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

2

Comments

  • Whiskey_HotPotWhiskey_HotPot Registered Users Posts: 39
    Waagh2016... your formulas are indeed valid. Can't debate that. They just aren't meaningful in a vacuum. What Unruly_Marmite pointed out in the very first post is that while the formula is accurate it is not predictive or valuable without taking external factors such as increased maintenance into account (see the entire thread on Line of Supply going on right now).


    Your formula reminds me of the jokes I make with my statisticians at work....

    If I ask you what time it is, and you tell me "It is definitely not 11:52!" you are right over 99.99% of the time. You also aren't helpful over 99.99% of the time.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "your formulas are indeed valid"

    Thanks :smiley: so i get a promotion? more wage? no :neutral: damm...

    I personaly use the insights of this calculations to create a rule of thumb on how to create an army.

    I also have a complex nonlinear adative system algorithm to create the best possible army, but
    i guess sharing this would blow most statisticians minds as they live in their boundary static world...
    "oh no.... my histogramm has changed...thats impossible..."

    thats why i tried to keep it simple.
    I also used the common word "cost effectivness" which is wrong by the way.
    The right economic term would be "cost efficiency ratio".




  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited January 2018
    These calculations are vapid. Low tier infantry cannot be compared in a cost-solely environment. Send wave after wave of infantry at my fear-causing elites and watch as your entire army melts away, look at how low tier infantry cannot effectively besiege high-tier garrisons.

    And as pointed out many times before, once you get above 5 armies on Very Hard or Legendary, running a single mid-tier/elite mix army is much more cost effective than running 2 trash armies. The cost effectiveness ratio completely explodes on those difficulties after a certain number of armies are reached.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    "And as pointed out many times before, once you get above 5 armies on Very Hard or Legendary, running a single mid-tier/elite mix army is much more cost effective than running 2 trash armies. The cost effectiveness ratio completely EXLODES :) on those difficulties after a certain number of armies are reached."

    So what does that mean in math terms...??
    u are dealing with an exponential (cost) function...

    Assuming an Average Unit Cost of 50...100... ...600 and 20 Units a Stack u can create this graph
    using my formula.

    Difficulty is :15% (very Hard/ Legendary)
    y-axis: Cost per Army*
    x-axis. Number of Armies

    *Impacts of Lords und Tech abilites are not taken into account.
    But you can easily understand its effect. You move from lets say Curve "300" to "200"



    Post edited by Waagh2016 on
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    edited January 2018
    Um... No...

    If one army costs 12,000, then 12 armies most certainly do not cost 65,000.

    At legendary, the total cost of 12 originally 12,000 upkeep armies, is 381,600, not 65,000, that doesn't work at all for any difficulty. You oopsed somewhere, big time, those are radical reductions in per army cost over time, not increases.

    The true cost of 12 average 100 upkeep unit armies is just about where that yellow line hits, worth about two and a half of the top end 600 upkeep unit army cost point. With Skaven, you can comfortably build several high end armies(high end being 250, there isn't anything remotely close to 600 upkeep in the faction :() for the same cost as 12 stacks of regular clanrats. These high end armies will massively outperform their lesser brethren even with the numerical advantage against anything but other low end armies. The only practically viable spam units are the slaves, which can actually achieve a sub 50 army cost in combination with a couple artillery units, and provide valuable force multiplication in siege defenses and as secondary armies.
  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaRegistered Users Posts: 2,276

    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.

    As has already been pointed out, the presumption underlying this statement; that there is an equivalence between the same value of a high tier and low tier unit when in fact even a few more cheap units can have a significant impact on the matchup.

    The only situation where such mechanical equivalence could be accepted would be where the units were fighting each other one at a time in a line with gaps in between for recovering stamina, and in all likelihood not even then. ie The argument presumes unrealistic testing conditions as essential to its central premise.
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,458
    edited January 2018
    psychoak said:

    Um... No...

    If one army costs 12,000, then 12 armies most certainly do not cost 65,000.

    At legendary, the total cost of 12 originally 12,000 upkeep armies, is 381,600, not 65,000, that doesn't work at all for any difficulty. You oopsed somewhere, big time, those are radical reductions in per army cost over time, not increases.

