captain14
Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:21 am

Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Thu Oct 19, 2017 2:19 am

Jan1808

Turkish player has lost these generals in 3 years. This on the surface seems excessive (certainly compared to other players in our game).
Is this just bad luck?

list of KIA:

1. Kushanz Ali,
2. Zurnassan,
3. Kuchuk Ali Pasha,
4. Sulejmann,
5. Hursid Pasha,
6. Ahmed Pasha,
7. Veil Pasha,
8. Ismael Pasha.

User avatar
PhilThib
Posts: 13442
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 5:21 pm
Location: Meylan (France)

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Fri Oct 20, 2017 9:05 am

In theory there are no reason those generals should suffer more than those of other nations. The only thing that increases mortality is low rank and defeats.

captain14
Sergeant
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:21 am

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Sat Oct 21, 2017 5:45 pm

Yes we are aware of the low rank risk in leader fatalities.
Well being Turkey he has certainly had his share of adverse battle results.

I was just wondering if there was any feedback from other pbem games 3 years in. That way be could gauge if something was amiss or it was just bad luck.

elxaime
Brigadier General
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 11:57 pm

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:59 pm

Just curiously, is there a mechanic in AGEOD games where replacement leaders will start appearing if there have been a certain number of leader losses? In some games the number of leaders is not very great to begin with, and if you lose 5-6 or more, it makes a real difference. In reality, new people would come to the fore. There should be some mechanic for this, and the replacement leader stats should be random within a certain range (e.g. don't just have all replacements come in as 1-0-0, have a chance a few might be decent). Just my two cents.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:12 am

WON follows the pattern of Civil War II and provides a yearly allotment of leaders. These new leaders very effectively take care of the need for replacement leaders.
Remember, with the necessity for the Army Reform to fire before leaders really become effective at leading corps and armies in WON, eliminating command penalties is more dependent upon reform rather than the number of commanders.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:47 am

Honestly, I've never thought about the issue of losing such a large number of leaders in a game, because it's generally not an issue. IIRC you would only run into this situation if you were allowing your forces to be heavily over-run by the enemy so that units were being completely wiped-out, which IIRC greatly increases the chances of leaders being killed. Without a more intimate knowledge of the game being played where this occurred I suspect that that is the issue. So without trying to be overly critical, expecting the game to compensate for poor play is not really a reasonable expectation.

Having put some thought into the situation, on the one side, if a faction actually did take such large losses of leadership, it would be expected that junior officers would be advanced into higher ranks to fill the leadership vacuum. On the other hand, AGEod games have always followed the paradigm that leaders who historically did not stand out enough to already be included in the game as named leader units are already generically included in units without leaders. If such an hypothetical leader were advanced to a higher position, where he simply could not effectively fulfill expectation, it would be about the same as if he were not there at all, and thus there is no point in having such a leader in the game at all.

So instead of asking the game to compensate for poor game-play, learn to protect your units and leaders better. Don't try to hold at all costs unless it is absolutely necessary to delay the enemy for a turn, because that is all that you will achieve. It's nearly always better to defend and retreat and survive to defend and retreat again, that to try to make an heroic last-stand.

At any rate, trying to to stop a superior force by simply holding at all costs, will simply result in taking very heavy losses, with all the consequences related to that. Probably the game ought to restrict its use, or simply force the defender into retreat if attempted against a far superior enemy if the force defending is not highly experienced and motivated. Most troops who are only really conscripts will simply not do everything they are told to do when faced with almost certain death.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Tue Oct 31, 2017 5:27 am

Hmm, I am pretty sure an analysis which blames the player for poor play is totally off the mark on this question. There is no game mechanism to 'protect' a leader from loss. To suggest this is possible is very silly.
Actually, holding at all costs has no correlation to leader death. I wonder why you think this is the case. For this instance, I think you totally missed the mark about the relation of leader death to the success or failure of battles. At worst, holding at all costs and losing the battle means you leader ends up injured in some city you control with a movement penalty of a few turns.
The original question is: why does the Ottoman power seem to suffer a disproportionate leader loss. The answer is not because the Ottomans have been using hold at all costs. The answer may be something more like, because they are more predisposed to loss.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:15 am

Durk wrote:Hmm, I am pretty sure an analysis which blames the player for poor play is totally off the mark on this question.


Because?...

Durk wrote:There is no game mechanism to 'protect' a leader from loss. To suggest this is possible is very silly.


Where please have I made any such assertion?

Durk wrote:Actually, holding at all costs has no correlation to leader death. I wonder why you think this is the case.


Holding at all costs extends the number of rounds a battle would otherwise last. The longer a battle lasts, the more chances a leader will be killed.

Now let's look at Phil's statement about defeat again, "The only thing that increases mortality is low rank and defeats". Unless the forces in the battle are fairly similar in strength, HAAC will not win you the battle. It will simply lengthen it and cause higher casualties.

Durk wrote:For this instance, I think you totally missed the mark about the relation of leader death to the success or failure of battles.


See PhilT's quote please.

Durk wrote:At worst, holding at all costs and losing the battle means you leader ends up injured in some city you control with a movement penalty of a few turns.


See my above statement. Also, wounded leaders are locked a number of turns, not slowed down.

Durk wrote:The original question is: why does the Ottoman power seem to suffer a disproportionate leader loss. The answer is not because the Ottomans have been using hold at all costs. The answer may be something more like, because they are more predisposed to loss.


I have never heard of a faction's leaders being "predisposed" to being killed. Unless you can show some evidence of that being a fact, I'm going to have to consider that simply a confirmation bias. Correlation does not imply causation.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2250
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:29 am

Oh dear, seems you missed my comments almost completely

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:52 pm

Well, I guess ... :(

User avatar
Pocus
Posts: 24759
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:37 am
Location: Lyon (France)

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:51 am

You know that each leader model can be customized to have a specific leader death chance in battle? Perhaps this is what PhilThib did for the Turks.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5522
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: Too Many Leader deaths? Or working as designed.

Mon Nov 06, 2017 9:57 pm

I checked the database files. There are NO leaders, Turk or otherwise, with any modifications to their mortality.

Return to “WON Technical support / Aide technique”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest