Society VIII: Quest for Perfection

[Theben]

Originally posted by Perfection
HERE I AM! QUEST OVER!

Since I was the only one signed up at the time, that means I win again!!

New game!

[Spaced Cowboy]

Oh, I'm in again, thought it was a given.

Theben, can you run a few examples of the combats from last round with the "new and improved" formulas and see what the result would be verusus what they were before?

[DarkCloud]

Okay. added people to the list.

Theben- actually, could you please do that- It would allow me to better conceptualize the different number-spreads that might emerge?

I'm willing to change the formulas, but I want to make sure that it's actually a change for the better rather than just a change for the difference.

[Theben]

Defending Armies
* Kira's Kingdom- ALL
* Empire of Birds- 14
* Missouri- 93

Total Armies before battles
1.) Ninjabad (289)
2.) Missouri (187)
3.) Birds (185)
4.) Texas (164)
5.) MJW (39)

* Theben's orders came in first... so he attacked first, with 289 troops assaulting the 94 missourians

left to defend. Ouch. Every city was captured. 7 casualties for Ninjabadh.
* The 93 missourians who were on the move went on to do battle with the texans. Only 2 noncontiguous

cities were taken I5, and J6. Jonny's forces took (164/12=14 casualties), leaving 79.
D/DCx Cities taken... 164/33)x2=10 casualties for the Texans.
* Sparrowhawk's sneak attack catches MJW unawares, causing Kira's kingdom to lose 7 of its cities,

leaving it with 5. Sparrow takes 3 casualties. MJW takes 23 casualties

Total Armies after battles
1.) Ninjahbad (282)
2.) Birds (182)
3.) Texas (154)
4.) Missouri (79)
5.) MJW (16)

Okay, this is the 3 battles in the 2nd to last turn, using the numbers above.
I attacked Jonny with 289/T13 vs 94/T10, 18 cities to defend. Originally I lost 7 and Jonny was destroyed.

Casualties for defender= (289*13)/(94*10)*25=3757/940=3.999*25 or 100 (all still destroyed)
Casualties for attacker= (940)/(3757)*25=6.25 or 6.

Hmmm... extremely close to the original.

Defender losses= (289/94)25=76.75
Attacker losses=(94/289)25=8.25
+30% (3 tech level diff) to defender=76.75*1.3=99.78 or 100
-30% to attacker=5.78 or 6.

Plugging in those numbers would still have conquered all of Jonny's cities.


93/T10 vs 164/T12. Jonny lost 14 while Spaced lost 10.

Defender losses=(93*10)/(164*12)*25=(930/1968)25 or 11.75 or 12.
Attacker losses=(1968/930)25=2.12*25 or 53.
or,
Defender losses=(93/164)25=14.25*.8(-20%)=11.4 or 11.
Attacker losses=(164/93)25=44*1.2=52.8 or 53.

Jonny's losses are considerably higher, Spaced about the same.
C = ((40/12)-(153/35))*(10/12), round down.
0 = ((3.33-4.37))*.83

Now in the correct situation where Spaced had only 28 armies and 34 cities:

Defender losses=(93*10)/(28*12)*25 or 930/336=2.77*25=69.25
Attacker losses=(336/930)25=9
or,
Defender losses=(93/28)25=83*.8=66.4 or 66.
Attacker losses=(28/93)25=7.5*1.2=9.
C=((84/12)-(0/34))*(10/12), round down.
5=(6-0).833

Jonny takes 5 cities, as he did.

The 2-way battle:

KIRAS
170 troops x 9 Tech Level = 1530

TEXAS
180 troops x 10 Tech Level = 1800

Texas is considered the attacker (surprise)

Defender losses=(1800/1530)*25=29.5, or 30.
Attacker losses=(1530/1800)*25=21.5. or 21.

C = ((169/9)-(140/14))*(10/9), round down.
C = (18.78-10)*10/9, or 9.76->9 cities captured.

or,
DEF losses=18/17*25*1.1=29.12
ATT losses=17/18*25*.9=21.15.

There you go.

[DarkCloud]

Theben, thanks for running the numbers.

In the cases you presented, It doesn't appear that changing the formulas would really "gain" anything for the game.

I did agree with MJW's assertion that city capturing should be done after the two way battle, based on however many troops remain on the Winner's side- but beyond changing that it doesn't appear that war really needs to be revised?


--

93/T10 vs 164/T12. Jonny lost 14 while Spaced lost 10.

Defender losses=(93*10)/(164*12)*25=(930/1968)25 or 11.75 or 12.
Attacker losses=(1968/930)25=2.12*25 or 53.
or,
Defender losses=(93/164)25=14.25*.8(-20%)=11.4 or 11.
Attacker losses=(164/93)25=44*1.2=52.8 or 53.

Jonny's losses are considerably higher, Spaced about the same.
C = ((40/12)-(153/35))*(10/12), round down.
0 = ((3.33-4.37))*.83

When you say that Jonny's losses are considerably higher, that is a change- but is it necessarily for the better- it actually makes technology even more important than it already is?

[Theben]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Theben, thanks for running the numbers.

In the cases you presented, It doesn't appear that changing the formulas would really "gain" anything for the game.

I did agree with MJW's assertion that city capturing should be done after the two way battle, based on however many troops remain on the Winner's side- but beyond changing that it doesn't appear that war really needs to be revised?

