War of Attrition Math: RA vs. PD

RA also cost more then PD inf, so logically, they should be stronger, correct?
I support boosting SM to its original power. SM was never op to me, so I don't understand why people nerfed it. I constantly defeated it with PD. However, this isn't the point of the thread, so lets get down to the math:

RA Tank:
Attack 9
Cost 90
Mov 8

So for every 1 unit of cost (CU) you get 0.1 power [9/90=0.1]
Following still? Good.

Effective movement is the highest power multiplied by max movement available. So for every 1 mov the RA tank makes, it worth 0.1 power. Effective movement = 0.8 (power/cu)*mov.

Defense 5
Cost 90
Mov 8

1 CU = 0.06 power [5/90=0.01555]

Total effective movement is the combined defense and attack power per cost (power/cu) multiplied by max available movement.
Total: 0.16 power/cu
Total effective movement: 1.28 (power/cu)*mov

PD Inf:
Defense 10 [inside cities + 1 against tank]
Cost 50
Mov 6

So for every 1 CU you get 0.2 power [10/50=0.2]
Effective movement = 1.2 (power/cu)*mov

Attack 4
Cost 50
Mov 6

1 CU = 0.08 power

Total effective movement = 1.28 (power/cu)*mov

That being said, I will be strongly against any increase to cost, but I do not mind a -1def because that was what I originally stated when I proposed the idea.

Napisao Cthulhu, 19.06.2015 at 07:17

That being said, I will be strongly against any increase to cost, but I do not mind a -1def because that was what I originally stated when I proposed the idea.

why don't you think that it is pd that's op whenever pd palyers get couple unlucky rolls tehy make cry threads and demand other strat nerfs

Not taking several other factors into the calculation, which would produce a highly different result
Math ...such a powerful tool of deception, math and statistics.

Btw. me for example didn't strictly claim that bad rolls got me to notice RA power... it was the sheer power of expanding and spamming tanks with low cost countries... and after that i noticed how tanks have the same defense as RA infantry, have much lower cost then SM bombers and can cut trough same amount of Iron fist units easily.

Fun fact: i play PD only with 1 country

Napisao Guest, 19.06.2015 at 07:39

why don't you think that it is pd that's op whenever pd palyers get couple unlucky rolls tehy make cry threads and demand other strat nerfs

I don't think any strategy is currently op. In fact, I never thought any strategy were op, but people nerfed them anyways. From the old gc, to the sm, but I remained quiet then, because I was still new to the game in a way.

Napisao Goblin, 19.06.2015 at 07:47

Not taking several other factors into the calculation, which would produce a highly different result
Math ...such a powerful tool of deception, math and statistics.

Statistics, yes, can be skewed heavily. The reason I didn't include other factors into the calculation was because they are the same. Crit, health, etc. If you feel like something should be accounted, let me know, and I will readjust the calculations. I am not trying to be deceptive, just calculating cost efficiency. In a game of attrition, cost efficiency plays a key role.

It does not take into account starting position or expansion. So basically, it a scenario where both sides have equal amount of cities and income then PD would be more cost effective then RA.

Pd Infantry have 11 defense? I thought it was 7 :O

Napisao Cthulhu, 19.06.2015 at 08:50

It does not take into account starting position or expansion. So basically, it a scenario where both sides have equal amount of cities and income then PD would be more cost effective then RA.

That's exactly what i was referring to...

Furthermore you didn't take into account at what point does PD becomes more effective and on what settings, funds, number of players? ...and even if COST effectiveness is a factor at all in a certain game.

And at the top of my head, thinking about all this different maps and starting options ... i see an inconsiderable amount of situations i would currently actually prefer PD too RA..

Another thing i noticed here:

Infantry PD: 7 defense + 2 in city + 1 against tanks = 10 defense

Not fair of you to calculate the general +1 defense into the calculation for PD infantry while not doing the same for RA tanks defense
> Including general bonuses at all would be a wrong presumption for the calculation

Then lets do some experimenting:

I will create a fictional unit that has:
1 attack, that costs 10 cash and has a range of 20 = 2.00 movements effectiveness.

According to your "formula" a unit with 1 attack has a bigger movement effectiveness then imp inf, PD inf and RA tanks.
Of course there is this thing about reinforcements and reinforcements rate, so i would need a huge amount of reinf ...counting in hundreds against dozens of my opponents to even begin justifying this as a viable cost effective unit.

Then i create a unit that has:
50 defense, costs 200 cash and has a range of 0 = 0.00 effectiveness
So a high defense unit, that doesn't cost that much is ineffective because of 0 range.

