gengisjon

Great analysis. Just wanted to clarify one item. Even though it is not mentioned in the formulas there is a random component to the calculation of damage. I ran a number of test using the invasion of Poland and all results were +/-1 of the damage from the formulas. Doesn't change the argument of the post but I thought it was worth mentioning [ March 06, 2003, 07:09 PM: Message edited by: gengisjon ]

Tony - What level do you have the AI set to? If I remember correctly the higher levels add exp. Also if you play with fog of war off you will see the computer use the strategy described here - adding a couple of points instead of maxing strength out. I would imagine that built into the program is an algorithm that figures out the best exp. vs. strength combination to maximize the reinforcing of units. With a little work this could probably be figured out since all of the formulas have been provided. (With that said there is always the possibility that the computer cheats )

I did a little research on this earlier. The combat formulas are all in the users manual and I built a spreadsheet to calculate combat results. I don't know if they have been updated for the newer versions but I will see if I can find my original spreadsheet.

Since Norse keep hinting but won't come out and say it - France will not fall unless two things have happened. 1. Paris is taken and (the important one) 2. Enough French units have been killed. So his strategy works quite well because if you leave a unit in Brest (look at his screen shot) it can only be attacked by one land unit at a time. This means you need air power to kill it. If you have lot's of British planes (again look at screen shot) then this unit can hold onto France for a very long time. All of the other French units are in England and cannot be killed. So requirement number 2 is never met and Germany doesn't get the plunder. It may be gamey but it works.

Make that 2 in Denver. I am planning on taking it home and bending the manual to see why there is no cd as soon as I can get these D(*& reports done.

Nicely done. Thanks [ August 19, 2002, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: gengisjon ]

I had a very tough time the first +1 game I played. Got beat up quite nicely. Because of this I did a little math using the combat formula’s provided in the users manual. Mind you math is not my strong suit so I may be off. If an army attacks an army with both at equal readiness (I used 87% for smiles) and experience (with no bonus for entrenchment or terrain) the attacker will take 1.74 points damage and the defender will take 3.48 (there is a random aspect – looks to be roughly + or – 1 point based on some simple tests). If the attacker has an experience level of 1 then this changes to 1.3 points for the attacker and 3.91 points for the defender. This is 25% less damage to the attacker and 12% more damage to the defender. If the experience level rises to 2 for the attacker then the losses become 0.87 for the attacker and 4.35 for the defender or 50% less for the attacker and 25% greater for the defender. If you factor in the increase in experience from winning battles the differential gets even greater. So to make a long story short you have to make sure that you are getting lot’s of bonuses (entrenchment, HQ, terrain) in order to win. (And I finally won playing the Allies at +1 late last night – still haven’t tried at +2).

Nicely done. Please email me a copy when you are done. gengisjon@juno.com Thanks!

I believe it means the settings available when you choose a side. Super Ted explained them once - I think the level of difficulty changes the amount of MPPs you plunder and experience raises the starting experience of the other sides units. I can’t remember the thread name. Try raising the experience level to +1 or higher. I found it makes everything a lot more challenging (and fun). [ August 07, 2002, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: gengisjon ]

I would agree with uping the exp to +1. Makes it much more challenging.

I just posted my strategy in the thread "US reluctance to attack". Don't know if it will work on any level but easy though. Haven't had a chance to play any other way (that whole family thing ya know). Maybe it will help.

Here is roughly how things went for me (Sorry for not keeping a timetable). I took Poland and then Belgium and France. After I built up for Sealion. From demo experience I refrained from attacking anyone else. This kept the % chance of entry for both the US and Russia down. I bought a bunch of air fleets and attacked the UK. As I was doing this I bought 2 HQs and Corps to protect from Russian invasion. I isolated London and moved towards Manchester. Once London fell I moved 3 air fleets to Southern England to attack Manchester and the other 3 towards Russia. The US entered the war, sent transports over and landed a couple of armies. I then took Manchester and at the same time Russia declared war. The US retreated as mentioned in the original post. All I did with Italy was to prepare for Yugo's entry into the war (HQ, tank and air fleet purchased). Once Yugo was defeated I took 2 armies, the tank, HQ and air fleet to defend against Russia. Spain, Bulgaria and Romania had previously entered the war. I struggled for the 2 turns that England stood while I was at war with Russia and had to fall back in a couple of places. But once I could focus only on Russia it went well (again referring back to the original post – I didn’t have to defend from the US). Incidentally the Italians ended up with all of the Russian MPPs because they were in position to take Stalingrad. In order to keep me from having too many units tied up on multiple fronts, I declared war on neutral countries one at a time. (I think I went Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Vichy, Portugal, Switzerland, Greece, Turkey and Iraq). I always made sure to have at least one air fleet and HQ to ensure quick victories. Often I transported/operated the same units for minor country attacks. I stopped playing when my wife came down and asked why she had been gone for two and a half hours and I had not washed the cars yet. I figured my final assault on the US could wait until later. The tech path I took was 2 in industrial then 2 in jets, then tanks. Finally I moved everything to long range fighters in preparation for the invasion of the US.

No problem with a dig or two about my using easy. I promise I won’t do it again. I was actually wondering if this setting would affect (Super Ted - if I used that incorrectly I apologize - I read your post and then forgot which was which) the aggressiveness of the ai. I would be interested to hear if that is the case.

I just finished my first game as the Axis and whooped up (everything on easy mind you). Which made me wonder a couple of things (I searched and couldn't find a response if this was already discussed please point me in the right direction). Why is the US so reluctant to attack? And why do they pull all transports back once the UK is defeated? They had a nice fleet assembled but as soon as I got Manchester they all went away. They also never attempted to assault France even though I left it empty for more than half the game. Just curious. Thanks in advance.

Good point from Aloid. Maybe I will wait for a screenshot before I fly to NH and pry it out of your hands PBob...... I'm in CO so I bet I don't get it until Monday. Bummer.