Something seems off with decisive vs. close victory

[Xaphnir]

https://i.imgur.com/w8CZVC5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/yAD1iGZ.jpg

Used almost all of my ammo in the decisive victory. Used less than half in the close.

Or an even more extreme example:

https://i.imgur.com/yAtI3PV.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zqyxihH.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Dyts3GM.jpg

Again, by far the least ammo used in the close victory. I always thought this was based on casualties taken and ammo spent, but taking fewer casualties and spending less ammo recently seems to have zero correlation with a close vs. decisive victory.

[goumindong]

It depends both on casualties taken as well as the initial force distribution. You will often get a "close" victory because the enemy was weaker since its a lower rated victory type. There really should be a two axis continuum. Such that an "expected victory" exists. Unfortunately it does not so its usually "close".

As an example. I once ambushed an equally sized group of empire units(swords/crossbows) with an army consisting of free company militia and spearmen. The ambush gave a big bonus so i got a "close victory" despite taking 50 of 1900 casualties and leaving 50 of 1900 marching troops alive.

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by goumindong:

It depends both on casualties taken as well as the initial force distribution. You will often get a "close" victory because the enemy was weaker since its a lower rated victory type. There really should be a two axis continuum. Such that an "expected victory" exists. Unfortunately it does not so its usually "close".

The thing about that, though, is that when comparing the decisive victory with Teclis vs. the close victory with Grom, the enemy Teclis fought was much weaker and yet I took more damage and spent more ammo in that battle.

Also none of those Skaven battles were ambushes, and in the close victory the balance of power was against me. If anything, it seems like it might be the opposite of what you're saying, i.e. that the stronger the enemy is the less damage you can suffer and the less ammo you can spend for a decisive victory.

[Snerkus]

Isn't this just weighed against the strength of the enemy force? The teclis battle would have been near impossible to lose, the grom one was more up in the air (as far as the game is concerned)

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by Snerkus:

Isn't this just weighed against the strength of the enemy force? The teclis battle would have been near impossible to lose, the grom one was more up in the air (as far as the game is concerned)

That's what I'm thinking is probably the difference in these battles. It seems that, to get a decisive victory when the two forces are of similar strength, you're allowed far fewer casualties/damage taken and far less ammo spent than when your strength is significantly greater than the enemy's.

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by goumindong:

It depends both on casualties taken as well as the initial force distribution. You will often get a "close" victory because the enemy was weaker since its a lower rated victory type. There really should be a two axis continuum. Such that an "expected victory" exists. Unfortunately it does not so its usually "close".

As an example. I once ambushed an equally sized group of empire units(swords/crossbows) with an army consisting of free company militia and spearmen. The ambush gave a big bonus so i got a "close victory" despite taking 50 of 1900 casualties and leaving 50 of 1900 marching troops alive.

But we know it doesn't work like that. Because the game will still award you with a close victory even when taking 0 casualties, against a force that is considered stronger than you on the balance of power.

Example: the balance of power was 90% red https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/1041967970783324550/771F7F15EE68DF3B2B9E9FA38715E6803CFCD802/

[cybvep]

I immediately knew that the armies would be ranged-heavy, even before opening the picture. It's about ammunition. When you spend most of it and you have huge number of ranged troops, the probability of getting a decisive victory is low.

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by cybvep:

I immediately knew that the armies would be ranged-heavy, even before opening the picture. It's about ammunition. When you spend most of it and you have huge number of ranged troops, the probability of getting a decisive victory is low.

But consider that only the two mortars depleted their ammo. The rest didn't even fire. It doesn't seem right.
Besides this happens constantly even with melee armies. I just don't bother to take screenshots.

[Falaris]

It's always been a bit wonky. I'm increasingly in the camp that says 'who cares what the algorithm says? That was a bloody nice piece of work anyway.'. (Or possibly, damn, that could have gone better). It doesn't actually affect anything, after all.

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by Falaris:

It's always been a bit wonky. I'm increasingly in the camp that says 'who cares what the algorithm says? That was a bloody nice piece of work anyway.'. (Or possibly, damn, that could have gone better). It doesn't actually affect anything, after all.

It does. It affects experience gain after the battle.

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by cybvep:

I immediately knew that the armies would be ranged-heavy, even before opening the picture. It's about ammunition. When you spend most of it and you have huge number of ranged troops, the probability of getting a decisive victory is low.

Did you try reading beyond just the images? The ones where I spent more ammo were the decisive victories. For the Teclis one my archers spent over 90% of their ammo. In those two decisive siege victories as Skryre my mortars and Warp-Lightning Cannons spent all of their ammo.

[Fluke]

It is very wonky indeed. Some time back I kept replaying Ikitt claws opening battle to try and get a decisive Victory. I came to the conclusion it was not possible after a lot of retries. Has any ever managed this ?. Vortex

i try to get a "perfect" first turn save on most LL's.

[Nequis]

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2136117107


"wonky" is a generous word,it's just not working simple as that

[Free Luigi M.]

Originally posted by Nequis:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2136117107


"wonky" is a generous word,it's just not working simple as that

If you lose a lot of units it will always be pyrric. No matter the initial odds.
Which is simply wrong.