out (LAH look closely at his first post closely as it shows why the % difference that you correctly point out is actually a non factor.)
However, since all units in a low koku game have less morale, the trigger for a rout is easier to set off (-2, -4). Since this is an on/off trigger (you are either routing or not) the easier it is made to trip, the more impact each morale trigger has.
In a low koku battle, guys will rout quicker overall and, as Yuuk points out, thus you can't separate your army to get at flanks. This lack of unit independence is a HUGE tactical factor and this DOES make a hill attack more difficult -- you are forced to fight much more frontally vis-a-vis a high koku hill attack. Now the army cohession affects all maneuver combat at lower koku games, but since the attacker is already at a real combat disadvantage for the hill, i believe these maneuver difficulties are amplified.
If, hypothetically all units were exactly the same for attacker/defender and all other factors are equal, in a flat battle, i can match up simply head to head and I have a 50/50 shot of winning.
However, same scenario vs. defender on a slope, if i match up head-to-head I can assume a loss for each unit all along my entire front. I HAVE TO catch a flank in order to win. Thus I have to maneuver wings/ independent units. Anything that makes this maneuvering more diffcult has a greater impact on the battle. And since the low koku game this unit independence is less, the impact affect the low koku hill attack more than the high koku hill attack.
Hi Mitch,
You make a good point about the need to flank, and I think flanking has to be balanced in terms of time and space. If fighting units don't hold long enough, there won't be enough time to make flanking moves before the fight is resolved. If units hold too long by virtue of high morale, flanking moves become less effective and can be more easily countered. In that regard, I think 5k is a bit too low and 15k a bit too high for optimal flanking gameplay. That's not to say you can't flank at 5k or that flanking in 15k is completely ineffective. If you successfully carry out a flanking move with a single unit in a 5k game, it's going to be very effective and probably rout the entire enemy line. In a 15k game, you'll have to flank with several units to get the same effect and hope that those units don't get counterflanked.
I don't think there is a single florin level that provides the best RPS gameplay, best morale level, and best ranged unit relative cost. Florin preference will depend upon how you rate those aspects of the gameplay.
I think we can all agree to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
agrees
i think too, with the right folks you can have enjoyable games at any florin level.