Reinforcement step by step

[Ottosmops]

The manual gives the formula

Experience Point Losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience) / 10

but I think the program uses

Experience Point Losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience) / max_strength

wich is the same as

Experience Points retained = Experience * (1 - (reinforcement amount / max_strength))

You can see that there is a difference, whether you reinforce a unit to its maximum strength at once or you reinforce it over several turns.

Example 1: A unit with strength 2 reinforced to its maximum strength 10 keeps only 0.2 of its experience.

Example 2: If you first reinforce it only to strength 6, it keeps 0.6 of its experience. In the next turn you can reinforce it to strength 10. This means the unit keeps 0.6 * 0.6 = 0.36 of its original experience.

Conclusion: If one of your units has much experience and it becomes damaged to low strength, it is better to reinforce it step by step over several turns than to reinforce it in one turn to its maximum strength. Precondition is of course, that the unit has not to fight in the next turn.

Does anyone already apply this idea in his games?

[sogard]

Yes, it sounds good in theory; but, most times your opponant will not give you the luxery of being able to afford the time to rebuild a unit in increments.

[Gen.Metaxas]

To be honest I do, simply by looking at the change in the experience graph for each unit. Trying to weigh effectiveness of strength vs. experience.

In doing so I noticed the graph move down less if I did it in steps. However, I never bothered to convert it into a formula, but sounds right.

Gen.Metaxas

[Flashblade]

I would LOVE to here from Hubert on this one... is this a bug? Or is it intentional? If it's intentional it should really be changed in the manual. As XP plays a HUGE role. Just try playing as the allies vs. the computer on +2. Watch how much more damage the veteran planes do compared to +0.

[arby]

One thing the manual is silent on is how unit strength fits into the equation. This is the formula from the manual for determining attacker and defender losses.

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

attacker_multiplier * attacker_experience / 2

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

(defender_multiplier * (defender_experience / 2 + defender_entrenchment +

defence_bonuses))

Now, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see where it makes any difference in the formula whether either unit is at strength 3 or at strength 15. Obviously, a lower strength unit might not be able to afford losses, but then again, it might, depending on the experience factor. I've got a game now where the German player is attacking 14-strength Russian corps with 3-strength German armies and inflicting damage without taking any. Why? Because the German army is at 4 experience levels.

From what I've been able to determine, experience plays a far greater role in combat outcome than does basic strength. This may be good, or it may not. I think this is one of the reasons -- combined with how units gain experience -- for the miserable Russian showing in this game.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by arby:

From what I've been able to determine, experience plays a far greater role in combat outcome than does basic strength.

No doubt in my mind either. And so, perhaps here is that long lost solution to Russia's initial weakness, which they are never really able to overcome?

Sure, there are any number of ways to balance the game, so this needn't be first item selected to tweak, but the experience factor plays such a huge role, that it cannot be easily disregarded when attempting to solve the balance dilemma.

[demoss]

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

attacker_multiplier * attacker_experience / 2

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

(defender_multiplier * (defender_experience / 2 + defender_entrenchment +

defence_bonuses))

Now, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't see where it makes any difference in the formula whether either unit is at strength 3 or at strength 15.

What you are missing is that attacker_multiplier and defender_multiplier are equal to readiness/10, and strength is a component of readiness (I think not as important as supply or HQ presence, but still important). What makes experience so important is that it subtracts from your losses.

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Flashblade:

I would LOVE to here from Hubert on this one... is this a bug? Or is it intentional? If it's intentional it should really be changed in the manual. As XP plays a HUGE role. Just try playing as the allies vs. the computer on +2. Watch how much more damage the veteran planes do compared to +0.

FVAustria is correct, it is

Experience Point Losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience) / max_strength

and his further assessments appear correct to me as well. To answer some of the other questions posted here, experience IS very important and can become the difference in battle, so it is something to keep a watchful eye over. Sorry about the typo's, again I was bound to miss something here and there... once the patches get finalized I will be taking a closer look and updating as necessary.

Hubert