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

13»

Comments

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    Waagh2016 said:

    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!
    Your entire hypothesis for this thread relied on looking at cost in an environment of 'finance-only' which excluded the actual utility of what is being purchased. You were shown an empirical test of what happens when your finance-only model has to contend with the physical rules they are supposed to say something informative about. Your response to being tested is not to address the point, or do your own test, but attack the dissent. It is you who should stay the hell away from a university.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    Waagh2016 said:

    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...


    Your '40,000' value economy is also assumed. But you can not get the resources to sustain many low-tier armies by using many low-tier armies; they will come across multiple stacks of stronger enemy armies which they can't beat.

    Unless we are going to include 'borked auto-resolve' as another assumption for the hypothesis.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    If it were true, Beastmen and Greenskins would be *destroying* everything in Mortal Empires campaigns rather than Dwarfs and Vampire Counts.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    So what excatly do you want to contribute to the discussion, ArecBalrin?
    I already explained why his test was not valid and why he shouldnt do it that way at university.

    Whats your model to explain the cost function?

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    Waagh2016 said:

    So what excatly do you want to contribute to the discussion, ArecBalrin?
    I already explained why his test was not valid and why he shouldnt do it that way at university.

    Whats your model to explain the cost function?

    This is you literally side-stepping the points put to you. A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong. It can be as internally-consistent as you like, but if it can't stand up to an external interrogation then it's use extends no further than it's own border which in this case is the miniscule 'finance-only' one you are fixated on. You did not address this and seem to think that just claiming you did will work.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    " A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong."

    Is there any model that can do this, anywhere?

    I use partial analysis. You will learn that at university.

    If you have a better idea, please share it?
    Of course you can also "sidestep" again, not answering my question!
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Waagh2016 said:

    " A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong."

    Is there any model that can do this, anywhere?

    I use partial analysis. You will learn that at university.

    If you have a better idea, please share it?
    Of course you can also "sidestep" again, not answering my question!

    Experimental verification, since the variables are relatively low, the fact that I've gone back and tested your hypothesis against a 244 upkeep army three times against three 50 upkeep armies and destroyed them handily.
    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
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    Waagh2016 said:

    " A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong."

    Is there any model that can do this, anywhere?

    I use partial analysis. You will learn that at university.

    If you have a better idea, please share it?
    Of course you can also "sidestep" again, not answering my question!

    It's literally the cornerstone of academic inquiry for three centuries now, but you question if it has ever been done anywhere.

    No good back-tracking and saying it's only a 'partial analysis' after having criticised others for not sticking to the restriction of only internally interrogating your hypothesis and disregarding any external interrogation of it. This whole thread was spun-off another thread regarding the actual cost-effectiveness of different unit tiers. Nowhere there was it even implied that it was a discussion about cost-effectiveness only in terms of the cost VS cost in a vacuum. This thread does not at any point argue why cost/finance-only is valid to that discussion.

    I'm not side-stepping: I'm just refusing to engage with the restriction you have insisted upon where no external-interrogation can possibly be valid.
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    Cost is cost, mapping out how much of X you can get versus Y, is 100% cost, no effectiveness is present in that.

    Information that was somehow useful to the cost effectiveness, not just relative cost, of different tier armies, would need to include the actual effectiveness of troops.

    You can say 6 clanrats versus one star dragon, but if the star dragon eats the six clanrats for breakfast, then it doesn't matter. It really doesn't matter when you can't actually face a star dragon with six clanrats, which would be the case if you fought a stack of 19. If you fought two stacks of 19 star dragons, the maximum number of clanrats you could possible bring to the field would be an inconsequential force that did minimal damage, and the two stacks would then be as effective as infinite stacks of clanrats.

    Cost is a simple math problem, cost effectiveness is downright impossible, with variations by unit, and further variation by circumstance. Ironbreakers are awesome, but if you're fighting dark riders with crossbows in a marsh, Ironbreakers are not awesome. They are instead a lightly shielded pincushion, suffering from a variety of problems that culminate in their total destruction without really accomplishing anything.
  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Registered Users Posts: 2,486
    Cost-effectiveness is not unquantifiable, but it would need all the meta-data that exists and presumably CA collects it to inform their balancing decisions, especially in regards to auto-resolve where it has to predict what the result of match-ups is likely to be without the actual event playing out even if it were AI controlling both sides. The fact that auto-resolve is amazingly inaccurate shows that CA are not managing to interpret their data correctly or are looking in the wrong place.
  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    edited January 2018
    MrJade said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    " A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong."

    Is there any model that can do this, anywhere?

    I use partial analysis. You will learn that at university.

    If you have a better idea, please share it?
    Of course you can also "sidestep" again, not answering my question!

