New Developer Blog: AI and Battles

[CBR]

Spears in MTW could produce very different results. Main reason was the rank bonuses. Disorder and losses would remove the rank bonuses and shift the balance even further to the winning unit.


CBR

[x-dANGEr]

That's the same in RTW CBR.

Try this:

Use a cata silver weapon/defence against a Triarii golden weapon bronze defence. The cata will lose. Now try it again with the cata wedged, it will win. Why? Because it will break the Triarii's formation..

Try it with a phalanx. You can beat any phalanx unit no matter how strong is it with a normal cata if you to mess their ranks..

[CBR]

Result is the same I guess but different mechanics and its cavalry using a special formation in your example.

Empirate's posts is about spears v spears in MTW. The rank bonus for spears give a total of 3 combat points (+1 attack and +2 defense) The third rank is the one giving most (+1 attack and +1 defense) so when losses starts to be taken from that rank a spear formation loses a lot of combat power. So a winning unit would face a weaker and weaker enemy spear unit and that explains why there sometimes are very lopsided results when spears are involved.

Swords using wedge formation also had a special bonus in disrupting the spears, and it would lose a lot of its rank bonuses that way.


CBR

[Slammer]

In one of the first things i read about this game it siad you could run up to 10000 man armys is that what you can run or what the screen will run with AI armys on the battle field

[CBR]

In one of the first things i read about this game it siad you could run up to 10000 man armys is that what you can run or what the screen will run with AI armys on the battle field

That would be around the maximum a PC can run without framerate dropping down so much that it becomes unplayable. At huge unit size setting one army can be of about 4800 men (20 units of 240 men each) In RTW you could on rare occasions have 4-5 armies involved in battles although 2 armies would be the most common.

High end PC's can do 14000 soldiers or more. Older ones would run into problems at 6000 or lower.


CBR

[Puzz3D]

M:TW was supposed to have all the good things you have been talking about, right? It was supposed to be predictable and provide a deep multiplayer experience.
In some custom battle tests I found M:TW to be just as random as you make R:TW out to be. Pitting Chivalric Sergeants against Saracen Infantry (two units with equal stats) produced massively one-sided results: four out of five times the CSs won, with about sixty men left in the unit while the Saracens had only 25 or so left. The one time the Saracens won, they had only slightly more men than the CSs (whose general happened to die).

That's not the result I get with CS vs CS in MTW/VI v2.01 custom battle using 100 man units on Steppe map, arid climate.

I used 3 CS vs 3 CS. These units are in hold formation by default. The formation was two CS in front with the general's unit behind them. The AI engaged my two front CS with two CS, and then sent its general's unit into the fray of one of the CS. I did the same, but I followed the fight between the other two CS who were fighting 1 on 1. I don't like to use the general's unit in tests because the general gets 6 hit points and can skew the results.

The fight I followed lasted about 5 minutes. At no time did either unit get ahead by more than 5 men, and this happened only briefly for a couple of seconds. A couple of times one unit got ahead by 4 men for a few seconds. The two units tracked losses very closely oscillating between +3 men to -3 men from 100 men all the way down to 44 men at which point the enemy unit routed with 47 men. In fact, at 50 men the two units were equal, although one unit arrived at 50 while the other was still at 52. My unit gained a +1 valor battlefield upgrade. I don't know at what point that happened, but that's probably why my unit didn't rout despite higher losses. I can check the replay later to see when it got that battlefield upgrade.

Overall results for the 300 men vs 300 men were 151 kills vs 139 losses. I got more kills, but lost because my general routed. This rout happened shortly after the two single CS units resolved their fight with my unit routing the enemy unit despite my unit suffering slightly more losses: 44 men vs 47 enemy men. I estimate the battle lasted 5 minutes, but I can time it later since I saved the replay. By this time my units were very tired.

This is very good tracking of losses under equal conditions, and much better than I observered in my RTW tests.

