f0xx
Landscape Designer
What you talking about?
Just do it like me - close your eyes and push random buttons! 8)
Just do it like me - close your eyes and push random buttons! 8)
Flakking?
- Thread starter Turnip2k
- Start date
Fair enough Turnip, I don't wish to undermine, but I just do the same as f0xx, I just look at the inc, and guesstimate using my knowledge.... best way, if you become reliant on figures you lose a bit of the magic....
Turnip2k
Harvester
Nah, i totally appriciate that - this stuff will never replace the instincts you have to have for organising attacks and defense mate, I know that 
Organising defenses can be a particularly brutal process, you only have so much time to get people online and make what sacrifices you need to in order to survive whilst killing as much of the incoming as possible. You made me do that several times in the past if I remember correctly, tyvm
What I'm hoping is for a little better understanding of how the flakking thing works, and maybe even incororate that into how the game is played to some degree.
Organising defenses can be a particularly brutal process, you only have so much time to get people online and make what sacrifices you need to in order to survive whilst killing as much of the incoming as possible. You made me do that several times in the past if I remember correctly, tyvm What I'm hoping is for a little better understanding of how the flakking thing works, and maybe even incororate that into how the game is played to some degree.
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
well i think its a kind of helpful thread, even if it is limited. From a defensive point of view its helpful. showing a rough balance of lethals to flack for incoming that will be 2-3 times bigger than you. But at the same time if you want to have fun attacking your'll probably ignore the 'optimum damage/cost' ratio unless it still allows you to rape your intended target.
IT Seems to work out. that the closer you get to fighting some one 333% bigger than you (maximum possible) the more equally you spend funds equally on flack and lethals (£1:£1)
hiring 50% let 50% flack
and as you approach 50-100% size (incoming smaller than you probably some one trying to rush?) you spend 5 times as much on the lethals as you do on the flack (in some cases more)
(£5:£1)
spending 83%lethal and 17%flack
IT Seems to work out. that the closer you get to fighting some one 333% bigger than you (maximum possible) the more equally you spend funds equally on flack and lethals (£1:£1)
hiring 50% let 50% flack
and as you approach 50-100% size (incoming smaller than you probably some one trying to rush?) you spend 5 times as much on the lethals as you do on the flack (in some cases more)
(£5:£1)
spending 83%lethal and 17%flack
Last edited:
Turnip2k
Harvester
What did you do to work out those numbers again mate? Not spent much time on this recently, too much work elsewhere - will give it another look soonish.
willymchilybily
Landscape Designer
made an assumption. first of all flacking a cyber warrior to inflict most damage against overwhelming force of rpgs. never going to be cost effective. how much damage can 7k cws do really? which shows a trend that this is the case because the flack is cheaper than the cw. hence it is merely a reflection that you would lose less money by having a higher majority of stronger cheaper units.
kind of a stretch but it did seem to indicate this fact.
the next step i took was to focus on the more realistic flacking situation tl's with dogs to resist pa's. as tls vs pa's is painful but ultimately a good battle if flacked well. then i related the flack ratios you posted to inflict most damage to costs of the units. and hence the relative cost spent. i did it on a cost basis because the difference in relative costs of units and the assumption that a unit used for flacking would be fairly priced relative to other flacking units. (in other words its unfair to compare 1 dog flacking 1 tl to 1 shield flacking 1 cw, because the difference in health/armour of flack to killing unit. but dogs are cheap because they are low on health zerg units hence the price comparison)
anyway long story short graphed the very primative results to get a rough curve. if each route that has a flacking unit is balanced then this correlation based on price should hold true for other routes not just tl's/dogs
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk40/hellikew/pictureflackbushtarion.jpg
kind of a stretch but it did seem to indicate this fact.
the next step i took was to focus on the more realistic flacking situation tl's with dogs to resist pa's. as tls vs pa's is painful but ultimately a good battle if flacked well. then i related the flack ratios you posted to inflict most damage to costs of the units. and hence the relative cost spent. i did it on a cost basis because the difference in relative costs of units and the assumption that a unit used for flacking would be fairly priced relative to other flacking units. (in other words its unfair to compare 1 dog flacking 1 tl to 1 shield flacking 1 cw, because the difference in health/armour of flack to killing unit. but dogs are cheap because they are low on health zerg units hence the price comparison)
anyway long story short graphed the very primative results to get a rough curve. if each route that has a flacking unit is balanced then this correlation based on price should hold true for other routes not just tl's/dogs
http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk40/hellikew/pictureflackbushtarion.jpg
Turnip2k
Harvester
Aaah ok I see. My method differs slightly - what I did was to calculate the damage done by my units on the enemy directly, which in your PA / TL / AD case would be :
Damage done = Number of TL's * Ratio of TL's to PA's * Cost of Pa's ---> (Eqn. 1)
However, your Number of TL's above (NTL1) firing depends on the number you lost to the PA.