    The true cost of 12 average 100 upkeep unit armies is just about where that yellow line hits, worth about two and a half of the top end 600 upkeep unit army cost point. With Skaven, you can comfortably build several high end armies(high end being 250, there isn't anything remotely close to 600 upkeep in the faction :() for the same cost as 12 stacks of regular clanrats. These high end armies will massively outperform their lesser brethren even with the numerical advantage against anything but other low end armies. The only practically viable spam units are the slaves, which can actually achieve a sub 50 army cost in combination with a couple artillery units, and provide valuable force multiplication in siege defenses and as secondary armies.

    That chart shows the cost of adding each additional army per army at selected avg unit price point up to 12 armies. It seems correct for VH and Leg where the multiplier is 1.15 though it doesn't take into account technology and Lord upkeep savings which will lower the total cost something between -22% and -35% for most factions if all Lords get the quartermaster skill and all techs are researched.

    However 12 base cost 12,000 upkeep armies on Leg will definitely be more than 380,000. Not sure how you figured that that as more likely it will be closer to 450,000 or more if several Lord don't have quartermaster.
    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
    I updated to charts description.

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    If your economy generates an income of lets say 40000 Gold:

    You can go for:

    at 50 --> 10 Armies
    at 100 --> 7 Armies
    at 200 --> 5 Armies
    at 300 --> 4 Armies
    at 400 --> 3 Armies


  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    edited January 2018
    So a difference of 2 armies between 200 and 400, and those 3 400-per unit armies will destroy 5 200-per unit armies. The fact that low tier infantry have trash leadership can be easily exploited into a chain rout that wipes out even 5:3 odds.

    Furthermore, you aren't answering the real question of 5 armies already on the field on Very Hard or Legendary and then choosing to field 2 more trash armies or a single elite army.




    I just had 3 50 upkeep armies attack a single less than 400 upkeep army, and as evidenced above, got whooped. I didn't even really fight the battle, I just set up the lines and let them clash. I targeted dragons and used 2 breathes each, but that's it.
    Post edited by MrJade on
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    MrJade said:

    So a difference of 2 armies between 200 and 400, and those 3 400-per unit armies will destroy 5 200-per unit armies. The fact that low tier infantry have trash leadership can be easily exploited into a chain rout that wipes out even 5:3 odds.

    Furthermore, you aren't answering the real question of 5 armies already on the field on Very Hard or Legendary and then choosing to field 2 more trash armies or a single elite army.

    Trash leadership is an assumption from the start of the game... please check your lord skills :smiley:

    Your "real" question shows to me that u sadly did not understand my first equitation in depth.
    I´ll give some time to think about it though :smiley: my may find the answer...


  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Waagh2016 said:

    Trash leadership is an assumption from the start of the game... please check your lord skills :smiley:

    Your "real" question shows to me that u sadly did not understand my first equitation in depth.
    I´ll give some time to think about it though :smiley: my may find the answer...

    You realize that I literally set up a battle and won handily with a less than 400 upkeep army vs 3 50 upkeep armies right? You realize I followed your graph, 3 400 upkeep armies and won against the 10 50 upkeep armies?

    Your entire premise is blown out of the water. It's over.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    MrJade said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    Trash leadership is an assumption from the start of the game... please check your lord skills :smiley:

    Your "real" question shows to me that u sadly did not understand my first equitation in depth.
    I´ll give some time to think about it though :smiley: my may find the answer...

    You realize that I literally set up a battle and won handily with a less than 400 upkeep army vs 3 50 upkeep armies right? You realize I followed your graph, 3 400 upkeep armies and won against the 10 50 upkeep armies?

    Your entire premise is blown out of the water. It's over.
    ehh... ok one very friendly advice cause i really lke your stubbornness!
    please, dont shame yourself with more "proof" like that...
    and never show something like this at university or to your boss
    they might show you the door immediatly!
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Waagh2016 said:

    ehh... ok one very friendly advice cause i really lke your stubbornness!
    please, dont shame yourself with more "proof" like that...
    and never show something like this at university or to your boss
    they might show you the door immediatly!

    You realize I work at a University right? If a colleague of mine came to me and said "I've got an experiment to show that cats can be made able to talk via simply showing them YouTube for an hour!" and I replicate it once with a bad result, I'm going to laugh at him.

    All I didn't do this time is repeat the experiment multiple times, but you are still very wrong. 10 of the lowest tier armies cannot overcome 3 of the best. Sorry.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    Waagh2016 said:

    If your economy generates an income of lets say 40000 Gold:

    You can go for:

    at 50 --> 10 Armies
    at 100 --> 7 Armies
    at 200 --> 5 Armies
    at 300 --> 4 Armies
    at 400 --> 3 Armies


    You keep showing numbers that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.


