Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bjiip

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: Some more military xXScienceXx
« on: August 12, 2019, 01:15:45 am »
@Bjiip, would it be possible to test the effect of the different types of attacks that each weapon has?

I don't recall for sure, but I recall some science saying that the game prefers edged attacks, so the blunt ones (hitting with the flat of the sword, etc.,) only account for about 3% of attacks.

Oh right, what about whips?  Last time I played they were lightsabers. 

Yes- admittedly, this is a strength of fragfish's work over mine.  He tailored his enemies to stuff that you tend to face in sieges, where mine is more like dwarf versus dwarf, which isn't a situation you actually see.  Future work.

Also, what weapon material/s did you use?

Except for the tests that are explicitly about material, I generally use iron.  It's typically plentiful for dwarves, and it's representative of what goblins will use against you too.

Now, for the new results:

I'm working on an idea that anything that gives you a bonus in combat can be measured in skill-level-equivalents (SLEs).  This is my first try with that concept.



I had two sides of goblins; both had battle axes with shields, and all skills at the same level (e.g., just to be thorough, they had biter, misc. object user, and even hammer user).  One side had full iron armor; the other side had no armor.  How many skill levels higher did the non-armored goblin have to be, to have a 50-50 chance of beating the less-skilled but armored goblin?

The results varied according to the rough skill range.  If the armored goblin has 0 skill levels, then the armor counts as about 0.9 skill levels (in everything).  If the armored goblin has Skilled (IV) skills, then the armor counts as about 1.53 skill levels.  If the armored goblin has Adept (VII) skills, then the armor again counts as 1.53 skill levels.

I think the concept of SLEs probably needs some work- I think a strict additive scale is probably the wrong operator.  For goblins at higher base skill levels, a single level in all their skills doesn't increase their win rate as much.  For goblins with low skill levels, a single level increases their win rate by more.  But I haven't figured out a model for that yet.

One thing I noticed: I picked goblins because they don't get a martial trance.  But I saw that one of the goblins was enraged; is that going to have an effect on the results?

2
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Re: Some more military xXScienceXx
« on: August 01, 2019, 10:42:15 am »
Your skill progression measurement would be much smoother when using individual exp values, while also getting the benefit of not having to consider how each skill level needs 100 more exp. That requires an utility to get those values, though.
Good point.  Unfortunately, I don't think Dwarf Therapist can connect to arena mode.  That's the only tool I'm familiar with that shows individual exp values.

It's probably wise to mention methodology; for example, if you didn't mention trances, I wouldn't know to think dwarf faced more than 1 enemy at a time.
As you wish; I'll add it in a spoiler to the original post.  It's mostly the same as in my 2018 thread.

Each dwarf faced only 1 enemy at a time.  Nonetheless, a lucky trance can skew the result.  I think that's why, when testing skill differential with dwarves, even those with high skill differentials can't break 90% or so.  I think some of the low-skill dwarves are getting trances and beating combats against higher-skilled enemies.

Incidentally, this sort of snowball effect is why I focus on 1v1 combats, rather than 10v10 as some do.  The latter would be affected too much by who gets the first kill.

That aside, the win rate by skill differential is interesting. Mid-battle powerup can give nearly two to one edge, huh? It's harsher curve than I expected.
Harsher than I expected, as well.  A mid-battle powerup may not give quite a two to one edge, depending on how many intermediate injuries happen before the powerup.  If someone is half dead by the time they level up...

I wonder why sword has so good results in unarmored category. Spear stabs better, axe lops off better, pick mines with stronger strikes...I'd expect it to have in-between performance, but it shows an edge over everything else there.
Nice pun!
I guess people had written swords off as a competitive choice; in From Iron to Steel, I don't see that he even tested them.

3
DF Dwarf Mode Discussion / Some more military xXScienceXx
« on: August 01, 2019, 12:28:34 am »
Last year, in a previous post, I did some military science in the arena, using moderately high numbers of 1v1 matches and seeing who wins.

This year, I did some more science.  Some of it was inspired by replies to the previous post- thank you to all who had replied there.

First, a simple bit of recording.  I took a totally unskilled dwarf in the arena, equipped him with basic equipment, and had him fight unarmed goblins one at a time.  As he fought, he gained skills- but not at the same rates.



Fighter skill advanced the fastest, followed by the weapon skill, as you see.  I did some additional experiments (not so formal, not recorded), but it also seemed that the skills that advanced the fastest were the most valuable in combat (dwarves with skill in Fighter tended to beat dwarves with skill in Axedwarf, and both beat those skilled in Shield user).

Second: how important is skill?  Obviously, more is better: how much better?



