Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

about "Cost" in Cost Effectivness

Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
Hello Dear Warhammer Fans!

I have read latley some strange statements on this forum, why u should always take expensive high tier units over low cost units in campagne. So lets do the math behind it and see if that claim is true or not !!

Formula 1:
Cost Effectivness = Value / Cost
Value = Powerlevel of the Unit*
Cost = Units Price
* I will not discuss the units "Value" here as we focus on "Cost" .

Lets assume, we have two units
unit 1: Cost 50
unit 2: Cost 600

Next we have to understand, how to interpret the army upkeep increase by lets say 7% each time we get a new
army.

So in math terms 7% is a relative cost and its a compound interest effect.

So we can use a simply formula to get the cost increase after X new armies created.

SingleUnitCostAfterXArmiesCreated = BaseUnitCost * (1+ InterestRate)^NumberOfArmiesCreated

Lets now assume, we have created 20 armies!
Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^20 = 193.5
Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^20 = 2321.8

which is a cost increase per unit in absolut and relative terms:
Unit 1: +143.5 or 287%
Unit 2: +1721.8 or 287%

...and this is only 1 Unit...u can use a multiplier like 19 to calc the full army cost effect...

Conculsion:
There is absolutly no incentive, what so ever, to take any high tier units over low tier units based
on cost effect considerations. Anyone who thinks its better to take hammers over dwarven warrios is
falling into the value trap. The reason behind this is the relative cost effect and the compound interest effect,
which always favors a lower base value.

If you like this analysis i could this for "Value" as well which can solved by either Maschine Learning Tools ;)
or some simple thoughts about absolut vs relative value increases ;)

Important note: Dark Elves can give their Lords special names,
if u choose "army", there is a change to lower the cost of i.e. witch elves significantly
so they can become your baseline unit.





«13

Comments

  • Unruly_MarmiteUnruly_Marmite Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 187
    I...this is great and all, but I don't think it's actually addressing the issue that people are having.

    The issue that people are having is , as far as I can tell, based on equal costs. So 4000 worth of a high tier unit and 4000 worth of a low tier unit are unbalanced due to supply lines making the low tier units more expensive overall, because there are more armies and therefore a higher additional upkeep penalty.

    This calculation just tells you that a unit with twelve times the upkeep as another unit has...approximately twelve times as much upkeep. Really, the calculation should assume equal costs between the units and alter the number of units based on that.
  • SagrandaSagranda Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    You don't just compare unit costs
    You compare how units do against other units in their price-region and then go from there.
    And for the campaign you also have to take AI buffs depending on the difficulty, supply lines, etc. into consideration.
    Disclaimer: What I say is my opinion and not necessarily stated as fact.
  • ImpartialHorseImpartialHorse Registered Users Posts: 593
    The gap in the logic is that you assume that you have a fixed number of armies.

    For a given number of armies, the relative cost effectiveness of both units stays the same ( as both costs increase by 15%).

    However, the actual fixed constraint is the amount of money you have.

    If you hire more elite units, you hire less armies and so NumberOfCreatedArmies is smaller, and hence your total cost effectiveness goes up (assuming units are correctly balanced to be cost effective at tr start)
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    sagranda2 said:

    You don't just compare unit costs
    You compare how units do against other units in their price-region and then go from there.
    And for the campaign you also have to take AI buffs depending on the difficulty, supply lines, etc. into consideration.

    No, you have to compare Value/Cost under Economic Budget Constraints (i.e.2500 Gold per Region)

    Your Budget Constraint then can give you an idea
    what your average cost level per unit should be i.e. 100 Gold per Unit
    ....now u can compare in this price level region units to find the best Value...
  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Registered Users Posts: 1,799
    edited January 2018
    I didn't understand anything, but it seems wrong from both Campaign and MP perspective.
    Excluding stat/nishe value of a unit from cost-effectiveness means that you calculating only how cheap/expensive units are, compared to other units. And in that case cheaper unit would always be more preferable but it's not cost-effectiveness since object doesn't count - only price.

