You’re best bet would be to join the League. That’s where most of the action is.
Was it worth adding ART to the game?
-
The optimal ratio for the offensive (from my Sum of Decreasing Punches model) is Inf:Art:Tnk = 6:3:1
1:1:0 is quite close too.
It’s nice to start with inf only for defense, and add only arty later up to 30-50% of the total.Funny, cause I almost had that ratio before! Said Germany would be best off with 5:3:1 I believe, way way back on like page 1 or 2. :P
Maybe I am miss remembering it. I’m sure Bean will be all over it drooling just to try and prove me wrong even though I said i wasn’t 100% sure.
-
Any optimum is flat at the top (with smooth functions, at least). That’s what f’(x)=0 really means ! where x may be multidimensional (a vector) too.
Practically, this means that moderate (say 10-20%) deviations from the optimum decision lead to unproportionally small inefficiencies in outcome.
1:1:0 is only ~0.5% less efficient than 6:3:1. I suppose 5:3:1 is even closer.
100 inf 100 art is exactly equivalent to 200 inf defending. (Tactically yes, economically not. Attackers are 7/6 more expensive this way).
120 inf 60 art 10 tnk are equivalent to 201 inf defending (Within the ‘noise’ of simulating 10,000 runs) - and cost the same.This flat-optimum principle is well to be remembered and can be seen in the whole world. The only clear contradictions come from discontinuities, or sharp IF-THEN conditions.
For instance, 49 inf 51 art are less effective relative to cost than 51 inf 49 art (because of the 1:1 matching rule).
-
The problem with that type of mathematical only review is that it only applies to ROUND 1 of battle.
Once losses are taken, and Round 2 begins, you can find yourself with insufficient fodder to continue the attack without taking higher-value units as casualties. Also, if you take heavy losses Round 1, you start losing 2 punch units instead of 1 punch units, which totally wipes out the cost/benefit analysis of the attack.
So not only do you have to evaluate that first round optimal number, but you have to calculate in the losses of both attacker and defender in order to see what the ratios are for Round 2. And against a large INF stack, that initial attack ratio will be decimated by loss of INF on the first turn of battle, leaving you to proceed with only ART and ARM (or turn it into a strafe and retreat your forces to get more INF… a “lather, rinse, repeat” strat).
In order to account for first round losses, most of the top ranked players here (Darth in particular who is #1 in the League) recommend a 3 to 1 ratio of INF to ART for an attack. That allows you to maximize punch, minimize the cost of losses, and maintain punch and fodder for the 2nd and subsequent rounds of combat.
Defensively, the 3:1 ratio also gives you more defending INF fodder before you have to lose the higher cost ART, reducing your defensive cost per point over a tighter (5:3) INF/ART ratio.
-
I agree with the portion of switch’s statement I read. (Sorry,didn’t read through it all.)
You’d have to apply the mathematics to a series with different outcomes over a period of time. If you are only doing a strafe for one round, then you are okay.
-
Exactly that is the reason to use “Sum of decreasing punches” - to account for an unknown number of rounds and some +/- variation in firepower at that times.
6:3:1 18+17+16+15+13+11+9+7+5+3 = 114
5:5:0 20+18+16+14+12+10+8+6+4+2 = 110My 6:3:1 “solution” when applied against 10 inf loses on average 3.33 inf so the 2nd round on average is 2.67:3:1. Not much “waste”. If the battle goes well enough one presses to the end, if not it becomes a 2 or even 1-round strafe.
For planned 1-round raids 1:1:0 is optimal.
True, pure inf and some armor is better defensively but in offensive situations I thinked this for that’s irrelevant. They include the much stronger multi-power attacker’s disadvantage: UK+US trying to break German EEU; Japan trying to take Moscow defended by all 3 Allies etc. If attackers are near strong enough to win offensively their defensive is very safely above equilibrium. So arty is what to add at the end !
What I haven’t told yet is that the 6:3:1 result depends closely on 3:4:5 IPC costs as inputs. If covering the investment in transport ships the ratios may modify.
For how many turns do you think it’s sensible to calculate “amortization” of transports ?
8 turns ? for US that would make 1 IPC per transport*turn, 1/2 per unit transported, 2 stages = +1 IPC per unit. So 4:5:6 IPC real cost.
4 turns ? … … +2 per unit so 5:6:7.I’ll redo the calculations.
Also for land offensives (Berlin<>Moscow direction, Japan/Asia>Moscow) tanks may save 1-2 turns of march, reducing “dead investment” so inf/art are relatively more expensive.
-
Art was definitely worth adding to the game. Before art, we had to chose from only 2 different ground units.
I prefer inf+tanks if I can afford it. Numbers are very important and for UK, and also Jap in the first few rnds, art is
good investment for increasing the attack punch for infantry.
Also for G and Russia art is worth buying, but still inf+tanks are better than inf+art.
For Jap, to buy inf first few rnds, then some art in addition to inf, and from rnd 3-4 tanks mainly bc Jap should be at 40-45,
and tanks can reach a destination faster than inf and art.
