November 12th, 2016, 09:12
(This post was last modified: November 12th, 2016, 09:14 by Tyrmith.)
Posts: 1,075
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2010
I think it was pretty obvious what he was about to do, and in any case, it's not like he could do much about it...
In anycase, gold to gold deals aren't about the information - it's about coordination, which they do far more effectively then what little information there is in the "I hate you" names for units...
November 12th, 2016, 12:27
Posts: 587
Threads: 7
Joined: Apr 2016
(November 12th, 2016, 09:12)Tyrmith Wrote: "I hate you" names for units...
This made me laugh a lot more than it should have.
November 12th, 2016, 13:25
Posts: 3,885
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
The gold-for-gold deals are usually banned (and with good reason IMO). But it looks like they forgot to add that rule for this game, probably because the issue hasn't come up recently(because it's been banned).
The names are potentially over the line, communicating to RMOG that they want to pillage instead of attack(despite that not being mack's intention). IIRC Brick is the admin and decides where the line is drawn in this game? Any damage is already done in any case though.
November 14th, 2016, 06:54
Posts: 3,885
Threads: 26
Joined: Apr 2013
Sounds like a tough turn for REM, but this is pretty cool:
Quote:The allowing them to recapture JF was planned to make sure those EI were emptied
November 15th, 2016, 14:00
Posts: 23,429
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Rifle, on a hill, 60% culture, no fort, CG1 or G1 is +130% because of the innate +25% against mounted. There is a CG3 rifle with 25% fort, that is at +210%, for 43.4 strength. 6 rifles total.
A single pinch Cav gets, on average, 2 hits max. Usually 1 or even none. Even if the first 6 cav also got two hits in, the next cavs all have less than 50% odds of victory. So you are realistically looking at wasting at least 12 cav just to get odds on the rifles with the third round of cavss.
tl;dr: that was fucking stupid.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
November 15th, 2016, 17:08
Posts: 12,510
Threads: 61
Joined: Oct 2010
(November 15th, 2016, 14:00)Krill Wrote: Rifle, on a hill, 60% culture, no fort, CG1 or G1 is +130% because of the innate +25% against mounted. There is a CG3 rifle with 25% fort, that is at +210%, for 43.4 strength. 6 rifles total.
A single pinch Cav gets, on average, 2 hits max. Usually 1 or even none. Even if the first 6 cav also got two hits in, the next cavs all have less than 50% odds of victory. So you are realistically looking at wasting at least 12 cav just to get odds on the rifles with the third round of cavss.
tl;dr: that was fucking stupid.
Wouldn't he average 4 withdraws on those 12? So if he wins the battle and can heal them up, it's only 8 dead cavs to 6 dead rifles. Maybe 10 to 6 if you account for the 'odds on the rifles' third set not being sure things either.
That's not a great rate of exchange, but it seems like it would be manageable for someone who's ahead on production and taking cities.
EitB 25 - Perpentach
Occasional mapmaker
November 15th, 2016, 18:07
Posts: 23,429
Threads: 132
Joined: Jun 2009
Withdrawal chance increases as the odds of victory increase, so I can think the expected return for 12 suicide attacks is between 2-4 retreats. Not certain though.
Problem is that healing is actually an underestimated cost. A retreat occurs at minimum health and takes 1 turn to move to a defended tile and 4 turns to heal in a captured city. That's 5 turns where you basically don't have a fab, and when you are in a window of fighting 2 opponents it's not much different to just losing the unit in the first place. So the fact you are killing the rifles is irrelevant when you need units to deal with the second person who just saw both opponents weaken themselves. That's why stack warfare in 3 party wars is so critical. You need enough units to suck up collateral from one player, kill his units, then suck up collateral from a second attacker and still kill his stack.
Which is exactly why hammer output is so important. Stack size you can measure is soldier points but collateral only occurs from hammers.
Current games (All): RtR: PB80 Civ 6: PBEM23
Ended games (Selection): BTS games: PB1, PB3, PBEM2, PBEM4, PBEM5B, PBEM50. RB mod games: PB5, PB15, PB27, PB37, PB42, PB46, PB71. FFH games: PBEMVII, PBEMXII. Civ 6: PBEM22 Games ded lurked: PB18
November 15th, 2016, 19:37
Posts: 5,294
Threads: 59
Joined: Dec 2004
Did calculators go out of style? I vaguely recall a stack-based compute spreadsheet...
Blog | EitB | PF2 | PBEM 37 | PBEM 45G | RBDG1
November 15th, 2016, 19:45
Posts: 9,706
Threads: 69
Joined: Dec 2010
(November 15th, 2016, 18:07)Krill Wrote: Withdrawal chance increases as the odds of victory increase, so I can think the expected return for 12 suicide attacks is between 2-4 retreats. Not certain though.
Isn't it the opposite? If you have 0% chance of winning a battle, you get the full retreat chance. Otherwise, you get the retreat chance based on the odss you have of losing the battle. Perhaps I'm misremembering or misunderstanding your point.
November 16th, 2016, 00:29
Posts: 2,036
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2013
REM luck was really bad. 6 battles for 0 hits and the decisive majority of other battles were finishing with scoring just 1 hit is unlucky. Despite of the combat strengths the chance of making no damage is pretty low, I doubt it was higher than 15% and in general REM got top 30% of the worst possible results each time.
|
