Small missile issue

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Small missile issue

      Seriously? A cruise missile has 5 health right? And I fired it at 4 destroyers, each with 1 defence against missiles. You would think that the Destroyer would still be blown up but no, apparently the destroyer 'beat' my missile. If the ships managed to drain 4 health then what happened to the last health point? I mean I used a nuke you know so having wasted a warhead is not great. I'm not a gold junkie so I don't have many nukes.
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • It's strange indeed, especially considering that shown value is max damage. Are you sure there wasn't any anti-missile unit - (like frigate) in the vicinity ?
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • edit:
      or i missread 5 single CM vs 4 destroyers? If CM were shoted from same direktion without significant great time between shots it is right, that 4 destroyers were victorious.

      destroyer stack did 5 time defensive damage: also 4x5=20 (not really 20, because of lesser damage after 1st and every next impact, but stil more then 16) Also 1 CM on impact had something between 0.1 and 3.0 HP (because of random) 0.1 HP CM can inflickt nearby 40% damage, 3 HP CM lvl1 inflicts nearby 80%-85% damage.
      You can see, that second CM had alredy 3.8 up 4.5 HP after gaining defensive damage of 1st impact CM. Also attack of 2nd CM: bevor impact gain 2nd defensice damage--> 0.0 HP (in worst case) max 2.5 HP on impact.
      Also inflicted damage between 0 and 66%;
      3rd CM has after 2nd imact 2.5 till 4.0 HP, on impact 0 till 2.0;


      and so on....

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Last warrior ().

    • a) please stop alarmist headlines of threads

      b) so you fired a 5HP missile at 4 ships with 4 AA Missile damage.

      And you call that a BIG PROBLEM when you should easily be able to figure out yourself that with some randomness involved a 4 HP damage + random can defeat a 5 HP missile.

      Jeez.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • @Germanico : this is obviously not a big problem, but it's interesting, game wise. Several comments made me think that the shown value was "a max damage value", and that all data results were "inferior" to that value.

      We should consider it more like a "average value" and consider that it can be roughly 20% less or more ?

      Actually, my own "feeling" about damage was to consider that for each damage value applied (after calculating bonus/malus), the real result would be roughly between 50% and 100% of the stat
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • I am confused now. Because as Opulon said, I thought the damage value was the max value and that the randomness factor worked below that threshold.

      Also, to be fair to Superchan, He titled the thread "Small Missile Issue". I do not think he meant to be alarmist or suggest it is a big problem.

      Just my opinion, but I think the most likely scenario is that the missile got chipped by something else in the vicinity. A frig, land based TD, or maybe the new ranged cruiser AA.
      Also, what level were the destroyers? Are you sure they were not level 4? A level 4 destroyer has a defensive value of 2.
    • The thread title was changed :D

      If i remember well, the previous title was something as "Big combat problem" ^^

      And yeah, it was the reason of my question.

      When a anti-missile offensive unit is in the vicinity and hasn't used its offensive round, it immediatly provide its offensive round to the unit that gets hit by the missile, in addition to the point defense.

      It's actually the closest one can optimise his "mail armor" of anti-missile, at least while the opponent doesn't saturate intelligently.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Yeah the title is edited. I wanna say to @Germanico

      1.If the game combat system doesn't work, even on a small scale, then that's a big issue. And a nuclear warhead isn't cheap mate. And if I'm being biased against with an issue then that's serious.

      2.4hp is MAX DEFENSE. So even with randomness it will still produce 4hp.

      Yeah I checked with planes patrolling over it and it is all 1 hp each.
      Famous quotes from me:
      "Just my important opinion"
      "The best player is the player who is patient, who is clever and who is ruthless."
      "I'm really great at diplomacy, terrible at strategy ;) "
    • The truth is neither nor.

      Please do not expect us to open the exact damage / combat calc to public cause we won’t.

      Just this much: instead of inflicting a set amount of damage against enemy hp, our game takes all enemy hp into the calc - meaning the result Can and will vary.

      I concur though that Max doesn’t cut it cause damages can be higher than stated. It is actually a rating rather than the actual number, from which the final damage is then derived after taking the enemy hp into account.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • While legit, players are used to the two anti-realistic game design concept which are total control and total information.

