Most powerful army

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Most powerful army

      When sweeping across and selecting all my troops I get the hit point total.

      In this case it's 8276.1/8292. Most units healthy except for small group of planes.

      When I select the planes the hitpoints are 149.8/210. 60 damage instead of 16. hmmm.

      Is world's most powerful army based off based off hitpoints or power.

      Unfortunately selecting all armies doesn't display power total just hit point total.

      edit..I think I see what its doing. In a multiple army select it shows all landed aircraft as 10 hitpoints. I will send my airforce into the air and see what I get.

      edit..it doesn't matter. planes will be counted as 10 hitpoints each and ships are being counted as 1 hp each in multiselect.

      edit or not.....battleship 45/45 and armored car 65/65. When multiselected Armored car shows as transport ship 10 HP. Battleship still as 45 but combined total HP is 46/46.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by ender611 ().

    • freezy wrote:

      Is this meant as some sort of bug report? Please be more specific what is wrong and ideally show it in a screenshot, thanks.

      The most powerful army stat in the newspaper is based on army strength (damage) btw.

      This has come up a few times. The army strength calculation, and the top military power calculation, both have issues. They are computed based on the top stat (like its unarmored defense or its air attack value). This overvalues specialized units while undervaluing general purpose units. It leads to ludicrous outcomes like a military with a lot of interceptors (which have unbalanced stats) being considered 2x as powerful as a military with a lot of infantry (which have balanced stats). This is not game-breaking but it's unnecessarily confusing.

      This odd army strength calculation has a real impact as well. It affects garrison strength. A regiment of AA guns has a high air defense, giving it a high garrison value, so it can prevent a city from rebelling. A regiment of tanks has no outstanding stat, giving it a mediocre garrison value, so it cannot prevent rebellions. This is not intuitive. But if garrison values were based on manpower, the end result would be more intuitive.

      The simplest, most logical fix is to consider the manpower of each unit. Manpower tracks very closely with a unit's cost and its utility, neither over nor undervaluing specialist or generalist units. Manpower is also how war losses are computed. It's only logical to use the same stat to compute army/garrison/military power. Simply multiply the unit's manpower by its % health, and there you go, a simple and intuitive power calculation.

    • z00mz00m wrote:

      This has come up a few times. The army strength calculation, and the top military power calculation, both have issues. They are computed based on the top stat (like its unarmored defense or its air attack value). This overvalues specialized units while undervaluing general purpose units. It leads to ludicrous outcomes like a military with a lot of interceptors (which have unbalanced stats) being considered 2x as powerful as a military with a lot of infantry (which have balanced stats). This is not game-breaking but it's unnecessarily confusing.

      This odd army strength calculation has a real impact as well. It affects garrison strength. A regiment of AA guns has a high air defense, giving it a high garrison value, so it can prevent a city from rebelling. A regiment of tanks has no outstanding stat, giving it a mediocre garrison value, so it cannot prevent rebellions. This is not intuitive. But if garrison values were based on manpower, the end result would be more intuitive.

      The simplest, most logical fix is to consider the manpower of each unit. Manpower tracks very closely with a unit's cost and its utility, neither over nor undervaluing specialist or generalist units. Manpower is also how war losses are computed. It's only logical to use the same stat to compute army/garrison/military power. Simply multiply the unit's manpower by its % health, and there you go, a simple and intuitive power calculation.
      Yes that is known and what you say is true.

      The issue here is that this mechanic is cross title, so it is the same calculation in all of our game titles. But for example manpower does not exist in S1914, and in IO1919 it doesnt follow the same balancing formula as in CoW. So just changing it to manpower would not work. Implementing this title specific makes it harder, more prone to bugs and even less likely to be greenlit because the impact would be smaller. Finding a metric that can be used in all games is preferable, but even then the issue is small so I doubt it will be touched anytime soon. "Strength" is also used in many areas in the code, so its also not just a small surgical change in a specific place, but would need to be updated in many places, making it harder to avoid bugs again.
      Would need some new smart average strength calculation that does not overvalue strong single values but also doesnt overvalue multiple mediocre values, both can be misleading.