HistWar
HistWar (English zone) => General discussions => Discussion démarrée par: Gunner24 le 08 décembre 2009, 17:41:10 pm
-
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7595/histwar005.png)
It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.
The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.
-
The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.
I like that idea. It will certainly deal with any "corner campers." :D
Of course, you could end up with your forces spread thin all over the map in an attempt to simply hold ground. We'll have to see how it works in play.
Hook
-
It does not mean you won the battle, especially if your troops are spread all over the battlefield.
In my opinion, the main victory conditions are :
- possession of LoPs
- number of remaining and able to fight units (new potential)
Covering 18.75% of the battlefield is not decisive in victory.
Some battles have lead to « draws » as the losses were equivalent. Then, the commander who chose to retreat was the one who considered his situation as disadvantageous (Bennigsen at Eylau, for instance).
Here, you may see Napoléon's final strenght is smaller than Alexander's. But Alexander has less batteries while Napoléon has less cavalry regiments. Therefore, designating a winner is quite difficult if none of the armies has been destroyed or harshly shaken and as each army may withdraw serenely
Furthermore, you seem to still be focused on the so-called artillery issue. Or maybe you were just kidding. :lol: During a battle, all your forces are not charging tirelessly. Look at Austerlitz, where Davout's corps held Telnitz and Sokolnitz for hours under the pressure of about 40 000 Russians. During the battle of Waterloo the British army standed his ground, and had not an offensive strategy until the arriving of Bülow. Then, I think you won't attend a slaughter every time you fight. :mrgreen:
-
It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.
The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.
Did nobody tell you that in war always both sides lose? ;)
Even chess, a very competitive game, allows for draws. Besides I also play because I enjoy playing. I do play to win, but I also enjoy playing in itself.
When you plan the MP ladder, then I'd say you need to allow for draws.
The numbers don't give you the whole picture and if the game says it can't determine the winner, then you can hardly force defeat on somebody.
-
OK guys, settle down, heck......
The above screenshot shows "no winner".
That was the result of the battle.
then you can hardly force defeat on somebody
My suggestion, that was suggestion, not trying to force my idea onto anyone, why would I ? and how could I ?.....it was a suggestion, made because it might be that a "no winner" will be a very common result in MP games, now if you want to play a game for 3-4 hours and call it a draw that's fine, no doubt you enjoy cricket, they play for 4/5 days and no one wins !. I play golf and someone always wins, so I'm used to winning OR losing, not playing for 4 hours and it being a "draw".
I'm happy to go with the game result, that's what it's there for, BUT, if we happen to get 10 draws after 10 games, well, you might like to re-consider if it's such a daft idea or not then.
MP games will be nothing like the ones we are playing in this demo, nothing like them at all, MP is a totaly different world and I can see a "draw" being a very common occurance, I see it in my crystal ball.
Time will tell if I'm right or wrong, not that it matters either way.
-
It may well be that many MP games could be "drawn" without a clear winner, in those case's the stats provided may help define a winner for the battle, it will be a little frustrating to spend many hours on MP games to get draws !.
The system is one of the best aspects of LG and may as well be used to settle a draw.....it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.
Given that the aim of the Napoleonic battle was usually to do destroy or at least do damage to the opposing army, it might be more consistent to use one of the items from lower in the list that relates to that objective i.e. captured flags, weakened units, surrendered units etc.
In any case, is it really such a problem if a battle ends in a draw?
Holdit
-
I'm happy to go with the game result, that's what it's there for, BUT, if we happen to get 10 draws after 10 games, well, you might like to re-consider if it's such a daft idea or not then.
Ten draws in ten games would suggest to me that both armies were commanded by pacifists... :)
Holdit
-
I don't sure that we'll have many draws in MP games and the suggestion to have everytime a winner isn't good because a player who has conquered more ground has perhaps lost more men.
A draw is a draw that's all.
-
it might be more consistent to use one of the items from lower in the list that relates to that objective
Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.
-
Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.
Our will may not be taken in account in victory conditions as a victory is, as Holdit said, when the enemy army is unable to continue fighting.
So losses (or percentage of losses), possession of LoPs (giving the possibility to withdraw), and the fact of being attacked or not : a defender would rightly think himself victorious if his army is still on the battlefield at the end of the day. ;)
In spite of everything, you and your opponent may agree on who is victorious, according to various factors you might have put down before battle. :smile:
-
a defender would rightly think himself victorious if his army is still on the battlefield at the end of the day
Who is the defender ?.