The x-axis shows the skill differential, and the y-axis is the win rate.  So if you are 2 skill levels below your opponent, your skill differential is -2.  If you are 3 skill levels above your opponent, your skill differential is +3.  As you might expect, the result is looks like a Sigmoid Function- you don't get to a point where you have no chance to win, but it gets smaller and smaller.

In last year's science, I tended to use dwarves.  As the commenters mentioned, dwarves can get a martial trance, which can really skew the results.  You see that in the orange points on the win rate graph; even with a high skill differential, with dwarves, the win rate can't really get above 90%.  That's why I later switched to goblins, who can't trance; there, you see the win rates trend toward 0% and 100%, as you would expect.

The skill differential battles involved one goblin with all Proficient skills, and one goblin with a different skill level (ranging from None to Expert); I calculate the skill differential from that.  It's possible that these curves look slightly different depending on your reference point (for instance, if I were to re-run it with one goblin always having Adept skill, the curve might look different).

Finally, some commenters suggested that I test picks.  I have added those to the win rate by weapon type, for armored dwarves and unarmored dwarves separately; unfortunately, for these tests I had not yet started using goblins.




As many commenters expected, the pick performs well in both armored and unarmored cases.  I calculated an overall average win rate (against all enemies in the tests), and the results are:

Armored:
------------------
Hammer: 60.5%
Pick: 53.6%
Axe: 47.7%
Sword: 43.5%
Spear: 42.4%

Unarmored:
-------------
Sword: 58.2%
Pick: 54.0%
Axe: 52.2%
Spear: 49.4%
Hammer: 33.3%

Combined:
------------
Pick: 53.8%
Sword: 50.8%
Axe: 49.9%
Hammer: 46.9%
Spear: 45.9%

Edits:
Additional results:
Effectiveness of Armor, measured in skill levels

Recommended reading:
From Iron to Steel

Spoiler: Methodology (click to show/hide)

4
They were probably doing ineffective shield bashes in addition to using their weapons. Maybe adding misc object user would help.

(This probably goes without saying, but you gave them shield user, right?)
They were Skilled Shield User, Armor User, Axedwarf, etc.

Is it known what skill is used for shield bashes?  I assumed it was shield user.

Iron shields are heavy (you should be using wood, willow for example is only ~5% the density of iron), and this may be exacerbated further in these tests in arena if the dwarfs don't gain strength as they would from military levels in fortress mode.
Yes- the reason I did it this way is that shields now take battle damage, and at a considerable rate.  I now use metal shields on dwarves in my fortress, so I wanted to reflect that in testing.

5
How important is a shield?  Is it as important as armor?  That's the subject of the next test.



My reading had given me the impression that shields were incredibly important.  If so, it must just be for protection against ranged enemies; here in melee, against axe-wielders, the shield offers only a minor bonus.  In fact, the dwarves with armor but no shield beat the weapon-only dwarves by a larger margin than dwarves with both armor and shield.

(As usual, skilled dwarves, unarmed skills included, all gear is iron.)

6
All right, here's an update to the Equipment Material chart- this time I included Bronze.

It looks like the conventional wisdom, that bronze is a bit better than copper and a bit worse than iron, is supported here.  But boy, Steel is such a step up.  I know armor material affects hammerdwarves differently than axedwarves; I'll try to do some tests about that later.

Switching to spears might be interesting Bjiip.  Axes have a pretty powerful blunt attack. 
You got it.  Here's a test of weapon types.  As standard, all dwarves are Skilled and using Iron equipment.

It looks to me like the conventional wisdom holds here: when fully armored, the order is something like Hammer > Axe > Sword > Spear.

But what if the dwarves are unarmored, and just have a shield?

Again, the conventional wisdom seems to hold pretty well: when enemies are unarmored, the order is something like Sword > Axe > Spear > Hammer.

7
New science!  This time, win rates of Axedwarves, by material of their equipment.



This does seem to vindicate the common wisdom: the question seems to be, not how much better your material is than the enemy's, but whether it is better at all.  If your material is better, it seems to give you about 2-to-1 odds, with some variation by material.

Each test is based on 196 1v1 combats.  All dwarves are "Skilled" in all combat skills (including unarmed ones).  They have the full set of armor described previously, an axe, and a shield, all made of the material indicated. 

8
The only reason your axedorfs are getting anywhere, Bjiip, I suspect, is you're all missing the 2nd glove and 2nd boot, so those bits they can cut off, and then they have a disarmed dorf to fight! Who mostly passes out from the blood loss, gets his helm removed, and is instantly decapitated. :D

AAAAAHHHHHHH YOU WERE SERIOUS

Holy cannoli, I had no idea this was happening.  When you go to add the item, it says "iron gauntlets", not "iron gauntlet".  I assumed they were getting a full pair.  But you were absolutely right.  They had a right boot, and a right glove.  Nothing on the left.  Man, what a bunch of wasted effort.