[Myrddraal]

Has anyone noticed these from the latest blog:

no longer can you just push through infantry unable to make contact with your horsie

Anyway I have some much anticipated news for the multiplayer crowd, but you will need to wait for the next blog. Oh it will be happy days!

[Maizel]

Has anyone noticed these from the latest blog:

Hm Maybe they're going to announce a playable multiplayer campaign in the expansion anyway?

I don't even dare to hope.

It's probably about how they improved the matchfinding online

[Puzz3D]

It's probably about how they improved the matchfinding online

I think that's what it will be about. Somehow they have steamlined choosing a game to join and picking armies. Apparently, picking maps when you host is streamlined as well. Possibly you just select a terrain type, and the computer chooses a map of that type. The computer might pick your army for you after you choose a faction and indicate the type of army you want: cav heavy, inf heavy, skirmisher heavy, etc. Maybe the host can still set a money level, but it's one less thing for a joiner to consider if the money level is the same on all games. Choosing a game could be as simple as looking at the era selected, the number of players involved, the terrain type and if it's arcade or not arcade. As far as I'm concerned, this would all be an improvement over the way online is currently done because it would eliminate "gaming the unit stats and ungrades" or picking a particular map because it offers a particular advantage.

[x-dANGEr]

I think that's what it will be about. Somehow they have steamlined choosing a game to join and picking armies. Apparently, picking maps when you host is streamlined as well. Possibly you just select a terrain type, and the computer chooses a map of that type. The computer might pick your army for you after you choose a faction and indicate the type of army you want: cav heavy, inf heavy, skirmisher heavy, etc. Maybe the host can still set a money level, but it's one less thing for a joiner to consider if the money level is the same on all games. Choosing a game could be as simple as looking at the era selected, the number of players involved, the terrain type and if it's arcade or not arcade. As far as I'm concerned, this would all be an improvement over the way online is currently done because it would eliminate "gaming the unit stats and ungrades" or picking a particular map because it offers a particular advantage.

??!?!?!?

[Ulstan]

"One side winning a perfectly balanced encounter by over 2 to 1 is predictable?"

Conceptually, sure. Suppose you had two men fighting, perfectly balanced. Eventually, one of them will win. One side has taken 100% losses, the other 0%. It's not the outcome that determines whether an encounter was balanced, but the likelihood each side had of winning. Anyway, the outcome of perfectly balanced encounters is by definition completely unpredictable.

I don't know, maybe you are imagining that both sides would fight each other down to 0 men over the course of several minutes and mutually annhilate each other. While I would find this type of combat a lot more attractive than the more frenetic RTW pace, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that small imbalances early on would snowball, and eventually one side would run away, thus leading to large #'s of routing losses and a very lopsided victory for one side in what was still an essentially balanced battle.

[Puzz3D]

"One side winning a perfectly balanced encounter by over 2 to 1 is predictable?"

Conceptually, sure. Suppose you had two men fighting, perfectly balanced. Eventually, one of them will win. One side has taken 100% losses, the other 0%. It's not the outcome that determines whether an encounter was balanced, but the likelihood each side had of winning. Anyway, the outcome of perfectly balanced encounters is by definition completely unpredictable.

It was 367 men vs 367 men. What I'm pointing out is that the statistical error seems high. It has nothing to do with the likelihood of each side winning.


I

don't know, maybe you are imagining that both sides would fight each other down to 0 men over the course of several minutes and mutually annhilate each other. While I would find this type of combat a lot more attractive than the more frenetic RTW pace, I think it's not unreasonable to assume that small imbalances early on would snowball, and eventually one side would run away, thus leading to large #'s of routing losses and a very lopsided victory for one side in what was still an essentially balanced battle.

Imbalances do snowball, and that's fine. There were no routing losses that I noticed, but the units did exchanged pila. That might have introduced an imbalance that rapidly mushroomed. When I ran these tests I was only looking for individual 3 on 1 matchups, so I wasn't concerned about them having pila. I'll try some other tests with units that don't throw anything.