There is a time limit to these battles, nightfall, there may be a lot of draws if neither side is aggresive in attacking, if both choose to defend it's almost certain to be a draw.
-
Well, let's try like this and if we notice too much draws in MP or PBEM and even in SP, we will propose JMM to sharpen the calculation in order to avoid this situations.
-
From Gunner24: "if both choose to defend it's almost certain to be a draw".
Are you joking mate? I can't imagine to warriors camping comfortably on his chairs, even when tea time (tea time don't last soo long). I push your logic at his extreme: what if none launch a game????
I say, at the risk to tire the audience, the full game will give another opinion of LG.
I invite you, don't be excessively influenced with this prematured baby. It is only in view to make people dribbling for the full game. The full game we all are waiting patiently (huh? more or less to be more precise) for so many years. A kind of lollypop before the gateau :-). Just wait the "lollypop" will be finished and then ... hurrah!
Cheers,
GP.
-
:D Gunner24,
I think you got me wrong.
First of all, I think you've shown good initiative with your ladder project and the challenge board. We will need that if the game provides no online lobby to meet people. Secondly, I understood the suggestion you made as a suggestion. And it's good you bring it up.
Yes, lots of interesting stats that could be taken into account - if you want them to be, otherwise a draw is a draw.
I absolutely agree. That's what I meant when I said you can't force it on him. You have to agree before you start to play.
Now, personally, although I never understood cricket, have no problems with draws. They're even historically correct. I wasn't even aware that the game offers us draws as a third option before your post, but we have to deal with that. Maybe it won't happen that often. Who knows?
My argument against using the "Ground value" would be that the percentage doesn't matter to me as a player who plays a single battle. How do you want to explain the ground value of a random map? ;) If on the other hand, the single battle is part of a series of battles (campaign) of different clans/ teams against each other... well, then I would see it as an interesting extra challenge to the battle to conquer ground. Another objective to reach.
-
Are you joking mate?
ha, GP, you know I don't joje about such serious matters, ha......in the world of MP gaming no one plays to lose, we all play to enjoy the game, but no one will log on and spend several hours TRYING to lose.
The full game will show us quickly if "draws" will happen often or not, perhaps I'm 100% wrong to even be thinking about this, but if two players (or more) meet in MP and both are afraid that attacking will lose the battle, the clock will run out, and it WILL be a draw !.
How do you want to explain the ground value of a random map?
Hard to do, but the stats are there at the end.
As GP say, we need the full game, then we will see what people do, settle for draws OR try and win, me, I'll always be trying to win, not sitting back waiting for a draw. I will always be attacking, even if that means I get totaly destroyed doing so, but others won't attack when they know it's bound to lose, they will hang back and wait for the sun to set - I will bet on it.
-
Ras, permit I precise the challenge board is :
http://www.hwlgchallenge.com/index.php
initiated by our so dynamical and so friendly AnkLrd.
I am quite sure all of us will agree, the battles beeing part of campaign will tremendously influenced it. Following our strategical moves could conduct to unbalanced battles that says no draws.
Also, but I am not sure I have not yet say that somewhere in this site (my memory is more bewildered years after years, sorry), the different doctrines used by the opponent also could influence the behavour of the armies.
Remember the first Italy campaign. The Austrian soldiers nor the french, almost starving, were less courageous than the others but the new doctrine from a particular Bonaparte created the decision.
-
I totally agree with GrosPaul's irony. :lol:
First, you say you don't want people to sit on a hill behind 300 guns, then you imagine battle where nobody attacks vigorously. And you base your request on a single battle played against AI, in the demo :
it will help positive game play as winning ground will give you the win IF it ends a draw.....much better than negative game play like sitting behind the cannons on a hill.
Whereas, I'm really interested in victory conditions and in how every player conceive of winning a battle. :D Putting down before battle who is the defender, who is the attacker or if it is an encounter battle would change factors and the game would designate a winner differently. What victory conditions do you think Histwar may take in account, and in what case ?
-
Ras, permit I precise the challenge board is :
http://www.hwlgchallenge.com/index.php
initiated by our so dynamical and so friendly AnkLrd.
Thanks, GrosPaul. I hope AnkLrd is so friendly as to forgive me my mistake.
-
I fear we are getting bogged down in mis-understandings, my only concern is IF and lot of MP games are "draws"....if there not, as some here have said, we have no problem and this is a non event discussion.....it only applies IF there are lots of draws.
And you base your request on a single battle played against AI, in the demo :
More than one, but I get your point.
Putting down before battle who is the defender, who is the attacker or if it is an encounter battle would change factors and the game would designate a winner differently.