So, NTL1 = Number of TL initally - [ Number of PA * Ratio of PA on TL * Number of TL Initally / (Number of TL Initally + Number of AD Initally) ]
So then you plug that back into the Eqn. 1
Damage done = Ratio of TL's to PA's * Cost of Pa's *{ Number of TL initally - [ Number of PA * Ratio of PA on TL * Number of TL Initally / (Number of TL Initally + Number of AD Initally) ] }
Now we just fix the score going into the fight (by saying, the score of robo units is a constant times the score of the thug units) and maximise this using that as a lagrange undermined multiplier with respect to numbers of TL and AD. Since we know all the other stuff (and approximate ratios of kills etc), we get an answer out.
So for equal scores coming into the fight (1m PA attacking, ratio of TL on PA ~ 0.15, ratio of PA on TL ~ 0.3), is:
NTL0 = 1.191563736*10^6, NAD0 = 3.895750942*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.35 : 1
For twice the score of PA compared to TL :
NTL0 = 5.379940020*10^5, NAD0 = 5.800399868*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.93 : 1
For 80% of thug score compared to PA :
NAD0 = 4.873100734*10^5, NTL0 = 9.269034890*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.52 : 1
For 120% of thug score compared to PA :
NTL0 = 1.459049857*10^6, NAD0 = 2.730009501*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 5.4 : 1
And flak ratio keeps going down again, as you hit 160% its about 0.
A bigger graph is like so:
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt58/Turnip2k/Ratios.png
Its interesting that on mine, it goes to zero much more quickly than yours, yet still displays the high exponential rise. Will look into this....
edit:
Bottom axis of graph should be 'your score as a fraction of enemies'.
Damage done = Number of TL's * Ratio of TL's to PA's * Cost of Pa's ---> (Eqn. 1)
However, your Number of TL's above (NTL1) firing depends on the number you lost to the PA.
So, NTL1 = Number of TL initally - [ Number of PA * Ratio of PA on TL * Number of TL Initally / (Number of TL Initally + Number of AD Initally) ]
So then you plug that back into the Eqn. 1
Damage done = Ratio of TL's to PA's * Cost of Pa's *{ Number of TL initally - [ Number of PA * Ratio of PA on TL * Number of TL Initally / (Number of TL Initally + Number of AD Initally) ] }
Now we just fix the score going into the fight (by saying, the score of robo units is a constant times the score of the thug units) and maximise this using that as a lagrange undermined multiplier with respect to numbers of TL and AD. Since we know all the other stuff (and approximate ratios of kills etc), we get an answer out.
So for equal scores coming into the fight (1m PA attacking, ratio of TL on PA ~ 0.15, ratio of PA on TL ~ 0.3), is:
NTL0 = 1.191563736*10^6, NAD0 = 3.895750942*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.35 : 1
For twice the score of PA compared to TL :
NTL0 = 5.379940020*10^5, NAD0 = 5.800399868*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.93 : 1
For 80% of thug score compared to PA :
NAD0 = 4.873100734*10^5, NTL0 = 9.269034890*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 0.52 : 1
For 120% of thug score compared to PA :
NTL0 = 1.459049857*10^6, NAD0 = 2.730009501*10^5 => Ratio of TL : AD is 5.4 : 1
And flak ratio keeps going down again, as you hit 160% its about 0.
A bigger graph is like so:
http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt58/Turnip2k/Ratios.png
Its interesting that on mine, it goes to zero much more quickly than yours, yet still displays the high exponential rise. Will look into this....
edit:
Bottom axis of graph should be 'your score as a fraction of enemies'.
Last edited:
No-Dachi
Official Helper
Twigley won this one ;p