Battles & Numerical Advantage

Simple question: does numerical advantage matters in battle?

Clarifying; it is obvious that the more troops i send to a battle, the greater the chance that i will win. What i meant is if there are some kind of bonus in battle to my troops if they have the numerical advantage over the opponent.

I ask this because i observed in various situations that troops seem to act better (i.e. have less losses) in battle when they have an expressive numerical advantage.

For example; if I attack 8 infantries with 8 tanks, normally i observe that i will loose around 5 tanks and win the battle. However, if i send 16 tanks instead, normally i will loose around 4 tanks... or even just 3. And it seems the difference just get bigger when the numerical difference is larger; if you send 50 tanks you will get just one loss or even none!

In other words; troops seem to "fight better" when in numerical advantage.

Why this happens? According to the guide in the home page about the battle mechanics, this shouldn't matter. Doesnt matter if you send 100 or 10 tanks against 8 infantries, you should have around the same number of losses in both cases.... unless there is some kind of bonus to troops for numerical advantage or the system doesnt work quite it should (or i completely misunderstood it).

I am missing something here?

Ecrit par Laveley, 05.03.2015 at 10:12

Simple question: does numerical advantage matters in battle?

Clarifying; it is obvious that the more troops i send to a battle, the greater the chance that i will win. What i meant is if there are some kind of bonus in battle to my troops if they have the numerical advantage over the opponent.

I ask this because i observed in various situations that troops seem to act better (i.e. have less losses) in battle when they have an expressive numerical advantage.

For example; if I attack 8 infantries with 8 tanks, normally i observe that i will loose around 5 tanks and win the battle. However, if i send 16 tanks instead, normally i will loose around 4 tanks... or even just 3. And it seems the difference just get bigger when the numerical difference is larger; if you send 50 tanks you will get just one loss or even none!

In other words; troops seem to "fight better" when in numerical advantage.

Why this happens? According to the guide in the home page about the battle mechanics, this shouldn't matter. Doesnt matter if you send 100 or 10 tanks against 8 infantries, you should have around the same number of losses in both cases.... unless there is some kind of bonus to troops for numerical advantage or the system doesnt work quite it should (or i completely misunderstood it).

I am missing something here?

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send. Or vice versa if you attack a large stack with small amounts of units you do less casualties than if you attacked with them altogether. Or if 2 allies attack an opponents' troop stack theyll do less damage than if one of the players had sent same number of units by himself.

It obviously has an effect on criticals, If you observe the rolls youll find yourself landing far more critical hits. However the exact details of how this works are unknown. whatever the specifics, this can be used to your advantage when attacking neutrals or when confronting enemy unit stacks to conserve units. The more you play the more youll observe in this regard.

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 12:28

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send. Or vice versa if you attack a large stack with small amounts of units you do less casualties than if you attacked with them altogether. Or if 2 allies attack an opponents' troop stack theyll do less damage than if one of the players had sent same number of units by himself.

It obviously has an effect on criticals, If you observe the rolls youll find yourself landing far more critical hits. However the exact details of how this works are unknown. whatever the specifics, this can be used to your advantage when attacking neutrals or when confronting enemy unit stacks to conserve units. The more you play the more youll observe in this regard.

And why the F this isnt mentioned anywhere? I mean, like you said, it has a very important strategical value ingame! It should at least be mentioned in the game basics battle mechanics! And i didnt found nowhere here in the forum too...

I lost the count of times i split my stack and attacked neutrals with "just the enough" believing it wouldn't matter if i sent 5 or 10 units! And i bet a lot of player do likewise.

Seriously.... this info should be disclosed!

Also, i dont have quite sure it has anything to do with criticals... at least, i had made some tests and the criticals seems to be fairly equal, it just appears to critical more because you have more units, but if you consider the proportion it seems to be the normal critical rate, the difference reside that the units just seems to "stick" better. I dont know, maybe some hidden bonus due to numerical advantage?

I made 100 battles of 8 tanks vs 8 infantries and another 100 for 16 vs 8 and found very interesting results in this regard, if someone wants the data just ask it and i can publish here or send the excel file.

Ecrit par Laveley, 05.03.2015 at 15:11

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 12:28

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send. Or vice versa if you attack a large stack with small amounts of units you do less casualties than if you attacked with them altogether. Or if 2 allies attack an opponents' troop stack theyll do less damage than if one of the players had sent same number of units by himself.

It obviously has an effect on criticals, If you observe the rolls youll find yourself landing far more critical hits. However the exact details of how this works are unknown. whatever the specifics, this can be used to your advantage when attacking neutrals or when confronting enemy unit stacks to conserve units. The more you play the more youll observe in this regard.

