HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Topic started by: JMM on 17 March 2004, 01:00:27 AM
-
Bonsoir,
The wargames generally use a random function and a matrix datas to find the losses of each opponent.
In HistWar, a mathematical model allows to compute the losses.
What do you think about this?
JMM
-
Thank you for asking JMM.
Does it have to be one or the other? I feel uncomfortable when one has to choose between two polar opposites. I think that somewhere in the middle is probably better.
Why not some kind of a mixture of both?
It seems to me that much existed in the realm of chance.
Why not have a mathematical formula where certain parts of it are randomly generated?
[One could go even deeper and randomly decide which parts of the mathematical formula that will be randomly generated.]
This way the results could never be exactly the same two times in a row. Sort of like how life is.
I hope that this helps some.
-
My first post here...
I dont know much about this game except drooling over the screenshots :lol: but how much is deterministic? Morale, shooting, melee?
I think I would prefer some random element in the game. That is part of real life and especially war...just so many things going on that you shouldnt be able to know precisely what the result is.
I take it you mean that if 2 equal regiments are shooting at each other they, then the game engine will produce same amount of casualties of say 400 over a certain amount of time, why not +/- 20% or something like that?
I dont know how many different modifiers there are, but is it not too easy for an experienced gamer(or a number cruncher) to know exactly what will bring victory?
CBR
-
Mainly deterministic with an additional pinch of random... because life must not be tasteless !
-
Bonsoir,
The wargames generally use a random function and a matrix datas to find the losses of each opponent.
In HistWar, a mathematical model allows to compute the losses.
What do you think about this?
JMM
Ideally... I would prefer an algorithm that produces a mix of random-mathematical results...
Influenced by things such as: realistic ballistic trajectories, Line of Sight & environmental factors (smoke, fog, rain, trees, walls, fences, defilade, enfilade, etc.), troop expertise, ammo quality, weapon quality..
As well as influenced by the usual factors: target range, ranks firing, ammo supply, weapon type... etc., etc.
Also... I would like to see realistic firing disciplines used for musket volleys.. i.e. feu roulant (rolling fire) by peloton, by rank, by file, by division, diagonal fire, fire-at-will, skirmisher fire, reserved carre fire (against Cavalry), etc, etc..
Cordialement, Duc_dEarl
-
Sorry for resurrecting this very old thread. :oops:
However, I haven't been able to find an answer to my doubts. I've been recently doing some quick "tests" piching regiments of differing quality one against the other. Elite troops, even if smaller in number, always seem to have the better of lower quality regiments (all other conditions being equal).
My question is: does the game use random or deterministic calculations for engagements?
I.e. if I engage a conscript regiment with my French Imperial Guard, am I 100% sure that I will always win, or is there a remote chance that, due to an unlucky dice throw, my Guards will break?
I remember conducting similar tests with CMBB, where I had a single panzerschreck pitched against a T34. 90% of the time the schreck missed the first shot and soon routed under the tanks withering MG fire, but one or two times he did get a lucky first shot which killed the T34 and won the battle.
-
Is there much of a difference between
- a spread of results with the variation delivered through a randomising function such as a dice
- a mathematical model with statistical variation of the results
I would agree there is a difference between total random results and fixed and repeatable mathematical outcomes.
The 6-sided dice is a rather crude tool for fitting to some distribution of results.
-
I.e. if I engage a conscript regiment with my French Imperial Guard, am I 100% sure that I will always win, or is there a remote chance that, due to an unlucky dice throw, my Guards will break?
I don't know the answer, it's a good question......if these "Regiments" were the same strenght, lets say 2,000 men each, and it was only them on a 1v1 basis with NO other outside influence, then how could the conscript Regiment hope to win ?. If it was a straight 1v1 and with nothing else in the mix the result should be certain - in this example.
If the "test" was two concripts Regiments in the same conditions, then it's a different situation......it would need to be about 50/50 as long as there is no other influence on the battle between these two Regiments - all assume no ground advantage and both open fire at the same time and engage in melee with the same number of men etc etc.
-
My 5 cent:
a mathematical model for the minimum losses, like in the table of Kriegsspiele, and a random factor for minimum to the max of losses.
The math keeps track of all the known influences, the random factor for the unknown.
-
Deterministic in macro-factors, random in micro.
Imho, a battle should never change completely due to a bad dice roll: I've played too many of those games.