    The point I and most others have been making is not that building nothing but elite armies is cheaper. It's that once you have 5+ regular 300± upkeep armies the additional cost of adding a 6th army is a fixed amount based on the previous 5 armies and this amount is great enough that it offsets the premium cost of the 6th army being elite. Expecially if it prevents you from adding more armies.


    I really can't understand how you don't get this. I'm assuming it has something to do.with an unfounded sense of superiority. But throwing unrelated numbers up there doesn't really help your case expecially since your graph shows the diminishing returns of cheap units vs good units. Which is exactly what we are saying.

    Look at your graph as you said.

    40000 Gold:

    You can go for:

    at 50 --> 10 Armies
    at 100 --> 7 Armies
    at 200 --> 5 Armies
    at 300 --> 4 Armies
    at 400 --> 3 Armies


    Let's say you have 60000 gold
    You can go for:

    at 50 --> 12 Armies
    at 100 --> 9 Armies
    at 200 --> 6 Armies
    at 300 --> 5 Armies
    at 400 --> 4 Armies


    Now instead of 3.33 50gp armies for every 400gp army you are down to 3.

    You claim to be good at math do you care to tell me if 3 is less than 3.33?


    Let's go one further.

    Let's say you have 20000 gold
    You can go for:

    at 50 --> 7 Armies
    at 100 --> 5 Armies
    at 200 --> 4 Armies
    at 300 --> 3 Armies
    at 400 --> 2 Armies

    So at 20000 gold you can field 3.5 50 gp armies for my 1 400 gp army.


    Let's repeat it for the 10th time so you understand. As the number of armies increase the "value" of low tier units decrease.

    At 20,000 spending I can field 2 armies of good units to 7 armies of poor units. But if we increase it to 60,000 I can field 4 armies of good units but you can only field 12 armies of poor units.

    If the supply lines treated good and poor units equally you would be able to field 14 units instead of 12.
  • ImpartialHorseImpartialHorse Registered Users Posts: 593
    All the graph shows is that those 10 low tier armies cost the same as the 3 high tier armies, nothing to do with the performance or relative cost effectiveness.

    Still, the graph seems accurate for what ot shows, the analysis needs to be a bit more in-depth.

    The 'supply lines tax' for each army would be visible if you plotted a second, straight line for each upkeep value, with no supply line calculation added. The difference between this line and the supply line curve would be the extra money that you pay due to supply lines.

    As the 50 upkeep curve is increasing in gradient at a higher rate to the 600 curve, this gap or 'supply line tax' would be larger, showing that the fewer elite armies are better value (assuming base cost==value)

    (Of course all of this is just about framing coat per unit, an not whether more armies are better on the campaign map, or which units are more cost effective by themselves)

  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    CnConrad said:

    Let's repeat it for the 10th time so you understand. As the number of armies increase the "value" of low tier units decrease.

    At 20,000 spending I can field 2 armies of good units to 7 armies of poor units. But if we increase it to 60,000 I can field 4 armies of good units but you can only field 12 armies of poor units.

    If the supply lines treated good and poor units equally you would be able to field 14 units instead of 12.

    Hence why I did what I did, it takes about 4.5 "trash" armies to overcome an army with an upkeep of about ~244 gold per turn. That according to his calculations, that means that I could field 4 armies of that caliber, and to overcome it, there would have to be 18 trash armies fielded, but the total number is only 10.

    The math just doesn't work.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,458
    MrJade said:


    Hence why I did what I did, it takes about 4.5 "trash" armies to overcome an army with an upkeep of about ~244 gold per turn. That according to his calculations, that means that I could field 4 armies of that caliber, and to overcome it, there would have to be 18 trash armies fielded, but the total number is only 10.

    The math just doesn't work.

    It works for defence since you can add the trash armies to garrisons but otherwise for adding lands which ultimately add more armies higher tier (up to a point) are generally better since as you pointed out 1 high tier army can usually handle 1 or more low tier armies though on VH and Leg it is far more likely to be 1 or more high tier armies where 1 army might not get it done so a mix of high tier + 1 low/med tier army can be better.

    I would consider 300 avg cost army and above 'high tier' while 50 avg unit cost armies is trash tier. 150-250 avg cost would be 'low tier' and looks different depending on the race but would normally be some mix of tier 1-4 units while a 'high tier' army would be some mix of 3-5th tier unit which also remember base unit costs increase with the difficulty level so Black Orcs that have base unit upkeep of 300 cost a bit more than that on VH and Leg raising avg unit costs even before supply line costs are calculated.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 4,587
    I like the idea of actually breaking down and graphing the function. Except the math in the OP is wrong. And it lacks context.