And why the F this isnt mentioned anywhere? I mean, like you said, it has a very important strategical value ingame! It should at least be mentioned in the game basics battle mechanics! And i didnt found nowhere here in the forum too...

I lost the count of times i split my stack and attacked neutrals with "just the enough" believing it wouldn't matter if i sent 5 or 10 units! And i bet a lot of player do likewise.

Seriously.... this info should be disclosed!

Also, i dont have quite sure it has anything to do with criticals... at least, i had made some tests and the criticals seems to be fairly equal, it just appears to critical more because you have more units, but if you consider the proportion it seems to be the normal critical rate, the difference reside that the units just seems to "stick" better. I dont know, maybe some hidden bonus due to numerical advantage?

I made 100 battles of 8 tanks vs 8 infantries and another 100 for 16 vs 8 and found very interesting results in this regard, if someone wants the data just ask it and i can publish here or send the excel file.

Im not sure tbh, seems like one of those things most of us know but dont talk about lol. Ive performed similar tests myself btw. with X2 tanks attacking defending inf, X3 X4 and X5. The results steadied after X3 in terms of casualties.

Whatever the exact details of the advantage is, its hard to determine through tests. For me its sufficient that i know it exists. For example when i play imp, i tend to outstack targets i attack and mix in tanks with my inf stacks so they get good criticals, helps conserve units. People often complain to me about my op imp rolls after games.

Ecrit par Laveley, 05.03.2015 at 15:11

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 12:28

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send. Or vice versa if you attack a large stack with small amounts of units you do less casualties than if you attacked with them altogether. Or if 2 allies attack an opponents' troop stack theyll do less damage than if one of the players had sent same number of units by himself.

It obviously has an effect on criticals, If you observe the rolls youll find yourself landing far more critical hits. However the exact details of how this works are unknown. whatever the specifics, this can be used to your advantage when attacking neutrals or when confronting enemy unit stacks to conserve units. The more you play the more youll observe in this regard.

And why the F this isnt mentioned anywhere? I mean, like you said, it has a very important strategical value ingame! It should at least be mentioned in the game basics battle mechanics! And i didnt found nowhere here in the forum too...

I lost the count of times i split my stack and attacked neutrals with "just the enough" believing it wouldn't matter if i sent 5 or 10 units! And i bet a lot of player do likewise.

Seriously.... this info should be disclosed!

Also, i dont have quite sure it has anything to do with criticals... at least, i had made some tests and the criticals seems to be fairly equal, it just appears to critical more because you have more units, but if you consider the proportion it seems to be the normal critical rate, the difference reside that the units just seems to "stick" better. I dont know, maybe some hidden bonus due to numerical advantage?

I made 100 battles of 8 tanks vs 8 infantries and another 100 for 16 vs 8 and found very interesting results in this regard, if someone wants the data just ask it and i can publish here or send the excel file.

image in in a shooting game 6 vs 12. team elimination no respawn, who will win and who will lose less casualties. obviously the one with more player. It like Unnit the more soldier means you have more HP and more chance of puttting down a critical hit.

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 15:35

Im not sure tbh, seems like one of those things most of us know but dont talk about lol. Ive performed similar tests myself btw. with X2 tanks attacking defending inf, X3 X4 and X5. The results steadied after X3 in terms of casualties.

Whatever the exact details of the advantage is, its hard to determine through tests. For me its sufficient that i know it exists. For example when i play imp, i tend to outstack targets i attack and mix in tanks with my inf stacks so they get good criticals, helps conserve units. People often complain to me about my op imp rolls after games.

They probably complain cause they are unaware of this hidden advantage. Come to think about it, this is probly one of the reasons why spam strats like imp, pd and gw are so effective.

You could put this info in the game strategies and tips session, im sure it will help a lot of newbie players.

Ecrit par Htin, 05.03.2015 at 16:35

image in in a shooting game 6 vs 12. team elimination no respawn, who will win and who will lose less casualties. obviously the one with more player. It like Unnit the more soldier means you have more HP and more chance of puttting down a critical hit.

What? I think you misunderstood what we are talking about here. Number of troops shouldnt alter the critical rate of units by no means, at least not by the system that is explained in the battle mechanics section.

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 12:28

Ecrit par Laveley, 05.03.2015 at 10:12

Simple question: does numerical advantage matters in battle?

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send.

You should use the word "IMO" when talking about lies or legends

---

btw, Laveley, the numbers does not matter against units with same %critical ratio. For example, it doesn't matter if you send one or five or one hundreds or two billons of tanks against 8 infantries. They won't perform any better.

