An easy way to solve the reloading problem

PSP/DS/PC/MAC : WWII turn based grand strategy game

Moderators: firepowerjohan, Happycat, rkr1958, Slitherine Core

Post Reply
Morris
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2289
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:00 am

An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by Morris » Sat Nov 07, 2015 10:34 am

During the last several years , From CEAW1.06 to the present CEAW3.2 , there is one problem always bothering us . The Reloading problem !
In GS , all combats may have many result possibility . Many players reload the game to get better combat results . Since sometimes player reload as many as possible to get some extrem result & benefit from it , It has made it unfair for their opponent . It also made their opponent lose the interest in this great game . But until now It seems we still did not find a way to solve this problem .

After our team’s researching on this , we find an easy way to solve this by changing a game set up file as follows :
In “general.txt” file , there is a data named “ NUMBER_OF_BATTLE_ROLLS” . (We will brief it as“NOBR” ) . It is the rolls of each combat sothat to get an average combat result . At present this data is set as 3 & maxium 4.
To research about the result of increase the NOBR to 4 , we make a data test . The test object is three combats between Sub vs DD ; sub vs BB ; Luftwaffe FTRvs RAF FTR in turn 2( Sept 21st 1939). & the results are the loss from both side.
At first : We collect 30 times data when we set NOBR at 3 , then we get 180 original data . We calculate the data’s Average , Maxium, Minium , Range & Standard Deviation .


Image



To compare with the above data , we increase the NOBR to 4 . Without any other change , we test it in the same above situation & collect another 180 original data .

Image



To be clear to compare the data from the above two tests , we put them into one sheet as follows :


Image


The statistic result shows that : when we increase the NOBR , the combat result’s range was quite reduced . & the possibility of the extrem result become rather rare .


Image



Image



Image



Image



Finally , we draw a conclusion that to increase the NOBR will effectively reduce the possibility of extrem combat result . This does work well not only in 3.2 but also in 3.1. So we suggest to increase the NOBR’s maxium to 9 in 3.2 . It will thoroughly solve the problem of reloading ! It will make players concentrate on the skill & strategy , not wasting time on reloading for extrem better combat result .

Then we can enjoy this great game in coming years .



CEAW-GS China team
Nov 8th 2015

mupawa
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by mupawa » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:44 pm

LOL, That sounds great. And ironic considering.

mupawa
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by mupawa » Sat Nov 07, 2015 4:09 pm

Sort of bears out my observations doesn't it Morris? Maybe what we should do is limit the variations to + or - 10%. Why do we need wild results at all? What do they simulate? The British defeat of the Italians in the early stages of the war that resulted from the Italians placing their fortified points too far apart? At the strategic level, it is arguable that tactical aberrations - for example the slaughter at Villers Bocage - did not have great strategic impact. Lower the variation to 10% and it becomes more of a chess game and less a game of craps. A predicted result 0f 2:1 might result in a 3:1 or 1:1 result but never a 4:1 or 1:2. If we factored in experience as an odds modifier then we could simulate that unpredictable results tend to occur more when inexperienced troops are involved. In other words where one unit has low experience the chances of the results favoring the experienced unit beyond the predicted odds increases, and conversely it becomes much less likely to have an unpredictably adverse outcome. COuld make the range between 5-10% so a battle between two experienced units was far more unlikely to have an unpredicted outcome than between two inexperienced units. I am not suggesting removing chance altogether - if I want a game that has no element of chance I will play chess. But when you see FTRs with inferior effectiveness to their targets NEVER (as opposed to MOSTLY, as it should be) having an adverse result, and being launched by the Allied side early in the war when the PPs to replace losses are scarce, you gotta smell a rat.

When the changes do come I would be happy to try a rematch with you.

zzmzmy
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 2:44 pm

Re: An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by zzmzmy » Sun Nov 08, 2015 1:33 pm

Less reloading, more interesting. So I agree all the measures which could decrease the results of reloading.

mamahuhu
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 94
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:43 pm

Re: An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by mamahuhu » Fri Nov 13, 2015 2:32 pm

I hope this method can take effect

JimWC
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 36
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:25 am
Location: Ft. Worth, Texas

Re: An easy way to solve the reloading problem

Post by JimWC » Fri Dec 25, 2015 9:24 pm

In my mind, the bigger problem is that the reloader can get intelligence about where hidden units are. Averaging combat results doesn't help with that problem at all. Besides, luck plays an important part in war and anomalous results should happen sometimes. The ultimate solution is a server based game where each move the player makes is communicated to the server at the time he makes it. That way players can never back up. When I heard that Commander the Great War was server based, I thought that was why the developer did that. Alas, this was a missed opportunity.

Post Reply

Return to “MILITARY HISTORY™ Commander - Europe at War : General Discussion”