Random effect

[Brue]

Maybe there was some similar topic, but I couldn't find it.

Ok, what is wrong for me, during the play, is the fact about unusual random factor in calculation of the battles. For example: if You move Your troops in one way, the battle results will be first version, if You do some change in order of moves, battle results will be completely different. I m not talking about specific part of the map, when you attacking one unit with few troops, i m talking in general case, situation when one move of the troop on the one side of the map somehow affect result of the battle on the other side of the map.

I tried to check if its as somehow implementation of feature that in one part of the front player could achieve ground or air superiority, bit its not a case.

Tho, maybe feature about counting xx number of hex fields as superiority of some side in that part of the map could be good idea, but till then this total random effect spoils the game to be honest.


ps. I would like to thank you for this remake of old PG. I was happy like a child when i saw it few months ago. Warp back in time and to the childhood Hex strategies rule!

[Kissaki]

Is it the random seed you are asking about? It's not that an action here affects an action there, not as such, but you cannot get a computer to be perfectly random. What this means in Panzer Corps is that the die rolls will be identical if you reload the game. The die rolls are not stored for individual units, however, so if you do things in a different order from before, you will get different results. For example, let's say the first die rolls (on a 100-sided die, which is what this game uses) are 85, 48, 52, 87, 23. They will always be in this order, no matter how many times you reload the save, but the actions to which they apply depend entirely on the order you do things. This is the most random element: you.

So there you have it. The game only appears to be random, because you don't know what the die rolls are, and as such cannot predict the exact results. This is the case with all software: nothing is actually random.

[VPaulus]

but you cannot get a computer to be perfectly random.

This might be a bit off topic, but why? I'm bad at mathematics but I've always faced this problem.
It doesn't matter if it was when I was programing in BASIC back in 1982 with a GE Mark 1 or playing a game in 2010, I don't have a perfect random routine. Programmers are always using tricks.
Could someone explained me this, please?

[Brue]

I know what You are saying Kissaki, but its completely unrealistic. Random seed for entire battlefield and not for each unit makes game unrealistic by my opinion. Plus, entire idea of random things should be lowered on level that it wont affects each battle between two units so much. I mean, we are talking about here of random effect that has mayor not minor effect on the game.

For example, to put aside terrain or nearby units - in battle between two units, we have result lets say -5 deffender, -2 attacker. If You move/attack some other units somewhere on battlefield, not even close to the those two, the result could end up as -1 deffender -6 attacker, which is terrible for strategy planning.

If the game counts terrain, initiative, type and strength of unit, together with level, variety of the result couldn't be so drastic, specially not connected to in which order player use troops (wherever on the battlefield).

As i said, they could implement smaller random check, but on other side to put dominance on each for example 10x10 hex or less. Specially when besides winning, player needs to achieve fast victory in campaign. This would open more strategic views of the battlefield, as stronger defensive position of mass units in some fronts, but also spearhead front-braking strategy. So, dominance of air, ground or sea could replace one part of present random checks effect in 1 battle.
I mean, if You look real battlefield, if unit has strong positions with so many units around/behind it, or in the area, it would be less possible to be defeated or to lose moral and run away. On other side, unit which facing numerous enemy units in area, wont be in mood to just stand there to the last, pretending that everything will be fine.

[Horseman]

How does it effect strategy planning? The only way it could is if you save and reload each time until you get the result you want and that hardly counts as strategy

Basically unless you save and reload often you wont even notice that the random seed is pregenerated at the start of turn and saved

[Brue]

To simplify answer on that Horseman: then its completely game of luck. If you start moving your troops, as example, from up toward enemy lines, you might lose, no matter on what is your strategy, but you would win doing exact same attacks/moves if you start moving troops from down...

[Horseman]

To simplify answer on that Horseman: then its completely game of luck. If you start moving your troops, as example, from up toward enemy lines, you might lose, no matter on what is your strategy, but you would win doing exact same attacks/moves if you start moving troops from down...

But if you take the luck element away then you may as well just play chess surely?

And as to your example, thats not right. The game pregenrates the randomn seed at the start of the turn, saving and reloading do not re set this. Just moving a unit does not change the seed, only doing something that requires a dice roll such as attacking will "use" up the next random number generated.

[Brue]

Usually you need to move troops too so you can attack, that is what i meant to say. Sorry that i haven't be precise and say only attack.

Yes, element of luck should exist, but not in such a scale as now.

