Jump to content
Forums closed, discord our new home! Read more... ×
Heroes & Generals
LuisCyphre

Overstacking = donating forces to the enemy

Recommended Posts

LuisCyphre    705

Especially with the Barbarossa event, people have taken to overstacking battles far beyond reason - and to the disadvantage of their faction. The more the worse.

I'll explain why. It takes a little math, but not too much of it.

 

In case of a loss the formula is

Note: I have to use √[           ] since the board cannot display the upper branch of a square root sign. Everthing [in square brackets and underlined] is beneath the square root.

 

0.5 * #remaining * (√[(2500-((a/x*100)-50)²)] /2)

where

a = number of deaths on the losing side

x = number of troops commited to the battle by the losing side

 

Combined with some realities from the game, that means you're giving away troops to the enemy stockpile by overstacking, and ever more so the more you stack the battle (provided the battle is lost).

 

Wait, that doesn't compute! you'll say. But it does. Bear with me.

 

@Reto.RedBjarne has, thankfully, explained how the new mechanic of transferring units to the victor (from staged and from war matches, excluding AR) actually works, in detail.

 

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/438884878

 

Starting at 12:28, he gives the base formula:

 

The more enemys you kill - in percent of their total resources - the greater the portion of the remaining resources at battle's end which get transferred, and later he states that there's a multiplier currently set to half of that result.

 

E.g. if you kill 50% of the troops committed, the winner gets 0.5 * the number of the remaining 50% => 25% peak, the sweet spot.

If you kill more than 50%, that number will decline again, because there will be fewer left to distribute.

 

A lil high school math can help us describe that half circle function:

Note: On RB's slate, the vertical axis is y, horizonal is x (notation might be different in your country)  - e.g. coordinates are notified as (x/y, not as y/x)

 

Since the peak value of y is, as stated, 50 at x = 50 and y is 0 at x = 0 and 0 again at x = 100, we know the radius r = 50 of a semicircle with the offspring (middle point) at M (50, 0).


Using the general circle graph formula

(x - m1)² + (y - m2)² = r²

with a radius of 50 (percentage points!), offset at M (50, 0):

M = (m1, m2)

m1 = 50, m2 = 0

we get -> (x - 50)² + y² = 2500

Resolving for y, the vertical axis, e.g. describing all points on the half circle depending on the x amount without multipliers:

y² = 2500 - (x-50)²

y = [2500 - (x-50)²]

 
Well, RB said: They're distributing half of the number of forces left (c) as a percentage of deaths (b) per initial amount (a).
 
Setting our own variables:

a - # committed
b - # lost
c - # left (=a-b)

d - kill ratio (=b/a*100)
0.5 - fixed transfer multiplier

 

Therefore
y = 0.5*c* (√[2500 - (d-50)²]) / 100)
y = 0.5*(a-b) * (√[2500 - ((b/a*100)-50)²]) / 100)

 

The /100 at the end is there because our x-axis, as you remember, is in percentage points and not numerical values.


Now here's the catch with that: It still has two variables, a and b (c and d can be substituted).

 

But:

We can assume that the number of losses will in reality not rise depending on the number of forces a committed to a battle, which is certainly true beyond a certain point of overstacking.

It doesn't matter if there are 2000 or 20000, as long as there are enough vehicles and esp. APCs. Okay, the more assets, the more people will waste without thinking, but let's leave that out. Some additional deaths might occur by the agony of reading this post.

 

The only variable factor remaining under that assumption is actually a since the number of kills b can be regarded as fixed in these scenarios. It would have been the same.

Let's say there are 150 casualties on the loser's side in a battle, no matter if there had been 216 or 1k, 25k or 30k initially.

 

This allows us to create a trigonometrical function, depending only on the number of troops committed:

f(a) = 0.5 * (a-b) * (√[2500 - ((b/a*100)-50)²]) / 100)

Setting b to that fixed value of 150:

f(a) = 0.5 * (a-150) * (√[(2500 - ((150/a*100)-50)²] / 100)

 

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is basically nothing more than

[a]

with a few modifiers to a, and then applied to the number of troops left at the end of the battle - in a graph that's straight line with a gradient of 0.5, looking at the effect in dependancy of the number of troops committed only.

 

In actual numbers:

 

Send 216 troops, lose 150, enemy gets ~15 (because there were only 66 left to distribute). Okay, a 216 battle is likely to suffer from a lack of transport and is perhaps not really comparable.

Send 300, lose 150, enemy gets ... precisely, 50% of the remaining 150, e.g. 75. Sweet spot.

 

Example without the fixed 150 losses:

Send 300, lose 240, enemy will receive 12.

 

And here's our effect:

 

Send 1000, lose 150, enemy gets ~152.

Had you sent 12k, and lost 150, enemy would get ~658.