[ToranagaSama]

Just logged in to the Org to post a 'heads up' to the OT forum and to my incredible astonishment I am greeted with this news. I'll have to wait until the weekend to delve into the details.

Here I sit staring at my monitor and all I can think is OMFG!

OMFG!!

"Gone are the days of the AI determining what are the best targets and the user having to continually try and drag them out of unwanted combat. With slower combat speeds and greater control, strategy now plays a bigger part in battles."

OMFG!!!

"With slower combat speeds and greater control, strategy now plays a bigger part in battles."

OMFG!!!

OMFG!!!!

OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Guess I can't wait til the weekend.

...“WOW” just like STW and MTW....

It would appear that CA has is finally taking a more 'hard-core' direction toward the AI and it's related attributes and accompanyments, but I can't fail to note that comments such as the above truly belie the ---mis-direction--- taken with the development of RTW.

...M2TW is as much a top down strategic game ....

Fundamental change in the correct direction. Thank you.


Well, there's a couple things to realize:

1) "Jason" is NOT a developer, he's a 'Play Tester' or to be more accurrate a QA Tester; a bit of a difference.

Play-testers don't develope/code their purpose is to *break* code. Ideally, for Org interests, it'd be best if he were a BA, but I'm not sure they have those in regards to 'game development'. (QA-Quality Assurrance; BA-Business Analyst (BAs are the human interface between Users and Developers. If CA had people in BA equivalent positions, they would be the ones we would talk to most in the forums).

2) It's a 'Blog' not a .plan (which is what I believe I requested), which accounts for the 'fluffy' nature of the writing (which is pretty good).

The great thing is that they are opening up communications a bit (thank you!). The bad thing is its all so 'fluffy' and 'Puffy', which is typical of The Shogun.

And they are giving straight examples of situations. It's not a gamble what they mean, they describe in detail a situation (in this case a skirmisher army) where the AI improved. I don't think there is a better way to make clear statements about what's possible.

Yeah, but not all that much in the way of *telling* detail for hard-core dessemination. The most significant is the manner in which the *archer* army reacted to an advancing army---GOOD.

But, after they run out of arrows (one would think an MTW2 AI capable of realizing its wasting arrows; stop firing and engage with **directed** fire), contact is made, and all he says is:

It continued to do this until it ran out of ammo at which stage it threw its infantry at my staggered infantry lines and flanked with its cavalry.

Sorry, "threw its infantry" sounds much like normal RTW combat; and

what exactly does "flanked with its cavalry" mean?

For example (at the risk of repeating myself ad nausem), the Shogun AI was only capable of flanking in just one direction or the other. The MTW AI was capable of flanking SIMULTANEOUSLY in two directions. Both were capable of using terrain for cover-to-advance; both were capable of pre-positioning units pre-battle; Both were capable of feigning (battlefield attacks) and counter-moving; and most importanly, reacting (adroitly and intelligently) to player feigns and counter-moves.

With MTW2, one would expect some advance in flanking capability, as well as regarding all the above I mentioned (and more). The Blog does not provide evidence of such. Remember the Poll, you all voted for an AI better than STW/MTW.

As we all know, AI flanking in RTW was non-existant to pathetic, so to say that MTW2's AI "flanked with its cavalry" means what exactly? Moreover, with STW and MTW flanking was not reserved to just calvalry.

What did the *reserve* footmen do? Flank? Fill-the-gaps? or just Press-the-backs of the front-line (which is unexceptable!)?

I *need* a complete battle description.

To cut a long story short....

WHY cut it short??? What's a blog for? It's obviously not a .plan so what's with the short-cutting? I don't get it. There is absolutely nothing else to blog about. This from a play-tester??

I could care less if that catapult had taken his head off! Give me battle details W/O the eye-candy touring.

For what its worth, I applaud CA (and specifically The Shogun) for the effort, but give me less Fluff n Puff and more detail.

Speeds are slower? Good, so what did it allow the player to accomplish that he couldn't in RTW.

Greater control? Good again, so tell me how having greater control allowed the player to do more than he could with RTW.

