Results 1 to 30 of 51

Thread: My first thoughts about EB

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #18
    Now sporting a classic avatar! Member fallen851's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    799

    Default Re: My first thoughts about EB

    Quote Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX
    You are aware that there is an element of randomness in the calculations that RTW uses right? In the exact same situation different things will happen if you play it over and over again.
    This is not intended to change anyone on the EB team's opinion. It won't no matter how I phrase it because my opinion holds no weight, partly because of how I have treated the EB team before, and partly because of the way they view me. So this is intended for anyone else who cares.

    QM and Ludens you're wrong. That isn't a personal attack, it is a fact. There is little randomness (at least in 1.5). I did many, many tests and the same thing happens, every time.

    For instance, due to the fact I've decided to rebalanced EB when it comes out for 1.5, I've done a lot of research, particularly into the charge bonus, and why armor acts differently vs missiles some of which can be found here https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62744

    And what I found was that the same thing happened over and over again. For instance I've since done about 10 more runs, but these 6 runs showing a unit of 100 gauls in a warband with 5 armor factor (0 in the defensive skill and shield factor) standing still and take 5 shots from a chosen archer warband with an attack of 20 is not signficantly different:

    Computer Controlled Archers:(units stood still)
    Run #1: 81 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Run #2: 78 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Run #3: 78 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Run #4: 80 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Run #5: 82 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Run #6: 80 Gauls remaining after 5 volleys
    Average: 79.833 repeating

    When I ran an ANOVA test, there was no signifcant differences (though I knew there would not be before I ran the test...). Sure there is obviously some randomness, because during one test they lost 18, while another 22, but I'm assuming these small differences are not what you speak of.

    The results for the charge bonus aren't up there yet, but my testing there (where I setup my unit in a set spot and let the AI cavalry charge) shows exactly the same thing, no significant difference between what happens in the 15 tests I've done charging from the rear. The unit loses about the same about of men every time, and another ANOVA test shows no significant difference between tests. Please note some of those tests are not valid (the ones comparing armor types in melee) because I had the warcry on the units before I retested, and warcry appears to lose its effects after a certain period of time, so the side what warcries first does worse in battle.

    I invite you to test what I did. If it comes out differently, send me the replays. The differences are in what happens in the battle, not some magic randomness.
    Last edited by fallen851; 04-13-2006 at 00:00.
    "It's true that when it's looked at isolated, Rome II is a good game... but every time I sit down to play it, every battle, through every turn, I see how Rome I was better. Not unanimously, but ultimately." - Dr. Sane

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA#t=1h15m33s

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO