GUIDE: Doctrines.

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

    • Sewur wrote:

      Commies are better:
      Axis is 10% more expensive and 15% stronger. Which means they are 5% stronger cost effectively.

      Commies is 15% cheaper and deal 10% less damage. Which means 10% stronger cost effectively.
      (unit strenght as health + damage values, so (10%+0%)/2 -> 5% weaker and then 15% cheaper meaning 10% stronger than normal).
      I'm not quite following your math there. Ignoring the fact that Axis also get's a 15% HP boost and just focusing on the damage per production cost:

      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 0.9 /.85 = 1.058823529

      So considering only the damage / production cost, comintern is slightly better. However, with stronger per unit damage and the max stack damage contribution of 10, the strong axis stacks are much more effective, especially in non ranged combat. If you are able to range kill everything and not take damage then comintern would have a slight advantage. Otherwise axis is much better due to it's per round damage potential alone, without even considering it's HP boost.
    • Here is an attempt to include the comintern upkeep bonus of -30%. On average over all resource types and all units the upkeep / production is 0.047688 (4.77%). To do this properly you would need to integrate the daily upkeep over the number of days a unit exists, but to help think about it let's just try 5 and 10 days.

      # 5 days upkeep
      axis 1.15 / ( 1.1 + 0.047688 * 5) = 0.8592092
      com 0.9 / ( 0.85 + 0.047688 * 0.7 * 5) = 0.8850358

      # 10 days upkeep
      axis 1.15 / ( 1.1 + 0.047688 * 5) = 0.72928821
      com 0.9 / ( 0.85 + 0.047688 * 0.7 * 5) = 0.76025328

      So over 5 days of upkeep the axis unit is 0.8592092/0.8850358 -> 97.08% as effective as comintern in terms of dmg/cost and over 10 days it's 0.72928821/0.76025328 -> 95.93%. At 20 days it drops to 94.42%.

      So while the daily upkeep is a factor it doesn't lead to an overwhelming difference.
    • DxC wrote:

      I'm not quite following your math there. Ignoring the fact that Axis also get's a 15% HP boost and just focusing on the damage per production cost:

      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 0.9 /.85 = 1.058823529

      So considering only the damage / production cost, comintern is slightly better. However, with stronger per unit damage and the max stack damage contribution of 10, the strong axis stacks are much more effective, especially in non ranged combat. If you are able to range kill everything and not take damage then comintern would have a slight advantage. Otherwise axis is much better due to it's per round damage potential alone, without even considering it's HP boost.
      Why ignore the HP boost? I count troop strenght as health and damage, so Axis is 15% stronger overall and costs 10% more so it's 5% stronger than normal troop, agree?
      In Commitern you have 15% percent cheaper troops so they would be 15% stronger than normal troop without debuff. Then with the -10% damage it would count as 5% weaker troops because health is the same. So overall it's 10% stronger troop compared to normal.

      I don't know the math on big stacks since only 10 troops deal damage, so Axis might be stronger here?

      So damage comparison:
      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 0.9 / .85 = 1.058823
      Commitern about 1% better at damage

      Health comparison:
      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 1 / 0.85 = 1.176470
      Commitern about 13% better at health

      Counting strength as health + damage:
      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 0.95(?) / .85 = 1.117647
      Commitern about 7% better

      + as posted above if you count -30% upkeep bonus you can add couple percent to cost effectiveness

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Sewur: Math ().

    • Sewur wrote:

      Why ignore the HP boost?
      I was trying to give comintern a chance.

      Sewur wrote:

      I count troop strenght as health and damage, so Axis is 15% stronger overall and costs 10% more so it's 5% stronger than normal troop, agree?
      No, you can't simply combine damage percentages and production percentages. You need to calculate damage / cost.


      Sewur wrote:

      Then with the -10% damage it would count as 5% weaker troops because health is the same.
      You're not quite thinking about correctly. Again, you can't simply add and subtract damage percentage and cost percentages.
    • DxC wrote:

      Sewur wrote:

      I mean commitern is way better at health.
      I'm not sure where you are getting that. Comintern doesn't get any across the board HP boost. Axis get's +15% HP though. Also, besides combining damage and cost modifiers the way you were you also can't simply add damage and HP modifiers.
      damage:
      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 0.9 / .85 = 1.058823
      Comitern about 1% better at damage

      health:
      axis 1.15 / 1.1 = 1.045454
      com 1 / 0.85 = 1.176470
      Comitern about 13% better at health

