Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- Tour of Generals Forums
- →
- Tour of Generals Technical
- →
- Questions & Help
- →
- 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: |
| battle odds and results | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Feb 19 2009, 01:15 PM (721 Views) | |
| Vivi | Mar 10 2009, 12:18 AM Post #11 |
VIvi
|
Please stay on topic. |
|
|
| shatacus | Mar 10 2009, 12:04 PM Post #12 |
|
my bad. vetyver, forgive me for disagreeing: most of us did not miss the point here, but you did. when I started the thread I decided the point was that the reports after battles do not make sense in light of the actual results and strength losses that took place. this is independent of the well-known fact that some types of units are stronger than others. even if one army is wallabies and the other one is weasels, you still have a result reported after the battle, and the result should be related by some formula of simple math to the losses that took place. it is my suggestion that the formula for reporting the results does not make sense, and the formula for reporting the results should be more closely related to what actually took place. furthermore, the formula that determines losses might also be modified, so that a (reported) losing small army does not consistently do more destruction than a (reported) winning large army. if a sufficient number of people post in agreement with my suggestion, then the issue would presumably come to the attention of the game administrator and the formulas might be adjusted. if people post trivial statements betraying a lack of understanding of one of the most basic elements of the game, then it takes away from the persuasive force of my suggestion. maybe the basic elements of the game should be more clearly defined or spelled out somewhere, it's been awhile since I looked for them. on the other hand, if an experienced player with say, 40 wins, posts a trivial statement pretending not to understand one of the most basic elements of the game, I would ask that person not to do it or to remove the trolling post. ;) Edited by shatacus, Mar 10 2009, 05:14 PM.
|
|
|
|
| skylimit | Mar 10 2009, 02:41 PM Post #13 |
|
I lost some important battles with armies twice the size of the opponent. Are you ever sure of winning a battle? |
|
|
|
| shatacus | Mar 10 2009, 07:42 PM Post #14 |
|
presumably you are never sure of winning a battle. but I'd say you can be pretty confident that, all other things being equal, a 3 to 1 strength advantage will "win" (albeit with loss of more than 1/3 strength), and a 2 to 1 strength advantage usually wins, but loses perhaps more often than you would think, and always loses more than 1/2 strength. |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Mar 10 2009, 09:47 PM Post #15 |
|
Consider if you will 1939-1940's Winter War between Finland and the USSR. Finland: 250,000 men, 30 tanks, 130 aircraft USSR: 1,000,000 men, 6541 tanks, 3880 aircraft Soviet Union barely wins ... after losing 400,000 soldiers and 2300 tanks. One can never be absolutely sure of victory, even with overwhelming firepower on your side. |
|
|
|
| mdwarf2 | Mar 11 2009, 12:38 PM Post #16 |
|
in an experiment, me and a friend and a 3 day long 5 min turn game so i could build up the biggest army i could, My army: 500,000 inf, 10,000 tank, 10,000 artillary His army, 2 soldiers I ended up losing about a 7th of my army. |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Mar 11 2009, 12:49 PM Post #17 |
|
"This is Sparta" - Battle of Thermopylae style indeed. "...the enemy has 10000 tanks and 10000 artillery ... well then, we'll fight in the shade of the high explosive and armor piercing shells" ;) |
|
|
|
| skylimit | Mar 11 2009, 01:46 PM Post #18 |
|
sometimes I first attack and then reinforce isn't that just a bit weird ;) |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Mar 11 2009, 03:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Do you find that attacking before reinforcing provides an advantage to you? I would think that it wouldn't except in the rare case where you completely overwhelm already, and attacking with a still larger force would just result in more losses for you (since we all know the disproportionate might of the 2-man army). |
|
|
|
| italiandudee | Mar 14 2009, 08:13 PM Post #20 |
|
when i was playing a match in europe, the opponent had 300 tanks, 300 art. and 30000 soldiers, when he/she attacked my 50 man army, he/she had 291 tanks 291 art. and 28000 soldiers can you say messed up? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Questions & Help · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Tour of Generals | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 6:28 PM Feb 7
|