Just for add up to your test, there has been players before claiming that "sending 3 SM bombers, gen and 3 infantries against 8 militias is better than sending 5 bombers, because you lose less troops and still win the target". All speculations (or simply I didn't had the general upgrades back at that time... but that doesn't makes it less lies).

Just for put you a situation where the troop count matter is against mlitias. They have zero critical, while the rest of the units have 5 or 7 critical with the upgrades. The more scaled is the battle, the better chances for win! This logics applies when your units have more critical rate than your enemy units, or they have bigger max. attack value (I mean, 20 tanks against 20 militias will be better for the tanks than if it was 1 tank against 1 militia).

Ecrit par clovis1122, 05.03.2015 at 17:21

You should use the word "IMO" when talking about lies or legends

---

btw, Laveley, the numbers does not matter against units with same %critical ratio. For example, it doesn't matter if you send one or five or one hundreds or two billons of tanks against 8 infantries. They won't perform any better.

Just for add up to your test, there has been players before claiming that "sending 3 SM bombers, gen and 3 infantries against 8 militias is better than sending 5 bombers, because you lose less troops and still win the target". All speculations (or simply I didn't had the general upgrades back at that time... but that doesn't makes it less lies).

Just for put you a situation where the troop count matter is against mlitias. They have zero critical, while the rest of the units have 5 or 7 critical with the upgrades. The more scaled is the battle, the better chances for win! This logics applies when your units have more critical rate than your enemy units, or they have bigger max. attack value (I mean, 20 tanks against 20 militias will be better for the tanks than if it was 1 tank against 1 militia).

lies or legends lol, ok clovis. Not wasting my time with giving this a worthwhile reply. Lavely you can go form your own conclusions. I think youve already seen enough to do so if youve performed tests.

Ecrit par clovis1122, 05.03.2015 at 17:21

Ecrit par Permamuted, 05.03.2015 at 12:28

Ecrit par Laveley, 05.03.2015 at 10:12

Simple question: does numerical advantage matters in battle?

Its not mentioned anywhere, but yes you do tend to take less casualties the more units you send.

You should use the word "IMO" when talking about lies or legends

---

btw, Laveley, the numbers does not matter against units with same %critical ratio. For example, it doesn't matter if you send one or five or one hundreds or two billons of tanks against 8 infantries. They won't perform any better.

Just for add up to your test, there has been players before claiming that "sending 3 SM bombers, gen and 3 infantries against 8 militias is better than sending 5 bombers, because you lose less troops and still win the target". All speculations (or simply I didn't had the general upgrades back at that time... but that doesn't makes it less lies).

Just for put you a situation where the troop count matter is against mlitias. They have zero critical, while the rest of the units have 5 or 7 critical with the upgrades. The more scaled is the battle, the better chances for win! This logics applies when your units have more critical rate than your enemy units, or they have bigger max. attack value (I mean, 20 tanks against 20 militias will be better for the tanks than if it was 1 tank against 1 militia).

Sorry dude, but you are wrong.

I agree about the scale of the battle interfere in the criticals when its a battle between units with positive criticals and militias which have none. But i'm not talking about this here. Forget criticals, they dont have nothing to do about this.

Your right when you say 20 tanks vs 20 militia perform better than 1 tank vs 1 militia. Thats because the random factor of criticals and rolls that can benefit the militias. HOWEVER, 40 tanks vs 20 militias SHOULDN'T perform better in the long run than 20 tanks vs 20 militias, i.e., they should have the same all around number of losses in the long run, cause 20 militias should give the same all around damage against 40 tanks that they do against 20, not considering the randomness of the rolls in the long run.... BUT THEY ACTUALLY DONT!!!!!

Like i said, i did tests of 100 battles between 8 tanks attacking 8 infantries and other 100 of 16 tanks attacking 8 infantries. No, strategies and no upgrades involved, all units with their normal stats. Now see the results (pay attention to the limits):

Results for 16x8:
Number of battles that tanks had:

ONLY 2 losses = 4 battles
3 losses = 22 battles
4 losses = 30 battles
5 losses = 27 battles
6 losses = 13 battles
7 losses = 4 battles
8 or more losses = NONE

Mean of losses in 100 battles = 4.35

Now, Results for 8x8 battles
Number of battles that tanks had

ONLY 2 losses = NONE, ZERO, NADA
3 losses = 6
4 losses = 26
5 losses = 26
6 losses = 18 battles
7 losses = 14 battles
8 or more losses = 10 battles, in other words, in 10 out of 100 battles that 8 tanks attacked the 8 infantries the tanks actually lost the battle.

