Winners: B, A, B, A, B, B, A, B = 3 A, 5 Bstockwellpete wrote:I am sure that it would happen very, very occasionally, but not 20 or 30 times in every battle. If you recall . . .TheGrayMouser wrote: Is it impossible to believe that a cavalry squadron that wins a tough combat(3-2 hits) vs another equal opponent might not suffer any losses while the loser suffers 18 men hors de combat? Doesnt seem to fanatstical to me and not only that , this is an extreme example.
BATTLE OF BONKERS, (Stockwell, London 2011)
I set up two armies of Swiss halberdiers (two lines of 8BG's each with a C-in-C BG behind them) on open ground.
Turn 1 (the lines come together 8 separate melees)
Results 12-1, 4-20, 15-1, 2-13, 3-13, 15-2, 5-2 and 4-12.
So 7 results were "bonkers" and 1 was "normal".
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4.
Nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.
Winners: B, A, A, A, B, A, B, A = 5 A, 3 BTurn 2 (a further 8 separate melees. (D) indicates that unit was "disrupted" prior to melee)
4-3, 0-11, 1-(D)2, 3-14, 13-4, 4-(D)16, 14-1 and 2-11.
so 5 results were "bonkers" and 3 were "normal" (including the two involving "disrupted" units)
Loooking at these results as just wins/loses you get 3 for A (first side) and 5 for B (second side), So this is a slightly less probably result than the most likely 4-4 for this round but seems to even
up with the previous. B also failed two cohesion tests so now seems to be on the losing end overall.
Still nothing too outrageous in overall combat results so far.
Did the 0/9 result versus the 9/9 result occur primarily due to auto-breaks from casualties or due to cohesion drops? The results after turn 2 with two B uits disrupted would certainly indicate A was favored at that point.By turn 3 quite a few units were getting "disrupted" but the basic ratio of "bonkers" results remained steady through the next few turns. By turn 6 the battle was over. Side A had won by 0/9 to 9/9. A truly "bonkers" result considering the sides were evenly matched at the start.
No, no - we still want the chance element in the game and we still want the occasional extreme result (one or two per battle would be enough for me).IMO simply changing the ranges so its noticable is going to stale up combat and make each combat a fixed loss. You will know almost exactly how long every single combat will last before an autoroute which isnt realistic at all.
So were the remaing results due to casualties primarily or due to accumalating cohesion loss due to failed cohesion tests? I suspect the former but would to seem more turns of combat results to be able to better judge. (I don't remember how many turns Pete originally posted in this example.)
While I think the game would be improved by having a bell curve probability for the distribution of casualties within each range rather than what appears to be a unfirm distribution, I'm not generally convinced that the uniform distribution is in general a really big determinant in game outcomes with the current version.