Why are Revolts a Thing?

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

    • Lord Crayfish wrote:

      I am not sure if you are addressing me; I'll assume so.I do not want chance so the underdog should win. If he can use chance to his benefit good for him, but it shouldn't have sufficient effect on the game that any player could win largely due to it.

      The reason I want chance in battles is due to the complexity of Call of War. In chess, go, or checkers, there is no chance. These are essentially abstract strategy games and any mention of "battle" is purely by analogy. In addition they are very simple. They don't need it and it dilutes the raw strategic skill of a player.

      Call of War is more like Risk. Risk is more complex, simulating strategic goals and large-scale battles between opposing armies. Like Call of War, is intentionally less abstract and the pieces resemble real soldiers and the board the real world*. Because of this, it is necessary to have a chance mechanic in battles, because in real life chance is always an issue†. All of these conditions are the same as Call of War, so I think Call of War should incorporate more chance into its battles.

      Re your naval scenario, in Risk, if an army of 12 challenges an army of 1 it is almost bound to win, but can also lose. I agree, it would be frustrating to lose a whole fleet to a few enemies. I do not want this to happen. In Call of War, it should not be possible for this to happen. It is ridiculous. Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).

      It may even make the game more interesting; sometimes, as at Kokoda, small armies were able to hold off large ones against the odds (also due to the terrain). If this happened in-game it might make for a more diverse experience, possibly also useful to "'let's play" or narrative-type players.

      Also thanks about the quotes! You should get some of your own.

      *,† I agree with Pod-than that this game need not always be fully realistic; but I also agree that uncertainty must exist.
      I see more of where you are coming from. Now that you explained it more, with the example of risk, I agree with you now more so. But I still think that revolt should be reworked but definitely stay in the game.

      "Slow is smooth, smooth is fast."
      — Navy SEALs

      Edit: didn't mean to make a new thread
    • DxC wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
      I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
      I have asked about the existing element of chance before, so no, I am not trolling, but I was under the impression that this had been removed in 2.0 (the wiki has barely been altered to accommodate the update). Thank you for clearing this up.

      In light of this, perhaps it should be increased even up to a quarter or more, but that's another matter. Certainly not over 30% though. I am always of the opinion though that the game is fine, if not perfect, the way it is and no improvement to the mechanics would make it better without downsides.
      The fate of the Empire depends on this battle; let each man do his utmost.
      — Tōgō Heihachirō, Battle of Tsushima

      England expects that every man will do his duty.
      — Admiral Horatio Nelson, Battle of Trafalgar

      Mon centre cède, ma droite recule; situation excellente, j'attaque.
      — Marshal Foch, Battle of the Marne

      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Lord Crayfish ().

    • DxC wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
      I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
      Let's look up the mathematical term Probability distribution.
      The cumulative result of repeatedly tossing coins with different odds of getting heads is sometimes called “ β distribution ”.
      The probability that an unpredictable accident will not occur “ just now ” is sometimes called the “ Poisson distribution ”.
      All of them tell us interesting truths.
      In the future, if you enter an insurance company and are involved in the design of insurance itself, these knowledge will be very useful.
    • Armymac3000 wrote:

      But why would you want the chance of defeat when your troops/vehicle are clearly better.
      Because war is not even a battle, and it doesn't always end with just a fight with enemy soldiers.

      In other words, BECAUSE some spies slips into the one's own country, terrorists appears, economic stagnation occurs, leakage of classified military information, be damaged facilities, local residents may turn into guerrillas, friendly soldiers may stage a coup, neutral countries may antagonize, and friendly countries may switch sides.

      Of course, it is rather unlikely that all these events will occur at the same time.

      However, it is so exciting, because in order to keep it from happening, the efforts of the enemy and the ally are competing.

      But if it can't happen in the first place the fun will be reduced.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by pod_than ().

    • pod_than wrote:

      [...] local residents may turn into guerrillas, friendly soldiers may stage a coup, neutral countries may antagonize, and friendly countries may switch sides.
      And it also simply makes sense, especially if you are invading a country and they revolt back to the original country. Too many historical examples to cite.
      The fate of the Empire depends on this battle; let each man do his utmost.
      — Tōgō Heihachirō, Battle of Tsushima

      England expects that every man will do his duty.
      — Admiral Horatio Nelson, Battle of Trafalgar

      Mon centre cède, ma droite recule; situation excellente, j'attaque.
      — Marshal Foch, Battle of the Marne

      Aeroplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.
      — Marshal Foch

      A pretty mechanical toy [...] the war will never be won by such machines.
      — Lord Kitchener, on tanks
    • New

      DxC wrote:

      Lord Crayfish wrote:

      Nevertheless, I think the element of chance should be there (I would say damage should be affected to around 20 per cent on each side of the nominal value).
      I'm not sure if you are trolling or not, but a random +/- 20% is already applied to the damage potentials in each round of battle. This is in the wiki. I'm not sure what the actual distribution is, but in my experience it is below expectation more often than above.
      At the risk of further derailing this thread from the original "No more revolts" purpose (sorry zoom):

      since this randomness is applied at the battle ROUND level rather than the battle as a whole, this seeming 20% is diluted because the chances tend to fall one way in one round, and the other way in the second. This means that the "randomness" end result of a battle as a whole is much less than 20%. Compare it to rolling dice: when you roll one die, the chances of 1-6 are all equal; when you roll two dice the chances to roll 7 are much higher than either 2 or 12.
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • New

      jubjub bird wrote:

      I think it used to be higher and was decreased. Maybe it was 20% and is now 10%? I think I remember a past update addressing it, just can't remember which
      It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve, meaning results close to 0% deviation are more likely than results close to +-20% deviation.

      z00mz00m wrote:

      What about it, Freezy? Let's make the game more fun. Get rid of revolts.
      This is a bigger decision with Pros and Cons that of course could also have some business impact, so it has to be analysed properly and decided by the whole product team (meaning I can't decide that alone). So no promises at all, but I will spark an internal discussion on it at least.
    • New

      DxC wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve
      Hi Freezy. I'm wanting to add an option for simulating the variance in the calc. Do you happen to know what the standard deviation is on the distribution?
      Uhm I can actually not tell you with absolute certainty because the documentation is a bit ambiguous in that regard :D It is either 1 or 0.1, and all results that fall outside of a 0.2 (20%) difference will be cut off (it will re-roll if it lands outside).
    • New

      freezy wrote:

      DxC wrote:

      freezy wrote:

      It is still 20%. But the probability shape is a Bell curve
      Hi Freezy. I'm wanting to add an option for simulating the variance in the calc. Do you happen to know what the standard deviation is on the distribution?
      Uhm I can actually not tell you with absolute certainty because the documentation is a bit ambiguous in that regard :D It is either 1 or 0.1, and all results that fall outside of a 0.2 (20%) difference will be cut off (it will re-roll if it lands outside).
      Well you guys should be proud that there IS documentation)))
      When the enemy is driven back, we have failed. When he is cut off, encircled and dispersed, we have succeeded. - Aleksandr Suvorov.
    • New

      DxC wrote:

      Yeah, I'm using a standard deviation of 0.1 meaning the +/- 0.2 is two standard deviations out, so 95.4% of the "rolls" are in the region of interest.
      ok if that works mathematically then I think it is indeed 0.1, at least I checked the value in the balancing setup once more and there it is also 0.1. I was just confused because our documentation stated it as 1 but I think that was just an example value. I guess we can trust the value of 0.1 in the actual setup the most.