Patch Suggestions

[Captain Nemo]

First off, I explained very well why these units ARE NOT BALANCED. Dont give micro garbage about the stingers. You expect to micro 20 stingers on incoming bombers, dont think so. I can see that your primary language is not English and since I dont speak yours I will not get into the whole calling me a chicken and hypocrit.
The Tank armor IS an issue. Why in the whole game are all in game upgrades 15%>1 but the Tank Armor is not? I dont want to hear about sniper's camoflage. If it was like camoflage civ bonus then we would talk, but they are visable at 1/3 LOS I believe. This is slightly useful and I myself have used them for artillery spotting. This does not make them powerful just a damn expensive balloon. As far as massing one unit of course that wont work, any good player never relies totally on one unit, and expects to have to counter whatever their enemy is countering with. The point is that Tank armor is useless to upgrade against anything but high damage (fanat) or maxed out damage marines. Why waste that, make it useful to upgrade the armor instead of HP's or attack.

This is starting to get quite annoying. WHY on earth would u rather have armor being strong than hp or attack? Armor is different from hp and attack since it will increase the resistance against inf units which is what makes it beat them in the first place. It's not ment to improve the unit vs other stuff. And it is infact very useful now that people claim fana rush is too strong.

There are 3 ways of aa. Mobile aa, much attack not much hp, but in large number they own air. Stingers that make a quick counter to a surprise air attack (fighters, perhaps a few bombers) cause they are cheap and can get built from barrack. Ground AA that with istar owns all kind of air. Stinger is already useful, as a counter to fighters and a short resistance to bombers. Why should all aa kinds be the same? Stingers are good in their way and balanced, if they were useless people wouldn't make them but they do. I also realise u only play mod tl and well congratulations. There is both SH and DM and the units serve a different purpose in these ages and we do NOT want it changed so that u can have stingers that kill bombers.

First off, M1's are a viable counter for AT if you use the attack upgrade. They cannot go 1:1 vs AT but they hold their own, especially with morale. Leo's are a counter to tanks/infantry while M1's are a counter to AT/Infantry.
You would think that if you had ever played Modern AOC you would know who I am. My reputation is very good, and the fact that you have never heard of me is enough for many to dismiss you.
For those that think that Antitank rifles were not in use I present a simple wikipedia search http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle. If you note the special attention to what is called the K Bullet. It says issued to only snipers and advanced marksmen. I rest my case since it was during WWI.

Where is the realism in a marine with max attack (civ and in game upgrade) killing a tank? Nevermind fanatacism.

By Nemo's arguement Inf>AT>Tank>Inf thats too simple a triangle. First off where do Zooks and Snipers fall in? Neighter can effectively kill AT, and what about the German Tank>Tank debate. German tanks kill tanks at the cost of being more vulnerable to AT guns, while M1's kill tanks poorly at the expense of being less vulnerable to AT and cheaper. The armor upgrade is a way to improve your unit. Just like any other upgrade.

Also it seems I must explain the triangle again. M1's do NOT beat AT as it is now nor are they close to a 1-1 relation. The cost makes the difference as u can have more AT than M1's when gathered the same. Modern is a very complex age and there is no such thing as a simple triangle as it is in middle (where other units also play their part, for example persian that also only beat one of the 3). Air plays a huge role, artillery probably the biggest role of all modern units and I didn't even count them in. Line of sight is ULTRA important in modern warfare if you know how to play it. You being an aoc player do not, Im sorry. I've played much mod tl on aoc and no one have discovered the power of much artillery with snipers to scout. Only VERY few have discovered how flooding works and how effective it is and nobody discovered the counter to this which is infact: SNIPERS. Since you guys have no idea how the optimal way of playing a long term modern game you would not know the power of all units or how the whole concept works actually. I know what you're thinking: God what does this (unknown apparently) noob know about anything of course he's wrong.

But sadly no thats not the case. Anyone who has played mod dm oldschool style would know of what I'm talking and Im sure people like ghost, omega and others who know mod dm would agree with me that the aoc styled mod tl longterm game isn't very effective, infact I've seen several people lose to a dogflood cause they didn't know to swap to snipers and kept massing mortars instead (btw what is it with u aoc people and mass mortars??).

