 |
| |
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:32
|
|
Theseus hasn't popped in yet, but I thought I'd add that the comat bonus also disproportionately helps mixed-unit armies (that is if my speculation is accurate).
First the speculation: In PTW, mixed-unit armies displayed stats that were averages from the constituent units stats, but armies employed stats of the actual unit engaged in combat. For example, a tank-cavalry-knight-knight army would attack with the tank's attack value of 16 unless it lost 1/4 of its HPs in one battle -- then the battle would contiue with the cavalry's value of 6; but the stats would show a rounded-version of the averages, so the army stats would probably be dsiplayed as 7.4.2. My speculation is that the army combat bonus is similarly applied to individual units stats within an army for combat purposes; in other words, that the army combat bonus for the above army would be 5 on the attack, and that it would attack with an attack value of 21 unless it lost 1/4th of its HPs in one battle and then would continue with an attack value of 11.
Why would this disproportionately help mixed-unit armies? In PTW, the more modern units in a mixed-unit army essentially got to share (borrow) extra HPs from its other army members from battle to battle. If my speculation is correct, a similar sharing would occur in those instances when an individual battle is going badly. The above example army would generate an 11-attack-value cavalry -- essentially, the cavalry unit shares (borrows) some of the inflated combat bonus generated by its other member's (tank's) higher attack value.
Catt 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:32
|
|
I am... speechless. I could almost cry, I am so happy. Seriosuly, I think I'm gonna squeeze out a few.
In fact, I'm gonna make a spreadsheet for this, just to see en masse how great this is.
Re the mixed unit Armies: Catt is quite right, the stats shown are confusing, and that units fight one by one in descending order of strength.
So, I think mixed unit Armies will disproportionately benefit the weaker units. This will be more meaningful on defense, as in attack, the strongest unit will attack first each time, with an allotment of 1/4 of total remaining hps... so unless your a dope, and attack with too few hps left, that Tank sitting at the head of 3xCavs will do all the fighting.
A typical defender mixed unit Army of mine would be, say, 2xPike+Rifle+Infantry. So, in the event that this Army got attacked, and on a given attack it got worn down through the Infantry (now 14d) and Rifle (now 10d), the Pikes would have a defense of (10+6+3+3)/6+3=6.7d, or I assume 7d, before modifiers.
And that doesn't suck.
YIPPEE!!!!
* Theseus does his Army dance.
Last edited by Theseus on 16-11-2003 at 01:58
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Do you guys miss the fact that MGLs cannot rush all Wonders?
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
I haven't got C3C yet but the comments about berserk armies got my attention.
OK, a 3 berserk army needs a galleon to carry it but is 9/3/2 amphibious blitz. With some bombardment support that should still take out riflemen easily.
A 2 berserk army is 8/3/2 - nearly as good and 10 HP if you put elites into it. And it will fit in a caravel. Muskets defending - no chance!
Even a single berserk in an army becomes 7/2/2 and will go in a galley.
That extra move should make a lot of difference to the move 1 units that were vulnerable to fast units. I never used to worry about seeing a berserk army on land if I had knights - now I will.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-11-2003 17:01
Not much else does. 
No.
|