You want to know why you get owned in autoresolve ?

[Orao]

Well the awnser is the algorithme.

This awnser was given by Darth_Torpid to Athanasios when we tryed to fix autoresolv system in our mod.

I'm paraphrasing the awnser but here it goes.

The auto resolve systems works in terms of lines. Each line has a specific number of units. Those lines are filled randomnly by units at your disposal when you hit the autoresolv button. Once you hit the button your line is commpared with line of the AI and the system decides wether your line win or loose. After that second lines are compared and so on unitl all is finished.

Ok set lets resume it in an exemple.

Lets say that you play as the imperial and you have Stormtroopers, M2 repoulsor tanks, AT-AT. On the other side rebels have troopers, artilery and plex soldiers.

Now lets imagine that this gives you enough of units to form lets say 3 lines.

Since the filling system of line with units is completly random you can have this in your first line :

M2 repulsor tanks wheras reble first line could be filled in plex soldiers only.

When the computer compares these two lines it is obvious that you will loose.

Once the winner is declared the wining line is put into the reserve and second lines are compared.

Now imagine that you have in second line :

Imperials : Stormtroopers

Rebels : Artilery

Once again during comparaison imperials are owned by rebels and rebel line is placed into the reserve.

Finaly the third line will be filled for the Empire with AT-AT and the rebel line with troopers.

It is obvious that rebel thrd line will be owned but rebels have two lines in reserve.

The imperial third line then will be compared with two rebel lines in reserve. And while the Empire will eventualy win some AT-AT will be destroyed.


At the end with the far superior force you lost to the ennemy more that 80 % of your invasion forces.

I hope this help you understand the autoresolve system.

We decided not to touch it because we could have worsen things by doing so. Anyway I hope that they will change the system for the patch.

[jedi3112]

Wise decision.

Somehow I lost a fleet commander in ground combat using the Auto Resolve (couldn't find the last enemy unit) did his ISD crash into the surface or something? Didn't lose the ISD though.

[Admiral Sith]

Also, when you auto-resolve the health of all your units is dropped greatly.

[wuyanxu]

hum.... if it was me to write this algarithm, i wouldn't have done it better.

so, nice job, Para....something.


but here's an idea:

-add a simple function to sort the 3 lines into order of how hard they are to destroy.

-now, call the game's defalt function, so:
-- AT-AT vs Plux troopers, AT-AT wins with looses
-- M2 tank vs Artillary, i donno..... Artillary might win, depends on the algarithm
-- Stromtroppers vs rebel troppers, depends on the number.

and this way, you'll looks less stromtroppers or even M2 tanks.

[wedge2211]

Well, of course one side will be totally owned if the random unit selection works out exactly in the way you describe--what you've illustrated is how the auto-resolve can result in heavy losses for just one particular case, not why auto-resolve results in heavy losses for most cases. For comparison, imagine if the player had been the Rebel in the above situation--you'd win with practically no losses. Or imagine if the Imperial "lines" had been composed of Stormtroopers, AT-ATs, and Stormtroopers again against the same Rebel lines (plex troopers, artillery, plex troopers). Then, the Imperials would basically rule the day, losing perhaps an AT-AT or two to the MPTLs.

There doesn't seem to be much wrong with that algorithm to me, except the way it cycles between subsequent lines. Why not have one randomly constructed line "battle" another randomly constructed line until one wins, then just refill both lines with the remaining units and repeat until one side emerges victorious? That would mimic the reinforcement system more closely. There doesn't seem to be any need to have a whole secondary, tertiary, etc line ready to go.

[ScorLibran]

How about this...

Have "battle value points" assigned to each unit type, and then accommodate valid counters for each unit.

For instance, a company of SPMA-T artillery may be worth 20 BVP, unless there are T2-B tanks on the other side, in which case they lose 25% of their value for each T2-B company present, calculated incrementally: 1 company of T2-Bs makes the SPMA-T company worth 15 BVP, a second T2-B company makes them worth 25% of that (rounded up to 12 BVP), and so forth. Always round up, and no unit value would ever reach zero, as there are no guarantees on the battlefield even if you do have the "perfect counter" for something.

This could get more complex if you want to get into layered adjustments...if I have SPMA-Ts, but you have T2-Bs, but I have 2-M Repulsors, then your T2-Bs may be less likely to kill my SPMA-Ts, and the value of the SPMA-Ts and T-2Bs would be adjusted again accordingly.

I think the simpler approach may be better, though...only one "layer" of BVP adjustment. Anything more gets so subjective that if you're that worried about it, fight the darn battle yourself instead of auto-resolving.

And "perfect counters" wouldn't be the only things calculated. Even infantry can get lucky and run up to a lone artillery piece and shoot it to death from point-blank range with impunity. So this should be taken into account, albeit with a much smaller penalty to the artillery...maybe only a 5% drop per infantry company, but a drop nonetheless.

