Favorite combat mode: Normal, Dice Chess, Chess?

[Longasc]

What's your favorite?

Let me explain the different kinds of combat you can now choose under advanced options:

Normal: As we are used to, there is a chance that the prediction is quite off and you are either lucky or unlucky.
Chess: Everything happens as predicted, only Rugged Defense is a random chance
Dice Chess: A mix of both modes, but there is a randomness cap of a +/- 20% deviation from the predicted result.


I suggest you test each mode for a while before answering, I for instance was quite surprised that I actually like the normal mode the most. Dice Chess is nice, but to give the AI a chance it needs some randomness to score a kill.

[Rood]

I always have played with the normal mode with the sometimes abnormal results
And I do admit I have cursed and screamed and raged quite a few times, on the other hand, I have also cheered when the results were in my favor.

The main reason for playing with the random results is that if the combat result is unpredicteable then I will continually have to adjust my tactics to any results (favorable or not). I more or less adjust my whole playing style to the random results, I don't leave any of my units in a very vulnerable position.

On a sidenote I usually play on General/FM difficulty.

[Resolute]

I always play with Chess mode. There were far too many instances where I was really close smashing my keyboard

[KeldorKatarn]

Normal. Warfare needs some random chance element imo and I'm simply used to it. Completely predictable results would take some of the fun away for me since I would no longer prepare for the worst case and fear for my units when an attack comes, because I never know the outcome.

[MikeAP]

I always play with Chess mode. There were far too many instances where I was really close smashing my keyboard

Kasserine brought me close yesterday, when I lost on the last turn.

[Tarrak]

I stick to the normal mode. Chess Dice could be an option as well but pure Chess is way to predictable imho. In battle nothing is certain really.

P.S: i was so free to add a poll. I hope you don't mind Longasc.

[Anfield]

If I wanted to play chess id play chess. I dont want a predictable outcome, this is war damn it!!!

[brettz123]

I complain about normal but I like it better than the others.

[MikeAP]

If I wanted to play chess id play chess. I dont want a predictable outcome, this is war damn it!!!

I agree that war is unpredictable...hell, I've been in one in real life. I enjoy the fact that this uncertainty is modeled in game

However, with PzC the odds always seem to favor the AI, especially in the harder difficult levels. The odds will never favor the player because the AI knows the REAL odds and will never commit.

My 3:1 attack suddenly becomes 2:3. Once in a while I can see it, but it occurs more often than not. Realistically, If my subordinate commanders had that much bad luck, they would be finding new jobs

[MikeAP]

Also, I will admit that I don't fully understand the [hidden] game mechanics and variables.

What really causes a 3:1 attack to result in a 2:3? Uncertainty? Human error?

[Vaughn]

I complain about normal but I like it better than the others.

+1

[KeldorKatarn]

Also, I will admit that I don't fully understand the [hidden] game mechanics and variables.

What really causes a 3:1 attack to result in a 2:3? Uncertainty? Human error?

Well dice rolls obviously in terms of game mechanics. You might wanna check the full combat results with L after the battle.

As for what it simulates... all kinds of stuff. Random chance, human error or great deeds, morale... A battle simply is not fully predictable. if it was wars could easily be won by just having the better plan. but that alone just doesn't do it. Soldier's luck is a big variable in the equation of war.

[Tarrak]

However, with PzC the odds always seem to favor the AI, especially in the harder difficult levels. The odds will never favor the player because the AI knows the REAL odds and will never commit.

My 3:1 attack suddenly becomes 2:3. Once in a while I can see it, but it occurs more often than not. Realistically, If my subordinate commanders had that much bad luck, they would be finding new jobs

Tbh i do not believe this is the case tho we all sometimes feels it is like that. What causes it are two things:

Firstly we simply expect the rolls to go like the prediction tells us. The dozes of time where the dices/rng do like expected are just considered by our minds as "working like intended" and not really further noticed. The rare odd roll, especially in our disfavor, is something special and we just remember it. Human brains simply work like this. Events that are considered normal are easily ignored but events that are special in some way get remembered.

Secondly almost no one tends to attack if the odds are bad. After all why would you attack when the prediction is way against you? This way we kind of skip the opportunity to get a strange roll in our favor. We usually attack only if the chances are favorable so the only "strange" outcome we can see are against us.

[Dragoon.]

The rare odd roll, especially in our disfavor, is something special and we just remember it. Human brains simply work like this. Events that are considered normal are easily ignored but events that are special in some way get remembered.

.

Ah the full moon effect as we tend to remember events when there was a light in the sky to associate it with.