At the same time, the little unexpected event (ie: the conscript regiment that holds against an elite once every 100 fight) gives to the player that "living" feeling in a game.
As far as I know, HLG is completely deterministic, and I think that's too late to change it now. In a game with this kind of fog of war, there will still be plenty of unexpected events.
-
This is an important discussion for me.
I worked many years on a napoleonic tabletop wargame for figurines and i my main thoughts were focused on NOT using dice to resolve combat but just let the players know the mathematics rules behind the game and letting them focus on strategy.
There was a huge amount of work and brainstorming to finally catch the feelings i had in mind and the final result (after 5 years) is a good one (well at least for the friends who played my rules :smile:).
I do not like random functions on this kind of game for (maybe my bad luck) seeing a good strategy being overwhelmed by bad luck is sooo bad for me.
Yes we all know the Napoleon statement (is it a good general? Is it lucky?) but i believe that a good strategy has nothing to do with luck itself, for every aspect of Friederich Der Grosse dictates and Napoleon ones were about minimize the effects of luck and random on the strategy.
So maths i prefer :mrgreen:
-
Montecuccoli, you affirm "i believe that a good strategy has nothing to do with luck itself, for every aspect of Friederich Der Grosse dictates and Napoleon ones were about minimize the effects of luck and random on the strategy."
I could admit that in a perfect world and perhaps wargames with figurines could approach that.
But as well, you could also admit in real life, no one can act without beeing influenced by at least a hint of fortuity. For example the random weather conditions, the false gathering of informations, not totally reliable maps at this era, fog of war, mental state of the chiefs corps at the moment, ...
I agree with you maths should be the most important factor but spiced with very little randomized, in order to approach the reality.
You admit yourself "... about minimize the effects of luck and random on the strategy.". Consequently, I understand you agree implicitly my answer.
Cheers,
GP.
-
Yes in that point of view i have to agree with you :)
anyway i believe (and we are running on the edge of phylosophy eheheehe :p) real life is a matter of different facts bound together and "luck" has nothing to do with that facts... but i am going to far talking about life :mrgreen:
-
anyway i believe (and we are running on the edge of phylosophy eheheehe :p) real life is a matter of different facts bound together and "luck" has nothing to do with that facts... but i am going to far talking about life :mrgreen:
I agree completely with you "luck" is a "weird" word. "Random" is more exact; luck is an effect of it . Random rules our all life. See a very elementary example: Before going off your home with your car you hesitate to drink or not a cup of coffee. This so simple decision may have enormous consequences, because arrived at a corner of two street depends you collide or not another vehicule. Maths are here completely out of the subject.
All right, we are talking about life but also in close relation with games. OK, I stop. Else I could tempted to develop up to the mechanisms of the univers ... and then some moderators .... :roll: :lol:
Best regards,
GP.
-
As someone once said, there are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
The game CANNOT, in my opinion be completely deterministic because any figures from historical sources for the expected number of casualties caused in a given set of circumstances are merely averages.
For instance, if a historical source says a volley of musket fire at 100 yards range by 1000 men would on average cause 23 casualties (a made up example) this does not mean every single volley of this type will cause 23 casualties.
In statistics, we use "standard deviation" to describe the variation in expected results from the extremes at each end of the "bell curve". I think it is vital that the game take the same approach - i.e. in the example above the average may be 23 casualties but on rare occasions it might be only 16 or 17, or as many as 29 or 30, and all the results between with varying degrees of probability.
Similarly, if some historical source says a battalion will break after taking 7% casualties, there should be a bell curve of results possible such that sometimes a battalion might break after only 5 or 6% casualties whilst sometimes a battalion might take 8 or 9% casualties before breaking.
The spread of the bell curve in each situation (its standard deviation) would have to be determined through historical research, lots of testing, and also a bit of common sense.
-
The system is deterministic but it seems it is not because there is a lot of parameters you can't know...
For 1 vs 1, without other units, you always get the same result.. euh.. that said, there is a first parameter modifying this result.. the time scale.
The geometry of unit position is important, so changing the time scale can modify the distance between the units, so the result of casualties.
BTW, in a real battle, it's not 1 vs 1, but 100 vs 100 with a lot of interactions.. each calculus is deterministic, but you can't predict the result because you don't know the events modifying the calculus...
I find it's not the best to have an elite regiment losing a fight against a regiment of line with a dice... because the elite always wins except if the external conditions infers a problem about its behaviour.
I hope it's clear.
