An updated analysis of Crits

Seeing as the previous thread by Mathdino was a little lacking and outdated, i decided to make a new one.

As we saw, in order to find the average attack or defense of a unit we add 1 and then divide by 2 for example avgatt 8 = (8+1)/2 = 4,50.
To find how the critical chance of a unit affect its attack, we multiply the attack with the critical percentage and add the result to the base attack, for eg. a unit with 8 attack and 5% critical will get att8wcrit5 = 8 + (8x5%) = 8,40

Now i will post the table with the attack values for the four common ground units, so we can compare the changes between strategies after.For simplicity reasons i will not add any bonuses from general or upgrades, assuming high rank players have the same upgrades and general anyway.Players without certain upgrades and/or general, are surely to have lower values in instances.






***will add more strats in the future





A quick glance at the competitiveness of Lucky Bastard

Since this came up, lets put LB against the most popular strategy at the moment, which is PD.

LB militia have better attack by just 0,1 but worst defense by a whooping 1,1 which is a lot.Defending in a city PD militia have
1,9 more defense value than LB militia which is huge.If you add the + range PD gets for its militias, insanely importand when it comes to Europe+ map with key cities like madrid to bilbao, belgium to paris and berlin with gen. to hamburg among others and if you also take into account that LB militia cost 20 more than PD to build we can conclude PD has a huge advantage over LB in defending, even just by the neutral cities you capture.
Mooving to infantries, LB inf have 0,3 more attack but PD have 0,6 more defense.Defending inside cities PD inf have a whooping 1,6 more defense value, making PD far superior in defense when it comes to inf aswell just for a slight change in attack.LB inf have one more range going for them but i think the militia range is far more importand.LB infantry also cost 20 more, which is really alot and makes alot of difference, in games with limited fund where you need to economize well to make use of your reinfeorcements.
Marines in LB also have a little more attack, but they are more or less irrelevant.Tanks however is where LB shines, where LB tanks have an impressive 2 attack points advantage over PD and 0,5 in defense.Tanks cost only 10 more in LB, so they are not a very big handicap, but in maps with controlled funds, tanks already are expensive, thus making LB dominance on tanks not nearly as importand as PD dominance in militia and infantry.
Conclusion: LB as a whole is only trully better than PD when it comes to tanks, which are really strong indeed.The small advantage LB has in infantries attacking is overshadowed by the double that of PD has when its infantries are defending.Coupled with the importance of militia range and the far cheaper PD units cost, i think PD is superior as a strat, by a large margin.The only situation, where LB could be somehow usefull are games with unlimited funds, that would allow the LB player to spam tanks and even in that situation PD would still defend better.My opinion is LB is a weak strat at the moment and the added cost to basic units, like militia and infantry in controlled maps like Europe+ are making it unplayable and uncompetitive.

Khaleesi for player of the year 2015

Why you say marines and not bombers..

Good thread.

Life is too short to read atWar analysis.

But good job Clovis

EDIT: OMFG ITS KHAL NOT CLOVIS ....KHALESSI NOOOO WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!

Lel khal the moment i realised it was you

Khal add the Lucky upgrades and general comparion!!!

Meh I can't understand the analysis. I am getting too old for atwar ...
What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a difference.

I would love to see more detailed analysis of LB though.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time.

They won't believe us ):

Good so they boost LB and make it more Op

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a difference.

I would love to see more detailed analysis of LB though.

Yes LB theoretically can capture neutrals easier, especially when it uses tanks, but with infantry its a gamble to send same units, eg 2 inf vs 2 mil, whereas in IF its more consistent.
That being said, the thing with LB is it falls under the whole consistency vs performance theory.Just as in real life, using weapons that have longer range and do more damage, but are unreliable and can jam in the midst of battle, are not usually preferred when there is an alternative of reliable weapons that always work, even if they have less damage potential and shorter range.The same thing applies for LB, you sacrifice consistency for the chance of greater performance, if you get good rolls.Not only that, but the high cost, makes it very difficult to stay competitive in Europe.With Spain after the initial rush on Rome, you will be struggling for the rest of the game with money.With UK you will never be able to send money in East and you will have to keep your bonus and/or benelux, just so you can make use of your reinforcements.Same with Germany i think although i havent tried it.Ukraine though could be strong, atleast in theory.

