Last thing I want is to argue with you on this matter, but I'm mathematician, my math is probably fine
And it's the only reason why I've proposed my versions - for math should always make sense and be perfectly logical. I'm afraid your equations aren't.
Napoleon always uses Napoleonic Tactics. So 3*3 + 1*3 = 12. Much magic.
And I do understand your equation, really, I do.
D30 Roll +/- General +/- Nation Modifier +/- Season +/- Doctrine = Total RollAfter changes proposed by you, fighting as Napoleon and having roll of 1
1 + 9 (Napoleon) + 0 (no bonus for France I believe) + 0 + 3 (Napoleonic Doctrine) = 13
Even though battle was total disaster, roll was worst possible, soldiers were imbeciles and reserves of powder were so poor, that they had to use baguettes in fight, Napoleon kills 13% of any army he encounter. Even starting battle against Napoleon means, that 13% of your army will be destroyed. No matter what you do. No matter how many men he has. No matter anything. Don't even try to attack, for after few battles Napoleon will destroy even the greatest army with power of his beautiful face only. And to talk about others also, not only Napoleon, Russian winter with Kutuzow also won't let anyone win any battle. 10% of any army will be killed in every battle. Fight against forces 10 times weaker than yours and you'll still lose 10% because of awesomeness of Kutuzow.
With my proposition
D30 Roll * (1 + General + Nation + Season + Doctrine) = Total RollWith D30 Roll of 1 we have
1 * (1 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0.1) = 1*1.4 = 1.4
Battle was a disaster, even Napoleon cannot save it, he kills only 1,4% of enemies.
With D30 Roll of 30 we have
30 * (1 + 0.3 + 0 + 0 + 0.1) = 30*1.4 = 42
Battle was a great success and thanks to his amazing skills Napoleon achieved to kill 12% more enemies.
Now starting battle against Napoleon means that at least 1.4% of your army will be destroyed, but you have to be aware, that in worst case scenario his skills will allow him to destroy almost half of your forces. Do attack, but do it with caution.
That's concerning the first equation.
Concerning the second equation - in fact it's your equation that find damage army receives. For it's percent of soldiers that will be killed.
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * me_before_battle)That's your equation (or at least you claimed so in PW). Percent is multiplicated by army that receives damage. So it's damage received, even though bonuses are from side that deals damage. That's how math works. Army A rolls for damage
received by army B. It's percent of soldiers that receive damage (roll is 15, so 15% of B's army is killed, so army B receives damage of 15%). In equation proposed by me
me_after_battle = me_before_battle - (enemy_roll * enemy_before_battle)roll is damage dealt by an army. Army A rolls for damage
given to army B (roll is 15, so 15% of A's soldiers achieved to kill one enemy, so army A gives damage of 15%).
Anyway, I wanted to ask other players to give their opinion, not start argument with you. That wasn't really my aim, so, to avoid further arguments, unless you prove me wrong or other player ask for explanation, I won't continue to explain my ideas. It was a proposition, not an attempt to force you to do anything. So if neither players nor you are interested in it, I won't try to convince you any further, as I really don't want to try to force you to anything
Btw. in your hypothetical situation any equation doesn't even matter, for after lost of 17% of men you destroy whole army. And all my propositions are about situations in which both armies survives and continue campaigns after suffering loses. If every battle ends in one side being totally destroyed after losing not even 1/5 of men, then case is closed, sorry for time I took from you with this discussion, as we're discussing something that doesn't matter.
Show Posts