I also believe that I'm more known that you are, for good or bad and u not knowing of me really says more about u than the obbesite.

[Wardog]

I may not be a mod player but its not exactly the most complicated thing. Basically everything in the last 2 posts is completely correct. And to further simplify the matter omega cannot change any civ bonuses besides special powers. So this is all irrelevant, but i still feel the need to reiterate that stingers are useful because they cost gold and can be built from a barracks when you are building other tanks or perhaps AA tanks at tank factories. I do find the idea of changing AA's attack type interesting because bombers can almost outrun missiles, but it may be that way because they are so much more powerful, so this idea would need extensive testing before being added. Tank armour gives a smaller bonus because they have more armour than any unit except maybe Zeus so they get more armour from the bonus even though its 10%. That ontop of all the shit the last 2 people said.

[Bonescorpion]

First off you are ALL wrong about the balance of M1 Tanks vs AT guns being in the damage. The balance comes from the cost, and pop cap. The ratio of M1/AT gun is about 1.15/1. That is exactly what I have been saying. A simple civ upgrade in damage (giving the M1 110+22 damage) actually throws the balance in favor of the M1 at 1/1.05. Test it out. I am not wrong. The designers already made the M1 tank an almost equal match for AT guns. Your defence is all wrong.

Zeus still get a 20% civilization bonus to armor, why not tanks? They only get 10%. As I said before they are the only unit that gets shafted on armor bonuses.

I have always used snipers as spotters, simply put them on scout and move them to the far edges of the battlefield so they dont get seen so easily. This is not something new and is something that was frequently used in AOC's prime.

Flooding is lame IMO. Many people consider it the same or worse as TC whoring. Why do you think that hp's were lowered on TC's? Probably because most people couldnt stand the tactic.

Snipers do not kill citizens in one shot. They take two as long as the enemy is in the same epoch.

In my prime I played ALL epochs and ALL setts (except Liga, just never could remember the civs). To say I am only a Mod Tlow player is to assume that my favorite sett was my only sett.

[孫子兵法]

I am having my friend translate again so there is no confusion.

Stating that we are all wrong does not make it so.

The game is not balanced on pop cap. The designers themselves stated this. It is balanced exclusively on cost according to those who created it. As players, we know this is a naive way to balance things but it is largely effective for Empire Earth, a better way is every aspect of a unit that is a positive or a negative being weighed, you have the right idea including population cost too, but it goes much further.

Since part of your argument rests on the designers making the M1 tank nearly equal to an Anti Tank gun, let us start there, and assume your proportion true, that it is a 1.15:1 ratio of M1 tank to Anti Tank gun. First, we can multiply your ratio by 20 to give an even number on both sides, making it 23:20. When putting 23 M1 tank against 20 Anti Tank guns, we find 7 Anti Tank guns live at the end of the fight! Now also remember that m1 cost is 200 resources, and anti tank cost is 125 resources, and the game is balanced on cost, so for less cost anti tanks destroy m1... imagine equal cost.

It however seems as if you simply made these numbers up. Regardless, it has been demonstrated that anti tank guns are supposed to beat m1 tanks according to the designers, meaning that the designers did not make them an almost equal match. "Your defence [sic] is all wrong."

More importantly, you have not put forward an argument why tanks should beat anti-tanks. Even the common language use of the names suggests it should not happen. In a game you have never played, there are units called Zorbas. There are also units called Anti-Zorbas. Tell me, should Zorbas beat Anti-Zorbas or should Anti-Zorbas beat Zorbas?

Zeus have less armor than tanks, and get a bigger bonus in the civilization. So what? You have completely ignored the best arguments presented here.

[Bonescorpion]

M1 tanks do 50 damage to an at gun, at gun does 57. That simple, it is near impossible to recreate a 100% accurate live test of 23 m1's vs 20 AT guns. You have to factor in cpu targeting, range, first shot etc. The argument is that my numbers are 100% accurate. Do the math, I did it years ago and developed a AT/M1 strategy that was very effective. The point is that I am talking about possible 8 total armor. Nothing major. If you want to spend those points to counter AT guns (just like raising attack on an AT gun) thats fine, you have to skip range, attack or HP's instead thus leaving you vunerable to air or bazookas (they do missle damage). In its current state it is much better to upgrade HP's on a tank instead of armor in all cases except high damage marines. Whats the point of having a stat that is almost completely useless except in highly specialized circumstances?