I ran another test, to figure out how much of a difference that makes.  Both sides were axedwarves equipped with iron.  One side had one gauntlet and boot, the other side had two gauntlets and boots.  The results?

Fully armored won 60% of the time, missing extremities won 40% of the time.  That's as strong an effect as anything else I measured- I'm going to have to basically throw away my previous numbers.

9
More science!  This time, testing the importance of good unarmed skills in combat.



My reading is that at medium to high levels of skill, having unarmed skill gives a significant edge in combat.  It looks like the side with unarmed skills has close to a 2-to-1 win rate against those without unarmed skills at those levels.

Note that the Unskilled (0) bar at the left is a total mirror match, with no skill.  The fact that it's not 50/50 shows some measure of the randomness in play.

Spoiler: End Notes (click to show/hide)

10
I wonder if the difference increases with the armor user skill. So that, for example, two legendary dwarves fighting in respectively steel and copper armor will lean more towards steel than "skilled" armor users.
I will test this.

Another thing I came to think of was wear. I am almost certain Steel armor will last your combatants longer than copper or leather.
But we are more concerned with the durability of our soldiers than the durability of their equipment.

So, probably safe to say that material does matter after all.
That was what I thought too, until I actually tested things.

11
I think this is good data, but your conclusion is flawed.
Actually, I do too.  This is really more of a call for help; I don't actually believe that nothing matters.

(yeah, "Skilled" means not very skilled at all).
This is an area where I would welcome help from the experts of the forum.  What are good levels of skills to test? 

Also (this is a separate point), it would be nice to have some error bars on your results. 100 fights feels like a lot (and it's a lot of effort, so props to you), but is it really enough to get certain results within 10%? within 5%? That would be nice to know.
This is also an area where I would welcome help.  I don't have a lot of statistics skill.

Also, admittedly, I should be keeping track of the "tristate" nature of the fights.  In my large-scale results, I only count results where one dwarf wins and the other dwarf dies; I didn't keep track of fights where both dwarves die.  For my next round, I can try to measure that.

The joint-twisting mechanic changed combat. You no longer need to pierce armor to do devastating damage to the dwarf underneath. It's no surprise that an axe can now seriously ruin someone's day.
Perhaps I should test the effect of only weapon skills versus weapon skills plus unarmed skills?

You know DF has a built-in macro feature, right?
Nifty!  I didn't know about that feature.  I still think AutoHotkey is more powerful and better for my needs, but it's great to hear about other tools.

12
How much armour did you give your copper VS iron fighters.  Was it copper or iron?  Copper and iron are both harder than flesh, so it makes sense that it would not make a difference against unarmoured opponents. 
Fighters always had a complete set of armor; details are listed in the end notes.  The "copper" fighters had copper armor and copper weapons, while their "iron" opponents had iron armor and iron weapons.  I was sure that in this test, at least, the iron fighters would dominate.  That's why I was so shocked when, with about 200 samples, it was a tie.  200 fights is probably more than the number of dwarves I've sent out to battle in my Dwarf Fortress career.

These things are strongly dependeant on armour type and body. Blunt weapons absolutely WRECK HOUSE when up against moderate to moderate-large creatures, even through armour, but fall short when it comes to large creatures. Swords are great against smaller creatures but tend to fall short against larger ones, in which I much prefer an axe.
Admittedly, I only did dwarf vs. dwarf fights.  I wanted to isolate out the effect of weapon and armor choice (or, in different tests, the effect of different skill level), so I wanted the creatures in the fight to be the same.  So I didn't test the received wisdom that (for instance) spears are especially good against very large enemies.

13
EDIT: User tussock revealed a major error in my methodology.  Leaving original post for historical reasons.

Later posts with more science:
The Effect of Equipment Material
The Effect of Weapon Choice

The Effect of Shield and Armor

Original post begins:

You know all that received wisdom about military setup?  Use blunt weapons for armored enemies, and slashing weapons for unarmored enemies?  That iron is superior to copper, and steel to iron?

Yeah, you just keep thinking that.

This is a story about how I found out that everything we know is wrong.  You want to know how to outfit your dwarves?  At the end, you'll find out.

It started when I was looking at the Military Testing page on the wiki.  I saw tests being run like "5 dwarves with adequate combat skills and iron equipment using battleaxes versus 5 similar dwarves using swords".  Hey, I thought. I can contribute to that.  So I started doing little tests.