    Fullfilling armies with 19 units of Zombies instead of balanced army makes sense only in campaign and only for supporting purposes (spread corruption, rebuild/capture destroyed settlements etc).
    In reality, you need tools and battle based or autoresolve based effectiveness as well. In campagin value of unit per army is important. Army should be able to protect itself not only be cheap (without battle output value) so each unit should be important to take away one slot out 19. In MP you need also to take into account gold restrictiion for your army.
    So again, in reality you need a lot more factors for unit to fit to be cost-effective including be combat effective in their price and nishe category.
    For example, 2 units of zombies (150x2) would lose to one unit of Spearmen(300) which has better speed and bonus vs Large and 2 unit of zombies would be better only in terms of flanking abilities and possible healing (VC have better healing for units with high model count+2 units of zombies have more HP than one unit of Spearmen), but even there you'll probably lose lots of HP due to crumbling against stronger combatant. And if unit is able to rout - in most cases it would rout faster, even if chevroned, compared to unit from higher price category which means it would become vulnerable and won't be effective on battlefield during routing.
    Basically, in reality you would spend more money on recruitement after each battle, than you would spend with more elite army, since cheap fodder army would have more chances to lose units or even battle.
    So I would say, cost-effectiveness depends from how unit stacks against another unit while having different prices and probably same nishe. Also its important how campaign buffs/chevrons would affect its performance compared to more expensive unit.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95

    I...this is great and all, but I don't think it's actually addressing the issue that people are having.

    The issue that people are having is , as far as I can tell, based on equal costs. So 4000 worth of a high tier unit and 4000 worth of a low tier unit are unbalanced due to supply lines making the low tier units more expensive overall, because there are more armies and therefore a higher additional upkeep penalty.

    This calculation just tells you that a unit with twelve times the upkeep as another unit has...approximately twelve times as much upkeep. Really, the calculation should assume equal costs between the units and alter the number of units based on that.

    The equitation can be solved to answer your question about numbers. just put in the numbers :smile:




  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95

    I didn't understand anything, but it seems wrong from both Campaign and MP perspective.
    Excluding stat/nishe value of a unit from cost-effectiveness means that you calculating only how cheap/expensive units is compared to other units. And in that case cheaper unit would always be more preferable.

    Fullfilling armies with 19 units of Zombies instead of balanced army makes sense only in campaign and only for supporting purposes (spread corruption, rebuild/capture destroyed settlements etc).
    In reality, you need tools and battle based or autoresolve based effectiveness as well. In campagin value of unit per army is important. Army should be able to protect itself not only be cheap (without battle output value) so each unit should be important to take away one slot out 19. In MP you need also to take into account gold restrictiion for your army.
    So again, in reality you need a lot more factors for unit to fit to be cost-effective including be combat effective in their price and nishe category. For example, 2 units of zombies (150x2) would lose to one unit of Spearmen(300) which has better speed and bonus vs Large and 2 unit of zombies would be better only in terms of flanking abilities and possible healing (VC have better healing for units with high model count+2 units of zombies have more HP than one unit of Spearmen), but even there you'll probably lose lots of HP due to crumbling against stronger combatant. And if unit is able to rout - in most cases it would rout faster, even if chevroned, compared to unit from higher price category which means it would become vulnerable and won't be effective on battlefield during routing.
    Basically, In reality you would spend more money on recruitement after each battle, than you would spend with more elite army, since cheap fodder army would have more chances to lose units or even battle.

    Hehe...i never said something about minimize your cost...go all Zombies :smiley:
    I talk about
    Max (Cost Effectiness) under (Econmic Budget) Constraints
    and "Cost" is one part of Cost Effectivness :smiley:

    but u bring up another great issue, which is follow-up cost after a battle.
    that indeed can alter the army cost by temporary expenses through additional recruitment needed.
    These temporary cost effects are hard to quantify.
    But maybe you should check some Lord Skills again and u might be learning that this effect
    might not be a big of a deal anyway...
  • NamedNamed Member Registered Users Posts: 108
    edited January 2018
    Lets now assume, we have created 1 stack of unit 2 and use the same base upkeep for unit 1, resulting in 12 armies!
    Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
    We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

    Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^12 = 112.61 gc per unit
    Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^1 = 642 gc per unit

    Unit 1: +62.61 or 125.22% increase per unit
    Unit 2: +42 or 7% increase per unit


    In total army terms in relative same base upkeep cost (power)

    20*12*112.61 = 27,026.40 gc upkeep total
    20*1*642 = 12.840 gc upkeep total
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    Named said:

    Lets now assume, we have created 1 stack of unit 2 and use the same base upkeep for unit 1, resulting in 12 armies!
    Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
    We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

    Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^12 = 112.61 gc per unit
    Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^1 = 642 gc per unit

    Unit 1: +62.61 or 125.22% increase per unit
    Unit 2: +42 or 7% increase per unit


    In total army terms in relative same base upkeep cost (power)

    20*12*112.61 = 27,026.40 gc upkeep total
    20*1*642 = 12.840 gc upkeep total

    As stated above the relativ cost relatioship factor will not change betwenn unit 1 and 2
    600 / 50 = 12
    2321 / 193 = 12

    but in absolut terms this is brutal... since your economic income will be a constant (i.e. 2500 Gold)
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    The op is struggling to understand.


    The question is not if 20 armies of tier 1 units are better or worse than 20 armies of tier 4.


    The issue is I have 4 armies of graveguard and zombies 30% graveguard and 70% zombies though I find using zombies fun and immersive. I am much much better off fielding 1 full stack of graveguard and get rid of all the zombies rather than field another mixed army.

    Even though Zombies would be fun. They are actively hurting you because of the massive army cost increase.

  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    Waagh2016 said:

    Named said:

    Lets now assume, we have created 1 stack of unit 2 and use the same base upkeep for unit 1, resulting in 12 armies!
    Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
    We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

    Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^12 = 112.61 gc per unit
    Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^1 = 642 gc per unit

    Unit 1: +62.61 or 125.22% increase per unit
    Unit 2: +42 or 7% increase per unit


    In total army terms in relative same base upkeep cost (power)

    20*12*112.61 = 27,026.40 gc upkeep total
    20*1*642 = 12.840 gc upkeep total

    As stated above the relativ cost relatioship factor will not change betwenn unit 1 and 2
    600 / 50 = 12
    2321 / 193 = 12

    but in absolut terms this is brutal... since your economic income will be a constant (i.e. 2500 Gold)
    Once again you are not seeing the forest for the trees.
    If you can not understand I don't know what to say to you.
  • SagrandaSagranda Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    Waagh2016 said:

    sagranda2 said:

    You don't just compare unit costs
    You compare how units do against other units in their price-region and then go from there.
    And for the campaign you also have to take AI buffs depending on the difficulty, supply lines, etc. into consideration.

    No, you have to compare Value/Cost under Economic Budget Constraints (i.e.2500 Gold per Region)

    Your Budget Constraint then can give you an idea
    what your average cost level per unit should be i.e. 100 Gold per Unit
    ....now u can compare in this price level region units to find the best Value...
    Cost-Efficiency is first and foremost a balance factor to compare the combat effectiveness of units from the same tier/costs to each other.
    If the unit costs fit into the budget constraints or not does not change their combat effectiveness.
    It's one of the if not the reason why lower tiered units don't "age well" in terms of cost-efficiency into higher difficulties.
    Disclaimer: What I say is my opinion and not necessarily stated as fact.
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    sagranda2 said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    sagranda2 said:

    You don't just compare unit costs
    You compare how units do against other units in their price-region and then go from there.
    And for the campaign you also have to take AI buffs depending on the difficulty, supply lines, etc. into consideration.

    No, you have to compare Value/Cost under Economic Budget Constraints (i.e.2500 Gold per Region)

    Your Budget Constraint then can give you an idea
    what your average cost level per unit should be i.e. 100 Gold per Unit
    ....now u can compare in this price level region units to find the best Value...
    Cost-Efficiency is first and foremost a balance factor to compare the combat effectiveness of units from the same tier/costs to each other.
    If the unit costs fit into the budget constraints or not does not change their combat effectiveness.
    It's one of the if not the reason why lower tiered units don't "age well" in terms of cost-efficiency into higher difficulties.
    Exactly you can field 1 storm vermin sword and shield vs upkeep of 13-14 skaven slave Spears. That math works fine.


    But with the upkeep penalty it's nowhere near the same.

    Ignoring generals.

    1 stack elite storm vermin.
    19 storm vermin 262x 19 = 4978 gp

    1 stack of skaven slaves Spears.
    19 slaves x 19gp each = 361gp

    Ok so far so good.
    You are around 1/13th the cost.

    Let's say you field 10 slave armies. It should still be less right?

    Nope.

    Now each army costs much more upkeep. Now just 10 skavenslave armies cost 6,335 go

    If you were to bump it up to 13 armies. The total cost is 10,119 which is more than the price of 2 storm vermin armies.
    This drastically changes the balance between the units.


