Suggestion for resolving MP "no winner" battles.

[GrosPaul]

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.

[Pariente]

I totally agree with GrosPaul's irony.

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. 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]

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.

[Gunner24]

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.

[Hook]

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

[GrosPaul]

I totally agree with GrosPaul's irony.

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
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.

[Gunner24]

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. 

[GrosPaul]

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.

[Hook]

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

[Pariente]

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. D'ailleurs, je le cite, lui. Mais le fait que tu prennes sa défense est vraiment intéressante.

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.

[Gunner24]

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 ?.