After running the numbers I tend to agree, it looks nice and shiny but doesn't add too much, other than the ability to change casualty rates easily. The one thing mine lacks that the original had was an inclusion of 'garrison' forces for defending nations that aids attackers. I also think that the 'garrison' idea is why we do need to separate formulas for 1-way vs. 2-way fights. If attacked 1-way your forces are spread out thru your cities, if 2-way it's a massive fight in the middle before cities are reached. HOWEVER, there is no reason a nation has to send all it forces and not leave behind a garrison! With that in mind, I'll scrap my old ideas and present some new ones:

1. Rename "1-way" and "2-way" battles to "City assault" and "field battle" (or something).

2. Nations can designate part of their forces as 'garrison' and 'field' troops. Garrisons are spread thruout the cities evenly. Field troops are stationed on the border of a chosen enemy (actual borders aren't important for game purposes).

3. Garrisons defend against all attackers (1-way combat). Field forces fight against their chosen enemy ONLY (2-way) if attacked. If another nation attacks them, they cannot defend this turn. 2-way assaults are treated as a field battle before city assault.

(optionals)
4. If we want to use rock/paper/scissors 'tactics', instead of x2 strength the winner has a +2 tech level bonus for that combat.

5. New espionage: Steal plans. If successful adds +2 tech level bonus for that combat turn vs. that civ. Defend by defending war phase.

6. EDIT: Use my new combat rules for 'field battles' only(in reality it's only a slight adjustment to current rules).
Casualties for defender= (AA*AT)/(DA*DT)25+
Casualties for attacker= (DA*DT)/(AA*AT)25+
+change *25* if you want higher or lower casualties.

7. Wonder mods:
Tower of Babel also adds +1 tech level to caravan trade.
Trojan Horse acts as Jihad... espionage available at tech lvl 3.
Jihad: Due to fervor of your warriors they fight at +2 tech levels higher.
KGB nows suppresses one wonder each turn, not negates one. Owner may change target each turn, or not use; it does not expire.

Okay no more suggestions this game from me. Sorry!

[Spaced Cowboy]

I don't think you think this one through too much.

You'll have much better luck if you want to defend (via the current formulas) by leaving your whole army in "garrison/defend" mode, rather than splitting it up.

[Theben]

You'll lose less armies, but you'll lose more cities leaving all behind to 'garrison' (as evidenced when Jonny attacked you with 93 armies vs. your "164", and you had higher tech but still lost 2 cities).

At any rate 1) no one is forcing a person to make field armies (pretty much the only reason to would be if you're at war with one particular civ), and 2) it's just an idea. Enjoying the game is most important. Hopefully others will sign up soon so we can get going.

[Spaced Cowboy]

Wouldn't that be fixed as well if we took casualties out before calculating cities taken?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Spaced Cowboy
Wouldn't that be fixed as well if we took casualties out before calculating cities taken?

I was under the impression we were only doing that for 2-way fights.

[DarkCloud]

Okay, I did the renaming of the sessions, but I think that generally, battles are cleaned up now enough to be workable.

as for:

Tower of Babel also adds +1 tech level to caravan trade.
Trojan Horse acts as Jihad... espionage available at tech lvl 3.
Jihad: Due to fervor of your warriors they fight at +2 tech levels higher.
KGB nows suppresses one wonder each turn, not negates one. Owner may change target each turn, or not use; it does not expire.

...I'd like to see how everything works right now before trying these things out. As a note, additionally: the Mafia's special ability to rehab cities for republics is currently disabled- I plan to enable it in game IX, but not this game. I'd like to see how a bug-free game plays out before we start tweaking too many things.

The tower of babel is already quite powerful, as is Jihad. Trojan horse already allows espionage at tech level 3, did you mean sabotage of espionage phase?? That would be pointless since no one else has espionage until tech 7 is reached. The idea for KGB is intriguing, but currently I'll hold off on it.

Thanks again!

Is everyone fine with the final revision of the rules?

-DC.

[Theben]

put back in

Survivors = Difference / Tech Level, round up.

... and we're all good.

Trojan horse already allows espionage at tech level 3, did you mean sabotage of espionage phase?? That would be pointless since no one else has espionage until tech 7 is reached.

I meant allowing all civs to begin spying at tech 3, but that's for another game.

[DarkCloud]

Put back that in where? In place of

Attacker takes casualties as follows:
Casualties = D / AT.

Defender takes casualties as follows:
Casualties = (D / DC) * cities lost.


??

In order to increase the number of casualties?

[Theben]

bI.) Two-Way Casualties
* The loser's entire attacking army is destroyed.
* The winner's attacking army takes casualties based on [i]Difference/tech level, round up.

If we're still doing 2-way loser army is destroyed the winner will have to have heavy losses also or combat will be borked again.

[DarkCloud]

Well... it's worked for this long, I'd be tempted to say keep it as it is

I ran one test:

A1- 20 army ; 5 tech

A1*AT
(100)

A2- 5 army ; 6 tech

A2*AT
(30)

results in one casualty for the attacker under the current system.

If you change it to merely survivors= instead of causalties=, then there is only one survivor for the attacker.
--
However, If I was to change it--

I think the math in this:
Survivors = (A1*AT1- A2*AT2)/(A1) ---For Two-Way War (A1 being the winner).

Holds up better, that would allow 4 survivors for the attacker? Can anyone prove mathematically that this suggestion is a bad idea?