JMM
-
In statistics, we use "standard deviation" to describe the variation in expected results from the extremes at each end of the "bell curve". I think it is vital that the game take the same approach - i.e. in the example above the average may be 23 casualties but on rare occasions it might be only 16 or 17, or as many as 29 or 30, and all the results between with varying degrees of probability.
This is a good use for a normally distibuted random number. In your example, the mean would be 23, the standard deviation would be 2. 95% of all results would fall between 19 and 27, 99% would be from 17 to 29.
Similarly, if some historical source says a battalion will break after taking 7% casualties, there should be a bell curve of results possible such that sometimes a battalion might break after only 5 or 6% casualties whilst sometimes a battalion might take 8 or 9% casualties before breaking.
This is not such a good example. It's not like you could go through at the beginning of the game and assign a breaking point with mean 7% and standard deviation of 0.5%. That 7% is actually an emergent behavior resulting from a lot of variables. As JMM said above, it's too many for us to predict the outcome.
Hook
-
For 1 vs 1, without other units, you always get the same result.. euh.. that said, there is a first parameter modifying this result.. the time scale.
The geometry of unit position is important, so changing the time scale can modify the distance between the units, so the result of casualties.
Forgive me JMM but this sounds a bit weird.
So, in other words, if my time-scale is 20/60, the moment the volley is computed could be when my unit is 80 yards from the target whereas if it is 30/60 it might be 100 yards from the target?
If this is how the game works players might be able to manipulate results be adjusting the time-scale at critical moments so that greater or fewer computations are performed.
-
I am more interested on how the losses are implemented on the field of battle. But if I were to say, I would say that some losses should be mathematical, like missing, and others like death should be determined by a variety of factors like height, range, experience, morale, and many more that have been mentioned before. I think the game has a VERY good 3d engine capable of a lot more than people expect. I believe it should be possible to represent mathematical and dice roll deaths on the battlefield.
-
One of the advantages of current levels of computer power is that it allows deterministic methods to be applied so it makes sense to exploit this approach.
Warfare is however not a simple case of numbers nor is everything linear or represented by a "normal" distribution.
Defensive fire against an attack is not a continuum when officers can control the point at which a volley is fired. Once independent firing has started then you can consider a more statistical outcome.
The concept of randomness which is used in many conventional wargames should not in any case lead to the example - Elite unit is defeated on a 1 in 6 basis. What you might find is that the non-elite unit needs a score above 6 to defeat the Elite unit. Other factors reduce the required score to 6 or below so that the possibility now exists that the Elite unit may be defeated but this is allowed some randomness once the result is a possibility.
-
Forgive me JMM but this sounds a bit weird.
So, in other words, if my time-scale is 20/60, the moment the volley is computed could be when my unit is 80 yards from the target whereas if it is 30/60 it might be 100 yards from the target?
If this is how the game works players might be able to manipulate results be adjusting the time-scale at critical moments so that greater or fewer computations are performed.
No... maybe one meter, no more! you can try! Just play with different time scale.
I talk about that to say it's possible you have a very light difference with this deterministic system.. no more..
Internal engine works with 1 mn historical step.. and it controls the speed in order to place the units at the right distance at the end of the step.
No really time to speak about that (sorry) but like all numerical systems, there is some errors (Lorenz..)
So, the model is robust and gamers can't play with the time scale to modify the results.
JMM
-
Hi JMM,
Fair enough, it sounds like the game is pretty hard to manipulate, like you say.
My feeling on all of this though is that "determinism" has become some sort of dogma to be incorporated into the game at all costs just because some general here or there said that battles are won or lost by strategy and tactics, not luck.
If the game plays well anyway then all well and good but from a purely logical point of view we should recognise that, yes, sometimes even elite soldiers miss their target, and sometimes even the greenest recruit stands his ground. In war, nothing can be said to be certain.
-
If the game plays well anyway then all well and good but from a purely logical point of view we should recognise that, yes, sometimes even elite soldiers miss their target, and sometimes even the greenest recruit stands his ground. In war, nothing can be said to be certain.
Yes, right.. That said, we don't know the reason but maybe there is a reason... in this case, the system is deterministic but we think it's a random process...
That said, with HW:LG, I am sure it will be difficult to say it's a deterministic process because it's impossible to know all events.
However, I don't say other system are wrong... just it's an other model ;)
We'll talk about this system if you want again... after the release ;)
Enjoy !
JMM