    (I am using the 12% upkeep penalty from hard/ very hard where ever my current game is. )
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    CnConrad said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    Named said:

    Lets now assume, we have created 1 stack of unit 2 and use the same base upkeep for unit 1, resulting in 12 armies!
    Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
    We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

    Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^12 = 112.61 gc per unit
    Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^1 = 642 gc per unit

    Unit 1: +62.61 or 125.22% increase per unit
    Unit 2: +42 or 7% increase per unit


    In total army terms in relative same base upkeep cost (power)

    20*12*112.61 = 27,026.40 gc upkeep total
    20*1*642 = 12.840 gc upkeep total

    As stated above the relativ cost relatioship factor will not change betwenn unit 1 and 2
    600 / 50 = 12
    2321 / 193 = 12

    but in absolut terms this is brutal... since your economic income will be a constant (i.e. 2500 Gold)
    Once again you are not seeing the forest for the trees.
    If you can not understand I don't know what to say to you.
    my dear friend,

    i fully understand that you love to maximize Value and not CostEfficency.
    Otherwise u would understand that you can buy a rainforest then just your 30% old trees... :smiley:
    which means u can conquer more and defend more... earn more...
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    Waagh2016 said:



    CnConrad said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    Named said:

    Lets now assume, we have created 1 stack of unit 2 and use the same base upkeep for unit 1, resulting in 12 armies!
    Whats the cost increase effect between Unit 1 and Unit 2 ?
    We can use the formula, we just learned ,to solve this...

    Unit 1: 50 * (1.07)^12 = 112.61 gc per unit
    Unit 2: 600*(1.07)^1 = 642 gc per unit

    Unit 1: +62.61 or 125.22% increase per unit
    Unit 2: +42 or 7% increase per unit


    In total army terms in relative same base upkeep cost (power)

    20*12*112.61 = 27,026.40 gc upkeep total
    20*1*642 = 12.840 gc upkeep total

    As stated above the relativ cost relatioship factor will not change betwenn unit 1 and 2
    600 / 50 = 12
    2321 / 193 = 12

    but in absolut terms this is brutal... since your economic income will be a constant (i.e. 2500 Gold)
    Once again you are not seeing the forest for the trees.
    If you can not understand I don't know what to say to you.
    my dear friend,

    i fully understand that you love to maximize Value and not CostEfficency.
    Otherwise u would understand that you can buy a rainforest then just your 30% old trees... :smiley:
    which means u can conquer more and defend more... earn more...
    Me and my 18 star dragons be to differ. With max tier units you can conquer a new settlement every turn beat any group of 2-3 armies even behind walls and still not worry about replinishment.


    I'm not here to say the sky is falling. But it does unfairly hurt certain factions. Why build 12 armies (4 groups of 3) that have a mix of 2/3 low tier 1/3 high tier when you are superior in every way bringing 8 armies (4 groups of 2) that are all high tier?


    The idea isn't that high tiers are penalized less or more than low tiers it's that more armies are penalized more than less armies. That means to play intelligently you want to minimize the number of armies thus maximize the value of each slot in the army.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    Cost-Efficiency is first and foremost a balance factor to compare the combat effectiveness of units from the same tier/costs to each other.
    If the unit costs fit into the budget constraints or not does not change their combat effectiveness.
    It's one of the if not the reason why lower tiered units don't "age well" in terms of cost-efficiency into higher difficulties.

    really? is that true?
    lower Tier units get:
    1) "Relativ Cost" increases
    2) Absolut "Value" increases... (not discussed)

    Remember: Cost Effectivness = Value / Cost

    if you hold one part constant like Cost* you can compare on this level its Value, which is a partial consideration.
  • SagrandaSagranda Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    edited January 2018
    Waagh2016 said:

    l

    Remember: Cost Effectivness = Value / Cost

    No.
    In simple terms: Cost Efficiency = battle efficiency/costs


    "Value" is way too vague and too situational to give an exact meassurement


    Also your whole "more armies = conquer more and earn more" is also not necessarily true as it depends on the circumstances.
    Two armies of low tier units may cost less and can be at two different places, but they will also have more trouble against enemy armies on higher difficulties, especially doomstacks, which can heavily impact your advancement on a negative side (or even force you to put 2 armies against one).
    An "Elite Army" on the contrast will often "sweep" enemy armies away or can take on more than one army at the same time.
    Disclaimer: What I say is my opinion and not necessarily stated as fact.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    sagranda2 said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    l