Strategy now plays a bigger role in battles? Welllll, show me some strategic thinking and application on the part of the player in response to the AI----a bit more than:

To cut a long story short I advanced to engage...

Moreover, I want to hear how the "greater control" allows the player to play with innovation!!!!! This is what its all been about since the inception of Shogun. We don't want to be stuck with the typical RTS rock/paper/scissor *race-to-build* battle model. Control, AI, battle and terrain, as well as weather EFFECTS is what allowed this tired model to be broken by Shogun: Total War

I repeat, I MUST be capable of innovating upon the battlefield in order to defeat a superior in numbers and/or capability AI (or even human) opponnent.

Note, it wasn't stated whether he won or lost, nor how long the battle took (this fact alone would be rather telling).

Frankly, for the remainder of AI development, I call for a **true** developer .plan. Why? For one, the nature of a .plan eliminates the Fluff n Puff.

The Blog is good, and that it be done by a play-tester, just give us detail. Sales to hard-core players will depend majorily upon the AI, battle and terrain effects (ala STW/MTW). I, for one, still won't be a first day of release purchaser, and will only purchase upon positive reviews from **known and original** hard-core Org members (if there are any left!).

And, NO, I will not be a purchaser based upon the Demo, nor comments from CA regarding anything they might change as a result of the community's reaction to the demo. (Sucker me once, shame on me, it won't happen twice.)

Nor will the five other people who will wait for *my* say so, before they purchase MTW2.

~TS~

[ToranagaSama]

...I hope it's clear to people that the Total War series is no
longer a serious strategy/tactical game.

Absolutely worth repeating! Quite right, they are appealing to a wider audience.

It was supposed to be predictable and provide a deep multiplayer experience.

No.

The MP that is apart of all versions is NOT what was intended.

Shogun's game design from the outset included a Campaign Multiplay option. Unfortunately, they didn't attempt to work out Campaign Multiplay until after STW's game engine was completed and the SP game was virtually finished. At which point, they discovered that the STW engine was not conducive toward implenting Campaign Multiplay. Campaign Multiplay would need a *new* engine.

So what STW, MTW, and, consequently, RTW have is a bastardized version of what was intended. No, "deep multiplayer experience" included.

What you say, RTW *is* a new TW engine, so why no "deep multiplayer experience", read that as Campaign Multiplay? For the answer, see the Puzz3D quote above.

[ToranagaSama]

The magic number for unit size in the original battle engine was 60. When that was coupled with the 1 second combat cycle and a chance to kill that nominally ranged between 0.5% (NI vs NI) and 10% (ND vs ND), you got frontal combat resolution times ranging from 3 minutes to 30 seconds. You also got predictable results vs melee and missle combat factors within a reasonable degree of uncertainty. With a 20% advantage in melee combat factor (1 point) you could expect to win 6 out of 10 times, and with a 40% advantage (2 points) you could expect to win 9 out of 10 times.

MTW introduced variable unit size. Although it still ranges around the 60 man size, it makes balancing harder because of the fixed 20% step in melee combat factor (The steps in RTW are apparently 10% which is better). Combat factor has to be used to compensate for the disadvantage suffered by smaller units vs larger units due to multiple attacks on individual men, and it's not a linear relationship. I remember Tosa and I tried to balance 100 man yari ashigaru units in STW/MI against the rest of the 60 man units, and we weren't successful to the degree necessary to ensure balanced gameplay. Variable unit size also complicates balancing ranged units because the ranged unit's overall effectiveness on a target will vary depending on the size of the target unit.

Also, in RTW artillery apparently gets the same number of kills regardless of the size of the target unit which doesn't mesh well with the morale system, if it's similar to the system used in STW/MTW, which applied a morale penalty based on the percentage of men in the unit killed in a combat cycle.

