Investigation of Battle Odds

[dismal]

Dismal,

Concerning differences between 1.2 and BI - I only meant that BattleOdds is unlikely to have changed meaning. Thresholds for awarding traits certainly may have.

You mention that winning traits and ancillaries isn't as easy as the triggers seem to indicate. I think that's because it gets harder to gain each additional Command point. Suppose that your general never loses battles and only fights battles at with BattleOdds < 2.25 so that the
"V0090_Standard_Battle_Any_Victory_VnV_Trigger" always fires. If he starts the game with Command=0, he needs 1 victory to get Command=1 and 2 victories to get Command=2, but 4, 8, and 16 to go to Command=3, 4, and 5.
(These are for RTW 1.2 & 1.3)

The number of battle stars also don't equate directly to Command, since ancillaries influence battle stars on both maps and traits like GoodAttacker and GoodDefender influence them on the battle map. So, getting back to Son of Chinglu, my guess is that the Command >= 4 test refers only to the general's unmodified Command value. In RTW 1.3 this would mean he'd need to have the Great Commander, Legendary Commander, Legendary Warlord, or Military Genius traits.

You might test this by determining if these traits are still valid in BI, if they can apply to the Huns, and find out if there are BI-specific Command=4 traits. Then it's just a matter of checking if the general has the trait before battle.

Better yet, if you're comfortable with a slight mod, change one or more of your characters to have the trait (for example) GoodCommander 4 in desc_strat.txt. Then they will have the trait to start the game and you wouldn't have to check for it. I suppose they could lose it though.... Well, you get the point.

I'd be curious about what you find out.

I think "natural" (meaning good commander line) 4 command generals are a thing of the past. I still get high star generals - even the occasional ten star - but they are usually from a combo of various ancillaries and other traits.

I'm pretty sure the guy I had who won "Son of Chinglu" was not any more than a Great Commander, if that. I don't believe I've ever made it to Legendary Commander in BI.

I'd also point out that the criteria test is ostensibly applied to the variable "Command", not the variable "GoodCommander".

I suppose you are right that someone with the skills and will could figure all this out by fighting a series of battles with a modded general plus an appropriate enemy, but I'm afraid that isn't me. Maybe when I finish my current campaign I will work on developing my modding skills.

[Atilius]

I'd also point out that the criteria test is ostensibly applied to the variable "Command", not the variable "GoodCommander".

At game start, this is how you would assign the Great Commander trait.

I suppose you are right that someone with the skills and will could figure all this out by fighting a series of battles with a modded general plus an appropriate enemy, but I'm afraid that isn't me. Maybe when I finish my current campaign I will work on developing my modding skills.

You have the right attitude - I've had RTW for almost a year but have only finished one full campaign: I keep getting irritated by something, doing a mod to change it, and starting over again. May never even get around to buying BI.

[dismal]

At game start, this is how you would assign the Great Commander trait.

You have the right attitude - I've had RTW for almost a year but have only finished one full campaign: I keep getting irritated by something, doing a mod to change it, and starting over again. May never even get around to buying BI.

Well, I finished my campaign and did a little research.

First, the methodology:

Looked through various factions at start of map trying to find someone I could mod to set up a few tests. Settled upon a character named "Diggiz", who at the start of the game already has 5 stars but is only a GoodCommander 3. Turns out there was no need to mod him after all. Huns make good testers since they have some money and there is no micromanagement to worry about. Just turned off FOW, turned off "watch AI moves", and hit the "new turn" button until an interesting matchup appeared. You can blend in mercs to try to get just the odds you're looking for. Easy enough to re-start the game of re-load from last turn to tweak the parameters some. All test battles were fought with Diggiz plus 0, 1 or 2 merc horse archers. All battles fought on VH/VH.

Second, the executive summary:
- I believe you were correct that the "Strength ratio" in the pre-battle map is equivalent to the variable "BattleOdds".
- The "Son of Chinglu" turns out to be rather easy to win. You can, in fact, win it with a 3:2 strength ratio in your favor. The relative rarity of it stems from needing a 4 star non faction leader/heir general.
- You do not need to have 4 stars from the "GoodCommander" line. Ancillaries and other traits count.
- It is not possible to win more than one "Son of Chinglu" for the huns. Though there is text for ancillaries "Son of Chinglu2" and "Son of Chinglu3", the code was either deliberately or inadvertently written so they can't be awarded when "Son of Chinglu1" is outstanding.

Raw data:

Battle 1
Sarmatians: 91 start, 80 killed
Diggiz: 125 start, 51 killed
Strength ratio: 1:1
Initial assement: Even match
Victory type: Clear
Won Chinglu: Yes
Conclusion: Don't need 4 star in Good Commander line to win Chinglu, can win it with even odds.