    Remember: Cost Effectivness = Value / Cost

    No.
    In simple terms: Cost Efficiency = battle efficiency/costs


    "Value" is way too vague and too situational to give an exact meassurement


    Also your whole "more armies = conquer more and earn more" is also not necessarily true as it depends on the circumstances.
    Two armies of low tier units may cost less and can be at two different places, but they will also have more trouble against enemy armies on higher difficulties, especially doomstacks, which can heavily impact your advancement on a negative side (or even force you to put 2 armies against one).
    An "Elite Army" on the contrast will often "sweep" enemy armies away or can take on more than one army at the same time.
    As said above "Value" should be discussed in another thread, coz if its complexity, but think of it
    as chance to improve your WinRate (in battle) by picking just the best unit in the game no matter the cost.
    Which most (new) players will do.

    We could also introduce the term of "Conditional Value", which can be defined as the best unit vs a specfic faction.

    I guess also this kind of "max value" thinking is the reason why people struggle with the chaos invasion.
    If you only have 3 armies instead of 10 you are obviousily screwed if you have to fight on more then one frontier :smiley:

    10 Armies are way more flexible and they can fight together to fight high tier unit armies.
    Which will ultimatly fail coz of vigor !!

    Only Chaos is an exception coz of the silly horde mechanism.


  • ValkaarValkaar Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,169
    The economics of all this really start to fall apart when you consider that only a certain number of armies can be brought to a single battle, as well as lightning strike.

    Like, it doesn't matter if you can bring 20 armies of zombies to a front...assuming you're the aggressor, only 4 stacks can participate in the fight. 4 stacks of zombies will lose both on autoresolve and on the map against a high tier AI force.

    And if the AI is the aggressor, they can/will just lightning strike down your 20 stacks with the 4/5 they've cranked out, and there wouldn't be anything you could do to stop it since you can only do so much with zombies. It's not cost effective if it can't win.

    I'd really rather not deal with the headache.

    1 army of upgraded Vargulfs will shut that **** down right away. And keep winning every battle, every turn until you've stomped the AI into the mud.....that's cost efficiency.
  • endurendur Registered Users Posts: 3,984
    The real issue is the upkeep per additional army on Very hard/legendary, which is 15% and very significant. On easy/normal/hard, the upkeep per additional army is much lower.

    The result: Buy as many armies as you want on easy/normal/hard. On very hard/legendary, you need to keep your number of armies much lower.

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    Valkaar said:

    The economics of all this really start to fall apart when you consider that only a certain number of armies can be brought to a single battle, as well as lightning strike.

    Like, it doesn't matter if you can bring 20 armies of zombies to a front...assuming you're the aggressor, only 4 stacks can participate in the fight. 4 stacks of zombies will lose both on autoresolve and on the map against a high tier AI force.

    And if the AI is the aggressor, they can/will just lightning strike down your 20 stacks with the 4/5 they've cranked out, and there wouldn't be anything you could do to stop it since you can only do so much with zombies. It's not cost effective if it can't win.

    I'd really rather not deal with the headache.

    1 army of upgraded Vargulfs will shut that **** down right away. And keep winning every battle, every turn until you've stomped the AI into the mud.....that's cost efficiency.

    1) Learn how to set Ambush Traps and dont waste points in Lighting Strike...
    2) Vargulfs....how excatily do they conquer walls?
    3) Guess you "Auto Resolve" most stuff?
    Which is a different discussion as its targets internal auto resolve values not "in battle" cost effectivness.

  • SagrandaSagranda Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    edited January 2018
    The issue I see here is that you try to define or mix up things that have nothing to do with each other.

    Cost-Efficiency = How units of the same tier/cost fare on the battlefield compared to each other while also taking roles and the enemies they fight against into account.
    That's something that has been defined for games decades ago.

    2 things on the campaign affect it (excluding lord/hero traits and techs)
    Upkeep penalties/buffs (changes unit cost) and AI unit stat buffs (changing the strength of your enemy, while your unit stats are unaffected) according to difficulty.

    E.g. AI Orc Boyz will be more cost-efficient on Very Hard than the ones from a human player, because of the 15% stat buffs while also costing way less.