Mean of losses in 100 battles = 5.38

If what you said were truth (that numbers dont matter in a battle between units with equal crit stats) than the infantries should have destroied around the same number of tanks i both scenarios, cause they would do the same amount of damage in the long run, doesnt matter if they are fighting 8, 16 or 100 tanks, but how do you explain:

1) That in battles of 16x8 there were 4 opportunities that the tanks had only 2 losses and in the 8x8 scenario there were none?
2) That in 8x8 battles there were actually 10 out of 100 battles (10% of the sample) that the infantries managed to destroy the 8 tanks and win the battle, but in the 16x8 scenario they were only able to destroy a max of 7 tanks in battle and only in 4 out of 100 occasions (4%, almost never), while in the 8x8 scenario that happened much more frequently (14 out of 100 times)?
3) that the mean of tanks destroyed by infantries in 100 battles in 8x8 is basically one unit more than the mean in the 16x8?

Its clear from this results that the infantries performed better in the 8x8 scenario (destroyed more tanks) than they did in the 16x8.

Now, you can say that i'm lying, that i'm making up this numbers, or you can run your own tests and see with your own bare eyes.... but you dont need to, any experienced player should already noticed this, cause it happens fairly frequent, just pay attention.

Why this happens? I dont know, what i know is: it seems to have nothing to do with criticals... if you put the battle log in very slow and observe the battles, you will see that the rolls for the units that are in numerical disadvantage seem to be lower and the ones with advantage larger in comparison with rolls in a balanced battle. This can happen due to various reasons: bad programming, bug, or simply a hidden factor that gives a bonus to the units that have numerical advantage and thus roll better numbers.

Not sure if your taking into account HP of your units as well or not, as when you hover over a battle with the enemy having higher defense then your attack you can still win by sending more units since more units = more HP

I suggest going to settings and making battle speed "slow" or very slow" then spectating the results

Ecrit par Exo-K, 05.03.2015 at 21:52

Not sure if your taking into account HP of your units as well or not, as when you hover over a battle with the enemy having higher defense then your attack you can still win by sending more units since more units = more HP

I suggest going to settings and making battle speed "slow" or very slow" then spectating the results

Even if the full stack total HP is higher, single unit HP remains the same, so it shouldn't have any interference in single units loss. Unless you are saying that the damage in a unit roll is not given solely to the unit it is fighting the round, but mitigated, at least partially, to all other units in the stack... thats not what it says in the battle mechanics.

About the very slow spectator results; i already did that. But its hard to make a good conclusion based only in observation (the only conclusion you can get is that, indeed, numerical advantage matters).

For a clear result i would have to keep track of all the rolls and criticals in a battle; a single battle between 16x8 or 8x8 have around at least 10 rounds, its 2 rolls per round (one for tanks and one for infantries), thats 20 rolls per battle. For a meaningful sample it would need at least 20 battles for each scenario, thats 40 battles times 20 rolls = 800 data to gather, at least. As much as i'm a curious guy, that would be a one day time work.

Maybe i will do it in the weekend and than post the results.

Ecrit par Laveley, 06.03.2015 at 10:06

Ecrit par Exo-K, 05.03.2015 at 21:52

Not sure if your taking into account HP of your units as well or not, as when you hover over a battle with the enemy having higher defense then your attack you can still win by sending more units since more units = more HP

I suggest going to settings and making battle speed "slow" or very slow" then spectating the results

Even if the full stack total HP is higher, single unit HP remains the same, so it shouldn't have any interference in single units loss. Unless you are saying that the damage in a unit roll is not given solely to the unit it is fighting the round, but mitigated, at least partially, to all other units in the stack... thats not what it says in the battle mechanics.

About the very slow spectator results; i already did that. But its hard to make a good conclusion based only in observation (the only conclusion you can get is that, indeed, numerical advantage matters).

For a clear result i would have to keep track of all the rolls and criticals in a battle; a single battle between 16x8 or 8x8 have around at least 10 rounds, its 2 rolls per round (one for tanks and one for infantries), thats 20 rolls per battle. For a meaningful sample it would need at least 20 battles for each scenario, thats 40 battles times 20 rolls = 800 data to gather, at least. As much as i'm a curious guy, that would be a one day time work.

Maybe i will do it in the weekend and than post the results.

Save yourself the time... another player and i did this ad nauseam... we used very large stacks, performed several trials, watched the mechanics... the conclusion:

in short, there is an advantage in large stacks, but it is far less than one would expect from critical damage effects, and the game mechanics are certainly not as they are presented in 'official' AW information.

as an aside comment: after looking at countless battles, and looking for patterns, and thinking we found one, so isolating the factors contributing to the pattern, only to find it didn't hold, the overall effect *seems to be that battles in general give an advantage to the larger stack, but this is mitigated by strategies, a *general*, and other relevant modifiers (special units, etc.) In terms of large vs small stacks, this more consistent. A very large stack (say 100 bombers) can destroy 8 infantry, be they IF, PD or blitz infantry, and sustain far fewer losses (typically 2-4) than a stack of only 10 or 12 (which has a far greater range of loss, but typically in the 4 to 8 range.)