I would love to see where the designers have stated that the game is balanced on cost and not on pop cap as well. There is a reason that calvary are +2 just like tanks.

[Captain Nemo]

Your statement that M1 > AT is close to retarded given the fact you said yourself AT kills M1. Their ability to group closer and turn alot easier is another bonus that you don't count in, and neither do you count the cost. AT armor upgrade you PROBABLY didn't count in either (haven't done tests on this though). I would agree with you nobody who wanted to win would upgrade armor in civs, but thats because it's only useful in a very rare case and you would kinda have to expect the fana rush. However, increasing the armor up will hardly make it more useful as armor upgrade is only effective towards inf and lets just agree they pwn inf well enough already. Why is flooding a gay strategy? It's perfectly easy to counter if you use enough snipers which I'm assuming you don't since normally when people claim a strategy is gay it's because they haven't found an effective counter other than doing it back. Again this would confirm my statement in my previous post.

Whats the point of having a stat that is almost completely useless except in highly specialized circumstances?

Whats the point in asking this question? Either of these upgrades are going to be the stronger and as it is now HP is the one except when tanks fight inf. Making armor better overall than HP would outrule HP in all situations. As it is now at least armor is useful for one thing, although I wouldn't recommend using it. Do you love armor btw since you really just want that to be useful vs more than just inf? The armor is MENT to be only effective vs inf.

Btw I never said u didn't play other ages or setts, but if you haven't played eec you haven't played mod dm

[taco]

a gay strat, which is fairly hard to beat, is tc whoring, or mid(no patch) seige tower whoring as well. i rest my case hehehe

[Bonescorpion]

Actually the Tank turret turns faster then the AT gun can turn itself. M1 beats AT with a simple attack upgrade in a controlled enviroment, it is a viable counter if you are going tank and your opponent is making some AT. Now AT does defeat M1 but not in a way that it beats the German Tank, and its advantage is more in its cost then its damage. To improve the upgrade percentage of armor would make a tank less vulnerable to AT fire, just like you upgrade HP's on another ranged infantry to protect them against other units. Its to improve their effectiveness. Any tank already has a drawback for cost and population, they should not be punished for being a "Tank" that has a specific unit designed to kill it. AT guns kill other AT guns effectively, they also kill buildings at a reasonable clip and do base damage against ALL infantry. AT guns are a very successful counter to MGunners because the Gun armor on AT guns blocks the majority of the low gunners damage. Just because a unit is named AntiTank does not mean that its only use is to kill Tanks.

How do you know the armor is only meant to be effective vs infantry. It is not effective against Bazookas because they do missle damage. Fanatacism wasnt introduced until AOC (IIRC). I find it hard to believe that a tank would be given armor specifically for countering marines, doughboys when the designers could just make the unit have an awful multiplier, similar to what fighter bombers have against AA.

As far as flooding, i find it a poor tactic because it takes advantage of the games poor targeting system. You cannot set your units to fire on only military units. Yes you can micro, but the fact that somebody is taking advantage of a flaw in the game is in the grey area of fair gaming. Its not cheating, but to me its "Bad Manners".

[Ghost]

Blah blah blah so what exactly do you want in the next patch? A boost to tank armor? Gun armor on tanks is supposed to help protect tanks from infantry (doughboy/marine) fire, NOT from EVERYTHING fire. I'm more than willing to bet my life that this was the game developer's intention. It already does this effectively. As you already mentioned there is the case of high attack marines. This is the SAME EXACT CASE in Indy with Imps vs. Grens. There's a trade-off here, just fucking accept it.

[孫子兵法]

M1 tanks do 50 damage to an at gun, at gun does 57. That simple, it is near impossible to recreate a 100% accurate live test of 23 m1's vs 20 AT guns. You have to factor in cpu targeting, range, first shot etc. The argument is that my numbers are 100% accurate.

