 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
BigFree
|
 |
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
We know GCA's forces are a minumum of 21% less than what CFC has minus the difference in injured troops that they and CFC have.
We also know that our forces are a minimum of 21% stronger than CFC's, not counting our injured units (I doubt CFC has many injured right now)
Because we are strong to both GCA and to CFC; and CFC is strong to GCA, you can say something like this is true:
GCA is 21% weaker than CFC.
CFC is 21% weaker than APO.
So, lets assume that we all had the same type of forces to make it easy to figure.
Lets say CFC had 100 units. We know APO has a minimum of 21% more, which would be a minimum of 121 units.
If CFC is 21% stronger than GCA and CFC has 100 units, then GCA has 79 units Maximum.
So, then to compare GCA to APO...we have 121 units(minumum advantage) and GCA has 79 units (Maximum disadvantage). We could have more and GCA could have less, but not the other way around.
So, for every unit GCA has, APO has minimum of 1.53 more (121/79); again this assumes equal unit strengths for simplicity purposes.
Last edited by BigFree on 23-10-2003 at 16:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFurryMonster
|
 |
EMPEROR of Cats
Feb 2002
time: 06:31
|
|
This might be a matter of definition, but let us make sure we're on the same level here.
I think the following is not true:
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
We also know that our forces are a minimum of 40% stronger than CFC's
|
If you replace CFC with GCA, it would not be true either.
The difference between "weak" and "strong" is, as you say, at least 45%, but keep in mind that this is 45% of the value of someone who's value in the middle.
So, if A has 63, B has 100 and C has 126, then:
A is weak to B
C is strong to B
C is strong to A
From B's point of view, A and C are 63% (of the value of B) apart, but from A's point of view, C is twice as strong as them.
In our case, GCA has < 80% of CFC, and we have > 125% of CFC.
We therefore have at least 45% of CFC's value more than GCA, but this isn't a very useful value, actually.
What counts is: From our point of view, GCA has at most 80/125 = 64% of our army.
-------------
edit:
The following is not true, either:
quote:
Because we are strong to both GCA and to CFC; and CFC is strong to GCA, you can say something like this is true:
GCA is 40% weaker than CFC.
CFC is 40% weaker than APO. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
|
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
There are a few things wrong.
But, first, lets agree that the difference between "Weak" and "Strong" is a minimum of 21% and can go higher.
So, since we are "Strong" to CFC, we are at least 21% stronger than CFC(if not more).
Thus, since GCA is "Weak" to CFC, they must be at least 21% weaker than CFC(if not more).
So if you give CFC an arbitrary strength score of 100 then APO's would be a minimum of 121 or more. Conversely, GCA's would be 79 or less.
I was tired when I was typing/reading before, and the differnce between "Weak" and "Strong" is not 42%, but it is 21%.
I have edited my post above to include the correct percentages.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFree
|
|
Acampo, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigFurryMonster
Where did you get those unit value formulas from? They do not correspond at all with the results I got in the Area X thread.
For example, the ratio between a VetArcher and a RegSpear is 2.1 : 1.4 = 1.5. You report a ratio of 12/6 = 2. |
BFM, I reported where I got my formulas from, they were from direct testing. It shows that a Vet Spear has the same exact strength as a Vet Archer.
I fully stand behind that the difference bewteen "Weak" and "Strong" is 21%. If we are "Strong" to anyone, then they are "Weak" to us. If we are "Weak" to anyone, then they are "Strong" to us.
I have shown that this threashhold is 21% on both sides, not just for "Weak" or just for "Strong" but for both, since they are one and the same ratios. For instance, we cannot be "Strong" to CGN and they "Average" to us. It doesn't work that way. If we are "Strong" to them, then they are "Weak" to us.
The forumula I used for calculating and putting a number value on strength looks like this:
For 3 Elite MI's:
[(4+2)*5*3]=90
4=attack strength
2=defense strength
5=HP level
3=number of said units
I have tested this out in scenarios and it totally fits. If you want them, I can email them to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigFurryMonster
|
|
EMPEROR of Cats
Feb 2002
time: 06:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
It shows that a Vet Spear has the same exact strength as a Vet Archer.
|
I'm sorry, but I do not believe that to be true. Please mail me your test scenario! I will check it as soon as I have a new computer (the old one broke down).
quote:
Originally posted by BigFree
I fully stand behind that the difference bewteen "Weak" and "Strong" is 21%. If we are "Strong" to anyone, then they are "Weak" to us. If we are "Weak" to anyone, then they are "Strong" to us. I have shown that this threashhold is 21% on both sides, not just for "Weak" or just for "Strong" but for both, since they are one and the same ratios. For instance, we cannot be "Strong" to CGN and they "Average" to us. It doesn't work that way. If we are "Strong" to them, then they are "Weak" to us.
|
You're right that if we are "Strong" that they cannot be "Average" but must be "Weak". However, in terms of maths, this means that we have more than 125% of their army value. From their point of view, the limit is the inverse of 125%, which is 80%.
If we have 100 and they have 80, then we have (100-80)/80 = 25% more than they do, but they have (100-80)/100 = 20% less than we do.
This is the only way that the "A=Strong means B=Weak" assumption can hold.
You're right about the pikemen. It was just an assumption; you can also fill in other unit types if you like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:31
|
|
OK, it's time we tried to pull some of these things together and got them to CFC.
Meaningful stuff for once in the #isdgfamtalks
quote:
[17:42] Octavian_X> Though, I do have a serious matter to discuss...
[17:42] WhiteBandit> mainly cause WE'LL NEVER GET THE SAVE.
[17:42] WhiteBandit> ah yes, discuss!
[17:42] Octavian_X> I take it you guys remember when we so generously provided a precise numbering of our troops?
|
To which I later replied:
quote:
[17:55] MrWIA_working> Octy - unsure if Trip got it all off, so I will pull some conclusions together.
[17:55] Octavian_X> thanks.
[17:55] MrWIA_working> Generally, however, the discussions as to what it all means are ongoing...
|
So let's get the differences out of the way and send them something! I would suggest our troop numbers, the power value we calculate from this (not the equation itself, just in case they don't have it), their calculated power number and the calculated power maximum limit of CFC. This will show CFC we mean business (from troop size) without rattling sabres at them, show them we are happy to reciprocate with the info, show we keep our deals with them and maybe even provide an extra incentive for them to attack GCA in the East, occupying at least some troops to help us with our push.
Edited to make the quotes readable. You have to take out the "<"
Last edited by BigFree on 02-11-2003 at 14:54
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-10-2003 02:21
|