I enjoyed chess mode in my last two playthroughs. This was some very relaxing games I had. You certainly loose the "wow" moments when you get these killer results, but it also saves you some frustration.
I had in the past a few scenarios where I was haunted by streaks of bad rolls. That was no fun at all. It felt like random punishment with no reason. With chess mode I win because I have earned it and I loose because I suck. There are excuses.
Side effect is that the game get easier. If the AI get bad results it don't suffer from long term repercussion as it start fresh in the next battle. Where I have to carry over the additional losses in prestige and experience through the campaign. This can actually quite add up. Also since I know, unless a rugged defense occurs, how exactly things play out I can efficiently sequence my unit action up. This is actually a bad thing. So I'm looking forward to dice chess. I want challenge myself by disrupting this perfect turn. Not so much by really hurting me as with full randomness previously, but by forcing me to adapt to a new situation and get me out of my "comfort zone".

[Longasc]

Dragoon, while reading your posting I was already mentally typing "try dice chess", but you came to the conclusion already by yourself at the end of your posting.

Dice Chess is well worth it, everyone who didn't try it yet should give it a try. Maybe it's also nice to have for multiplayer, this "limited randomness" effect of the dice chess mode.

[Razz1]

I agree, I think dice chess would balance the multi-player game.

[KeldorKatarn]

If I wanted to play chess id play chess. I dont want a predictable outcome, this is war damn it!!!

I agree that war is unpredictable...hell, I've been in one in real life. I enjoy the fact that this uncertainty is modeled in game

However, with PzC the odds always seem to favor the AI, especially in the harder difficult levels. The odds will never favor the player because the AI knows the REAL odds and will never commit.

My 3:1 attack suddenly becomes 2:3. Once in a while I can see it, but it occurs more often than not. Realistically, If my subordinate commanders had that much bad luck, they would be finding new jobs

First of all the AI doesn't know more than you. It might simply understand statistics and chance better. 3:1 are not odds. it is an expected outcome. But that is is expected doesn't mean it's the actual outcome. If I need to roll a 6, then the expected value for necessary tries to do that is 6. That doesn't mean my 6th roll will always be a 6. There is variance. Just because humans (not just you, I'm a game developer and there's entire seminars about this problem in players) usually have a hard time understanding what "odds" mean, it doesn't mean the system is wrong. The expected value is 100% correct, with chess mode or without it. All you do with that mode is remove all variance, that's all.

As for the commanders losing their jobs... as a former officer I find this comment a bit worrying. So you would take away my command because of one battle going wrong? Or do you think officers don't inform their superiors about odds? If I tell you, I think I can do this with a 3:1 loss rate and I end up achieving the goal but with a 3:2 loss rate because something unexpected happens... you take away my command? You know that just happens. There might be intel I didn't know about, one of my units might have run into an ambush, some vehicle might have broken down or the enemy simply cought us at a very bad moment and decimated one of my units. So what am I supposed to do about that? Always deliver the expected result? Show me ONE commander who was able to do that. if you continually have such bad result, sure, because then you probably are calculating the odds INCORRECTLY, because if you had given the bad odds nobody would have attacked, but that's the thing. The real odds will not be bad if you can succeed, and if they are good you will on the average have good results. That doesn't mean however EVERY result will be good. even with a 99% chance to win, you can still lose. That doesn't mean I was wrong when I said you had a 99% chance. That's what humans may usually tend to think, but it is completely wrong.

[MikeAP]

As for the commanders losing their jobs... as a former officer I find this comment a bit worrying. So you would take away my command because of one battle going wrong?

As a current officer I'm confused that you mis-read what I wrote in my initial post.

Once in a while I can see it, but it occurs more often than not. Realistically, If my subordinate commanders had that much bad luck, they would be finding new jobs

It happens all of the time. Like I said in an earlier post, it seems that the harder the game difficulty, the more offset the actual results can be. There might as well not be ANY predictions displayed.

There might be intel I didn't know about, one of my units might have run into an ambush, some vehicle might have broken down or the enemy simply cought us at a very bad moment and decimated one of my units. So what am I supposed to do about that? Always deliver the expected result? Show me ONE commander who was able to do that.

As a former officer I'm sure you're aware that a commander is responsible for everything a unit does, or fails to do...From the Civil War to World War Two, to modern day Afghanistan commanders (at all levels) have been fired, relieved, and rotated out for poor performance or lack of results.

The real odds will not be bad if you can succeed, and if they are good you will on the average have good results. That doesn't mean however EVERY result will be good. even with a 99% chance to win, you can still lose. That doesn't mean I was wrong when I said you had a 99% chance. That's what humans may usually tend to think, but it is completely wrong.