I agree, this would be far more interesting than every battle being an "even" force conflict but I wish anyone who wants to organise this the very best of luck. It's a whole new topic all of it's on.
What victory conditions do you think Histwar may take in account, and in what case
I could not even bigin to answer that question, I have no idea. In the above example, how, and who, will deciede the winner / loser from a 100,000 v 35,000 in numbers battle ?. Clearly the 100,000 will always beat the 35,000 if a straight forward fight....so how will the "system" declare the winner.....it has to be based (partly or fully) on the very stats I was talking about at the beginning, if not, how ?????.
It is going to be very hard to convince anyone to play MP games with UNbalanced forces, it can make brillent battles, but you have hard work explaining to the underdog that is the case.
-
Consider that a draw is a legitimate outcome. If the players are well matched, there will be draws.
Exactly why is it a concern? Is it because some players will never attack? If that's what it is, I think it'll work itself out well enough.
Hook
-
I totally agree with GrosPaul's irony. :lol:
First, you say you don't want people to sit on a hill behind 300 guns, then you imagine battle where nobody attacks vigorously. And you base your request on a single battle played against AI, in the demo :
My irony??? Oh dear "words are like devils" said a day a friar translating the Bible. How was he right!
Far from me to be ironical (this time, at least ;) ).
I can't "imagine battle where nobody attacks vigorously" that is right. Why else to play???
I base my request on the single battle from the demo, because we have not other thing to grasp AND I tried to see the future from this base. You could admit I am optimistical, without doubt.
I hope that is more clear. I thank you for your remarks.
Only in that way I could hope to express myself better in (this treacherous language, at least for me) english :smile:
You may have guessed english language is not my mother tongue it is french. Be assured I will never be offended when anybody be kind enough to trying redressing my laborious english. I am in love with english and his so rich vocabulary not saying about english expressions how much savourish!!
Cheers,
GP.
-
Consider that a draw is a legitimate outcome. If the players are well matched, there will be draws.
Yes, yes, yes, I agree, no problem with a draw, none at all.
Exactly why is it a concern?
IF, if, if, if MOST MP games are draws, then it becomes a concern, if not, it's not.
Is it because some players will never attack? If that's what it is, I think it'll work itself out well enough.
That could be one reason it might happen, but the exact reason is unimportant, it's the end result that is the problem IF most MP games end as draws, only if, we don't know yet, as I keep being told.
This is what I posted over at LGCC about this :
We need to have a think about it IF there are lots of "no result" as far as the ladder is concerned, no need to worry for at least a month after release BUT if there are more MP draws than wins, then we may have to do this, or something like it.
Ops, I missed this earlier :
we will propose JMM to sharpen the calculation in order to avoid this situations.
Yes, that would be a good idea IF it becomes a problem.
-
Dear Gunner24, all those "if" conduct me to believe you may not at your best day. Mate, may I suggest you keep a large breast, a little nap and you retrieve your usual good sense :-) .
At least one could agree the full LG is more full of promises than ETW even with his clever modds. No? ;) .
Cheers,
GP.
-
Have a look at this screen. It was a game I played in the demo.
It doesn't matter if the game assigns a winner or not, it's possible to determine one yourself such that you'll never get an exact draw.
Add the Strategic and Tactical values of each side. Whichever has the highest total is the winner. Or just use one or the other. It's unlikely they'll ever be the same for both sides. In this case, Alexander has 2.04, Napoleon has 1.96. Alexander wins.
Hook
-
I agree, Gunner24, deciding who is victorious is already difficult with balanced armies. But, we may describe some examples ; the factors of victory would have different coefficients according to the initial situation.
GrosPaul, je suis Français. ;) Et en fait, mon message était destiné à Gunner24. :lol: D'ailleurs, je le cite, lui. Mais le fait que tu prennes sa défense est vraiment intéressante. :lol:
GrosPaul, I'm French. Actually, I was talking to Gunner24. Moreover, I quoted him. But your attempt to make yours his ideas is really interesting. :lol:
-
Add the Strategic and Tactical values of each side
Excellent idea, I like that, can you tell I don't like "draws".
At least one could agree the full LG is more full of promises than ETW even with his clever modds
Yes, agreed.
But, we may describe some examples ; the factors of victory would have different coefficients according to the initial situation.
Yes, I like this too, the only snag is it can be very hard to do, the LG "result" screen gives a result that is undisputable, it's generated by the program, that's why I like the above option so much, no room for arguement or mis-understanding, it's there in black and white.....now the question is how does the programe deal with unbalanced battles ?.