    When we measure out the cost of just using stacks of low upkeep vs high upkeep armies we need to take into effect cpst ineffectiveness. What you measure is cost, given that supply line stays the same. And its an obvious one at that. Anyone who passed college algebra didn't even need to see the graph to already know how it would look. But what you cant consider from that is when it becomes more effective to stop using low tier units. And its the wrong formula.

    Enough context though lets destroy some math. First off what you found was compound interest. Given a unit cost, with a rate of change being 1.07, raised to a value x. Where x equals the number of armies. Your formula:

    Unit cost * (1.07)^x

    This is wrong. Painfully so. Compound interest relies on the rate of change remaining constant. The supply line modifier in your original post has to stay at 7% for every army past the second for it to remain accurate. We know this isnt true. Your original formula isnt accurate for just 1 or for any value where x is greater then 2. Even if supply lines did stay at 7% youd still be wrong. It would be:

    Unit cost * (1.07) ^ (x-1), where x > 0

    So what is accurate? Lets get our variables set up. For our purposes, say supply line penalty is 10%. You could do this with 7% or 15% or 3368507.12984%, just chose 10% as its easy to visualize. Now rather then transform our function output by 20, im going to use just 1 unit. Rather the average cost per unit. Say 300. So a 300 cost unit, with a supply line penalty of 10% at the second army, increasing by an additional 10% for each army past the second. So at two armies we have two 330 cost units, three armies is three 360 cost units, and so on. Say we have 5 armies. So five 420 cost units. Thats a total cost of 2100. Simple right. 5 armies of a 200 cost unit would only be 1400 by this measure. 200 + 40% of itself, multipled by 5.

    The correct formula looks like this:

    20 ( A (1 + .10 ( X - 1 ) ) = Y, where x > 0.

    A = average cost of a unit in the army
    X = number of owned armies
    Y = total upkeep of the army
    Simple.....Right?

    Here's the problem. Unless you're building off template each army is going to have a different unit cost. This is further complicated by people wanting to measure the cost of having a number of armies based on their cost. So lets get complicated. Say we have 3 armies 1 average cost per unit is 300, other 2 cost is 150.

    2 ( 20 ( 150 ( 1 + .10 ( 3 - 1 ) ) ) + 20 ( 300 ( 1 + .10 ( 3 - 1 ) ) = Y

    Save you the trouble. The 150 armies each cost you 3600 and the 300 army costs you 7200. So 14400 upkeep total. And the cost of the 2 150 armies was equal to the cost of a single 300 army. BALANCED! Or is it?

    What is I only had 2 300 armies, instead of 2 150 armies and a 300. Logically they both have an average unit upkeep of 600. Shouldn't they be equal, like the last equation was?

    2 ( 20 ( 300 ( 1 + .10 ( 2 - 1 ) ) ) = Y

    Great that equals......13200 upkeep......where'd my other 1200 go?

    Here we get to the importance of context. We now know that fewer armies means less expensive, even if the the upkeep would normally add up to be the same without paying supply lines. The 1200 is you paying for a wider map presence with 3 armies instead of 2. Thats what supply lines does. But would you rather have 3 armies. 2 of which are upkeep 150 per unit. 1 is 300. Or 2 armies that both have an average unit upkeep of 300, for less total upkeep.

    Lets finally put this into perspective. An army whos upkeep averages 150 per unit is spearmen, archers, and few seaguard. A 300 average army is stacked with Swordmasters and archers. So 2 armies of Spearmen and 1 Swordmaster army. Or 2 armies of Swordmasters for less upkeep. I know what I'm taking.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "You realize I work at a University right?"

    I am shocked...
    If thats true you are either at the beginning or you should really follow my advice.
    One single experiment w/o talking about assumptions and the test enviroment is absolutly
    embarrassing for an academic.

    It also seems, that you cant solve nor understand the depth of my formula.
    I never said you have to...
    but here is another advice for your academic career.
    Dont critize things you cant fully understand... you may look like a fool, if you do!
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Waagh2016 said:

    Dont critize things you cant fully understand... you may look like a fool, if you do!

    If anyone looks like a fool, it would be the post that can't use the quote feature, can't spell properly, and cannot understand that they have been disproven multiple times now.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "Still, the graph seems accurate for what ot shows, the analysis needs to be a bit more in-depth."