For US I think is important to fill up the trans, preferably with inf+tanks, but with art this can give more units, and it’s a long
way to persia/caucus so the men better start walking asap, tanks will follow shortly…. 8-) -
Well, more then adding artillery, what made revised worth buying is the tanks getting a defense of 3. That by far was the best change in the game in my most humble of opinions.
-
Ageed! The increase to Armor defence is what really makes revised better. It has made us completey rethink how we structure our forces especially for def.
-
The increase of defense value for tanks is the most important and clever change of all unit changes, I certainly agree.
But the revised map is a more significant difference than change of unit values, and also more important in general imo.
The ftr decrease cost to 10 is very good also. -
Double hit BBs seems rather big too :?
-
@Bean:
Double hit BBs seems rather big too :?
Those were in classic as well though. It was an optional rule, but it was still there in classic thus it was not introduced in revised.
-
Oh, didn’t know that. Never played classic :roll:
-
After revised, going back to classic kinda sucks.
It’s like becoming a gourmet chef and then going back to condensed Chicken and Stars soup. :P Oh sure, you can still live on it, but would you want too?
-
@Cmdr:
After revised, going back to classic kinda sucks.
It’s like becoming a gourmet chef and then going back to condensed Chicken and Stars soup. :P Oh sure, you can still live on it, but would you want too?
more fun to go KJF in classic.
-
I agree. But man, it is SOOO much harder to go KJF in classic then KGF!
Just invade Gibraltar, make a HUGE stack and walk into Spain. =)
-
The harder it is, the funner it is? Must be a masochist :wink:
-
@Cmdr:
I agree. But man, it is SOOO much harder to go KJF in classic then KGF!
Just invade Gibraltar, make a HUGE stack and walk into Spain. =)
seemed easier to go KJF om classic. pretend to go island hoping. Japan usally leaves their captial vulnerable. at least that what happens on games by emial
-
How’s the bids in classic?
15-20 for axis?
Not very well balanced :lol: -
seemed easier to go KJF om classic. pretend to go island hoping. Japan usally leaves their captial vulnerable. at least that what happens on games by emial
Rofl you tricky bastard!
How’s the bids in classic?
15-20 for axis?From what I’ve skimmed in the classic threads, it’s something like 20 IPCs on top of Russia Restricted. Without Russia Restricted 30+ would be very reasonable. :roll:
Revised is surprisingly well balanced, considering Harris probably didn’t have the time to test it extensively. It seems to be off by 6 or 7 IPCs, which really isn’t a whole lot, enough for 2 units on the board, which is great considering there’s something like 1200 IPCs of units total on the board with all sorts of territory parameters to consider.
-
Bid in revised, to me, isn’t so much a method to balance the game as it is to give the axis options at other avenues of attack.
Bid in classic was life or death for the axis. Fastest classic game I saw was 3 rounds with England taking S. Europe and Germany at the same time.
You just never see that in revised.
I think classic was released raw. Larry didn’t really have all the ideas worked out because he’s just one guy! Once the internet community got a hold of it, exploited it like a $20 hooker in DC and then spat it back with all the holes highlighted in neon yellow for Larry to review, he started working on revised. (Never talked to the guy, so I don’t know for sure, just my thoughts on how it might have happened.)
I still think revised needs some balancing issues.
1) All economic attacks should be removed with the possible exception of U-Boat Interdiction National Advantage and then, only because it’s so bloody easy to counter it. (Though replacing it with wolf packs would be better. +1 to all submarine attacks if you have more then 1 submarine attacking. Stacks with super submarines. Does not function on defense.)
2) W. USA and E. USA should be split in half top to bottom. 5/5 for W. USA and 6/6 for E. USA
3) England needs a destroyer in SZ 2. Or, maybe replace the battleship in SZ 13 with 2 destroyers. It’ll still get sunk, but now it will cost Germany something important.
4) Germany needs another fighter. I’d vote for W. Europe for a place to put it.
5) SFE, Yakut and Buryatia should be worth 2 IPC. Why can’t Russia have 27 starting income? They’re still the cheapest bastages on the planet and they’ll still lose SFE, Yak and Bury in any KGF scenario I’ve ever seen.
6) Pearl needs to be bolstered. +1 Destroyer, +1 Carrier, +1 Fighter. Remove the American Battleship (they were sunk in Pearl on 12/7/41, the carriers were not.) Give Japan an extra destroyer that should almost even it back out. (Destroyer for Japan should be SZ 61, 59 or 36, basically along the edge of Asia supporting landing efforts against the Chinas there.)
7) Fix up the Russian NAs a bit. Of all the countries out there, Russia got the most hosed in the NAs (and the new map, if you want to be honest.)
8) Add more victory cities. S. Africa (diamond mines), E. Europe (Poland/Warsaw), Caucasus (Stalingrad), Hawaii (Pearl), E. Indies (Oil!), Borneo (Oil!) Should add some more flavor and they’re all really good targets to aim for. Hampers the allies a bit more then the axis given the axis have +2 VCs on island groups and one in a territory normally stacked to high heaven anyway. Meanwhile the allies have +1 island group that’s normally attacked anyway and two in easy reach of the Germans in most games.
Suggested Topics