    Now that does not necessarily mean that the most cost-efficient units are the best in any situation on the campaign map.
    Of course you have to take enemies, warborders, economy, etc. into account when choosing your units, but that does not make them any less cost-efficient overall. The circumstances may merely not allow the most cost-efficient units to be fielded.
    Post edited by Sagranda on
    Disclaimer: What I say is my opinion and not necessarily stated as fact.
  • Glandyth_a_KraeGlandyth_a_Krae Registered Users Posts: 138
    edited January 2018
    Soooo...

    . OP makes a point.
    . There is a flaw in reasoning that is pointed out in post number 2 (let say we created 20 armies!)
    . OP doesn’t want to admit it and dozens of hours of human life arguing over nothing are lost.

    Yawn.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,458
    edited January 2018
    Really the +7% upkeep per army increase at Hard and below does not affect the average campaign much. The costs increase slowly enough and the base unit upkeep is lower so most players will only notice large effects near the end of a typical campaign when they have numerous armies.

    There are several factors to consider in how effective an army is; total cost (including recruitment buildings), cost per turn (which should figure in travel time and replenishment time), recruitment cost, tech/lord cost reductions, and relative # of armies necessary to accomplish goals.

    20 armies of zombies will never defeat normal 6 stack Chaos invasion even if you put 1 zombie army in garrison and 4 around a city and the Chaos armies don't use a lightning strike- doing that battle 4 times in a row so all the zombie armies are used will reduce the 6 Chaos armies a bit but never win and lost 5 settlements.

    On the other hand even an army of 19 Dragons is not going to defeat 6 Chaos armies on its own in a straight up battle though it can conceivably win via a combination of ambush and lightning strike over a few turns.

    The question is how low tier of a group of 4 armies COULD defeat 6 Chaos armies and the answer is fairly low even on VH or Leg though not without some risks and somewhat relying on relatively high tier Lords.

    Because of how rapidly low tier armies can replenish using quite low tier unit ratio in defensive armies makes the most sense and in the Chaos invasion example armies of mostly 1-3 tier units can defeat Chaos invasion though other than Skaven who can ambush reliably especially in their own territory 1-2 settlements might get razed before defeating all 6 stacks for most other races which should figure into the overall cost effectiveness as well as the time it takes to defeat the 6 armies vs doing something else.

    Let's say a relatively high tier army cost at least 5,000 base upkeep and if playing on VH or more with 4 armies that upkeep cost becomes closer to 10,000 per army or 40,000 total (not including cost of recruitment).

    Low tier army cost less than half as much or 2000 per army which allows 10 armies to be in play for about the same 40,000 cost as the 4 higher tier armies.

    We'll say that to be 100% sure the Chaos armies can't raze any settlements it takes 2 high tier armies and 4 lower tier armies (groups of 2 with the additional cost of other armies that participated by block/herd not calculated).

    Proportionally the amount of total cost is still pretty close but the lower tier armies do have a slight advantage of using 40% total budget of 40,000 vs 50% of the higher tier armies.

    Now the question of value is what were the remaining armies doing in this period? Chaos invasion normally comes slightly staggered now but 4 waves of 6 armies means it will take significant part of total armies cost to defend from the invasion. Due to slight advantage in cost the low tier armies can defend using 80% or 8 armies with remaining 2 armies going on offensive somewhere vs the higher tier armies that require all 4 to cover the area where Chaos invasion is happening.

    Of course a player might make a 7000 base cost army which can defeat Chaos invasion even more quickly but also will only afford 3 armies with same 40,000 and proportionally might be spending even more budget to defeat Chaos.

    Where lower tier vs higher tier becomes more complicated and in my opinion favors higher tier more if after Chaos invasion is defeated... 4 high tier armies can conquer faster in my experience than 10 low tier armies as other than groups of 4+ high tier armies such as Chaos invasion or occasionally the AI in random play manages similar not much the AI can do that can really threaten a high tier army while groups of 2 lower tier armies can be picked off by the AI in more situations costing time and money to replace even if it happens rarely a 20% advantage in cost can dissipite in a campaign if it happens twice or more that an army has to be replaced since the opportunity cost of lost conquests and travel time for the newly recruited replacement army to reach the front over a typical campain period of 100-200 turns.

    Keep in mind that not all 2000 cost armies are equally effective between the races and some races will be able to field lower tier armies that are a bit more effective as well the skill level and map position can minimize opportunities for mistakes using lower tier armies.