I think it's important to use the original game, STW, as the standard of comparison when you talk about playbalance and gameplay. If MTW is used, you have the situation where, although improved, M2TW could still be inferior in terms of playbalance to CA's original standard, and if you use RTW as the basis, inferior in not only playbalance but overall gameplay (missing features in the engine) as well.

In terms of AI, it's certainly a big improvement to have the AI wait until it has used it's ammo and then charge forward as a whole army rather than use piecemeal attacks where a unit goes forward only to decide that was a mistake and turns around and walks back to its lines. If you don't have a strong rock, paper, scissors battle system, then making individual unit matchups isn't as important. However, the AI is still going to be predictable unless it varies its strategy for similar situations the way a human would. Original STW had an AI that varied its strategy over about 3 different choices for the same initial battle situation.

Nice post. Really nice post.

[ToranagaSama]

I'm not discussing the tactics of a HA army v foot army. I'm taliking about after I've obliterated the AI standing army but one or two (usually) HA units refuse to retreat off the map and must be chased endlessly round and round. I've even 'lost' battles in this fashion.

I know it happened in Shogun, MTW, and RTW. Isnt it about time it was fixed. I'm not saying this will contribute to the problem BTW, I'm just pointing out the possibility. Given that the tone of the article suggests that the author was pleased and surprised by the AI behaviour I have to wonder if there hasnt been sufficient playtesting.

What you describe doesn't appear to make sense. Unless you had VERY few foot soldiers left.

If you have defeated "the standing army", then the game's *fear* factor should have caused those HA to flee the battlefield.

I don't believe the game needs to be fixed in this regard.

What needs be is a good dissemination to the casual gamer of just how the *fear* factor works and how to effect it upon the enemy AI.

One mistake, a great many people make in playing both STW and MTW is the idea that you need to physically defeat every single enemy unit or even the majority of enemy units.

You don't.

You just need to instill the fear factor thoughout the opposing army and it will rout. Once routing, you just need to maintain (or increase) the level of the fear factor.

In your rough example, I would ask why the HA are still on the field in the first place. Putting that aside, in the circumstance the fear factor principal is still in effect.

You simply need to instill the fear factor in those remaining HA. If the "standing army" has been defeated and majorily has routed save the a few remaining HA, then once the fear factor is instilled----the battle should end!

Once the fear factor has reached a certain balance---the battle is over. This is the way the game is coded.

The only exception in the circumstance you describe, is if you have a lessor number of men. That is the HA outnumber your remaining men (and/or a significant quality difference). If this is the case, then the HA's fear factor might be roughly the same (or possibly greater) as your own.

I'm sure you're not playing STW/MTW anymore, but it just takes a little practice and/or someone to show you just how the fear factor works in depth.

The underlying battle factors within STW and MTW are hugely significant, though the overwhelming majority of players NEVER comprehended nor mastered them to any seriously effective degree. Which is why CA disregarded them, for the greater part, in RTW!!

In STW/MTW you can rout an entire standing army by simply killing the
general---this is the fear factor in effect. The thing of it is you don't *need* to kill the general. You simply need to instill the fear factor within certain *key* units and cause them to flee; the rest of the army, including the general, will follow. Once in flight, never allow the fleeing army to get organized, use your cav to run down the toughest units, and keep advancing your main (foot) body. Whenever the AI appears to be organizing, simply advance your archers ((HA) are good for this) and hit the front line with a few arrows---this is why you should never use up all your arrows.

Mastering the 'fear factor' will allow a player to take on any number of AI stacks with just a single (good) stack. 1 to 100 and you can still come out the winner. I've got the replays (somewhere) to prove it.

Sorry for the post---I just had a flashback! :)

Long way to say nothing needs to be *fixed* re STW/MTW.

RTW, on the other hand is simply unplayable!

I'm not sure if its my writing or your reading, but I am talking about my (usually) winded cavalry chasing winded AI cav round and round the map edges. It is not something that can be "avoided with proper preparation" (although it can be dealt with in the battle with a blocking force to cause the AI cav to slow and be caught of course).

(Theoretically) How many units do you have left? Don't understand why you cannot use a "blocking force" just the same. I think this is a tactical problem.