Ecrit par brianwl, 06.03.2015 at 12:33

Ecrit par Laveley, 06.03.2015 at 10:06

Ecrit par Exo-K, 05.03.2015 at 21:52

Not sure if your taking into account HP of your units as well or not, as when you hover over a battle with the enemy having higher defense then your attack you can still win by sending more units since more units = more HP

I suggest going to settings and making battle speed "slow" or very slow" then spectating the results

Even if the full stack total HP is higher, single unit HP remains the same, so it shouldn't have any interference in single units loss. Unless you are saying that the damage in a unit roll is not given solely to the unit it is fighting the round, but mitigated, at least partially, to all other units in the stack... thats not what it says in the battle mechanics.

About the very slow spectator results; i already did that. But its hard to make a good conclusion based only in observation (the only conclusion you can get is that, indeed, numerical advantage matters).

For a clear result i would have to keep track of all the rolls and criticals in a battle; a single battle between 16x8 or 8x8 have around at least 10 rounds, its 2 rolls per round (one for tanks and one for infantries), thats 20 rolls per battle. For a meaningful sample it would need at least 20 battles for each scenario, thats 40 battles times 20 rolls = 800 data to gather, at least. As much as i'm a curious guy, that would be a one day time work.

Maybe i will do it in the weekend and than post the results.

Save yourself the time... another player and i did this ad nauseam... we used very large stacks, performed several trials, watched the mechanics... the conclusion:

in short, there is an advantage in large stacks, but it is far less than one would expect from critical damage effects, and the game mechanics are certainly not as they are presented in 'official' AW information.

as an aside comment: after looking at countless battles, and looking for patterns, and thinking we found one, so isolating the factors contributing to the pattern, only to find it didn't hold, the overall effect *seems to be that battles in general give an advantage to the larger stack, but this is mitigated by strategies, a *general*, and other relevant modifiers (special units, etc.) In terms of large vs small stacks, this more consistent. A very large stack (say 100 bombers) can destroy 8 infantry, be they IF, PD or blitz infantry, and sustain far fewer losses (typically 2-4) than a stack of only 10 or 12 (which has a far greater range of loss, but typically in the 4 to 8 range.)

Ty very much. From gutfeeling and observation of rolls at the small sample from my previous tests i already suspected the same conclusions. Like i said, the numerical advantage troops just seems to "stick" better in those occasions.

However, bothers me that this info isnt in the battle mechanics guide section... i mean, this should be clarified by the programmers of the game, battle mechanics should be clear as water specially in a strategic game like this where they play such an important role.

Ecrit par Laveley, 06.03.2015 at 13:19

Ecrit par brianwl, 06.03.2015 at 12:33

Ecrit par Laveley, 06.03.2015 at 10:06

Ecrit par Exo-K, 05.03.2015 at 21:52

Not sure if your taking into account HP of your units as well or not, as when you hover over a battle with the enemy having higher defense then your attack you can still win by sending more units since more units = more HP

I suggest going to settings and making battle speed "slow" or very slow" then spectating the results

Even if the full stack total HP is higher, single unit HP remains the same, so it shouldn't have any interference in single units loss. Unless you are saying that the damage in a unit roll is not given solely to the unit it is fighting the round, but mitigated, at least partially, to all other units in the stack... thats not what it says in the battle mechanics.

About the very slow spectator results; i already did that. But its hard to make a good conclusion based only in observation (the only conclusion you can get is that, indeed, numerical advantage matters).

For a clear result i would have to keep track of all the rolls and criticals in a battle; a single battle between 16x8 or 8x8 have around at least 10 rounds, its 2 rolls per round (one for tanks and one for infantries), thats 20 rolls per battle. For a meaningful sample it would need at least 20 battles for each scenario, thats 40 battles times 20 rolls = 800 data to gather, at least. As much as i'm a curious guy, that would be a one day time work.

Maybe i will do it in the weekend and than post the results.