Anyway...determine the adjusted BVP for each unit type on one side based on what's on the other side. Add up all these adjusted values for an "adjusted subtotal" for that side.

Also determine point values for alternative issues in a battle...for instance, which side is defending a base? That side gets a BVP bonus, as it's always easier to defend a hardened position than to attack one. Also provide positive or negative BVPs for environmental factors. Is it raining on the planet? Adjust the BVP of all units using lasers to accommodate the drop in accuracy they'll encounter. Add all such bonuses and penalties to the adjusted subtotal to create the "adjusted+exception subtotal".

Then create a random coefficient as a "luck factor" to add to the adjusted+exception subtotal to create a "composite".

Do all these same things for the other side of the battle.

The one with the higher composite wins the auto-resolve.

This way order of battle doesn't matter (as it's almost impossible to predict that anyway), only a composite of what's present in terms of units and environment, with a reasonable factor of randomness (i.e., luck) thrown in.

[Sithman1138]

The auto-resolve is weird. I do hope they change it because it pisses me off when I have 30 at-st's, 30 trooper, 30 plex, 30 artillery, 30atat and various others and get out with 10 atat, 2 atst, ajd a few troops...it sucks. It should line them all up against one another and then go...thats the way it should be.

[†Saint_Killa†]

Really fix the auto resolve. 5 ISD's against a transport of infantry my ISD's retreted. VERY ODD INDEED.

[thedoctor44]

It seems then the autoresolve health line does virtually nout...

I hate it when I go in with a fleet of 24 ISDs and loose 6 to a starbase and few dozen corvettes...yes, modded GC pop cap.

[Orao]

@Wedge

It isn't my finding. We simply asked the question to Torpid and he awnsered us this. I only made an exemple to make it easier to understand.

This random thing is completly stupid if you ask me. In other games I only hit autoresolve when I don't want fight with advantage of 300 to 1. But in EAW I'm affraid of hitting the autoresolve or I do save befor I do it.

[PrivateMiles]

Yeah, I had Home One, Han & Chewie, Red Squadron, two nebulon B frigates, two x-wing squadrons, and a collerilian Corvette. I auto resolved and I lost everything. It was so stupid. All the imperials had was a clone wars friagte thing, small frigate, and 2 tie bomeber squadrons, and 2 tie squadrons, and a level 3 space station I lost bad too...

[wuyanxu]

how did the imperials have bombers without a capital ship present?? there must be a Acc cruiser or a Victory cruiser around

[ScorLibran]

Originally Posted by wuyanxu

how did the imperials have bombers without a capital ship present?? there must be a Acc cruiser or a Victory cruiser around

The Empire's level 3 space station garrisons Tie Fighters, Tie Bombers and two Tartan Patrol Cruisers. That's where the bombers came from.

[wuyanxu]

but the level 3 station's reinforcements won't be displayed on the post-battle-report

[ScorLibran]

Then the "small frigate" had to be an Acclamator, with it's own contingent of fighters and bombers.

[boc120]

yeah, I would think that the "clone wars frigate" would indeed refer to an Acclamator.

[PrivateMiles]

Lol, yeah, I was in a hurry and I could not remember the names of the ships, sorry.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It could have also been a Victory Class Cruiser, that's a frigate as well.

[wuyanxu]

lol, why do star wars name their frigates as cruisers. when i played the demo, it was really confusing

[ScorLibran]

Yeah, it's confusing. Maybe they have an inflated self-image?

The Victory is at least an "in-between" sized ship, described as a "heavy frigate", so calling it a cruiser isn't too far off. But the Tartan Patrol Cruiser is no cruiser at all - it's more of a yacht with guns.

[conmanguyler]

Originally Posted by boc120

yeah, I would think that the "clone wars frigate" would indeed refer to an Acclamator.

no that would be a venator,the aclamators dont look anything like anything out of the clone wars, the venatators are the ships which have cutouts in the side of the wings and have a stick bridge type thing, just 1 thing stivking up,with a little bit that goes out. they are smaller than VSD's but pack a punch

CG

[wedge2211]

Acclamators were seen in AotC. That pretty much makes them "clone wars frigates."

[conmanguyler]

Originally Posted by wedge2211

Acclamators were seen in AotC. That pretty much makes them "clone wars frigates."

idont remember seeing the acclamators in AOTC

[conmanguyler]

go on this website and if it is the image that is on there, then i am right

http://www.imperialassault.com/rote/files/PR/venator_news.jpg

[Orao]

Just watch the last scene of AOTC, the one where you see the emperor (chancelor) on the balcony overseeing clone troopers entering in Acclamators. After that one Acclamator is taking off.

[Admiral Sith]

No thats not the acclamator

See that ship on the upper right? Acclamator, from Episode II.

heres a better view

[conmanguyler]

i can see that your picture is an acclamator, i wasnt talking about that though. i was askin the guy that brought this up in the first place if the ship he saw is the link that i posted, i no what an acclamator is, i just dont remember seeing it in AOTC.