My first tests were on the effect of skill.  One question: "What skill level does a dwarf have to be in order to be able to beat two dwarves, similarly equipped, with no skill?"  But my results were strangely inconsistent.  Sometimes the Competent (III) dwarves fared better than the Skilled (IV) dwarves.  That's strange.  The experimental design is simple; maybe my sample sizes just weren't big enough.

So I started thinking bigger.  I rewrote the arena layout to comprise a grid of 9x9 cells, separated from each other, perfect for controlled combats.

Spoiler: Large Arena Image (click to show/hide)

Populating the arena by hand became too slow.  I downloaded AutoHotKey, learned the syntax, and wrote scripts to duplicate dwarf layouts into many cells at the press of a hotkey.  I was ready to get mass statistics.  I would take all the wonderful variation possible in Dwarf Fortress's combat system, and through sheer weight of samples, beat out the noise and get the signal.

I tested the age-old debate of axe versus sword.  I populated the arena with dwarves in full iron armor; one team with axes, another with swords.  The results?  Axe won 38%, sword won 62% of fights.  Now that's a useful result!  Next time goblinite comes calling, my dwarves will carry swords.

We also know that hammers are better than axes for fighting armored enemies- right?  So I populated the arena with a team of axedwarves and a team of hammerdwarves.  This time, axe won... 42% of fights, and hammers won... 58%.  Well, hammers won, as we'd expect.  But it's strange that swords would be better against full iron armor than hammers.  After all, swords are supposed to be stopped by armor, but blunt weapons are specialized against armor.

Maybe swords are just better.  Swords versus hammers, go!  Swords win... 44%, hammers win 56%.  That's strange- hammers win against swords; but swords win harder against axes than hammers do?

Let's re-establish that the combat system makes sense.  A mirror match!  One dwarf on each side, in a no-quarter battle to the death.  With a large number of samples (>100), it should be very close to 50-50.  The results were... 45% to 55%.  That's funny.  I would have expected the results to be closer.

Well, maybe the system is just noisy- prone to random error.  What we need is more samples.  I filled the entire arena, over 1,700 cells.  In one corner, the iron-equipped axedwarves; in the other, iron-equipped hammerdwarves.  With this massive sample size, we'll certainly eliminate the noise and get the signal.  The results?  Axedwarves win 54%, hammerdwarves win 46%.

Wait a second- axedwarves win?  But last time, hammerdwarves won handily.  The sample size is pretty massive- more than most dwarves most of us will send into battle over the entirety of our Dwarf Fortress career.

Well, let's do something that's sure to show results.  There's debate over whether bronze or iron is better; but there's no debate about iron versus copper.  Let's take dwarves of comparable skill, equipped entirely in iron or entirely in copper.  The results? 97 to 96.

It's so close to 50-50, any respectable statistician would tell me that I fail at faking statistics.  Only I didn't fake them.

You want to know how to outfit your dwarves?  Outfit them in a way you think looks cool.  Nothing else matters; not weapon type, not material type.  The only effect will be on your imagination.  Dress them to die in whatever way seems best to you.

Spoiler: End Notes (click to show/hide)

14
DF Modding / Re: Edit Dwarf Name
« on: May 29, 2018, 11:30:02 pm »
Thanks!  I hadn't known about that.

That does teach me some things, but unfortunately, it doesn't do exactly what I want.  The problem is that it doesn't change their "translated" name.

I had a dwarf named "Athel [Dwarfish for Lockglaze]".  I tried renaming him to "Hector [Ancientglaze]".  When I went to the 'u' unit selection menu, he showed correctly as Hector [Ancientglaze].  But when I look with 'v', it has his new (Hector) name untranslated, but below that it shows his old name translated.  Ie.,

Hector [Ancientglaze]
"Athel Lockglaze"

That's just confusing-- I need both to match.  Any ideas why changing one doesn't change the other?

15
DF Modding / Edit Dwarf Name
« on: May 23, 2018, 11:48:38 pm »
Many years ago, I used a nifty utility called Dwarf Companion.  It had all sorts of cheaty features, which I never used.  But it had one feature which I found indispensable- changing a Dwarf's first and last names.  (What can I say? I am guilty of roleplaying.)

Dwarf Companion seems to be a thing of the past.  But is there another good way to do this?

If there isn't, I'm guessing I'm writing a dfHack LUA script.  Any scripts that I should look at for examples?  Otherwise, I'll start with make-legendary and stumble on from there.

If it helps, I am mostly wanting to set dwarves' last names to be the same within a family.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4