I understand dice rolling, but the problem is that the PzC player has no idea what the real odds will be OR what he needs for a dice roll. My displayed estimate tells me that I will inflict 3:1 damage, but then I take 2:3 damage and I have no idea why...

It's complicated, you're right. It's super frustrating when things go horribly wrong...and PzC is a challenging game, where things go wrong OFTEN.

[MikeAP]

I had in the past a few scenarios where I was haunted by streaks of bad rolls. That was no fun at all. It felt like random punishment with no reason. With chess mode I win because I have earned it and I loose because I suck. There are excuses.

My feelings EXACTLY!

[KeldorKatarn]

As a former officer I'm sure you're aware that a commander is responsible for everything a unit does, or fails to do...From the Civil War to World War Two, to modern day Afghanistan commanders (at all levels) have been fired, relieved, and rotated out for poor performance or lack of results.

For repeatedly and consistently bad results yes. But that is not the case in PzC. If you have a positive prediction, then on average you WILL have positive results. You might have a bad streak of luck yes, but that eventually the odds will even that out and you'll end up with a streak of luck. Eventually the average result will equal exactly the prediction. That's just how math works, even if it initially doesn't "feel" that way.

As for the commanders again... yes commanders are relieved every now and then, but usually because they are responsible for their bad results. not because they had bad luck and ran into circumstances that were impossible to predict. Unless they're relieved by politicians which not always do that because of performance reasons. if a commander makes a good plan based on the right information and then simply has bad luck, nobody can blame him and if he is a good commander such stuff will not happen consistently, but on average he will have a very positive result. if he continually has negative results, his plans are bad, because luck is then no longer an explanation.

Same with PzC, the probability of continually, over a long period of time, having your odds vary in the negative direction form the prediction, is very very low. And getting lower the longer that "streak" of bad luck holds. If you watch videos or AAR from some of the best players like deducter or kerensky or whoever you'll see that they tend to push the odds quite far in their favor before risking an attack because they want to push even the worst case result to the best possible outcome and make it nearly impossible to have a bad result. A good commander does exactly the same, he takes every possible precaution to avoid things that can go wrong. Sometimes that is not possible but you should always try to achieve it. Just because on average my result will be 3:1, I will not attack, because I know with a bit more preparation I can achieve a 3:0 prediction.

I'm not arguing against people who prefer the chess mode. That's just a matter of taste, and it seems a lot of people like that mode more. But I wouldn't say that it is "more realistic", since real battles simply have a variance in outcome, otherwise battles could simply be predicted easily and they cannot. D-Day worked, but were the casualties higher or lower than "predicted" by the responsible commanders? I'm guessing Omaha beach was a lot worse, while some of the others might have been better than predicted or equal to the prediction. But that just happens. Sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't. And to prevent unnecessary losses all a commander can do is take every single precaution and optimization that he can beforehand, and then hope for the best and trust in his men. Not every bad outcome is human error or bad judgement. Sometimes the other guys are simply hitting better or are just at the right spot at the right time out of pure luck. But if you planned really well, you can avoid that most of the time.

Deducter e.g. rarely ever attacks if he has a 3:1 result prediction, simply because he thinks the 1 is already too much. he doesn't want to lose ANYONE. And he knows a 1 usually means, I might lose nobody, I might lose 3. If I opt for 0 I might lose worst case 1 or 2. That's better, so I'll opt for that. And since I started adopting that as well and stopped attacking when I simply didn't like the odds (and at one point you start disliking odds like 4:1 because you don
t like the 1 at the end) my results have vastly improved. With random chance enabled I think you have to always see the range of possible values and the prediction as the middle ground. That way you'll think like "Ok when I have 1 loss on average I might end up with 0 or 3 losses, let's more that more to the left.

Where I do agree is that maybe it would make it easier for the player if he didn't just see the average result but also the best case and worst case results. That might make it more in-your-face obvious what you have to expect. but even then you wouldn't exactly know the spread, the variance... I don't even know exactly what the exact outcome spead looks like, weather they are evenly distrubuted or have a normal distribution... I'm guessing an even distribution since they are using simple dice rolls. MAYBE it would make sense to offer an option where instead a normal distribution is chosen, making extreme results off the expected one, more unlikely. But I guess with dice-chess and chess mode, most people are already happy with how it works now.
And I also seem to remember devs commenting that giving the player soo many numbers in the prediction would destroy the game's simple intuitive UI that doesn't overload newbies with lots of statistics but simply gives a normal prediction.

I personally, as a developer, find it very intersting everytime I see such a discussion, how some players percieve random chance very differently from others. You wouldn't believe how many discussions I had with game designers about whether or not to "tweak" a dice roll, so it ends up being "more like I would expect" instead of simply being a mathematically correct dice. Really difficult topic