I guess someone needs to try it.But with all the braindead kids playing blitz ukr, i doubt anyone will

Általa írva Acquiesce, 17.03.2015 at 17:55

Khaleesi for player of the year 2015

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 18.03.2015 at 13:03

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a differenc

I guess someone needs to try it.But with all the braindead kids playing blitz ukr, i doubt anyone will

ukr lb is perfectly capable played it multiple times And actually were one of my less not bored ukraine 1v1s all time xaxaxq

Great thread khal, also lb ukr is horrible, basically a weaker version of pd where you cant afford to use all your reins and where you cant stop an enemy pd rush.

Általa írva Waffel, 18.03.2015 at 18:49

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 18.03.2015 at 13:03

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a differenc

I guess someone needs to try it.But with all the braindead kids playing blitz ukr, i doubt anyone will

ukr lb is perfectly capable played it multiple times And actually were one of my less not bored ukraine 1v1s all time xaxaxq

Remember when 2 Lb militia beat 7 infantry in austria in our duel

Általa írva Htin, 18.03.2015 at 22:08

Általa írva Waffel, 18.03.2015 at 18:49

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 18.03.2015 at 13:03

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a differenc

I guess someone needs to try it.But with all the braindead kids playing blitz ukr, i doubt anyone will

ukr lb is perfectly capable played it multiple times And actually were one of my less not bored ukraine 1v1s all time xaxaxq

Remember when 2 Lb militia beat 7 infantry in austria in our duel

Actually I dont. You keep jamming up about it like it was some holymoly duel or whatever lolz. I dont even remember the duel at all. Anyways LB is actually pretty fun to play and the person above said.. it can get like 80/90 units turn 3 in capital. It depends on the expansion.. as far as i remember i had 83 units in kiev turn 3...

The table seems somewhat confusing but still understandable. good job khal

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 18.03.2015 at 13:03

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Modifiers:	None	Lucky Militia	Lucky Militia with LB	Lucky Militia in Gen Stack	Lucky Militia in Gen Stack with LB
Modified Attack Points	3	3.08	3.4	3.16	3.48
Modified Defence Points	4	4.1	4.5	5.24	5.72

Modifiers:	None	Lucky Infantry	Lucky Infs with LB	Lucky Infs in Gen Stack	Lucky Infs in Gen Stack with LB
Modified Attack Points	4.25	4.35	4.75	5.54	6.02
Modified Defence Points	7.4	7.56	8.2	8.81	9.53

Modifiers:	None	With LB	In Gen Stack	In Gen Stack with LB
Modified Attack Points	8.45	9.35	9.7	10.7
Modified Defence Points	4.25	4.75	5.42	6.02

Modifiers:	None	Lucky Marines	Lucky Marines with LB
Modified Attack Points	7.4	7.56	8.2
Modified Defence Points	3.2	3.28	3.6

Modifiers:	None	With LB	In Gen Stack	In Gen Stack with LB
Modified Attack Points	6.35	7.05	7.56	8.36
Modified Defence Points	6.35	7.05	7.56	8.36

Modifiers:	None	With LB	In Gen Stack	In Gen Stack with LB
Modified Attack Points	9.5	10.5	9.7	10.7
Modified Defence Points	7.4	8.2	8.63	9.53

EDIT: I used this formula:

Általa írva Mathdino, 03.12.2012 at 06:50

What critical chance does is it gives you anywhere between 1% and 100% extra attack to a unit, c% of the time, where c is the critical chance. For example, say I have a marine on None strategy, with 7 attack and 5 crit chance. 7 attack means 4 average attack, and to get the average attack added by crits, we multiply average attack by c%, because crits can add any attack between minimum and maximum. So 5% of 4 is .20, making the average attack 4.20, and the scaled attack points 7.4. This is a large difference.

The function of average attack to P and C is then
a2(p,c)
=(p+1)/2+c(p+1)/2
=(p+1)(c+1)/2.

However, we read scaled attack points a little better than average attack, so let's make that

p2
=2(p+1)(c+1)/2-1
=pc+p+c+1-1
=p+pc+c.

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 18.03.2015 at 13:03

Baxaxa.nice goblin or you guys can support the thread and help enrich it, instead of joking, because im sure theres many people who do not know much about criticals.

