Attack/Defense - Different Names for different values

[zgrssd]

There are two set of attack/defense values:
1. The one on the unit card. For hard and soft targets.
2. The one you use in tactical combat resolution, wich is one from point 1 and HP.

We need proper terms to differentiate betwen the two, so confusion is avoided. I would say:
- The one on the unit card, could be called Strategic Attack/Defense. Wich of those you use is primarly absed on highest level strategy decisions. As that decides who is attacker and defender.*
- The one in combat could then be called Tactical Attack/Defense. As it is used in tactical combat.

*There is some tactical element (like if you end up shooting Hard or Soft), but that could be solved with a minor re-ordereing to display soft/hard attack and soft/hard defense.
I can not tell what is more important: Seeing how much better a unit performs on attack over defense. Especially as Ammo also follows that pattern. Or how much better the unit performs vs soft vs hard.

[Malevolence]

So the "attack" is not the side that initiates the engagement and the "defense" is not the side who is being targeted for attack?

Something in the combat calculations presumes these tactical tasks?

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

So the "attack" is not the side that initiates the engagement and the "defense" is not the side who is being targeted for attack?

Something in the combat calculations presumes these tactical tasks?

[&:]


The attacker uses Strategic Attack as Tactical Attack value.
The defender uses Strategic Defense as Tactical Attack value.
Both sides use HP as Tactical Defense value.

[Malevolence]

Oh ok, good. Your clarified statement is what I presumed already.

It makes sense as is, yes. Especially considering the defender counter-attacks, etc.

Attack or defense implies the unit's posture. The posture does effect the damage dealing capability of weapons.

Hitpoints imply the unit's capacity to sustain damage and losses. Attack or Defense are irrelevant with respect to sustained hits.

[zgrssd]

ORIGINAL: Malevolence
Attack or defense implies the unit's posture. The posture does effect the damage dealing capability of weapons.

Hitpoints imply the unit's capacity to sustain damage and losses. Attack or Defense are irrelevant with respect to sustained hits.

And a missconception on the "Attack and Defense reduced" is exactly what got me to write this. Someone had asume that meant the Tactical Values were reduced.

The Postures seem to only affect Strategic Attack and Strategic Defense.

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: zgrssd
And a missconception on the "Attack and Defense reduced" is exactly what got me to write this. Someone had asume that meant the Tactical Values were reduced.

The Postures seem to only affect Strategic Attack and Strategic Defense.

Are you a native English speaker?

I'm a huge fan of localization in games.

I think the mis-conception might be your comprehension of the English language.

This may be an excellent example suggestion for localization.

[Soar_Slitherine]

Although the exact effect of posture modifiers is not currently well explained, I don't think this suggested terminology makes anything any less confusing...

[Malevolence]

ORIGINAL: Soar_Slitherine
Although the exact effect of posture modifiers is not currently well explained, I don't think this suggested terminology makes anything any less confusing...

The model should be marked/identified in the UI (e.g. model description) as Soft or Hard. Right now, it is not. It's onerous to determine.

To split minor hairs it's not really "Attack" and "Defense". It should be "Offensive" and "Defensive". Offense and Defense are nouns. Offensive and Defensive are adjectives. In this case, those words are attributes describing the attack value--so they are adjectives.

They are all attack values as zgrssd correctly states.

-- e.g. Soft Offensive Attack, Soft Defensive Attack, Hard Offensive Attack, Hard Defensive Attack.

Those examples have adjective-noun agreement. As I tried to imply, that might help non-native English speakers comprehend the meaning, as it is pretty typical of romance languages.

In terms of other information, the other element missing is the circular error probable (CEP)--or some measure of the weapon's precision.

For any given circumstance, we know the attack value and the capacity of the model to sustain damage (and still remain mission capable.)

We cannot estimate the chance to hit, given the information I've seen and read. However, I do realize it is highly situational and calculated somewhere in the combat resolution algorithm. We know this because units both hit and kill according to battle reports.

It might be close to this:

Determine if hit scored

Basicly it is very simple the attack points for the attacker are calculated and the hitpoints for the defender. When this is done both numbers are randomized, score a value between 0 and their number and if attacker scores higher a hit is scored, otherwise not. There is a plethora of modifiers on both scores. See modifiers paragraph below.

[TheSquid]

Section 5.10.15 Combat briefly describes how hits are calculated - basically the score of the appropriate "attack" value of the attacker (soft attack, soft defense, hard attack, hard defense) is compared to the hit points of the target unit. If they're equal, it's a 50% chance of a hit; if attack value > 2 * hit points, then chance of hit == 75%; if the inverse is true, then chance of hit == 25%.

I'm not sure of the actual scale/algorithm used here, but a possible assumption is that it's linear between 25%-50%-75% as per the above.

There is a TON of stuff that modifies the attack and/or hitpoints before it gets to that point, and I believe all of that is in the manual under that section. Personally I wouldn't mind a way to reference this in-game; however since it's really detailed that would probably entail having the entire combat section of the manual reproduced as help pages or something.

The actual calculations used should (mostly) be visible if you check out the "details" page(s) of the combat log. I'm not sure if the combat log actually shows the values of the random rolls though - I think it only indicates the calculations and final values for the "attack" (attacker) and "hit points" (defender), along with indicating where/how these were modified, and the result of the attack (e.g. hit, miss, etc.).