    Really most of the time I think going all high tier or all low tier is probably less efficient than a mix of some low tier armies for defense with a couple high tier armies for conquests which would look more like 2 high tier armies and 4 low tier armies for the 40,000 cost which is more efficient than 4 high tier or 10 low tier armies.

    The math is close enough though does slightly favor low tier armies since that all that is available and majority of what the AI will field for most of a campaign that there is room for player preference.


    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "Really most of the time I think going all high tier or all low tier is probably less efficient than a mix of some low tier armies for defense with a couple high tier armies for conquests which would look more like 2 high tier armies and 4 low tier armies for the 40,000 cost which is more efficient than 4 high tier or 10 low tier armies."

    Good Point, mate !!!
    I personaly prefer to check if a Lord can be capable of using High Tier Units.
    I.e. the High Elfs can a Lord recruit - "Mr. Efficient" (60 Influence needed) which reduces all units upkeep -x%
    Some Legendary Lords can also make a Specifc Unit much cheaper.

    These Lords are perfect to fight the big battles & conquer, while inefficent Lords should be used as defense
    or just support to win a big battle.

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95

    Soooo...

    . OP makes a point.
    . There is a flaw in reasoning that is pointed out in post number 2 (let say we created 20 armies!)
    . OP doesn’t want to admit it and dozens of hours of human life arguing over nothing are lost.

    Yawn.

    Thanks for calling me "OP", but i am just a simple guy, that helps (you) to get a deeper understanding
    of the math behind the game!

    I know formulas are hard to understand, but i tried my best to keep it simple :smiley:
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "20 armies of zombies will never defeat normal 6 stack Chaos invasion..."

    hopefully not... and the formula aint gonna tellya to buy all Zombie armys :smile:

    Cost Effectivness = Value / Cost

    Zombies, Peasants, Skaven Slaves are Tier 0 Units => their Value is too low even after Buffs.
    Start with Tier 1 Units like Spearmen, Swordsmen, with Starting Cost around 100 Gold Upkeep.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    If I field four purely 'high-tier' armies in a TW:Warhammer game, I can afford four 'high-tier' armies.

    If I field eight purely 'lower-tier' armies in TW:Warhammer, I can't afford eight 'lower-tier' armies.

    The more expensive but less numerous armies can grab me the resources I need to sustain and grow them. The less expensive but more numerous armies can not, unless they travel so far and wide they are not in a position to defend anything when the even more numerous and higher-tier armies of all my enemies come along.

    This is a problem that needs fixing and it was caused by CA trying to fix a different problem which might not have needed fixing.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 16,513
    I think the issue wasn't so much cost but someone wanted an immersive experience, and tried to find a way using upkeep costs to make hordes of Zombies viable for Undead instead of going full blown on Vargheists and Blood Knights plus Graveguard.

    Of course the solution is to simply adjust characters and other game effects so players have an incentive to use more iconic units. Forcing you to rely on Dwarf Warriors rather than lots of Ironbreakers is just arbitrary given the sandbox nature of the game.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    There are multiple problems with a "cost effective" army in the current iteration.

    As Skaven, it is all but impossible to beat a stack of half saurus, and half dinosaurs, with a low to mid tier army. Never mind slaves, fully buffed Clanrats, with caster support, melt before sword and board saurus. Stormvermin and plaguemonks can hold the line against saurus relatively well, but even stormvermin with halberds have issues holding against the combined dino/saurus line.

    The only way you really hold the line is by having a huge number advantage with expensive weapons teams and artillery blowing them apart while you blob the crap out of them. Your two dozen clanrats and slaves will break half a dozen times while 4-6 stormvermin work as anchors, but at this point you can seriously defend against a full stack of mid tier lizardmen with a bit more expensive mid to high tier army backed by a second army of chaff to keep the holes plugged. Without that army of chaff, your ass gets run over unless you're packing an elite army. A full stormvermin front line with doomwheel flanks backed by weapon teams and artillery is not a cost effective army, but it's what it takes to take an elite army on as skaven. :)

    It's not so much that the units suck, it's that the encounters aren't playing fair. You can't kill six dragons with a reasonable army build. You'll need to be able to in order to win the vortex defense battles, beat the odd roaming stack, or the cheeseball AI army that gets stuffed full of dragons because they lost their bleeding barracks. You can send more than one army of course, but that doesn't work for quest battles, it also doesn't work for multiple stack encounters. Throw a second army of dragons into the mix, and anything less than stormvermin is a chew toy. :)
This discussion has been closed.