Általa írva minusSeven, 18.03.2015 at 10:35

What I like about LB is that it takes less number of units to get neutrals. For instance I have seen 3 pd infs fail vs 2neutral infs most of times but not with LB. Also the rolls of LB are unpredictable altogether. I have seen it being better than even IF at times but less than half the time. Off course you need high income countries to play it. I think its quite playable for countries like Uk, germany ukraine in 3 v 3. Also no nerf in range does make a difference.

I would love to see more detailed analysis of LB though.

Yes LB theoretically can capture neutrals easier, especially when it uses tanks, but with infantry its a gamble to send same units, eg 2 inf vs 2 mil, whereas in IF its more consistent.
That being said, the thing with LB is it falls under the whole consistency vs performance theory.Just as in real life, using weapons that have longer range and do more damage, but are unreliable and can jam in the midst of battle, are not usually preferred when there is an alternative of reliable weapons that always work, even if they have less damage potential and shorter range.The same thing applies for LB, you sacrifice consistency for the chance of greater performance, if you get good rolls.Not only that, but the high cost, makes it very difficult to stay competitive in Europe.With Spain after the initial rush on Rome, you will be struggling for the rest of the game with money.With UK you will never be able to send money in East and you will have to keep your bonus and/or benelux, just so you can make use of your reinforcements.Same with Germany i think although i havent tried it.Ukraine though could be strong, atleast in theory.

I guess someone needs to try it.But with all the braindead kids playing blitz ukr, i doubt anyone will

SO what exactly is your proposal for lb ?

@ clovis : thanks for adding to this, good job

However Mathdino's formula is a little incorrect, because when you score a critical, you score the highest attack value and not anything between lowest and highest.I dont know if it used to be like that in the old times, but unless im wrong, you always score the highest.

@ minus : I tried LB again in a 5k game as UK.It was pretty strong, but i encountered the same problems again, namely money, even though i had dominance over the rich areas most of the time. The added +20 to militia and infantry is too godamn much and it doesnt even make any sense, since PD's are are far better and cheaper.Milita range also sucked, but it doesnt make sense to change this.

Right now its not Lucky bastard, but Poor bastard getting scamed, since you pay more and get shit in return.

Therefore i suggest at least -10 cost for militia and infantry and maybe +2 crit to militia and infantry aswell, making them on par with LB tanks.

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 26.03.2015 at 13:10

@ clovis : thanks for adding to this, good job

However Mathdino's formula is a little incorrect, because when you score a critical, you score the highest attack value and not anything between lowest and highest.I dont know if it used to be like that in the old times, but unless im wrong, you always score the highest.

Then which is the formula to use?

Assuming Cherse is right, since critical is always 100% and math formula was made based on any rate from 1% to 100% then actual critical should be stronger, but when I use your formula I actually get a lower value. Math's formula is <p + pc + c>, while your is <p + pc> only.

---

So I tried to return to change the average formula....

If we return to a2 = (p+1)/2 + c(p+1)/2

since you always get the max. attack roll, c(p+1)/2 is really cp.

a2 = (p+1)/2 + cp.

For return from average to scaled attack, multiply by 2 and reduce one:

p2 = 2(p+1)/2 + 2cp - 1
p2 = p + 2cp.

But this gives a pretty high number though... is critical this strong? hopefully I am wrong.

Általa írva Goblin, 17.03.2015 at 19:18

Life is too short to read atWar analysis.

But good job Clovis

EDIT: OMFG ITS KHAL NOT CLOVIS ....KHALESSI NOOOO WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!

ikr....

khal, why arent you a math teacher yet?

OMFG this pro guys are calculating attacks, defense and criticals with mathematical formulas and here i am just ...mindlessly moving dots on a screen

Általa írva Goblin, 27.03.2015 at 06:12

OMFG this pro guys are calculating attacks, defense and criticals with mathematical formulas and here i am just ...mindlessly moving dots on a screen

Implying anyone knows how to interpret these numbers,
Implying Khal knows what he's doing.
Implying we're not all just playing intuitively.

Általa írva Guest, 27.03.2015 at 06:43

Implying anyone knows how to interpret these numbers,

Help is welcome.

This thread is pretty legit

Általa írva Khal.eesi, 26.03.2015 at 13:10

To bad this didnt work out great for you khal!

laochra is mod > you not DDDDDDDD.
xaxaxax jk ily <3

Thank you for the thread and tables. Very helpful.

Khal for mod 2018

Helpful thread by Khal best player in Illy