It's "nearly impossible" to recreate such a test, but you are so incredibly skilled at mathematical modeling and have such immense knowledge of the game that you have been able to create a "100% accurate" mathematical model for any situation involving Anti Tanks and M1 Tanks in Empire Earth?

Well, let's see it then--show us that your numbers are 100% accurate. If that is "the argument", then I suggest you show evidence to support it. So far you have done nothing except merely state experimental evidence must be wrong because there will always be some amount of error in it, and then state that you are completely correct without providing any evidence for that. More importantly, even if the testable evidence I presented, which is repeatable and verifiable by every person reading this, was entirely invalid (which you have also NOT demonstrated, merely stated the obvious that there is some degree of error as with anything), this does not say anything about the merit of correctness of your argument and/or assertions, because such arguments are certainly do not represent a dichotomy.

You are making positive claims. In fact, you are making ridiculous positive claims. Provide positive evidence to support your claims. How about your mathematical model for starters? Maybe your math degrees? Any peer reviewed articles in mathematics journals (surely, someone that is THAT skilled that they can create a "100% accurate" mathematical model in their spare time for a game they play must have at least one published article)?

I could conclude my reply here, but I shall continue.

Whats the point of having a stat that is almost completely useless except in highly specialized circumstances?

What's the point in changing such a statistic? Why do you care? If your argument is that it would lead to a deeper, more interesting, and more competitive game then that should be what you are arguing.

Further, why are you not also advocating changes to every single unit that has an armor statistic that absolutely sucks? It seems to a keen observer that it's merely because you want the bonus given in the civilization to be equal--everything else gets 20% armor bonus, therefore tanks should too.

If this were really about having a statistic that is "almost completely useless except in highly specialized circumstances", you'd be arguing a very large amount of the armor bonuses in the entire game, as very many fall into that definition, and a few go even further in the the land of "utterly useless in any real, remotely competitive game".

I will also say, at this point you have utterly failed to answer an important question posed to you--why on earth should a tank beat an anti-tank based on the plain language alone? It does not make any sense, at all, and you surely know this which is why you haven't addressed this point directly. Zorbas versus Anti-Zorbas, what wins?

I would love to see where the designers have stated that the game is balanced on cost and not on pop cap as well. There is a reason that calvary are +2 just like tanks.

These statements by the designers almost fall under the "common knowledge" category for many truly old players of the game. Either way, I cannot provide you with the direct statements, you'll either have to take my word for it or simply ignore this point because I can present no undeniable evidence for those statements to you.

Perhaps this reason is that it takes two people to crew a tank, and with a cavalry archer you have both the horse and the rider?

It is interesting to point out a very obvious bias in your observations regarding the reasons for why things are the way they are. I'm sure anyone who reads your posts can spot it.

How do you know the armor is only meant to be effective vs infantry. It is not effective against Bazookas because they do missle damage. Fanatacism wasnt introduced until AOC (IIRC). I find it hard to believe that a tank would be given armor specifically for countering marines, doughboys when the designers could just make the unit have an awful multiplier, similar to what fighter bombers have against AA.

It doesn't matter. Maybe they were like, "we better give tanks some armor, because they're armored in the real world", and then just gave them their armor because of that, never touched that statistic at all, and adjusted multipliers and other statistics around that. Unless they ever stated it, or there is still a way to ask them, there's no way to find out with certainty too.

Then again, it still doesn't matter. Why tanks have armor is not important when discussing the role of tanks and/or the merits of changing that armor in any way. Clearly, they have armor. Clearly, the armor they have does the thing it is supposed to do against everything it's supposed to do it against, such as Anti Tanks. So, it works against anti tanks but isn't amazing against them or extremely noticeable, or what? None are even remotely good arguments for changing it.

Your arguments are frequently not within any context that even matters. Targeting your arguments to things regarding actual game play and not speculative yet practically-unknowable intentions of the designers on something that doesn't have anything at all to do with good game play would probably be a good idea.

---

I am most likely finished responding to you, unless you significantly raise the bar with your arguments. The relevant ones you have thus far presented have either been well countered or utterly eviscerated, and the same holds true for the irrelevant ones that have also been addressed.