      Thats where i get that commies are better at health per cost. And thats significant as you can see. The same way you compare damage so i dont understand where's the problem. Ok so no adding anything Comintern is better at damage alone and health alone per cost
    • So given the HP advantage of comintern, does it compensate for the per round attack potential of axis? I did a simple little experiment in dxcalc to test this. In this test axis did a bit better, but there may be other tests where you keep everything as even as possible and comintern comes out better. I'm not sure, but here is what I did. In general, you can build about 12.94 comintern units for each 10 axis units for an equal amount of resources, so we'll use a stack of 10 axis infantry vs 13 comintern infantry. We'll have them attack each other, but it turns out that whoever strikes first loses by a large margin either way. So, we'll look at the lost HP the winner loses when it doesn't strike first. The first image is Axis striking first where comintern wins but loses 11 units (-190.86 HP) over 6 rounds. The second image is of comintern striking first where axis wins but loses 2 units (-122.75 HP) over 4 rounds. So at least in this particular scenario it seems that the axis per round power outweighs the comintern HP advantage. Note that splitting the comintern stack into say two stacks of 7 and 6 units and attacking with both is much worse for comintern where it actually loses even with axis strikes first and axis only loses 107.92 HP. Forgive me if I missed something or made an error.

    • I tried with mechanized infantry 4 Axis and 5 Comintern and Com won with 83% HP so i guess untill you fight with stacks with less than 10 troops you will win as Com.

      But there must be a flow in calculator since Axis army was slightly more expensive and all died but still calc shows that Com lost more resources.
    • It isn't really fair to compare with commies overstacked... maybe try it with 6-8?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • The point was to show that a full stack of axis units is more powerful. Of course, when you reduce the stack size the comi's will do better. We already know that comi's attack potential per resource is slightly better than axis and it's HP per resource is quite a bit better.
    • I think the intent of the game mechanics is to give Axis more powerful stacks. They should win most head-to-head battles. But Comintern should have more stacks in play, because they can build and maintain them more easily. That gives Comintern an advantage in a longer war fought on a large battlefield.

      Translating this to the battle calculator, 10 Axis tanks beat 10 Comintern tanks (of course) but then a fresh stack of 10 Comintern tanks comes along and wins. This goes back and forth, sometimes the Axis stack can survive 2 battles, and in the end we expect to see a decimated Comintern stack #13 that just barely beat Axis stack #10.
    • DxC wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      It isn't really fair to compare with commies overstacked... maybe try it with 6-8?
      with 6 vs 8 comi does better, but that also a little unfair since 6/8 gives comi's more units than the cost of the 6 axis. Do you mean 10/13 is unfair because it is unlikely or uncommon to have a stack of 10 axis units in a melee fight?
      I mean it is unfair because the 13-stack is overstacked, making it less effective in combat anyway.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      DxC wrote:

      K.Rokossovski wrote:

      It isn't really fair to compare with commies overstacked... maybe try it with 6-8?
      with 6 vs 8 comi does better, but that also a little unfair since 6/8 gives comi's more units than the cost of the 6 axis. Do you mean 10/13 is unfair because it is unlikely or uncommon to have a stack of 10 axis units in a melee fight?
      I mean it is unfair because the 13-stack is overstacked, making it less effective in combat anyway.
      more health though and more damage to other armour classes like 10 antitank with 10 infantey
      知己知彼,百战不殆
      :00010164: :00008172: :00002178: :00002047: :00000156: :00010180: :00010317:
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      I mean it is unfair because the 13-stack is overstacked, making it less effective in combat anyway.
      But it seems like the most effective counter using 13 units. You could overstack both to make it not appear so imbalanced, like, 20 axis vs 26 comi. Axis will still win that. Or you could make 3 10x stacks of axis vs 4 s10x tacks of comi which gives comi a bit extra, and axis still wins regardless of who strikes first. To clarify the point I was trying to make, I don't think axis is necessarily better than comi overall. But in a hypothetical and unrealistic scenario where axis always has a full stack and all battles are melee where both sides attack (first strike random), then axis will outproduce comi in terms of firepower, because comi would lose more than their production advantage could make up for. I guess the most realistic situation that would be close this such a scenario would be where you use mostly air as axis and keep your planes in stacks of 10 or more all the time.
    • z00mz00m wrote:

      I think the intent of the game mechanics is to give Axis more powerful stacks. They should win most head-to-head battles. But Comintern should have more stacks in play, because they can build and maintain them more easily. That gives Comintern an advantage in a longer war fought on a large battlefield.

      Translating this to the battle calculator, 10 Axis tanks beat 10 Comintern tanks (of course) but then a fresh stack of 10 Comintern tanks comes along and wins. This goes back and forth, sometimes the Axis stack can survive 2 battles, and in the end we expect to see a decimated Comintern stack #13 that just barely beat Axis stack #10.
      Yes :) The whole power vs. quantity concept.