Some thoughts on unit sizes

[Productivity]

You're assuming that it's an absolute difference that matters, and not a relative difference, or do you have evidence that it isn't?

ie.

Absolute difference = (defence(unitB) + (exp)) - (attack(unitA) + (exp)).

In which case, the experience does fall out. ie. Compare defence(unitB) = 10, attack(unitA) = 15, at exp 0,4 and 8.

(10+0)-(15+0) = -5
(10+4)-(15+4) = -5
(10+4)-(15+4) = -5

However if there is a scaling factor, then experience might matter.

Relative difference = ((defence(unitB) + exp) - (attack(unitA) + exp))/(defence(unitB) + exp)

Same numbers

((10+0)-(15+0))/10 = -0.5
((10+4)-(15+4))/14 = -0.3574
((10+4)-(15+4))/18 = -0.287778

Now this could be shown theoretically - higher stat units, with the same absolute difference should take longer to kill if the final number is relative, rather than absolute.

ie. same equation as above, try pairs of 10/5,15/10,20/15,25/20, gives differences of -1,-0.5,-.333,-0.25.


I might do a few trial runs to see if this is true - certainly it would make more sense to me, although they would have to do somethign to get around the divide by zero issue - maybe that is why the minium defenseive value is zero, with them getting around it by making the denominator (defence(unitB) + 1) or something.

[Puzz3D]

You're assuming that it's an absolute difference that matters, and not a relative difference, or do you have evidence that it isn't?

Yes. The designer gave us the combat formula for STW and MTW, and it's similar for RTW eventhough they won't reveal the exact formula.

For STW and MTW:
chance to kill = 1.9% * 1.2 ** (df)
df = (attack - defend + bonus)

attack, defend and bonus are all integers to simplify computation.
attack is the striker's attack value.
defend is the target's defend value.
bonus is any situational combat modifier that applies.
df is limited to a range -x < df < x
x is 20 for STW and MTW, but most likely a larger number for RTW since the 1.2 constant is closer to 1.1 in RTW according to my tests.
lethality in RTW is a new parameter that most likely comes in as an additional multiplier.

they would have to do somethign to get around the divide by zero issue - maybe that is why the minium defenseive value is zero

Is the minimum defensive value zero? Both attack and defend values could be negative in STW and MTW, but I haven't tested that in RTW.

[Productivity]

Hmm - that seems strange, so high quality units can hack each other to bits just as easily as low quality units can hack each other to bits - strange.

Edit, sorry is that chance to kill actually chance to take off a hit point? Or is it an absolute kill value?

Is the minimum defensive value zero? Both attack and defend values could be negative in STW and MTW, but I haven't tested that in RTW.

Well I'm pulling it out of the hard coded limits thread. It shouldn't be too difficult to check - that's actually what triggered me to think that it might be scaled somewhat, the change from allowing negative values to not allowing them - somewhere you're going to get a divide by zero, and even if you can avoid that, you're going to get strange results due to the negative sign swapping things around.

[Puzz3D]

Hmm - that seems strange, so high quality units can hack each other to bits just as easily as low quality units can hack each other to bits.

Yes because a high quality blow against a high quality defense would have the same effectiveness as a low quality blow against a low quality defense.

Edit, sorry is that chance to kill actually chance to take off a hit point? Or is it an absolute kill value?

It's the chance to take off hitpoints. A different parameter determines how many hitpoints are removed by a successful strike. In the previous games, only some projectile weapons could remove more than one hitpoint at a time, and it may still be that way in RTW. I'm not sure.

Well I'm pulling it out of the hard coded limits thread. It shouldn't be too difficult to check - that's actually what triggered me to think that it might be scaled somewhat, the change from allowing negative values to not allowing them - somewhere you're going to get a divide by zero, and even if you can avoid that, you're going to get strange results due to the negative sign swapping things around.

No one checked negative values of attack and defend in that thread, but it doesn't matter. The difference (df) can still be negative, and there is no discontinuity in that formula I gave at df = zero. The exponential 1.2**(0) = 1. A -20 < df < +20 range maps onto a chance to kill range of 0.05% to 73%. That's right out of the MTW Official Strategy Guide, and that chapter of the guide was written by LongJohn who designed the battle engine. I think the range of df in RTW is more like -40 < df < +40 with a base constant of 1.1 so each combat point gives a 10% change in the chance to kill.