      *giggles*

      Maybe the "meh this game should be more realistic, tanks can be airlifted through air since the Roman Empire !" should be given a taste of operational realism, with your own units DISAPPEARING from the map as they advance in the ennemy territory, thanks to telecommunication stretch and jam, and you can only give them delayed order (depending on the distance from your telecoms centers) to answer notifications that you YOURSELF get by delayed information. Some informations would be false, of course. Some units would get lost due to insufficient intel. Some identified ennemy regiments would be exactly NOT what you were seeing, thanks to misleading recon.

      When in combat, you would not see your HP bar going down because in regimental scale battles, it's hard next to impossible for non fighting units to keep count of operational vehicles and staff. And radio-forwarded informations tends to be biased by human feedback, often overestimating casualties.

      You would then see a retreating regiment with 14/15 HP, and once in contact again, their officer would inform that the retreat initiative was taken after the group encountered an unbreakable resistance and heavy losses. Infuriated, you would order them to "go back in the fight", and maybe some parts of the regiment would need the help of the military police to get back into discipline. And you would maybe be forced to do that anyway, since the regiment had given up on several mechanised equipement that were suffering technical problems.

      Any regiment suffering more than 20% casualties (12/15 HP) would drop to less than half its normal efficiency. Any regiment suffering more than 40% casualties (9/15 HP) would immediatly drop to 10% of its combat efficiency, be considered shattered, and the player would need the extensive cooperation of the civilian authorities and military police to be able to get the routing soldiers back into their quarters. Routing soldiers tend to pillage and steal,would reduce local civilian morale as well.

      On the technical problem aspect too, one of the armored regiment reports that he was late of 3 hours to the objective, due to an uncharted swamp that forced many companies to take a larger path. another regiment, to the contrary, advanced unhindered, but preferred to wait for the second armored regiment to launch the assault.

      Oh, and of course, for each 10 HP that represent ~1000 wounded in action/killed in action/missing in action, we would get a -1 "human losses" empire-wide malus.


      *end of giggling*

      The CoN part about game design that troubles me is that while you give us a good explanation of the "philosophy" behind, that is understandable and enjoyable, we lack the "fork" which makes it somewhat predictable, and so, enjoyable as a design.

      Without taking into account all the subtleties about mixed units (hard and soft) and such, if i see on a stat panel "5 anti-soft damage", i instinctively imagine this :





      "Highest probability is to get 5. If i'm really lucky, i'll get 8. If i'm very unlucky, i'll get 2" --→ when you said it was max value, of course, i imagined something else. But ultimately, and as your game plays with small numbers that are very important between themselves, (typically, with missiles and anti-missile), it's a very important thing to have a grasp of our "probabilities". Superchan sent a nuclear missile because he was confident the max damages were 4 (and indeed, it's what the game told him), meaning his missile was supposed not to be killed.

      And i would have used a nuclear missile on a navy stack if it had less missile point defense than my missile had HP. Because it seems logical, and also because the data forwarded by everyone (like me) is that the "shown value" is a max value. 5 HP > 4 damage = 100% safe.

      If Superchan Knew that 4 shown damage can be 5 damages in reality, maybe he would have reconsidered his missile launch. "Is the bet worth it ?" and there, we are in the range of an "enjoyable design", because it's perfectly legit that sometimes, crew and system perform better than expected.

      Of course, you can say to us "you will feel what are the true min and max, battle after battle", but maybe, for beginners, the "error" percentage from the rating should be given in the stat panel:

      "Attack value are subjects to the chaotic effects of battlefield. On a single round, the effect can go from 25% less to 25% more than the shown attack/defense value" - nothing fancy like giving the formula, of course ^^.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • Nice write up Opulon. Every time I started designing into a more realistic direction, such as the one you scetched out so well, I caught myself questioning the playability and fun. But maybe one day....

      The big issue is that due to the lack of a damage stat for units players treat attack/defense as such.
      It is the COW system essentially... but the numbers are NOT damage. And that is the inherent problem.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • So, we looked further into this issue, aaand... actually it was NOT the fault of the general combat system. The reason being much more ordinary:

      - we uncovered a bug with the destroyers where they were basically dealing double damage vs missiles, caused by a recent update to the AA code.

      Thanks for the heads up on this, will be fixed with the next update.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf