Quote Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
That "imponderable" as you put it should NOT be applied by the AI. Like Puzz3D stated such is chaos. It results in an 'implied' unpredictability, the game then becomes **random**; and as a result quite un-chesslike.

Not fun! Much like battles exist now in RTW.

The "imponderable" should be inputted by the Player through his actions or inactions. The AI should be effected by the "imponderable"(s) of terrain, weather, etc.

Rather than Chess, "clustering of random numbers" would produce a Dice game, as would the inclusion of even "occaisional" *inputted* imponderables into the battle calculations.

Imponderables s/b circumspect and (weather partially withstanding) the result of decisions of action or inaction. Such is war.

The fact of the matter is that in MTW, Peasants could repulse Heavy Cav, given the correct circumstances or "imponderables", such as weather, terrain, morale, fatigue, armour, bonuses, numbers, etc.

Certainly, 1st level (non-peasant) spear unit could do it given the right mix of imponderables.

This is what was so great about MTW, even more so than STW. Tactical **application** was the true key to victory (if you played the game honestly). The problem (which resulted in that which is RTW) is that so few players mastered MTW's tactical possibilities, and even fewer played the game honestly----giving the AI every advantage reasonable.

Reality isn't random, victory in battle (be it real world or STW/MTW) isn't random. RTW is certainly random---though, perhaps, not deliberately so.

The one thing about Puzz' testing is that I do not believe that it accounts for the "imponderables" as well as is necessary for the conclusions to be considered absolute. That is just my very humble opinion.

I recall many such posts in the early days of MTW. In the beginning (same with STW (and I might have been one of them), LOTS of people didn't immediately comprehend the full effect of the battle "imponderables". Most were used to a straight rock/paper/scissor model.
Terrain, weather, facing, etc are not 'imponderables', they are known. Imponderables are things that cannot be predicted. As an example for TW, one could imagine a unit who's morale is much higher than anticipated because the officer or NCO's 'rise to the occasion'. Alternatively, one could imagine a unit whose training or weapons are above average because of the activities of a local officer or lord.

History is filled with the results of 'imponderables' in battles at the large and small scale and I can say from personal experience that 'imponderables' do influence the outcome of engagements (ie one can look back and say that if that unforeseen event hadnt occurred then the outcome or sequence of events would've changed).

As I made clear before (I think) I agree that most (almost all) unit v unit battles should be predictable within a normal distribution based on all the tactical factors present in TW, I just think there should be the possibility of an occasional surprise.

The odd corollary to this is that I find CIV4 combat results to be too unpredictable (which is especially annoying since one knows the exact combat odds and there are no tactical factors).