Save yourself the time... another player and i did this ad nauseam... we used very large stacks, performed several trials, watched the mechanics... the conclusion:

in short, there is an advantage in large stacks, but it is far less than one would expect from critical damage effects, and the game mechanics are certainly not as they are presented in 'official' AW information.

as an aside comment: after looking at countless battles, and looking for patterns, and thinking we found one, so isolating the factors contributing to the pattern, only to find it didn't hold, the overall effect *seems to be that battles in general give an advantage to the larger stack, but this is mitigated by strategies, a *general*, and other relevant modifiers (special units, etc.) In terms of large vs small stacks, this more consistent. A very large stack (say 100 bombers) can destroy 8 infantry, be they IF, PD or blitz infantry, and sustain far fewer losses (typically 2-4) than a stack of only 10 or 12 (which has a far greater range of loss, but typically in the 4 to 8 range.)

Ty very much. From gutfeeling and observation of rolls at the small sample from my previous tests i already suspected the same conclusions. Like i said, the numerical advantage troops just seems to "stick" better in those occasions.

However, bothers me that this info isnt in the battle mechanics guide section... i mean, this should be clarified by the programmers of the game, battle mechanics should be clear as water specially in a strategic game like this where they play such an important role.

in a 1vs1 situation that won't be a good idea, considering an enemy can break into smaller groop and take your weaker defended cities, if all you going to do is stack your ammy and Take ONE city at a time

Ecrit par Htin, 06.03.2015 at 15:29

in a 1vs1 situation that won't be a good idea, considering an enemy can break into smaller groop and take your weaker defended cities, if all you going to do is stack your ammy and Take ONE city at a time

There are various situations were split your stack or keep it together mays be advantageous. But thats not the point. The point is that knowing that your troops will fight potentially better when in numerical advantage is crucial to make the right decision between this two options.

Ecrit par Laveley, 07.03.2015 at 11:37

Ecrit par Htin, 06.03.2015 at 15:29

in a 1vs1 situation that won't be a good idea, considering an enemy can break into smaller groop and take your weaker defended cities, if all you going to do is stack your ammy and Take ONE city at a time

There are various situations were split your stack or keep it together mays be advantageous. But thats not the point. The point is that knowing that your troops will fight potentially better when in numerical advantage is crucial to make the right decision between this two options.

Im telling you the drawback of using large number in stack

Sorry for late reply, But I had some problems and lost the computer right when I was going to reply back. Anyway, here's my defense:

First of all, I cannot prove you wrong. For the same reasons you can't prove me wrong. I recall this is a pretty Hard test that would require millons of test before prove something.

However I for sure can prove the imposibility of prove something with your 100 test.

The First argument is that those 100 tests are, I repeat, not enough. According to your tests, 8 tanks would win against 8 infantries... 90% of the times. ( you said 10 out of 100 times the tanks would loss). I've introduced the battle and looped it... 1,000 times in my calculator, from which the tanks won 82.5% of the times. The BIG 8% error margin between your 100 test and my 1,000 test should already prove the BIG chances that your whole test is wrong.

The second argument is that... By using math, you know the only impossible battle is the one in which all your enemy units HP is more than 7x your max attack value. For secure the maximal and absolute victory against 1 infantry, you must send 17 tanks at it. Of course, the probability that the infantry roll all critical max attack AND your tanks rolls 1 attack are closer to 0.00000(infinite), But it does exist. According to your second test, 16 tanks would never lose against 8 infantries. But unless you can discard my previous argument about necessary having 7x in Hp of your attack value, then you Will have to admit that your 16 tanks vs 8 infantries have flaws, and subsecuently admit that your argument is wrong.

Of course, I've also looped this 1,000 times, and all 1,000 times the 16 tanks won. This proves the probabilities to be far away from ordinary tests.

I repeat, and I recall, that I would need millons of test before proving your argument to be wrong. But from the calculator I can only get the number of won battles, and if two dates of your tests are wrong, then you should admit, and not discard, that there is a probability that your test are wrong. I consider that I've proved you that 100 test doesnt prove anything, and you Will need more than it before proving your theory.

In other words, I expect you to admit the effect of overstacking as a possibility and not a fact until you've counter my argument with solid proof. Sorry for repeat this so many times, But I really expect you to not try to counter me again with such few test, or build up an argument based in those tests.


Actually, I can prove you the opposite. Search for my YouTube channel and on one video marked as bug you'll See an overkillbug, which clearly proves that sometimes you don't deal damage when your units dies. This would encourage to defend cities with less troops for better effectiveness... But I haven't research about it yet.


One Last thing, you Will probably ask about the calculator. Ask Laocha about it, and at least know that it does exist. This is all I can do from Phone. Later on, when I recover my Pc, I can give you the screenshots of the tests.