Despite this, you continue on, without even seemingly evaluating your own arguments critically or realizing that some of them are demonstrably stupid and/or wrong, while also generally ignoring the most relevant critiques, questions, and statements from those that are disagreeing with you in favor of responding to their absolute weakest arguments or to things that were never even intended to be a coherent well-reasoned knowledgeable argument in the first place.

[Captain Nemo]

Actually the Tank turret turns faster then the AT gun can turn itself.

As far as flooding, i find it a poor tactic because it takes advantage of the games poor targeting system. You cannot set your units to fire on only military units. Yes you can micro, but the fact that somebody is taking advantage of a flaw in the game is in the grey area of fair gaming. Its not cheating, but to me its "Bad Manners".

Oh oh... As far as I remember AT turn just when u want them to just like marines and other units whereas tanks have to turn the turret BEFORE moving and therefor they're slower in turning. Hit and run is no good tactic when using tanks, wonder why.
.
Flooding is poor why again? Poor targeting system? You don't think artillery was ment to take some time to hit their target once fired? A flaw in the game? Whats a flaw in the game? That artillery/mortars don't hit straight away or that other units can't be told not to hit cits, dogs etc? Only noobs would flood with cits and dogs (unless they're doing it for fun) and YES those units are extremely bad at flooding because they're either slow or have very little HP. Using them for flooding would be waste of food and pop cap and wouldn't be useful.

And btw with attack upgrade snipers do kill cits in one hit.

And yes taco I agree. Thats why those things were concidered in the patch. So were zooks though but for more than just the flooding reason.

and btw very well said chinese dude with the super translator who does seem a little familiar

[Bonescorpion]

The damage that an M1 does vs an AT Gun is 50, the damage that an AT gun does vs an M1 is 57, there is no argument there, its FACT. Test it out, dont give me this crap of 20 vs 20. There are too many variables in game, range, AI autotargeting (I have done tests where the dumb AI ran away instead of firing) to just throw down a bunch of units and see who wins. Its a matter of probabilites. Just as simple as flipping a coin 20 times. You should get 10 on one side, and 10 on another. The chance is 50%, but that in no way means that you will get that exact result. The easiest controlled test is 1 v 1. I did have math based off of 10 v 10, but unfortunately that is lost on the old AI website that is long gone.



Every single civ bonus with the exception of Tanks get a 20% armor bonus, every other single unit in the game gets an ingame upgrade of 15%>1 except the tank armor bonus. Why would this happen? On purpose or accidental? My argument is that its accidental, other peoples arguments are that it was purposeful. When I argued that M1 tanks could beat AT guns, all I received was criticism, without proof. The controlled test that was offered was a large scale 20 vs 20 battle. Too many factors come into play like I said before, range, AI autotargeting etc. I just tested out 20 M1's vs 20 AT guns. I did not lose a single tank, do I think that is a correct outcome? Nope. I think that because I directed all fire onto a single AT gun (ala micro) and that the AT was controlled by an inferior AI I was able to throw off predicted results. I also did the same test with AT guns vs M1 tanks and came up with a similar result of not losing a single unit! Same problem its to easy to outmicro the dumb AI. The best I have offered is a simple 1 vs 1 ratio based on the in game damage of both units unupgraded. At this point I have only put one upgrade into play and that is the civ bonus of attack for tanks. It throws the 1 vs 1 ratio of M1 vs AT gun into the M1's favor. I have not accounted for AT gun bonuses or upgrades, they throw the equation back in favor of AT guns. The player should be allowed to counter AT guns to an extent with gun armor. This would make them vulnerable to the German tank (they have a very large attack bonus vs M1's). This is the choice that a player should be offered. Its offered with the same percentage on all other highly armored units, why shouldnt it be offered on Tanks?
You are correct that I have not accounted for cost. I find this to be an interesting point, but at the same time they require different resources. Unfortunatly I do not have the gathering rates of Wood, Iron, Gold, Food, that as well was on the old AI site . However IIRC Gold and Iron receive 5 upgrades through the ages up to modern (15% improved rate, ironic number) and food gets 4, Wood gets 3 I believe. Assuming they start with the same rates, this would mean food is easier to gather then wood and gold and iron are easier to gather then food or wood, thus making the resources have different value. This is a difficult argument simply because you now have to factor in the different settings and gameplay. The more the starting resources the less important the gather rates (to start anyways). I honestly am not a fan of DM mostly because it only uses a percentage of the game to play. Resource gathering takes a back seat to the physical battle. SH and Tlow a lot depends on your economy. I am not bashing DM, its simply something that I dont enjoy.

