Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the Tour of Generals forum.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Battle Outcomes
Topic Started: Aug 28 2010, 12:14 PM (520 Views)
Amer the Great Aug 28 2010, 12:14 PM Post #1

I know that the game outcomes are random and everything but I attacked an army that was around 87-ish with an army of over 800 - well over 500 - and I lost and my 500 army was left with about 200 soldiers, 50 tanks and 45 Artillery pieces. The other army was at 80. So I attacked him again and I lost in a 7-0 loss. How is that possible? Over 300 tanks, 200 artillery and 3,000 soldiers loose to him?

A fix now: I think this should be fixed so that the army with the most strength wins and the most victories and captures becasue that raises the men's morale. And after I lost that battle, I couldn't get back on my feet. I lost every single battle after that and my odds were slightly higher than his.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
admin Aug 28 2010, 04:57 PM Post #2
Administrator
 Check your opponents general. If he has a lot of wins that can really change the outcome of battles.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amer the Great Aug 28 2010, 05:47 PM Post #3

No, he didn't. He barley had 5 conquers. He won like 6 battles after that and none before that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sandboxbob Aug 28 2010, 06:02 PM Post #4
Member Avatar

 yea ive started to notice a change in that, but its kinda sided, becasue ive had an ary that is over 4X as stonger as the opponents even thou he has 2 wins and 0 losses my army had 4 losses i belive and 0 wins, and i lost 5 to 2 took me 3 sperate tries with stronger armies just to beat an army of 100 soilders and 1 artillary.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
admin Aug 28 2010, 11:46 PM Post #5
Administrator
 I've had my own share of upsets, but to be honest, as disappointing as it is in the moment I'm glad they can happen from time to time. I tend to get overconfident and plan my moves ahead of time by telling myself, "I'm going to attack him here, and then take this territory and that territory." and then my powerful army gets wiped out on a chance draw and I have to rethink all my plans. Then the question becomes, "Did I save myself some reserve units? Did I save enough money to fortify my position for his counter attack?" If I do then I have strategized well and that is what the game is all about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sandboxbob Aug 29 2010, 04:49 AM Post #6
Member Avatar

 yes it makes it a real life factor but ive had periods where i had upset after upset, and ever since there is always that paranoia for me when i battle, i tend to over spend on armies just to be sure that i get the job done , and ussuayl it turns out to be a good things becasue even with 4X the size i only tend to win 4 to 3 , sometimes when i have armies that are like 50 str higher thats seems to me when i end up winning 6 to 1 or 7 to 0
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amer the Great Aug 29 2010, 05:12 AM Post #7

I do see your point Mr. Marks but in RL, is it possible for my army of 300 tanks, 200 artillery pieces and 3,000 soldiers loose to an army of 80-odd tanks? It's impossible unless the 80-odd army has some type of magical powers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Beavers Aug 29 2010, 10:54 AM Post #8
Member Avatar
Amer the Great
Aug 29 2010, 05:12 AM
I do see your point Mr. Marks but in RL, is it possible for my army of 300 tanks, 200 artillery pieces and 3,000 soldiers loose to an army of 80-odd tanks? It's impossible unless the 80-odd army has some type of magical powers.

Is it possible? Yes, but very unlikely.

As evidence of large army loses to small one with massive disparity in casualties, I present one of the most famous battles in US History, the 1815 "Battle of New Orleans":

The British forces land with 11,000 men in an attempt to march on and capture the city. 4,000 American soldiers, Native-American warriors, and mercenaries, led by future-president Andrew Jackson are on the defense. Both sides are unaware that the war ended weeks before with the signing of the Treaty of Ghent.
...
The Americans win, with losses of 333 (killed and wounded), the British lose 2459 (killed and wounded) and then retreat to their ships.

So, the ratios (presented as British:American):
Initial strength: 3:1
Casualties: 8:1
Outcome: LOSE:WIN

(Now, obviously 3:1 isn't quite the 6:1 strength ratio that you had)

If you insist on an army 6 times larger losing, I'll have to throw out the Third Battle of Nanking (1864, during the Taiping Rebellion against Imperial Chinese control). The rebel army had a strength of 400,000 at the beginning of the battle and was holding the city of Nanking. The attacking imperial forces measured 60,000 (thus, 6.67:1 in favor of the rebels). Eventually, the Imperial army wins. Casualties were 200,000 for the rebels and 19,000 for the imperial forces (10:1 casualties for the larger army to the smaller one). This isn't a perfect comparison to a quick click, battle, done as here in the game because it was partly a siege, but it was one with a large amount of fighting (not just camping out and waiting, occasionally fire the catapult, that we know from middle ages Europe) for the period from engagement to surrender.

So, I will contend once again, that it is possible for what you experienced to happen, but it's not very likely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Amer the Great Aug 29 2010, 12:24 PM Post #9

Actually, both of those are inadequate for this situation. He had mostly Tanks with about 1,000 soldiers compared to my 300 tanks, 200 artillery pieces and 3,000 soldiers. My artillery would blow him to pieces alone. Or my tanks. They had no tanks or artillery in those battles. The rebels had no training while the Imperial Army did. The rebels had poor weapons while the Imperial Army has great weapons. It's pretty close to impossible, I'd say.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Comrade Jaques Aug 29 2010, 01:43 PM Post #10
Member Avatar
Hater of politicizing.
 I dont know how you guys have these huge generals. Back when I played a lot a general with over 100 strength was rare.

Anyway, your army was extremely weak to tanks. Remember the combat triangle: Soldiers > Artillery > Tanks > Soldiers. He had a tank heavy general, so he won. I see nothing crazy with that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Questions & Help · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1