ah, i think i have to explain it a little bit more extensivly:
when i play the game with my friends, everyone does his moves unwatched by the others. but when the combat phase starts, of course all of us watch the battles together. the guy who controls the mouse at the combat phase has to scroll to all areas anyone wants to see. naturally everyone wants to watch his own territories to see if some are attacked. because of that it's not very likely for an attacker to be able to minimize a defending army secretly step by step without being detected. therefore it has always been a good thing to conquer a country in one step in winter and then instantly to fortify it in spring.
additionally, before you told me how the battle mechanism works, i always thought that my attack power was better the bigger my army was. or, figuratively spoken, i thought a small army could be "surrounded" by a big defending army and therefore be massacred easier. so i always preferred to build up huge armies and to conquer another country in one step.
Kroah wrote:I try to understand the goal of your test. Correct me please if get wrong.
You take the best scenario for Russia (no terrain, no fortification, null random offensive factor) and you compute how many men are needed to conquer the English area defended by 1000 men.
not exactly. because of my style of playing ("one-step-conquering") i wanted to see if i can figure out a formula that can calculate in each case the needed amount of men to successfully "one-step-conquer" every wanted country (taking all given factors into account).
because there are those 2 unknown random factors, there have to be 2 extreme cases:
- the best case for the attacker (the defence power of the defender is lowered by 3 points while in the same moment the offense power of the attacker isn't lowered at all (+0 points))
- the worst case for the attacker (the defence power of the defender isn't
lowered at all (+0 points) while in the same moment the offense power of the attacker is lowered by 3 points)
as the probability of those 2 extreme cases to occur is only 1/16 you can say generally that if the amount of your army is closer to the worst case than to the best case you can expect to win the battle.
e.g. if season is winter and you are standing near moscow, having something around the best case amount of men i would try my luck to conquer moscow. it's only a small chance but if it's successful it's worth the risk.
if it's another season i would prefer to use those men to conquer more other countries around to gather more money.
anyway, the formula above is wrong, but the one in the excel sheet i sent the other day is right. based on that excel-thing i have now made a chart where you can see how much bigger than the defending army the attacking army has to be.
you just have to collect
- amount of defending army
- defensive factor of the defender
- terrain factor
- your offensive factor
- fortified (yes/no)
and then you can read off the multiplier (best case/worst case).
e.g. france attacking japan in fortified ottoman empire
-> the french army has to be 1,75 (4,00) times bigger than the japanese
of course that chart is top secret, but if anyone wants it, tell me
Monty wrote:Some (surprising) intermediate results for this specific battle:
- Fortification factor: does not matter
- Terrain factor: does not matter
- Random offensive factor: does not matter
there are battle constellations where some factors do not play a role because others dominate. russia vs england is such a constellation.
Kroah wrote:Something to analyse, is the ‘army ratio ($100.000)’ statistics. It shows for the whole game the ratio between the kills and losses according to the army cost: (kills/losses*100)/(cost/100,000) (without taking account vanished armies). Needless to say, the highest, the better. The result is strange: among several games, Russia always had the best ratio (~45) and England the worst (~15). It seems the bad factors doesn’t handicap Russia too much according to the price.
Any idea?
i still have to analyse those statistics closer...
cheers monty