Research effects on combat values

[Col. Kurtz]

I have a newbie question concerning the value of research on combat values. Most of the units in the game have attack and defense values. When units gain maximum strength through increases in research does this translate into stronger attack and defense values? As an example, let us assume a corp unit is benefitting from level 5 research in anti-tank research and has a maximum strength of 15. We know its anti-tank defense is stronger, but will it also suffer fewer proportional losses from, say, an air attack than it would if it was at strength 10. In other words do maximum strength increases help all your combat values?

[Terif]

Higher strength points increase the readiness of a unit (3,33 percent points per strength point).

As can be seen in the unit formulas a higher readiness increases the damage for the enemy. But it does not decrease your own losses on by itself. It only decreases your losses if your unit is entrenched, has a terrain bonus or is experienced.

This is also the reason why you e.g. dont need HQs for Russia while you are defending. With a corps defence your units dont do much damage to the enemy anyway so a slight percentage increase doesnt really matter. And you cant noticably decrease your own losses with a higher readiness (your corps have no experience, usually stands in the open field and entrenchment reduces only the damage for the first 1-2 attacks).

The main advantage of research are the higher attack/defense values - a nice side effect is the higher readiness/more strength points (= unit harder to destroy). But it has also a disadvantage cause each tech level that increases strength also increases the costs both for buying and reinforcing by 10%/level.

Therefore it is e.g. not very wise to research anti-tank higher than lv 2-3. When you have neutralized the enemy tanks you can stop researching - each additionally level then only increases the costs for your units without much additional benefit.

Unit formulas (see manual):

1)Readiness = (supply + strength + command rating + combat morale bonus) / 3

2)Multiplier = readiness / 10

3)Attacker Losses = defender_multiplier * (defend_type_value + defender_experience / 2) -

attacker_multiplier * attacker_experience / 2

4)Defender Losses = attacker_multiplier * (attack_type_value + attacker_experience / 2) -

(defender_multiplier * (defender_experience / 2 + defender_entrenchment +

defence_bonuses))

[Blashy]

In simple terms, it makes a HUGE difference, I found that out vs. Terif.

I had never faced level 3 or higher troops, killing machines with experienced HQs.

[Terif]

Blashy, that was mainly because my units in Russia were experienced from the battles before- together with experienced HQs thats what makes most of the difference (e.g. each bar experience from a HQ has the same effect as one level anti-tank and experience of combat units is even more important than that from HQs since it increases their attack value) .

My lv 2 AT only increased the combat effectiveness by 6,66 %, experience and HQ support made the difference .

[Blashy]

It had to do a difference somehow.

I've never had so many units do 4 damage.

Where they pretty much all level 12 at 4 bars each?

[Terif]

An army has an attack value of 4. So even without experience they only need a readiness of 88% or higher (strength + supply + HQ support = 27+ points) to do a damage of 4 in average.

At the start of the war without tech/experience and low HQs they usually only do 3 damage. But only a bit experience, a better HQ or some tech is enough to move them over the 27 points so they can do an average damage of 4. To reach an average damage of 5, combat units need around 1-2 bars of experience and with 3-4 bars they can reach 6 average damage.

At the start of Barbarossa Germany should always now have the better HQs (Manstein, Kesselring etc.) with ratings 8/9. This alone is enough to reach 4 damage in average (each HQ rating point is equivalent to one strength point=one Lv AT). Lower HQs like Bock/Rundstedt are now usually experienced and provide also a HQ support of 8+, so the units supported by them also do 4 damage (in contrary to the beginning of WW2).

In this aspect you have with AT only the advantage that even new bought armies supported by a new low rated HQ can do 4 damage (instead of 3). But that are only a few units that really benefit in this aspect from AT since most german units are either experienced and/or supported by higher rated/experienced HQs.

BTW: your russians had the problem that you didnt gave them the opportunity to entrench or to use natural defence lines(this would have reduced the damage), but the battles took place in the open field or your units were destroyed immediately after you bought them - since you bought your armies/tanks directly at the front (if I remember right) .

[ May 25, 2004, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: Terif ]

[Blashy]

Yep, some of you vets REALLY studied the ins and outs of this game.

I've never looked at the numbers so closely.

I most likely will for SC2, but I came in late for SC and just did not feel like playing catch up to those who've gone through the numbers.