About chess part - well this type of the games should be more closer to the chess and less to the roulette, isn't it?

[Horseman]

Usually you need to move troops too so you can attack, that is what i meant to say. Sorry that i haven't be precise and say only attack.

Yes, element of luck should exist, but not in such a scale as now.

But the elemant of luck now is no different than a number being generated as its needed UNLESS you choose to save and reload to get the best result and as I already mentioned that to me pretty much takes away the fun of the game because you'll always win and never have to deal with setbacks.

Theres a reason most campaigns are waged with strategic and tactical reserves....to comit when things don't go to plan (also known as bad luck) or too exploit possibly unexpected success (also known as good luck)

[Razz1]

You are refering to mass attack. It is explained in the tutorial and the manual.

[Kissaki]

I know what You are saying Kissaki, but its completely unrealistic. Random seed for entire battlefield and not for each unit makes game unrealistic by my opinion. Plus, entire idea of random things should be lowered on level that it wont affects each battle between two units so much. I mean, we are talking about here of random effect that has mayor not minor effect on the game.

For example, to put aside terrain or nearby units - in battle between two units, we have result lets say -5 deffender, -2 attacker. If You move/attack some other units somewhere on battlefield, not even close to the those two, the result could end up as -1 deffender -6 attacker, which is terrible for strategy planning.

If I understand you correctly, this is not how it works. Bonuses remain the same, as do attack and defence values. For example, let us say you have two battles going on, completely unrelated to eachother:

Battle 1 is between your experienced unit of engineers vs. an enemy tank in a city. Because it is in a city, the tank will be using its close defence value, which is, shall we say, 1. Rugged defence is not factored in, as engineers are immune. In this case, the attacking engineer has the edge.

Battle 2 is between your rather inexperienced cavalry unit and an enemy HW unit in the forest. There is a significant chance you'll encounter rugged defence, and overall your cavalry is no match for the enemy HW unit.

You play battle 1 first, then battle two. The first die roll is extremely good for you, the second die roll is rather average. So in battle 1, you completely destroy the enemy tank, but in battle 2, all your cavalry is lost.

Ok, now reload, and do it in the opposite order.

This time, because of the extremely good first roll, your cavalry gains the initiative and manages to score 3 kills while only suffering 2. Your engineers, with the second (average) die roll, perform averagely against the tank, scoring 3 and suffering 1 loss.

The factors in both cases were all identical, the only things that changed were the die rolls. The game DOES count terrain, initiative, type and strength of all units, but they are still at the mercy of the die rolls. The same die roll will do different things for different units precisely for this reason: a good situation will be made even better with a good die roll, whereas a bad situation will merely be made less bad by the same die roll.

I mean, if You look real battlefield, if unit has strong positions with so many units around/behind it, or in the area, it would be less possible to be defeated or to lose moral and run away. On other side, unit which facing numerous enemy units in area, wont be in mood to just stand there to the last, pretending that everything will be fine.

And that's the way it is in Panzer Corps as well. But it's not as in chess, where an attacking piece ALWAYS defeats a defending piece. Just like in real life, there is a chance an excellent outfit will be caught with their pants down and massacred by a hastily erected militia. History is full of examples of simple folk fighting to the last man, and elite warriors running away like frightened children. Usually the best fighter will win, but this is not always the case.

[Kissaki]

Theres a reason most campaigns are waged with strategic and tactical reserves....to comit when things don't go to plan (also known as bad luck) or too exploit possibly unexpected success (also known as good luck)

Exactly. It is a poor plan that cannot be altered, and I think it was Rommel who once said that nothing goes according to plan for more than twenty minutes.

[Horseman]

Theres a reason most campaigns are waged with strategic and tactical reserves....to comit when things don't go to plan (also known as bad luck) or too exploit possibly unexpected success (also known as good luck)

Exactly. It is a poor plan that cannot be altered, and I think it was Rommel who once said that nothing goes according to plan for more than twenty minutes.

Can't remember who said it 1st but I always liked "No plan survives contact with the enemy"

[Iscaran]

I think what the OP wants to say is that the "luck" effect (pseudo-random) dice rolls is much too heavy to allow for planning.

Some part of luck is important but I too have the feel that it is too large atm.

I also do not like the static "random" number generator which is constant for every round. A player just has to write down the "random" dice rolls and can then plan his turn accordingly after reloading the turn.
A true random generator which refreshes each time you reload cannot be outwitted that way as you really CANNOT predict what the next dice roll will be. Though you could save after every combat and reload the next one until you are satisfied with the result.