    The graph is simplification of an multidimensional plane problem.
    It does not show all army combinations at a given time and it only discusses the "Cost",
    please dont forget this.





  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 4,587
    Waagh2016 said:

    "Still, the graph seems accurate for what ot shows, the analysis needs to be a bit more in-depth."

    The graph is simplification of an multidimensional plane problem.
    It does not show all army combinations at a given time and it only discusses the "Cost",
    please dont forget this.





    Yea but your compound interest equation is wrong. When you raise something to a power you are multiplying it by itself x times. So by your own example in the OP 1.07 ^ 20. Thats 1.07, times itself 20 times. Should be like 3.9 or close to it.

    Meanwhile what actually occurs is .07 increasing per army to become the new rate of change. So .07 * 20 = 1.4. You then add 1 to this to determine the rate of change. You got that part right at least. So 1.4 + 1 is 2.4. There is a massive difference between 3.9 and 2.4 in this case.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    edited January 2018
    No, the math on that graph is still wrong. This isn't compound interest. Each additional army adds 15% to the BASE cost.

    At legendary, your 600 upkeep per unit initial army, will have a 165% upkeep modifier with 12 armies. That's 11 times 15. There is also the base 30% from being on legendary, so that would be 195% if you're working from initial costs at normal difficulty.

    12,000 does not get past 60,000 by being less than tripled. Basic math, people.

    Edit: I should have read the post above me before posting. :)
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,183
    Waagh2016 said:

    "Still, the graph seems accurate for what ot shows, the analysis needs to be a bit more in-depth."

    The graph is simplification of an multidimensional plane problem.
    It does not show all army combinations at a given time and it only discusses the "Cost",
    please dont forget this.





    I love people who look up words in a thesaurus and try to use them yet clearly have no clue what they are talking about.


    If you notice @MrJade he is focusing on attacking you rather than even acknowledging all the rest of the posts that have proven him wrong. This is always a sign of a lost argument.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    CnConrad said:

    If you notice @MrJade he is focusing on attacking you rather than even acknowledging all the rest of the posts that have proven him wrong. This is always a sign of a lost argument.

    I seem to attract a lot of personal attacks and strawmen attacks when posting here. I guess I just have that kind of mustache.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • HelhoundHelhound Registered Users Posts: 4,587
    psychoak said:

    No, the math on that graph is still wrong. This isn't compound interest. Each additional army adds 15% to the BASE cost.

    At legendary, your 600 upkeep per unit initial army, will have a 165% upkeep modifier with 12 armies. That's 11 times 15. There is also the base 30% from being on legendary, so that would be 195% if you're working from initial costs at normal difficulty.

    12,000 does not get past 60,000 by being less than tripled. Basic math, people.

    Thats the point everyone is trying to get at.
    MrJade said:

    CnConrad said:

    If you notice @MrJade he is focusing on attacking you rather than even acknowledging all the rest of the posts that have proven him wrong. This is always a sign of a lost argument.

    I seem to attract a lot of personal attacks and strawmen attacks when posting here. I guess I just have that kind of mustache.
    **** mustache man.
  • knodo85knodo85 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,135
    This is just embarrassing. I think we may have found the most dedicated troll in this forum's history.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    psychoak said:

    No, the math on that graph is still wrong. This isn't compound interest. Each additional army adds 15% to the BASE cost.

    At legendary, your 600 upkeep per unit initial army, will have a 165% upkeep modifier with 12 armies. That's 11 times 15. There is also the base 30% from being on legendary, so that would be 195% if you're working from initial costs at normal difficulty.

    12,000 does not get past 60,000 by being less than tripled. Basic math, people.

    Edit: I should have read the post above me before posting. :)

    Finaly! Someone, who looked things up and made a good point :smile:
    I cant check it, coz i still have to download Tomb Kings :neutral:

    But assuming you are right, its indeed not compound interest!

    New formula, following your analysis for Legendary, should be:

    SingleUnitCostAfterXArmiesCreated = BaseUnitCost * (1+(ArmyCount-1)*0.15+0.3)

    The +15% does not apply on the first army, right?
    Only the intial 30%?

    Looking at this formula, you should realize it does not change the CostRatio between Units.
    Post edited by Waagh2016 on
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    Guys!

    Ive created this one to get a good discussion about the cost function.
    Which should help us all for our decision making process in the campagne.

    Talkin smack does not help the community!

    Show your intellect by proving our/my ideas wrong, so we can find the right solution together!

    Thank you!
This discussion has been closed.