I have been countered that the designers have specified that the game is balanced on cost. When I objected the argument changed to all old ee players know this. I am an old EE player, I dont consider this fact. Kinda vague. I think cost IS a factor, but not the only one.

[Captain Nemo]

The damage that an M1 does vs an AT Gun is 50, the damage that an AT gun does vs an M1 is 57, there is no argument there, its FACT. Test it out, dont give me this crap of 20 vs 20. There are too many variables in game, range, AI autotargeting (I have done tests where the dumb AI ran away instead of firing) to just throw down a bunch of units and see who wins. Its a matter of probabilites. Just as simple as flipping a coin 20 times. You should get 10 on one side, and 10 on another. The chance is 50%, but that in no way means that you will get that exact result. The easiest controlled test is 1 v 1. I did have math based off of 10 v 10, but unfortunately that is lost on the old AI website that is long gone.



Every single civ bonus with the exception of Tanks get a 20% armor bonus, every other single unit in the game gets an ingame upgrade of 15%>1 except the tank armor bonus. Why would this happen? On purpose or accidental? My argument is that its accidental, other peoples arguments are that it was purposeful. When I argued that M1 tanks could beat AT guns, all I received was criticism, without proof. The controlled test that was offered was a large scale 20 vs 20 battle. Too many factors come into play like I said before, range, AI autotargeting etc. I just tested out 20 M1's vs 20 AT guns. I did not lose a single tank, do I think that is a correct outcome? Nope. I think that because I directed all fire onto a single AT gun (ala micro) and that the AT was controlled by an inferior AI I was able to throw off predicted results. I also did the same test with AT guns vs M1 tanks and came up with a similar result of not losing a single unit! Same problem its to easy to outmicro the dumb AI.

LOOOL this is where I stop reading omfg. You tested it vs a comp? Anyone who played this game more than a couple of weeks would know that you can't test things vs a comp the outcome just isn't close to reality the units are made weaker if u choose an easy comp omfg I can't believe this lol. And btw when someone has 7 survivors in a 23 vs 20 situation (tested in a non stupid way lol) it's a very strong arguement that AT is stronger in that case and of course the units have same ups (or none) so they're equally ranged. Again AT's ability to group closer will make them even stronger in such an example.

Read a little furhter and:

Assuming they start with the same rates

Have you even played this game? Food is alot faster than anything else especially hunt gives the most income.

I honestly am not a fan of DM mostly because it only uses a percentage of the game to play. Resource gathering takes a back seat to the physical battle. SH and Tlow a lot depends on your economy. I am not bashing DM, its simply something that I dont enjoy.

Try not to speak of a setting and how it's played when you've never actually done so. You're again assuming that because you start with alot you're not going to need more ress. Again a huge fail.

Edit: Did a small test on gather rates and found that it takes about 1f11 to get 15 gold (no ups) and 0.35-0.40f11 to get 15 wood. Given the fact AT cost 55 gold and 70 wood it would make it even easier to get more AT + you wouldn't have to spend food on it so it becomes easier to boom. Cost is of course concidered in the balanced and so is pop cap. Units ups of course are too.

[Bonescorpion]

Did you read, I said I know that is not an accurate account of what would happen. I have said all along how poor the AI is. I wish I still had that multiplier from the old prima guide be easier to give multipliers and why damage is what it is. Long gone and hard to find
I know that DM has resource management after the initial spend off. I am not that oblivious. Because I dont enjoy it does not mean that I havent played it. Its just not a setting are search for.
Spend wood, that means you have no material for farms, buildings, settlements(tcs) etc. Try and boom w/o those. I find it more difficult to boom with a shortage of wood then with a shortage of food, simply because a citizen is much cheaper then a building. Without both you are crippled hence an eco raid of course.
I freely admitted that I no longer have the gather rates, I did a similar test on food and found about 30 seconds to gather food from an animal (no civ bonus) and similar rate to yours for wood and from a forage patch (40 seconds). I am going to assume a similar rate for iron.