Napisao Dereny, 19.06.2015 at 09:14

Pd Infantry have 11 defense? I thought it was 7 :O

+2 in city and +1 against tank

Napisao Guest, 19.06.2015 at 09:59

Napisao Dereny, 19.06.2015 at 09:14

Pd Infantry have 11 defense? I thought it was 7 :O

+2 in city and +1 against tank

lol noob u wanna make PD OP as fuck

Napisao Goblin, 19.06.2015 at 09:27

Another thing i noticed here:

Infantry PD: 7 defense + 2 in city + 1 against tanks = 10 defense

Not fair of you to calculate the general +1 defense into the calculation for PD infantry while not doing the same for RA tanks defense
> Including general bonuses at all would be a wrong presumption for the calculation

I removed the extra +1 on the inf, because it was a mistake.
However, that being said, they should end up equal in terms of total effective movement.

Napisao Goblin, 19.06.2015 at 09:58

Then lets do some experimenting:

I will create a fictional unit that has:
1 attack, that costs 10 cash and has a range of 20 = 2.00 movements effectiveness.

Yes, in theory that unit is very efficient for the cost. That would equal 2 power per cost a movement.

Napisao Goblin, 19.06.2015 at 09:58

Then i create a unit that has:
50 defense, costs 200 cash and has a range of 0 = 0.00 effectiveness
So a high defense unit, that doesn't cost that much is ineffective because of 0 range.

Yes, in theory, that unit is essentially going no where, so the power per cost a movement would equal 0.

Napisao Cthulhu, 19.06.2015 at 11:07

However, that being said, they should end up equal in terms of total effective movement.

Great ...but not in total effective movements.
Now add the usage of transports, merging, city placements and distance among other factors to calculate the real movement power of RA tanks against PD infantry.

You now have the red circle in the big equation that would calculate ultimate strengths of RA vs PD in total by adding factors of other units, maps, attack, defense power, rolls, criticals etc. etc. etc.

Napisao Guest, 19.06.2015 at 09:59

Napisao Dereny, 19.06.2015 at 09:14

Pd Infantry have 11 defense? I thought it was 7 :O

+2 in city and +1 against tank

Thank you for clearing that up for me ♥

I see a lot of people making a pretty big assumption perhaps without realizing it. The idea that we want offensive units to be equally good at attacking as defensive units are at defending. I'm not sure that's what the admins intended and I don't think that would be good for gameplay.

I support what goblins saying, to elaborate a comparison of cost efficiency isnt alone enough of a factor to determine a strategies' strength. Yes pd is a more cost efficient strategy than RA. Significantly so in fact. However when it comes down to it if ive the money to produce 50 pd inf or 50 ra tanks i know which i would choose. On the flipside if the ra player hasnt then money to get at least close to the full potential out of his strat then yea ill be wanting pd.

And i dont agree with the weighing of the values used to calculate total effective movement. I rate movement speed quite highly. I cannot count the number of world games where ive beaten pd or gw players by outmaneuvering them. The ability to get units where they need to be quickly is hugely important, moreso than the ability to mass huge slowmoving stacks(mainly on big maps). No strat is better at this than sm. Mos has the advantage of stealth.

Napisao Goblin, 19.06.2015 at 12:12

You now have the red circle in the big equation that would calculate ultimate strengths of RA vs PD in total by adding factors of other units, maps, attack, defense power, rolls, criticals etc. etc. etc.

Cthulhu already replied to this:

Napisao Cthulhu, 19.06.2015 at 08:50

It does not take into account starting position or expansion. So basically, it a scenario where both sides have equal amount of cities and income then PD would be more cost effective then RA.

And I believe some of the factors you've said already were taken into account.

There was earlier error when I used 11 instead of 10 for PD inf. It has since been revised, and I would like to clarify that when take into account both the defense and attack. They are equally cost efficient. It still does not explain intrinsic value of how a player plays the game.

so:
power/cu * (Mov*e^(x-1)) Where x = turn. The reason I suggest natural power as a function of time is because more population grow exponentially in a short period of time, thus reflecting a the players territorial growth in a short period of time. Essentially, it adds as a modifier.

I would also like to remind players that a good player will wall a lot, so making movement hard to get pass. Yet, we do not take into account this consideration. That is why I would like to suggest a natural logarithmic function instead:

power/cu * Mov(ln(x+1)) where x = turn.

I believe the natural log function reflects the growth more properly.

However, if you would like to help come up with a formula that more accurately describe it. Please, go ahead, it really simple. You just need to find a function that matches what type of growth you are expecting, and then implement it.