Originally Posted by Puzz3D
In MTW, there is a global morale penalty for level of decimation of the army. It helps prevent a battle from being dragged out by a handful of units which have suffered heavy casualties. I don't know the level of decimation at which this penalty is incurred. I don't think this penalty was in STW because all units routed towards the original entry point on the map so it's much easier to chase off a defeated army. MTW introduced routing away from the threat which makes it a lot harder to mop up after a battle, and I think that's why the level of decimation penalty was introduced.

Yes, in MTW it did make it somewhat harder. Generally, because reinforcements could, in MTW, enter the field from virtually any point (of the oppossing side's map edge). Whereas, in STW, reinforcements would enter the field from, virtually, the same point.

The key was to not allow the entering reinfocements to move much beyond the map edge. If this was accomplished, they would rout easily, given the majority of the 'standing army' was routed and/or had a high fear factor.

The plethora of units and factions and upgrades (STW only had honor upgrades) places too much emphasis on buying the best units with the best upgrades which robs the multiplayer gameplay not only of its strategic potential, but even it's tactical potential.

Could not agree more.

I respect to the utter utmost your testing ability and knowledge, though, at times, I've had issue with the certainess of your conclusions when applied to a dirty (real world) environment, as opposed to a sterile testing environment.

For example,

I measured the size and range of the morale effect of friendly units rout, the supporting effect of the general and the effect of the general dying (-8 morale) or leaving the field (no effect on morale).

Was the "supporting effect" and "the effect of the general dying or leaving the field" measured through the full +/- spectrum of morale; and inconjunction with each and every unit, as well as each and every combination of units. Furthering, how many units, in addition to the General, was included within the test(s); what combinations of units; what 'quality' level; what combination of level 'quality' did the units (as well as the general) comprising the test(ing) have?.

How can any prediction be absolutely true, given the virtual if not real infinite possibilities and probabilities? Which does not take into account the introduction of a dirty environment---which is the gaming environment.

As I've said, I do not doubt your conclusions, I have some concern/issues with the application (or at least some) in a real world environment.

The question(s) is/are posed in a general sense, so any response (if any) can be posed generally as well. The above may or may not be a good example, I choose it because it stuck out to me, I use it just as an exampler to bounce off my questions, thoughts and concerns.

Thank you.

I also determined the size of the outnumbering morale penalty, that only the number of enemy banners within a certain radius contributed to it, that the size of the penalty diminished with the total number, that it had a maximum cutoff value of 3 banners and that it didn't matter if the enemy units were hidden.

Super interesting.


NOTE: Nothing above was meant nor intended to be of any insult whatsoever.


~ToranagaSama

[ToranagaSama]

I
In the past, during LongJohn's involvement with TW, there seemed to be more interaction between parties and discussison on game mechanics were commonplace. Because the TW franchise wasn't as commercial and "big business" as it is now, maybe the community had a bigger influence on certain things? - but that's just speculation of course. :D

I don't know about the "commercial" motivation, but everything else is right on the money.

Personally, I think it has a lot to do with brining a whole crew of *employee*, as opposed to origional creators. Employees aren't as invested in a creation as are the creators.

[ToranagaSama]

Of course tactical movement, terrain, etc should be able to effect the battle outcome between two identical units. I'm simply stating that a battle is not a chess match and that there should be an 'imponderable' occasionally included in the battle calcs. Clustering of random numbers may do it but given the large number of 'rolls' required to perform a unit-unit battle I doubt it (and I havent seen it happen). It would make it interesting if just once in a blue moon a heavy cav unit got repulsed by peasants.

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.

---

Perhaps but then we'd have people on the forums saying "WHY DID MY GOTHIC KNIGHTS GET DESTROYED BY PEASANTS? CA WHY? DIE IN A FIRE!!!"

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.

[Bob the Insane]

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.