One thing you should also take note of after youve read clovis post, is that his battle calc was self made. and when you take into account that 10 mos marines with 80 attack nearly always beat 10 pd inf with 90 defense, a phenomenon which not a single aw player is able to explain, then youll realise that theres a high probability his calc is flawed, which in extension also means that theres a high probability that all his posts in this thread are nonsense.

btw, i had recently stopped acknowleging clovis on the forums because he lies and trolls a lot and generally just doesnt know what hes talking about. however its sad to see our player of the season trolling a r5 seeking help on an aw mechanic we all know exists but just dont know the details of. so heres my response.

Ecrit par Permamuted, 14.03.2015 at 18:19

One thing you should also take note of after youve read clovis post, is that his battle calc was self made. and when you take into account that 10 mos marines with 80 attack nearly always beat 10 pd inf with 90 defense, a phenomenon which not a single aw player is able to explain, then youll realise that theres a high probability his calc is flawed, which in extension also means that theres a high probability that all his posts in this thread are nonsense.

btw, i had recently stopped acknowleging clovis on the forums because he lies and trolls a lot and generally just doesnt know what hes talking about. however its sad to see our player of the season trolling a r5 seeking help on an aw mechanic we all know exists but just dont know the details of. so heres my response.

Is not like I am trying to prove anything, But the relation between critical and damage values is well-know by youself, in the comparion between militias in Pd and If.

It makes sense, Because I dunno why you didn't say that the marines get extra critical? I am pretty sure the effect and importance of critical hits in long scaled battles has been proven before by many experts, But this is not the thread for what. So please, that you didn't knew about the marines and infantries comparion doesn't add anything here.

Second, I've never discard this effect of number if troops. I am just justificating that it would've nearly impossible for research, hence why I said you are wrong(wrong for saying it does exist, not for implying its existance).

Third, that the calculator was self-made does reduces his degree of legitimaterly sure, but in which degree? You won't say unoficial sources are always wrong. In this case, the calculator was made by AlexMeza, an user that was pretty know for all the bugs he research. But you know him pretty well, and we are not talking about how legitm is the calculator either way. Feel free to mathematically sum up the probabilitie, and I bet they would be close to the ones presents in the calcs.

Following point Third, I do admit as i've posted before that I cannot prove said effect to be wrong.... For the same reason you guys can't prove my theory to be wrong. It would requires lot of tests before research such conclusion.

Four, you cannot prove a relation between the fact that I troll and the fact that I am commenting here. Tell me: ¿Can you prove I am replying to this for troll purposes?

You make me look like the bad guy from the history, however, you cannot prove me wrong for said reason.

Five and last, I really hate to be called off by any reward or position. It is very hypocrite and so two-faced from you to post conglatulations there and call me out for my award here. Please choose one, and delete the one in which you disagree with.

Serious, if you say something, follow it.

Ok, my bad regardless to the First point. Didn't noticed Mos doesn't give extra critical to marines.

As for the rest of your Points, they are all bla and totally missed out my argument. If you can't understand that 100 tests means nothing and proves nothing, then we Will have to Agree to disagree.

According to Laochra, 100 tests > 1,000 tests.



gg.

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 19:51

As for the rest of your Points, they are all bla

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 14.03.2015 at 20:08

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 19:51

As for the rest of your Points, they are all bla

Nice useless + joke cut quote +off-topic comment. I Wonder if bias Loachra would ever recognize this as that

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 20:11

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 14.03.2015 at 20:08

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 19:51

As for the rest of your Points, they are all bla

Nice useless + joke cut quote +off-topic comment. I Wonder if bias Loachra would ever recognize this as that

do you understand what bias means? in order to be biased there would have to be an issue to be biased about. Yes these posts are all off topic, but they are because of your poor posting.

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 20:11

Ecrit par Khal.eesi, 14.03.2015 at 20:08

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 19:51

As for the rest of your Points, they are all bla

Nice useless + joke cut quote +off-topic comment. I Wonder if bias Loachra would ever recognize this as that

i dont think its in your best interest to continue provoking me lol.You already lied to your teeth.Yes i may be offtopic but atleast i am telling the truth.You told me you rape all Ukraines with your op Germany, yet you lost twice to my Sm Ukr in the 2 duels we played.And its not your fault Ukr is just better.Syrian also made the claim he could beat Ukr blitz with France and he also lost.I am willing to face you again or any other contender who thinks any country in the west can challenge Ukraine in a 1v1.

bottom line.You wanna claim your Germany can consistenly beat Ukraines in 1v1?Proove it, with actions.

Ecrit par Permamuted, 14.03.2015 at 20:11

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 20:04

According to Laochra, 100 tests > 1,000 tests.

where did i say that? do quote me.

After discarting my 1,000 loop tests that dropped 82.5 %chances with Laveley's 100 test that dropped 90% chances... You still ask about it?