Send 30k, lose 150 yet again, enemy gets ~1053.

So, same (hypothetical) match, with different numbers of stacked forces - we get a higher stockpile transfer for the enemy, the more ATs you send to the battle.

 

Now I have field tested that. Sadly, the battle detail screen only shows the number of losses and not the number of troops participating, but you can judge by the war map, still, there will be some variance with people sending to the battle later. But it checks out.

 

formula-b1-179j6o.png

 

formula-b1-22nkiu.png

 

Bottom line - tl;dr

 

The more surplus troops you're overstacking the battle with, the more the enemy will get if your team loses.

Stop it. You're aiding the enemy.

 

 

Edit for curiosity reasons: 

@Reto.Stenum - is my math correct? 

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aust1n46    1,898

Who cares?  I want my troops played so I can get the ribbon at the end of the war...

 

And the "captured" troops are given for free by the server, no one actually loses anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LuisCyphre    705

Well, these calculations occur by class, so - they will apply to fighters and paras as well. You're not losing them, but you're buffing the enemy stockpile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
baja9631    73

Problem will be when event is over and people continue to overstack the battles in some kind of rush for only god knows what reason. 

 

And this is not the only problem, boosting the production of enemy i mean, other problem is after 5 lost games  you lose that AT due the moral and with reduced production this numbers can't be recovered. Even before in war , first day , we have border towns with 4-5 k of infantry inside and people don't have tendency to move them away ,when i was checking last time the results of that was  40% of troops vanish by morale. They just respawn them next day and repeat the procedure ,with reduced production they just increase the queue. Nowdays we have this event which is giving CPs to all the "generals" good ones and bad ones, this problem will become even bigger since all of us will have cca 30-40 % more ATs and i expect hard times for germany after the event is over ,most of the wars will be "finished" in first day or at least german offensive capability definitly will die in first day.

 

I would really like to have some statistical data from Reto how much ATs are lost due morale stuff.

 

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the mathematically clean explanation.  +1
It underlines what I keep telling the newcomers in the game.
But unfortunately we have too many brain-dead with ATs who don't care.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manron    64

Thank you very much for the detailed explanation. The more experienced players already knew that, but some hard facts are always a good thing!

 

Yet the ones that do the overstacking either dont read the forums, dont care or do it deliberately to farm WFs.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tumult_inc    348

I don't know, man, your numbers seem kind of high.

 

I thought about the same issue after the devstream and did a couple of quick simple scenarios without formulas.

 

Example: You have 1000 troops, lose 200 and lose the match -> enemy gets 20% of 800 = 160.

If you overstack that battle to 10.000 troops and lose the same -> enemy gets 2% of 9800 =196.

 

I concluded it was not something to overly worry about.

 

However, as @baja9631 mentioned many AT owners will morale out and increase the queue, and that is a worry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LuisCyphre    705
44 minutes ago, Tumult_inc said:

I don't know, man, your numbers seem kind of high.

 

They do, yes. I'm certain there are some factors to the real algorithm RB hasn't mentioned. But the principle is clearly observable as being in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Manron    64
1 minute ago, GaiusBaltar said:

I don't need to do math to tell you that we need new encirclement mechanics.

 

 

 

those two things are rather unrelated, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Krzysiek5657    977

new sinkhole,

never thought that there's a way to implement more WF sinkholes, with next few bigger updates even vet membership wont be enough to reinforce your AT's.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dalnar    269

It's not a sinkhole as it generates more free resources and does not deduct the captures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Slimey13    26
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 7:42 AM, Dalnar said:

It's not a sinkhole as it generates more free resources and does not deduct the captures.

But we sure hope it deducts captures, haha. that would be epic no more overstacking battles like the brainless morons some people are.

And people loosing more wfs for beeing brainless morons. Im all for deducting the resources from the ATs. LOL

Cos i thought this is a strategy game. Not a "hey i can be a braindead at owner" game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pimpology    129
On 6/22/2019 at 12:51 PM, Aust1n46 said:

Who cares?  I want my troops played so I can get the ribbon at the end of the war...

 

And the "captured" troops are given for free by the server, no one actually loses anything.

This

I want all 30 soldiers getting XP both ways...

And the event isn't worth measuring...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LuisCyphre    705
On 1/15/2020 at 1:27 AM, julitooli03 said:

amazing but does that mean that if my troops get captured I can t get them back?

 

 

If they surrender you have to redeploy them - surrender occurs either if they have nowhere to go (encirclement and lost battle) or they morale out. Surrendering ATs get added to the enemy stockpile (100%). Forces "transfered" by the mechanics we're talking about in this thread have nothing to do with that, because it's a virtual transfer. Nothing gets deducted from your ATs here, only spawned resources, retreat penalty and surrender do that. €dit: And auto resolve, but that isn't of too much importance any more.

Edited

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×