I think you have a point there... The TW design was based not on chess but on table top war games, which are at their core dice based games. There is lots of modifiers thrown in there to make unit A much per likely to defeat unit B, but it is always probability and never a dead cert... Well you can buff unit A to the point were unit B has next to no chance of victory and that is the closest you will get to total predicability. Peasants defeating Gothic Cavalry, impossible? No. So improbable that you will likely never see it in you lifetime? Yes...

The battles are fought on the individual soldier level and essentially each soldier has stats, a bunch of modifiers based on their status and location, etc. Two soldiers fight, a virtual die is cast and either one is victorious or the fight continues. Everything else is a conseqence of that result, except perhaps for morale. Morale appears to be at the unit level and if it did not change too much from the previous MTW version is much more predictable. It is obviously affected by the fight results but there are many more factors involved. But basically reduce the morale below a set level and the unit always breaks.


I do not think CA have purposely put in an inponderable, it has always been there. It is just the setting of the unit stats that makes it more apparant. Most of the units in RTW had much higher attack stats compared to defense stats which made the battles very bloody and quick. It was down to which unit killed the most of the other quicker rather than anything else.

A lot of mods have demostrated how you get a slower paced battle where you tactical decisions really count just by tweaking the stats.

[Puzz3D]

I respect to the utter utmost your testing ability and knowledge, though, at times, I've had issue with the certainess of your conclusions when applied to a dirty (real world) environment, as opposed to a sterile testing environment.

For example,

Was the "supporting effect" and "the effect of the general dying or leaving the field" measured through the full +/- spectrum of morale; and inconjunction with each and every unit, as well as each and every combination of units. Furthering, how many units, in addition to the General, was included within the test(s); what combinations of units; what 'quality' level; what combination of level 'quality' did the units (as well as the general) comprising the test(ing) have?.

How can any prediction be absolutely true, given the virtual if not real infinite possibilities and probabilities? Which does not take into account the introduction of a dirty environment---which is the gaming environment.

As I've said, I do not doubt your conclusions, I have some concern/issues with the application (or at least some) in a real world environment.

The question(s) is/are posed in a general sense, so any response (if any) can be posed generally as well. The above may or may not be a good example, I choose it because it stuck out to me, I use it just as an exampler to bounce off my questions, thoughts and concerns.

The morale system is deterministic, and the things I measured were mostly confirmed by LongJohn. That's why I'm certain about conclusions concerning the morale system. The system isn't very complicated. The only morale numeric value I don't know is the penalty suffered as a result of the ratio of the size of the unit before and after a combat cycle in which it has suffered casualties. That is extremely difficult to measure. LongJohn was going to look at the code and tell us the size of that penalty, but he never got to it.

The combat system is also fairly simple, but since it uses random numbers there is an uncertainty in the results. There is no uncertainty in the algorithm being used since LongJohn told us the algorithm. The physical environment is a very simple vacuum physics model for projectiles.

[x-dANGEr]

What you once were used to, isn't necessarily the best you can get to.

[JR-]

is there any indication that these layers of tactical depth that were present in M:TW and then then stripped from R:TW, will make an appearance once again in M2:TW?

Explanation: I am one of those people that has put thousands of hours into M:TW over the last 4 (?) years, and yet played R:TW for only a week before i gave it away due to boredom.

I desperately want to believe that M2:TW will return me to that gaming nirvana i first experienced with M:TW.

[Puzz3D]

is there any indication that these layers of tactical depth that were present in M:TW and then then stripped from R:TW, will make an appearance once again in M2:TW?

Explanation: I am one of those people that has put thousands of hours into M:TW over the last 4 (?) years, and yet played R:TW for only a week before i gave it away due to boredom.

I desperately want to believe that M2:TW will return me to that gaming nirvana i first experienced with M:TW.

There is indication that M2TW tactical depth will be better than RTW, although with some missing tactical features compared to the older STW/MTW battle engine. We don't know if the battle systems of combat, fatigue and morale will be as well balanced to one another as in the original STW game which I believe is necessary to bring out the kind of tactical depth where little things make a difference. I'm talking about little tactical things that the player has control over not random things which the player has no control over.