At this point I have dispatched an Email to Albert Meranda from Mad Doc software. While I am aware that Mad Doc only did the expansion and EE II and III. Possibly he could give us some insight into balancing.

Damn email bounced, guess he gave me his business card for nothing at EE 3 University. Well I guess that throws that out the window, I dont think calling him would be very polite on something as trivial as this debate.

[孫子兵法]

Bonescorpion, you keep failing to address the most important parts of people's posts. Why? Is it possible you cannot offer a counter to the best arguments against your position presented?

The damage that an M1 does vs an AT Gun is 50, the damage that an AT gun does vs an M1 is 57, there is no argument there, its FACT.

No. The damage done obviously depends on the civilization bonuses on attack and armor for both units, as well as the upgrades on attack and armor for both units. There are many possible combination here.

It is only a fact when the circumstances are exactly as you assume they will be.

Test it out, dont give me this crap of 20 vs 20. There are too many variables in game, range, AI autotargeting (I have done tests where the dumb AI ran away instead of firing) to just throw down a bunch of units and see who wins. Its a matter of probabilites. Just as simple as flipping a coin 20 times. You should get 10 on one side, and 10 on another. The chance is 50%, but that in no way means that you will get that exact result. The easiest controlled test is 1 v 1. I did have math based off of 10 v 10, but unfortunately that is lost on the old AI website that is long gone.

You utter fool. You tested against computers, and more importantly, computers that didn't have such behaviors disabled?

I can certainly buy testing against medium computers in the scenario editor with all ai behaviors turned off, with the units you're testing against all placed so range is not a factor, nor is turning time, et cetera, then not microing at all, and repeating this test with multiple groups of units placed in the same fashion over and over and over again and averaging the results. This is a fairly accurate way to control for the variables. It seems like your "100% accurate" model was derived from situations that don't even control for those variables as best you can (and there is no way to control for them entirely)--I'm not even sure you were facing a medium computer.

Either way, the claim your model was "100% accurate" is absolutely false based on everything you have stated. Stop making shit up.

Every single civ bonus with the exception of Tanks get a 20% armor bonus, every other single unit in the game gets an ingame upgrade of 15%>1 except the tank armor bonus. Why would this happen? On purpose or accidental? My argument is that its accidental, other peoples arguments are that it was purposeful.

I thought your argument was your numbers were 100% accurate?

Anyway, as you clearly would have seen if you read my post, it doesn't matter one iota if it was accidental or not. The question isn't whether or not it's an accident. It is whether or not the change would be good for the game.

When I argued that M1 tanks could beat AT guns, all I received was criticism, without proof.

You were the one who put forward the claim. You provided no evidence or proof.

It is not our burden to disprove your arguments, it is your burden to prove them. You have utterly failed at doing so.

The criticism is well deserved, as not only have you failed to present proof, what you have offered has largely been demonstrably stupid, wrong, or both.

You are not entitled to respect, or people liking what you are saying simply because you think it or say it. Deal with it.

The controlled test that was offered was a large scale 20 vs 20 battle. Too many factors come into play like I said before, range, AI autotargeting etc.

No, it was 23 vs 20, taking from your own numbers of how many m1 tanks were exactly equivalent to an anti tank from your posts, and multiplying to get two whole numbers so that it could be tested. Guess what, the numbers you provided, when repeatedly tested while controlling far better for the variables than you even know how to to (as admitted earlier) versus a medium computer, and when tested against a human, repeatedly give roughly the same result I described. There is some variation, obviously! However, it's not that much. Go run the test 100 times. Run it 500 times. Run it 1000 times. You'll get a result that is extremely close to what I received in all the times I ran it. Why will you get this? Because despite there being a margin of error, it is possible to minimize it to a point where it is so small you can make statements that are accurate to a relatively high degree.

Guess what doing this test shows? YOUR NUMBERS that YOU STATED WERE CORRECT are absolute and total bullshit that you either made up, or really did create but did so in an utterly retarded manner. This happened several posts ago, and you still haven't seemed to realize this was the point of the 23 vs 20 test, even though it was explicitly stated this was the point of it.

