battle odds and results

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:

Pages:
1
2
3

battle odds and results
Topic Started: Feb 19 2009, 01:15 PM (664 Views)
shatacus	Feb 19 2009, 01:15 PM Post #1
Posts: 100 Group: Members Member #194 Joined: Jan 15, 2009	Given a large army size 12 and a small army size 6, and the large army wins 6-1 destroying the smaller. You would expect that 6-1 means the small army lost 6 strength (ie was destroyed) and the large army lost 1 strength. This might be affected by experience, army composition, random roll, etc. But the 6-1 victory should have some correlation with the amount of strength lost by each army. This does not seem to be the case. For example: A ~105 strength army attacked a ~60 strength army three times until the small army was destroyed. The victories were 4-3, 5-2 and 5-2. With all three battles going to the larger army, it would seem that the smaller army would suffer more from each battle than the larger army. But the larger army had strength 9 after the three battles and the smaller army was destroyed. So, the “winning” army lost over 90 strength in this sequence, and the “losing” army lost only 60. Any ideas or discussion on what the numbers mean?



BlackDragon	Feb 20 2009, 09:09 AM Post #2
Founder of GATO/Dragon Supreme Posts: 277 Group: Members Member #147 Joined: Jan 11, 2009 Clan: GATO	The winning army is still there after the battles, unlike the losing one which is not. That is why those numbers are ok.



shatacus	Feb 20 2009, 02:59 PM Post #3
Posts: 100 Group: Members Member #194 Joined: Jan 15, 2009	if an army of 110 strength fights an army of 60 strength. the big army loses 50 strength, and the small army loses 10. is that a 5 to 2 win for the small army based on the numbers lost? 6 to 1 for the small army based on percentage lost? 4 to 3 win for the big army based on the strength remaining? there's certainly an algorithm for reporting the battle results, and it's worthwhile to figure out what it is. I'm assuming admin doesnt want to tell us. why it's important: this sequence was a large balanced army against a much smaller unbalanced (soldiers and artillery only) army. it seems that the two-way unbalanced army had the advantage to "win" with such a small size. I can't consider that I won because I expended much more combat power than the enemy did. so... should I build two-way unbalanced armies to attack balanced armies? has anybody else had experience with this?



shatacus	Feb 23 2009, 11:46 PM Post #4
Posts: 100 Group: Members Member #194 Joined: Jan 15, 2009	am i the only one interested in this? a size 49 army beat a size 3 army, 7 to 0. yet the size 49 army ended up at 44 strength. it makes no sense to me that such a one-sided battle still costs more to the "winner" than to the "loser." Not to mention the proportional loss (1/10 or 0.1) is closer to 1/7 (0.14) than it is to 0/7.



Emperor Badger	Mar 7 2009, 11:34 PM Post #5
Posts: 136 Group: Members Member #100 Joined: Jan 10, 2009	I can say something on this. In a game I just recently played, an army had 300 soldiers and the opposing army had about 3000 strength (3031 to be exact). The 300 soldiers lost 7-0 as expected, but the larger army lost 300 strength ( the general name was "This is SPARTA!!!" though :D ) .



Beavers	Mar 8 2009, 01:08 AM Post #6
Posts: 324 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	Emperor Badger Mar 7 2009, 11:34 PM I can say something on this. In a game I just recently played, an army had 300 soldiers and the opposing army had about 3000 strength (3031 to be exact). The 300 soldiers lost 7-0 as expected, but the larger army lost 300 strength ( the general name was "This is SPARTA!!!" though :D ) . I do not particularly enjoy my battles against 2 man armies with excessive force ... 2000 soldiers, 200 tanks, 200 artillery wins 7-0 versus 2,0,0. Enemy loses 1 man, I lose 60 soldiers, 3 tanks, 4 art. Such occurrences frustrate me just a little.



Comrade Jaques	Mar 8 2009, 07:42 AM Post #7
Hater of politicizing. Posts: 279 Group: Members Member #198 Joined: Jan 16, 2009 Clan: TWG	I have found that with excessively large armies, even a 7-0 victory hurts you quite a bit. Perhaps this just happens when the range is very large. I'm sure we've all had 100 soldier armies attack a 2 man army, win 7-0 and still lose about 20 soldiers in the process. Edited by Comrade Jaques, Mar 8 2009, 07:42 AM.



Vetyver	Mar 9 2009, 06:46 PM Post #8
GATO Congressman Posts: 40 Group: Members Member #277 Joined: Feb 17, 2009 Clan: GATO	I think everyone missed the point here. Nadabeythme should explain this because I learned from him. It is a rock, paper, scissors battle logic where you replace soldiers, tanks, and artillery. It's not how strong your army is. It is what your army is made of that counts, plus other attributing factors such as previous unit victories and etc. Those battle number outcomes are based off of tanks vs soldiers, soldiers vs artillery, and artillery vs tanks. ;) Edited by Vetyver, Mar 9 2009, 06:52 PM.



itzxnhatx	Mar 9 2009, 07:37 PM Post #9
Posts: 236 Group: Members Member #202 Joined: Jan 17, 2009 Clan: The Warhammer Group	lol the army fighting thing just confuses me, but all i no is at least my army wins YAY!



shatacus	Mar 9 2009, 11:03 PM Post #10
Posts: 100 Group: Members Member #194 Joined: Jan 15, 2009	removed Edited by shatacus, Mar 10 2009, 05:16 PM.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Questions & Help · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3