    Experimental verification, since the variables are relatively low, the fact that I've gone back and tested your hypothesis against a 244 upkeep army three times against three 50 upkeep armies and destroyed them handily.
    read again what i was trying to tell you.... 3 times means nothing... :smiley:
    u also have to describe your testing enviroment...

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95

    Waagh2016 said:

    " A model that fails to accurately predict reality is wrong."

    You talked about "accurately predict reality..."
    Maybe you should first define "accuratley"...

    "This thread does not at any point argue why cost/finance-only is valid to that discussion"
    Coz it helps to understand the denominator?!?
    And its easy quantifiable, which is a better start then talking about personal preferences in campagne.

    "I'm not side-stepping: I'm just refusing to engage..."
    I see... :smiley:

  • Waagh2016Waagh2016 Registered Users Posts: 95
    "face a star dragon with six clanrats"

    May i ask you, why bring a star dragon to beatdown poor clanrats?
    Who is wasting money? Is this efficient?
    While losing most of his terrain to other rat armies... :smiley:


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

    read again what i was trying to tell you.... 3 times means nothing... :smiley:
    u also have to describe your testing enviroment...

    You are clearly a fool and a troll. You have no understanding of the scientific method, or of any procedures, as the hypothesis proposer, you in fact, must do the aforementioned, and I would replicate. However, seeing as you are too ignorant or lazy to do so, you fail.

    Hypothesis rejected due to lack of rigor, lack of documentation, lack of methods, lack of citations/sources, and lack of experimental design and testing. 00/100, please take my course again.
    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
    MrJade said:

    Waagh2016 said:

    read again what i was trying to tell you.... 3 times means nothing... :smiley:
    u also have to describe your testing enviroment...

    You are clearly a fool and a troll. You have no understanding of the scientific method, or of any procedures, as the hypothesis proposer, you in fact, must do the aforementioned, and I would replicate. However, seeing as you are too ignorant or lazy to do so, you fail.

    Hypothesis rejected due to lack of rigor, lack of documentation, lack of methods, lack of citations/sources, and lack of experimental design and testing. 00/100, please take my course again.
    MrJade my friend,

    Take you pills and calm down!
    Start reading and listing and we can talk without abuse.
    If you want to be on the testing team and play 1000 matches per faction, you can do that.
    You are welcome!
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIRegistered Users Posts: 7,165
    Waagh2016 said:


    If you want to be on the testing team and play 1000 matches per faction, you can do that.
    You are welcome!

    You need to do the testing before any hypothesis can even be discussed. I'd hop to it, because right now you are failing.
    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
    MrJade said:

    Waagh2016 said:


    If you want to be on the testing team and play 1000 matches per faction, you can do that.
    You are welcome!

    You need to do the testing before any hypothesis can even be discussed. I'd hop to it, because right now you are failing.
    Do you know whats really funny...
    thats a hypothesis and you did it before testing :smiley:
  • psychoakpsychoak Registered Users Posts: 3,414
    Six clanrats with spears and shields are the same cost as one star dragon.

    I saw someone post in a thread that they were actually using armies of 18 dragons, and I assume either a caster lord/combat hero, or combat lord/caster hero. If you actually use an army that expensive, you're quite invulnerable against the AI. It is incapable of dealing with large numbers of dragons, just three or four in an army is enough to completely wreck it's battle lines, with an entire army of them, you basically cycle charge them in after firing off a breath attack and the battle is over before you finish landing them all.
  • SagrandaSagranda Registered Users Posts: 1,659
    psychoak said:

    Six clanrats with spears and shields are the same cost as one star dragon.

    I saw someone post in a thread that they were actually using armies of 18 dragons, and I assume either a caster lord/combat hero, or combat lord/caster hero. If you actually use an army that expensive, you're quite invulnerable against the AI. It is incapable of dealing with large numbers of dragons, just three or four in an army is enough to completely wreck it's battle lines, with an entire army of them, you basically cycle charge them in after firing off a breath attack and the battle is over before you finish landing them all.



    The second army was hiding during the whole battle (I have no clue where that "1 lost" came from), so only the Dragon and the Prince fought the Skaven and as one can see, the Skaven armies did not only consist of Slaves and Clanrats.
    That also was without micro, strategy, breath attacks, etc.
    Just right click to send them in.

    Disclaimer: What I say is my opinion and not necessarily stated as fact.
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Registered Users, Moderators Posts: 15,282
    Wow. That is a lot of dragons.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -New Rules: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules#latest
    -Rules FAQ: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287650/total-war-forum-faq#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 21,690
    Thread is closed due to the bickering and the personal insults.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

This discussion has been closed.