[conmanguyler]

Originally Posted by Orao

Just watch the last scene of AOTC, the one where you see the emperor (chancelor) on the balcony overseeing clone troopers entering in Acclamators. After that one Acclamator is taking off.

i thought they were SD's

[conmanguyler]

soz i posted my message twice, oops

[Orao]

SD are Venator class not acclamator class. Venators are more heavy troop carriers rather than frigates as shown in EAW.

[wherryj]

Originally Posted by wuyanxu

lol, why do star wars name their frigates as cruisers. when i played the demo, it was really confusing

It's even more confusing that a Star DESTROYER is stronger than most CRUISERS. Also, why is a Dreadnaught weaker than almost all other ship classes?

The usual (real world) ranking of ships would be something like destroyer<frigate<cruiser<battleship<dreadnaught. That should mean that a dreadnaught would destroy a "star destroyer", but they are actually far weaker. I never understood the SW classifications...LOL

[ScorLibran]

Battleships and dreadnaughts must be mod-only (as they're not in the regular game - The Accuser and Home One are the closest things that'd qualify). And can't a mod's XML just be changed to make those unit types stronger than they are...up to what you'd expect them to be?

[wuyanxu]

Originally Posted by wherryj

It's even more confusing that a Star DESTROYER is stronger than most CRUISERS. Also, why is a Dreadnaught weaker than almost all other ship classes?

The usual (real world) ranking of ships would be something like destroyer<frigate<cruiser<battleship<dreadnaught. That should mean that a dreadnaught would destroy a "star destroyer", but they are actually far weaker. I never understood the SW classifications...LOL

i think destroyer is bigger than a frigate. since in Homeworld 2 destroyers are classed as capital ships whereas Frigates don't. i think it goes like this:
Fighters < Corvettes < Frigates < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battleships < Dreadnaughts < Sajuuk (hehe)

[Orao]

No in real navy ie US NAVY, Royal Navy etc destroyers are escort vessels made for one purpose alone which is anti submarine fight. They are small and rapid vessels but with not so much firepower as frigate.

However in modern navy those classifications are outdated. Battleship and Dreadnaught are no more.

What was kept is patrol boats, corvette, frigate, destroyer cruiser and carrier.

patroal boat is cost guard only whereas for the rest you have this :

corvette<destroyer <frigate<cruiser

Te carreir is on its own.

However concerning the US Navy destroyer appears to be superior to frigate. For exemple Oliver Perry class which is the frigate is inferior to the ARLEIGH BURKE-class
destroyer.

And for cruiser you have Ticonderoga class ships which is more cruise missile launcher than anything else.

[ScorLibran]

Originally Posted by Orao

patroal boat is cost guard only whereas for the rest you have this :

corvette<destroyer <frigate<cruiser

Quite true. In the US Navy (and I think British Royal Navy too), destroyers are charged with long-range recon, hence the use of Aegis radar systems on many US destroyers, but not to be found (I think) on frigates. Their normal specialty is anti-air and some anti-surface abilities.

Originally Posted by Orao

However concerning the US Navy destroyer appears to be superior to frigate. For exemple Oliver Perry class which is the frigate is inferior to the ARLEIGH BURKE-class destroyer.

Well, I wouldn't even compare many frigates to destroyers, as they have very different purposes in a fleet and/or battlegroup, and you couldn't survive in a time of war without both of them present.

Destroyers are mostly anti-air/anti-surface with extensive long-range recon ability. If it comes by sea or by air, they can see it coming from very long distances (like the larger Aegis cruisers can). Frigates are much more specialized - using the O.H. Perry-class as an example (and being my favorite frigate in the US Navy), it's almost purely a submarine killer. It's outfitted with advanced sonar, ASROCs and very effective Sikorsky anti-sub helicopters. If you're an enemy sub and you're being tracking by a Perry-class frigate, say your prayers. Other frigate types have equally specialized roles, while destroyers serve a slightly more multi-purpose role in a battlegroup (as they can do easily, being a larger ship).

EaW seems to use the "old school" ship sizing methodology, though - back when frigates were big ships; not as big as dreadnaughts, but almost the size of cruisers and definitely larger that destroyers and corvettes. The key with frigates 200-years-ago was SPEED. They were notoriously fast for their size. If you were on a ship being chased by an enemy frigate, you'd better have a strategy up your sleeve other than trying to outrun it, because you probably couldn't.

Originally Posted by Orao

And for cruiser you have Ticonderoga class ships which is more cruise missile launcher than anything else.

Yes, modern cruisers are long-range missile ships, also with the long-range Aegis (and newer) recon technologies.

In the modern US navy, fear a cruiser if you're on land or on the sea surface, a destroyer if you're on the sea surface or in the air, and a Perry-class frigate if you're underwater. And an aircraft carrier if your pretty much anywhere.