In SP the static random number generator is annoying. I agree though that for MP it may be a necessity to avoid players redoing their turn until best "random" luck has taken effect.

[Horseman]

Yes you can outwit the static random seed by playing a turn, workign out where the good rolls are and then playing the turn over. You can of course out wit a random number generated at each instance by just reloading until you get the desired result...both methods involve reloading

If you play to accept the odd bad result (because they will happen) and dont intend reloading poor results it doesn't matter at all how the random numbers are generated

[TheGrayMouser]

I think what the OP wants to say is that the "luck" effect (pseudo-random) dice rolls is much too heavy to allow for planning.

Some part of luck is important but I too have the feel that it is too large atm.

I also do not like the static "random" number generator which is constant for every round. A player just has to write down the "random" dice rolls and can then plan his turn accordingly after reloading the turn.
A true random generator which refreshes each time you reload cannot be outwitted that way as you really CANNOT predict what the next dice roll will be. Though you could save after every combat and reload the next one until you are satisfied with the result.

In SP the static random number generator is annoying. I agree though that for MP it may be a necessity to avoid players redoing their turn until best "random" luck has taken effect.

Ist off , the static dice arnt generated until you cause an action where dice need to be rolled, so its not "predetermined".
EDIT: (after reading some posts maybe they are all prerolled? really doesnt matter though)
As others point out, simply not writing down all the dice rolls and then reloading, makes the whole point moot.

Also, im not positive , but does the engine even save the dice rolls for single player? I dont see why they would even bother because the devlopers have no concern if you want to cheat in single player experince, if they did they wouldnt have made the game so moddable, and supplied a host of cheat codes

This was incorporated soly to prevent cheating in MP and a true random dice generater apparently CAN and WAS outwitted by a cheater(s) in the other MP system by Slitheirne. This way could potetnially be exploited but only, i would assume , after massive amounts of work , spreadsheets etc . i doudt even the most hardened cheater would find it worthwhile.

[Razz1]

Well the OP is confused about Mass Attack. Once you understand that it is okay.

Now, if want to bring up the subject of Random Generator......

I too agree that it needs to be toned down.


You haven't seen anything yet until you play the Allies in MP.

The RNG just kills the Allies. Why? Because their units are weaker and it takes time to get into position to counter attack or attack at good odds.

Then the dice roll and you get crapped on very often. It leaves the Allies to defensive roll most of the time as a failure in combat due to RNG leads to sever risk and exposes your units to counter attack where often you loose two units because you did a mass attack once with 3 kills to one or greater on your previous units. When the RNG kicks in, after the first attack on a mass attack the two remaining units can not attack at favorable odds because the Allies units stats are weaker.

As Axis you feel the pain but is is okay most of the time.

[Kissaki]

When the RNG kicks in, after the first attack on a mass attack the two remaining units can not attack at favorable odds because the Allies units stats are weaker.

Could this not be resolved by having all surrounding units affect the mass attack, even if they have used up their attack? After all, the logic is that the defending unit gets a defence penalty because it is defending on multiple sides, all at once. But this is the case against all attacking units, not just the first ones. Imagine the following conversation taking place:

Captain Spectacular: "Lieutenant, we're surrounded on four sides. We're in a tight spot."
Lieutenant Columbo: "Well, Sir, I am happy to report that we have already fought off an attack on the east side, so we don't have to worry about that side for a while."
Cpt. S.: "Outstanding! Quickly, pull everyone from the eastern ramparts and place them on the other three walls. Thank God these rascals attack one at a time."

[El_Condoro]

Could this not be resolved by having all surrounding units affect the mass attack, even if they have used up their attack?

Units can't affect mass attacks unless they haven't used their attack in that turn. From the manual:

In order to contribute to mass attack effect, your unit must be able to attack the enemy unit
and have unspent attack action. Also, ranged units like artillery are not counted.

[Kissaki]

Could this not be resolved by having all surrounding units affect the mass attack, even if they have used up their attack?

Units can't affect mass attacks unless they haven't used their attack in that turn. From the manual:

In order to contribute to mass attack effect, your unit must be able to attack the enemy unit
and have unspent attack action. Also, ranged units like artillery are not counted.

That's exactly what I'm saying. I said, could this not be resolved if we let all units affect mass attack, even though they had already used their attack.