[JR-]

cheers, it's a start i suppose.

i would be mortally disappointed if i got that same feeling of utter indifference playing the new game as happened with R:TW.

[SpencerH]

What you describe doesn't appear to make sense. Unless you had VERY few foot soldiers left.

................

RTW, on the other hand is simply unplayable!

As I said in a later post, the effect has occured mainly in RTW but it I've seen defending AI units (usuually cav archers of some type) in MTW that refused to rout along with the bulk of the AI army (and that could occasionaly turn an obvious victory into a draw).

(Theoretically) How many units do you have left? Don't understand why you cannot use a "blocking force" just the same. I think this is a tactical problem.

~ToranagaSama

I could use a blocking force to slow the HA. The point is that it shouldnt happen IMO. This is not a tactical problem, it's an RTW gameplay problem.

As far as I can tell from your long post above we seem to be in agreement that the developers description of the AI tactical maneuvers seems promising but more info is needed as to 'long term' effects of this AI behaviour (which is all that I was illustrating with my HA run-around example).

[SpencerH]

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).

[econ21]

The odd corollary to this is that I find CIV4 combat results to be too unpredictable.

Off-topic - I agree, there's many a time when I've lost a precious veteran Civ 4 unit against the odds. I'm not sure of the maths, but I think it may be because there is not much averaging going on - in TW, you have scores of men hacking away for a fair time and so if they have a 3% kill chance or whatever, these random outcomes are being averaged over quite a large number of repetitions. With civ, it's more one-on-one and while there are combat rounds, there's presumably some kind of momentum effect whereby one bad roll disadvantages you in later rolls.

On the other hand, I think Civ4 combat "works", particularly in getting a decent trade off between quality and quantity. I have happy memories of trying to fight Russian tanks without having discovered oil. I felt like the Wehrmacht encountering the KV-1 for the first time.

[Bob the Insane]

I remember once many moons ago playing Warhammer 40K with my Imperial Guard company (I really did have around 200 of the little guys all painted up) and we were fighting my friend's Bad Moon Orks...

This was first edition rules and he had made an Ork Walker which resembled a giant pair of mechanical legs with platform on top for a sqaud of orks...

Well he charged it up the centre of the battlefield and I had everyone shooting at it...

Well you have never seen some many 1s and 2s rolled in your life, everyone missed, every single guardsman missed the giant mechanic thing...

And the Heavy Lasers and Missile launcher every squad had should have reduced it to a smoking ruin!!

How is that for an impondererable... If it had happened in Dawn of War I would have been tempted to launch the PC out the window for "cheating"!

[Myrddraal]

That's because unfortunately Dawn of War isn't really a 'wargame'. It's just cool to see the guys move.

TW is a wargame. I like the random factors of the game, they provide the challenge. Imagine a chess computer game, once you've mastered the difficulty level, the game becomes extremely repetitive and boring as you beat the ai the same way again and again. Now imagine that once in a while a pawn doesn't get taken buy destroys your bishop; you now have to adapt to the situation, adjust your tactics and overcome the problem. Fun!

[Polemists]

True but let's talk about limits. It is unrealistic to think that they are going to put e nough code in a game that is going to change every single time you encounter it. Coders who make games do not seem at that stage yet regardless.

What you can hope for is a certain set of variables that will at least offer some variety. I look forward to the AI, I think new units provide new tactics, and the world seems more immersive then RTW. Then again I would advise you all to wait until the demo. You've got two weeks come monday, depending who you believe maybe more.


Regardless this is all speculation. You are judging a entire game on ONE play testers, ONE battle, with a few paragraphs of info. I'm sure once everyone plays it and test it they'll all be going crazy. Point remains though buying is a choice, it is a way to support or not to support your game. Those who enjoy the combat will buy, those who don't won't. Modders are welcome to try and change what they wish. I'm just saying don't judge a entire AI system on one post(blog) without testing it.