Battle 2
Rebels: 375 start, 370 killed
Diggiz: 135 start, 42 killed
Strength ratio: 3:5
Initial assement: Defeat distinct
Victory type: Heroic
Won Chinglu: Yes
Conclusion:

Battle 3
Rebels: 157 start, 157 killed
Diggiz: 135 start, 0 killed
Strength ratio: 10:3
Initial assement: Forgot to look
Victory type: Clear
Won Chinglu: No* (already had won it plus passed it off)
Conclusion: Proves a "perfect 100-0 victory" does not guarantee "Heroic" (relevant to another thread)

Battle 4
Rebels: 495 start, 479 killed
Diggiz: 135 start, 15 killed
Strength ratio: 3:4
Initial assement: Defeat distinct
Victory type: Heroic
Won Chinglu: No* (already had won it plus passed it off)
Conclusion: Can't win more than one Chinglu

Battle 5
Sassanids: 307 start, 257 killed
Diggiz: 135 start, 0 killed
Strength ratio: 2:1
Initial assement: Evenly matched
Victory type: Clear
Won Chinglu: No
Conclusion: Chinglu not won w/ Strength Ratio>1.5. Strength ratio = BattleOdds?

Battle 6
Sassanids: 307 start, 258 killed
Diggiz: 81 start, 2 killed
Strength ratio: 3:2
Initial assement: Evenly matched
Victory type: Clear
Won Chinglu: Yes
Conclusion: Chinglu can be won with strength ratio in your favor and as high as 1.5. More evidence that Strength = BattleOdds.

[Atilius]

dismal,

You've pretty comprehensively demonstrated the strength ratio/battleOdds connection, that a Heroic victory requires more that just killing all the enemy without any losses of your own, and the Son of Chinglu stuff.

The last item provides a nice illustration of how of the event triggers work.

Anyway, you've put paid to the discussion we've been having about these topics, so I went back to the first real post in this thread:

I wonder if someone could research the factors that determine the strategy map battle odds? I imagine things like number and quality of men, upgrades, commander, and so on.

This seems to be important for getting traits, whether the AI will fight, etc.

I'm planning to look at the effect of a commander's battle stars on battleOdds. Anyone's welcome to scoop me.

[dismal]

dismal,

You've pretty comprehensively demonstrated the strength ratio/battleOdds connection, that a Heroic victory requires more that just killing all the enemy without any losses of your own, and the Son of Chinglu stuff.

Yep, a lot of this started in my effort to figure out what generated a Heroic victory. The "chinglu" thing was a bit of a diversion, but at least its 100% chance factor helps give a little clarity into a few game variables.

I need to go back and revisit the "Heroic" victory question. I can't help but wonder if it's as simple as BattleOdds (= strength ratio) <1 combined with some minimum percentage of enemy killed and some maximum percentage of allies killed.

I'm planning to look at the effect of a commander's battle stars on battleOdds. Anyone's welcome to scoop me.

You could quickly generate some data using something like the approach I used above.

1) Start new campaign w/ fow and AI moves off
2) Take a general and move him within one turn of a battle.
3) Save game
4) Initiate battle, check odds
5) Quit and Reload saved game
6) Mod general's command up/down
7) Repeat beginning at step 4

The added benefit here is you don't actually have to fight the battles.

[Atilius]

OK,

I got around to looking at how a general's battle stars affect the strength ratio/battleOdds you see on the strength bar before combat. The results are not as I'd expected.

I'm running RTW 1.3. To start, I set up a couple of small armies (2 units of hastati, no experience, no upgrades) with a Roman general. The generals each have only the Confident commander trait and no ancillaries, so each has one star. The strength ratio is 1:1 - no surprise.

Next, I remove the the GoodCommander trait from the defending general. Odds are 1:1, but this could skewed by the presence of the opposing forces' bodyguard units, so I give each army 19 hastati to dilute the effect of the bodyguards. Odds are still 1:1.

I give the attacking general the Legendary Commander trait (5 stars), defending general still has no stars. Odds are 1:1.

I give the attacking general the Heroic Attacker trait too, so he has a total of 10 stars when attacking. Odds are 1:1.

Finally I give the defending general the Pathetic Commander (-5) and Pathetic Defender (-5) traits. I'm pretty sure that these only subtract from command stars that the general may have gotten from other traits or ancillaries, but I do it anyway. Odds are 1:1.

Also reversed the situation, giving the attacker penalties (Pathetic Commander, Pathetic Attacker) and the defender bonuses ( Legendary Commander, Heroic Defender), but odds are always 1:1.

So it's clear that the calculation of battleOdds takes no account of the opposing commanders' battle stars. I believe the main effect of battle stars is to raise the morale of the general's army, so Jerome's comment earlier in this thread:

The battle odds are based on the AI's strength calculation for the armies involved. Essentially this is a number derived per unit via a complex formula which takes into account the number of soldiers, attack, defense, experience, upgrades, morale, and almost everything else which gets fed into the game from the export_descr_unit.txt file.

must refer to the unit's un-modified (dismal, here I go with the un-modified thing again) morale value (from export_descr_unit.txt ) and not to any morale bonuses gained from the general's battle stars.

[dismal]

I guess I'm not completely surprised that command ranking doesn't affect battle odds.

Since you rasied the topic, I had noticed that clicking the "night battle" option (when available) didn't change the battle odds despite increasing the general's command stars.