I just tested out 20 M1's vs 20 AT guns. I did not lose a single tank, do I think that is a correct outcome? Nope. I think that because I directed all fire onto a single AT gun (ala micro) and that the AT was controlled by an inferior AI I was able to throw off predicted results.

Gee, what an honest way to test. Most certainly against an easy computer, too.

Don't disable the bad AI actions. Don't refrain from microing against the AI which cannot do so. Don't run multiple tests so you get a more accurate result. Yeah, surely this will give a good test!

The more you speak, the more it is clear you know next to nothing about what you claim to be entirely correct on.

I also did the same test with AT guns vs M1 tanks and came up with a similar result of not losing a single unit! Same problem its to easy to outmicro the dumb AI. The best I have offered is a simple 1 vs 1 ratio based on the in game damage of both units unupgraded.

...you're still making my point for me.

At this point I have only put one upgrade into play and that is the civ bonus of attack for tanks. It throws the 1 vs 1 ratio of M1 vs AT gun into the M1's favor. I have not accounted for AT gun bonuses or upgrades, they throw the equation back in favor of AT guns.

...you're STILL making my point for me.

The player should be allowed to counter AT guns to an extent with gun armor.

Why?

This would make them vulnerable to the German tank (they have a very large attack bonus vs M1's).

They already are.

This is the choice that a player should be offered.

Why?

Its offered with the same percentage on all other highly armored units, why shouldnt it be offered on Tanks?

What other units have an analogous situation to what you are proposing? Care to actually cite them?

You are correct that I have not accounted for cost. I find this to be an interesting point, but at the same time they require different resources. Unfortunatly I do not have the gathering rates of Wood, Iron, Gold, Food, that as well was on the old AI site . However IIRC Gold and Iron receive 5 upgrades through the ages up to modern (15% improved rate, ironic number) and food gets 4, Wood gets 3 I believe.

...

The fact they require different resources clearly makes AT even better because obviously, they do not cost any food...

Assuming they start with the same rates, this would mean food is easier to gather then wood and gold and iron are easier to gather then food or wood, thus making the resources have different value.

As Nemo said, have you even played the game?

It's obviously to pretty much everyone who has that the base rates are not the same.

This is a difficult argument simply because you now have to factor in the different settings and gameplay.

...lol

The more the starting resources the less important the gather rates (to start anyways). I honestly am not a fan of DM mostly because it only uses a percentage of the game to play. Resource gathering takes a back seat to the physical battle. SH and Tlow a lot depends on your economy. I am not bashing DM, its simply something that I dont enjoy.

Have you even played DM at all? Apparently not at any level even beginning to remotely approach competence in it.

I have been countered that the designers have specified that the game is balanced on cost. When I objected the argument changed to all old ee players know this. I am an old EE player, I dont consider this fact. Kinda vague. I think cost IS a factor, but not the only one.

[/quote]

You said "I would love to see where the designers have stated that the game is balanced on cost and not on pop cap as well. There is a reason that calvary are +2 just like tanks."

in response to "The game is not balanced on pop cap. The designers themselves stated this. It is balanced exclusively on cost according to those who created it."

I replied to your response with "These statements by the designers almost fall under the "common knowledge" category for many truly old players of the game. Either way, I cannot provide you with the direct statements, you'll either have to take my word for it or simply ignore this point because I can present no undeniable evidence for those statements to you.

Perhaps this reason is that it takes two people to crew a tank, and with a cavalry archer you have both the horse and the rider?"

VERY OBVIOUSLY I DID NOT STATE ALL OLD PLAYERS KNEW THE DESIGNERS SAID THAT. WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET THAT FROM?

You still have not demonstrated your assertion is even correct, so even if I am entirely incorrect, (although like I said, many truly old players, i.e. beta//since release players for the original game WHO ARE STILL AROUND DO KNOW THE DESIGNERS STATED THIS), your argument has no better grounds other to guess you're right. Of course, we can conclude that your argument is demonstrably stupid anyway, just like only balancing on cost is. Because it's not just those things that matter. Hey, I said that too. Hmm...

Oh, and since you must have "missed" it the last two times...

Zorbas vs. Anti-Zorbas, what wins?