AGEOD Forums

Generally NM loss after the battles are realistic and balanced.
But when elements are totaly destroyed in the battle, NM calculation still heavily influenced by destroyed elements then hits. In those two battles there are nearly same amount of casualty or hits but Austrian's lost whole elements and result is 8 and 10 NM loss for AUS.

[ATTACH]13611[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]13612[/ATTACH]

deleted

Baris wrote:Generally NM loss after the battles are realistic and balanced.
But when elements are totaly destroyed in the battle, NM calculation still heavily influenced by destroyed elements then hits. In those two battles there are nearly same amount of casualty or hits but Austrian's lost whole elements and result is 8 and 10 NM loss for AUS.

[ATTACH]13611[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]13612[/ATTACH]

Agreeing with you. It should be a cap on NM losses in a single battle. A large defeat must create a heavy NM, but 2 or 3 defeats may lead indeed to unbalance.

Gray_Lensman wrote:I don't see an issue here. The loss of an entire unit is far more costly to replace than hits and the resulting additional NM is warranted. This is a common feature of all the AGE based games.

_______________________________________

Sent from my Droid X using Swype.

Yes but understrenght elements dont need replacement chits to replenish?

Clovis wrote:Agreeing with you. It should be a cap on NM losses in a single battle. A large defeat must create a heavy NM, but 2 or 3 defeats may lead indeed to unbalance.

I remember 6 battles in the same turn with med delay selected, Actually Prussian morale is now 120 to 80 against Austrian AI. This can create very disadvantage situation in pbem or for AI. Actually NM loss or gain is very logical but when there is whole element loss, it creates unbalanced calculation of NM loss. Austrians hold the ground after battle but with with big NM loss. And even I lost 9000 men against 6000.

Baris wrote:Yes but understrenght elements dont need replacement chits to replenish?



I remember 6 battles in the same turn with med delay selected, Actually Prussian morale is now 120 to 80 against Austrian AI. This can create very disadvantage situation in pbem or for AI. Actually NM loss or gain is very logical but when there is whole element loss, it creates unbalanced calculation of NM loss. Austrians hold the ground after battle but with with big NM loss. And even I lost 9000 men against 6000.

One of the last ROP great problem is battles shold result in more cohesion losses. Cohesion being lower after battle should hinder new battle to start immediatly.

BTW, how russians are performing? And French?

Actually Prussia has 139 NM against 80 NM of Austria

In the east:
[ATTACH]13613[/ATTACH]


Central:
[ATTACH]13615[/ATTACH]

And the west:
[ATTACH]13614[/ATTACH]


Daun needs more men under his command, he attacked Gessler coloum but defeated quickly.

In the west show didnt start yet Waiting for French armies.

In the east cossacks on the move, Swedish ships didnt show up yet.

Baris wrote:Actually Prussia has 139 NM against 80 NM of Austria

In the east:
[ATTACH]13613[/ATTACH]


Central:
[ATTACH]13615[/ATTACH]

And the west:
[ATTACH]13614[/ATTACH]


Daun needs more men under his command, he attacked Gessler coloum but defeated quickly.

In the west show didnt start yet Waiting for French armies.

In the east cossacks on the move, Swedish ships didnt show up yet.

OK. Russians are coming, and I've yet to tackle the Minden problem for French.

Clovis wrote:One of the last ROP great problem is battles shold result in more cohesion losses. Cohesion being lower after battle should hinder new battle to start immediatly.

This was a very perceptive and important observation, which as far as I can tell seems to have gone unnoticed. The Seven Years War should not resemble the Great War, with lengthy and costly offensives, and yet because of this cohesion-loss problem, it's not uncommon to see a series of Verdun-style battles in a single turn. In a recent test game I observed six separate set-piece battles in a turn, resulting in the entire destruction of a major field army - utterly implausible for the period, but hardly uncommon in the game.

So the question: is cohesion loss from battle modifiable without tinkering with the .exe? In other words, can we do this ourselves?

squarian wrote:This was a very perceptive and important observation, which as far as I can tell seems to have gone unnoticed. The Seven Years War should not resemble the Great War, with lengthy and costly offensives, and yet because of this cohesion-loss problem, it's not uncommon to see a series of Verdun-style battles in a single turn. In a recent test game I observed six separate set-piece battles in a turn, resulting in the entire destruction of a major field army - utterly implausible for the period, but hardly uncommon in the game.

So the question: is cohesion loss from battle modifiable without tinkering with the .exe? In other words, can we do this ourselves?

Cohesion hits are defined in the models, so yes!

I'm not sure where the "give up and retreat due to low cohesion" param is set, but we'll look for that too!

Excellent! Adjusting this downward is going to make a really important improvement to this game, IMO. No more "8th battle of Dippoldswalde"!

And it'll likely solve another perennial problem: the crazy NM swings which come from these repeated battles, when ground-down elements start dying off in droves.

Posting this link as an aide-memoire for it's cross-relevance to this thread:

http://www.ageod-forum.com/showpost.php?p=222088&postcount=11

Summary: Copanut arguing that cohesion loss for battle is too low across AGE games.

Does the off/def fire also have impact on casualties? and most importantly does the change need heavy re-balancing about unit stats? I have found casualty rates lower than RUS game but higher cohesion loss from battle event can be the cure about repeated battles and big NM shift. If any testing needs to done in this aspect I will be your volunteer beta and soldier Lodilefty ! It can benefit other games as well.