 |
|
Leader Bug? - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Black Powder & Cold Steel (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=163) +---- Forum: Musket & Pike (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=166) +---- Thread: Leader Bug? (/showthread.php?tid=71854) Pages:
1
2
|
Leader Bug? - TheGrayMouser - 08-28-2018 [attachment=4638] [attachment=4639] HI, possible leader bug? I was testing the "Getting Started Scenario" as cavalry combat seemed really odd. ( I was playing the Moy scenario and I noted that neither myself nor the noble AI EVER won a cavalry combat versus our respective cavalry when attacking. Its like defending cavalry had a maxim gun when on the defense.!! So, in this scenario I attacked a stack of 3 C quality Prussian Hussars (with a melee bonus 1) with a stack of 3 Austrian Heavies C quality, no melee bonus but they are coded as heavy so get a 25% bonus to the man count. One can see these repective bonus' in the "effective" men of the combat odds dialogue of each stack (although the Austrians had a strange rounding...). The Prussians are defending with a leader and one can see that they get a 20 bonus in the bottom modifier ie: */20 When the Austrians Attack with a leader the odds modifier is expressed as -40/20 Where if you leave the leader behind its is expressed as 0/20 Should it not be 20/20? Basically, it appears if you attack with a leader in your stack, you appear to get a massive negative to the attack. RE: Leader Bug? - Gary McClellan - 08-28-2018 Hrms, that's a new one on me. I will say, that I'm a bit dubious about that dialogue a fair bit of the time. Could you do me a favor and send save files of this to JTS support? RE: Leader Bug? - Gary McClellan - 08-28-2018 One thing to notice though, is that the "effective attacking force" # doesn't reflect the shown modifier, which is one of the reasons I am dubious of that dialogue at times. RE: Leader Bug? - TheGrayMouser - 08-28-2018 As far as I know, its not supposed to There are two types of modifiers for melee combat. One are modifiers that directly increase or decrease the # of effective men: so melee bonus attributes per unit( new with the P&S engine) 25% bonus when Heavy cavalry(and dragoons its seems) are attacking, cavalry charge multiplier, the “has no bayonets” PDT flag. There may be a few more I missed. These are all expressed as %’s The second type referenced in the manuals are never expressed as %’s and just called “modifiers” ie 40/20 20/0 etc. These are the leader bonus, flank/rear attack bonus, terrain modifiers, has held shot prior to melee modifiers etc etc. What they actually do, I think , Is based on a very short paragraph in all the manuals, be it Nap, Civil war EAW’s etc. Basically the attacker causes a range band of 20-100 casualties versus the defender, and the defender causes a 40-160 range band versus the attacker! As one can see, the game engine is biased heavily toward the defender. That is why there are quite a few “attack only’ bonus type things, as , all other things being equal, you need generally twice as many effective “men” to win a combat. Anyway, I believe these second type of modifiers , somehow, modify the end ranges of these casualty bands. I experimented with this by testing 100 man size units with absolutely no modifiers and introducing 1 modifier a time to see if I could get a pattern on the casualties caused and inflicted but I would never be able to get a sampling size large enough to really figure it out. RE: Leader Bug? - geoff - 08-28-2018 Combat resolution needs to be more verbose. We need to know the fire and melee low and high combat values. In the OP example the attacking force is 125% actual and defender is 110% despite what the modifier expression displays. I guess (comparing with PzC design) that melee high/low range values are twice as severe for the attacker and you would need to attack with at least twice as many forces to arrive at a 'fair' fight. RE: Leader Bug? - TheGrayMouser - 08-29-2018 (08-28-2018, 11:54 AM)Gary McClellan Wrote: Hrms, that's a new one on me. I will say, that I'm a bit dubious about that dialogue a fair bit of the time. OK, however I don't think you can send JTS support attachments? ( at least I didn't see the option….) RE: Leader Bug? - -72- - 08-29-2018 (08-29-2018, 07:57 AM)TheGrayMouser Wrote:(08-28-2018, 11:54 AM)Gary McClellan Wrote: Hrms, that's a new one on me. I will say, that I'm a bit dubious about that dialogue a fair bit of the time. If you get stuck the regular email address that you can put in to your email client is: support at johntillersoftware dot com just write it as a regular email -I am not sure that address is listed on their support page - but that is where when you fill out the form there it goes to. RE: Leader Bug? - Gary McClellan - 09-01-2018 I think I've isolated the problem, and I'm sending the information back up the line to Rich. This will have to be addressed on John's end in the next patch (and I have zero timetable on that.) I hate to say it, but for now, my suggestion is to not use leaders as melee leaders. Bleh. RE: Leader Bug? - Gary McClellan - 09-01-2018 Thanks for noticing this and getting it to us. I'm a hair frustrated that this got through, but I'm glad someone was eagle eyed enough to bring it to our attention :) RE: Leader Bug? - geoff - 09-01-2018 My gut instinct is that it's the combat dialog which is bugged and probably not the leader bonus. Combat dialog reports nothing correctly ever. I pretend that all the manual rules are functioning as I presume they do because otherwise I'd rage quit at every severe loss. Would be nice if the reporting were fixed. Was a staple of the early wargame software industry to supply the user with the arithmetic so, you could have a greater sense of a quality product. New wargames just cover their terrible code with 3D fire and blood spatter effects. |
){kind=link}