Warbarons Combat Calculator

[Molotov]

I've made a calc



units can be added in the lists of two sides.

M/L means morale/leadership bonus, minus fear/chaos
Wall = Wall minus siege bonus.
- these you should calculate and fill in manually.

combat bonuses like swarm bonus, ambush etc are processed aunomatically.

p.s. one question: does unicorn's ability to negate enemy's terrain bonuses work when other units from his side fight, or only when it fights by itself (on an individual level)?

[KGB]

I
p.s. one question: does unicorn's ability to negate enemy's terrain bonuses work when other units from his side fight, or only when it fights by itself (on an individual level)?

Always.

KGB

P.S. There was a long discussion about a combat calculator a couple of months ago. The idea of one was discouraged by myself and several other top players. The prime reason is that unlike DLR, Warbarons is a static game (ie all units have fixed combat numbers as there are no sites for building extra strength/hit units,no medals, no spells, no poison/disease/paralysis/curse etc), it shows all the numbers in the combat screen and allows for the ability to do your turn in multiple sittings (as opposed to loading once in DLR or playing online in real-time mode). This makes a calculator a HUGE advantage for the attacking player because they can discover the exact best fight order to defeat the defenders order, work out exactly what they need to win (reach 90%) etc. So it would have been best if you had not created/released one.

On the other hand this is one more reason why the game should do some or all of the things I asked for in the wish list section.

1) Stop showing any numbers in the combat screen
2) Allow for buying units with extra strength and finding units with extra strength in the neutrals.
3) Allow for possibility of medals
4) Vary the dice roll from a fixed 100 to a number between 80-200 picked once at the start of each combat.

[Molotov]

Obscuring game mechanics is the worst design idea imho. There should be other solutions to the last player's go problem. Obscure mechanics or randomization makes game less strategic, as player cant make descisions as he dont have an idea of whats going on and what for all these units are , and this is very boring.

If you want a real solution, i'd suggested this:
fight order change takes an effect from the next turn.

[KGB]

Molotov,

Obscuring game mechanics is the worst design idea imho. There should be other solutions to the last player's go problem. Obscure mechanics or randomization makes game less strategic.

The mechanics aren't obscured since the rules are well stated or should be well stated. What should be obscured is exactly what strength each players units/heroes are. There is no reason you should know if a unit is blessed, or has extra strength from a site or if a hero has +4 or +14 command or if they have items etc. In real warfare you never know everything about your opponent (how many bullets they have, are they slightly injured, hungry, tired, good/poor morale etc) and hiding this information would simulate that.

as player cant make descisions as he dont have an idea of whats going on and what for all these units are , and this is very boring.

You make decisions based on experience, not on a combat simulator. I find the simulator boring because it takes away a large part of the game. There is nothing wrong with a simulator to test theoretical stuff like how unit A performs against unit B but in real game use it should not be allowed any more than I would be allowed to use a computer chess program in a chess tournament.

If you want a real solution, i'd suggested this:
fight order change takes an effect from the next turn.

It's been discussed but that sucks because if you run into fliers (say a Gryffon in a neutral city) and your anti air units are in the wrong spot you suffer extra losses or are forced to wait a turn. There is no logic in doing that. The game is better off just removing right order entirely which once again loses features.

KGB

[kenc80]

Molotov, thank you for the work towards our community on the battle calculator - thats very cool of you to do. I would however, respectfully disagree with your assessment that the game mechanics are hidden and that is a negative. Everyone knows how combat works and the fact that the numbers are shown helps everyone to understand combat. Don't you think that this makes it easier for beginners to catch on?

I think its important to remember that Warbarons is still in beta and for now, its definitely helpful for players to see strength. We've discussed obscuring them for ladder games but I can't remember what was decided.

I do also wish we had medals as we did in War2. It was always fun to see your highly decorated units at the end of a long campaign. Always felt nostalgic towards them myself.

[ezras]

YES TO MEDALS!!!

[LPhillips]

I also am against the publication of a combat calculator. Our admin have decided not to release one, even though they have it. You should respect that decision and take this down.

[Argammon]

I cannot understand KGB's and LPhilip's point. Either all or NONE of the players should have access to a calculator. Since some players have access, it is pretty obvious that a calculator should be made available to the public.

Then again, if I had one, I would probably try to convince everyone that it should not be made public to keep my advantage.

[KGB]

Argammon,

I've said many times I think NO ONE should have access to a calculator in the game. That's why I continue to press for all the numbers to be hidden in the combat screen and to have enough hidden information (bless, medals, extra strength units etc) to make calculators useless or at least mostly useless.

The only time a calculator should be allowed is when you are playing solo games against the AI so you can have it for learning purposes.

My personal view is that they ruin the game by giving the attacker a huge unfair advantage over the defender. Imagine you are looking to attack an enemy stack and you want to reach 90% (to be sure of winning) but want to minimize your losses of good men. You can go and test out what a stack will do against the defender then try removing your Spider and putting in a Giant to see if you are still at 90% or maybe adding a Dragon instead of a Pegasi and so on. This Allows players with lots of time on their hands to find the exact perfect set of armies they need to reach 90% or minimize losses etc. I don't see how that is adding anything to the game but is instead removing something from the game.

KGB

[Argammon]

KGB:

I agree with you that it would probably be for the best if NO ONE had access to a calculator. As long a some people - like you- have access, everyone should have access.

I would not mind if changes, like the one you suggest, get implemented that reduce the usefulness of a calculator. Until then fairness has to take precedence.