Or do you mean his tests are wrong? Quoting you would be a paint in this Phone XD. Just read your replied.

There goes a New one: "If I think your argument is poor, I am allowed to lead a whole thread to off-topic" - Laochra in defense of khal.

As for khal: keep crying your greek human







(no, greek human means you are a simply human from greece, not a damm insult but for the moment you read this line you'll be so mad XD)

More specifically, you say his tests proves numerical advantage, even through I clarified in my initial reply that while his test drops 90% sucess rate for 8 tanks vs 8 infantries, it is totally legit when a looped 1,000 battle drop 82.5%

Ecrit par clovis1122, 14.03.2015 at 20:38

After discarting my 1,000 loop tests that dropped 82.5 %chances with Laveley's 100 test that dropped 90% chances... You still ask about it?

Or do you mean his tests are wrong? Quoting you would be a paint in this Phone XD. Just read your replied.

There goes a New one: "If I think your argument is poor, I am allowed to lead a whole thread to off-topic" - Laochra in defense of khal.

As for khal: keep crying your greek human







(no, greek human means you are a simply human from greece, not a damm insult but for the moment you read this line you'll be so mad XD)

Clovis do you not understand that your calc is most likely inaccurate? you cant compare your test results since yours were performed on a player made calc when no known player understands exactly how the aw battle damage mechanics work. Ivan and amok didnt approve this calc, why would you put so much faith in it.

Lavely actually physically went into the game and performed them. so yes his 100 tests are far more valuable and trustworthy than your 1000 tests. And no clovis the difference in the margin for error does not disprove lavelys' and my own conclusions. it more likely highlights how inaccurate your calc is.

Do understand this? you just strolled into a thread where a r5 was looking for help and told him what he was seeing was all lies and legends based on the data from an unreliable calc. Literally every player in the game is observing what lavely is describing every day. It obviously exists. Its the details of it which we are interested in.

Wait... If he proves a relation between first and second rolls with different size of troops he might be able to prove such effect. I'll tell you later how to do it.

Ecrit par clovis1122, 15.03.2015 at 08:27

1) Ivan and Amok doesn't disprove my calcs. Actually if you take into account the thread Ivan made about battles outcome it would'be against yourselves. They do say once again, that all is pretty random. Which lead me to point 3.

2) That you used the Word "exactly knows how AW mechanics works" only sounds for me as an imposible task, even for own admins. Unexpected bugs are Unexpected for a reason, and they always exist. If what you are trying to imply is that you need to know everything about one subject before ever accept or decline something... Then ¿Who are you for accept such Small tests as valid? You Will have to admit them as a simple probability nothing else.

I'd also add that AlexMeza's reputation as bug researcher doesn't remove but add value to his calculator. I do not mean that the calculator is a type of God or anything, just that the percents of it being reliable aren't as low as you are trying to show here. (i'd say 60% reliable.)

3) coming from point 3 diretly, you think the error margins means nothing? Listen, I've took probabilities classes before. There is always a chance that your values are wrong(This is why science's hypothetical situations cannot be taken as complete, just as "still not disproved). But I guess this thread is not for give you probabilities class, but know that I won't accept any Word from you in probabilities until you've admit the importance of error margins. Own admins admit this type of situation has a pretty high error margin and therefore, there is always a random factor.

in regards point 1, your calc hasnt any form of official approval or dissapproval, until such a time as this changes, we can disregard any findings from it. What this means is that data from that calc does NOT give you the grounds to come into a thread and call me or any other player a liar, or trash their theories based on tests performed with it. Currently tests from that calc are almost worthless. Youve just intepreted what Ivan said about it all being random to suit your own purposes, that is not what he meant. He was referring to the effects of criticals.

in regards point 2, i was referring to battle mechanics. What bugs might or might not exist are irrelevant, the code to calculate damage and losses is in the game and viewable by Ivan and amok, if any bugs are interfering with this code it is up to them to fix it and the possible existence of said bugs does nothing to validate the effectiveness of this calc. Your calc until it is validated by ivan or amok is worthless at the moment, do you understand? worthless. Send them the coding and ask for feedback.

In regards point 3, the question of your calcs accuracy makes that point irrelevant. I dont think you understood my previous post, the difference in margins of error between your tests and lavelys is most likely an indicator of flaws in your calc. Are you really so arrogant that you believe your self made calc tests are more accurate than tests physically performed in game? You think its more likely that theres bugs in the game than in your calc?

The rest of your post is just a patronising waste of time.

It is not me who needs to take a probability class, ive received third level education on stats and probability, i know enough to know that youre talking out your arse and have no idea what youre saying. Stop filling threads with nonsense walls of texts and stop using words you dont understand.