General guide for GCR(for free to play players)

Can we increase mobility of our archers in the new update, btw?

stoic, unfortunately not. Mobility still capped at 1. Infantry capped at 3, cavalry 2, archer 1, navy 6

Math? You take something out of the blue and call it "math".
"Vs Octavian, commander skill counters the damage from inspire" Is this an example how they teach you to do math - to take a percentage based skill and to compare it with precision to something completely different?
Your whole "theory" is based on the assumption that you can guarantee high moral for Octavian, but it is not verifiable, maybe you can, maybe you can't. You say if we give a crossbow to Drusus and a ring to Octavian then Octavian "has a 7.5% damage advantage", it is a rubbish, not math, because we don't know how often Drusus' attacks will be critical ones and how high will be his damage against different opponents. Your attitude: "I am here, case closed" is the only laughable thing. Trying to express it in "scientific" language does not help. [/quote]


Yes math.

If you had bothered to read my initial comparison you would see that I tested the effects of high morale and according to my testing high morale provides a 20% damage boost, it does not matter what size legion or with/without general. If anyone else has tested this and received different results then please share them so we can clear this up.

Commander skills give a 20% chance to attack again, which is 100% extra damage. Math/averages say that this will trigger 1 out of 5 attacks. 100% extra damage divided by 5 is 20% extra damage on average. Is this not math?

A 20% bonus is a 20% bonus. 1 legion or 5, inspire or commander, the % bonus provided is always the same. If our general is on a unit that does 100 damage and he attacks 100 times with either high morale or commander skill then you can expect 12,000 damage from both skills. So yes, as far as attacking goes, commander skill cancels out high morale when comparing damage bonuses. Do you understand?

My only mistake I am currently aware of in this comparison between high morale and commander skill is that commander skill obviously will not work while defending, so in that instance high morale wins and I apologize. This is rectified while Octavian has high morale so I am not to concerned with this as I try to protect my archers as best I can so they do not get attacked. But yes it will happen, and a low morale Octavian will perform worse than Drussus in this scenario.

Here is my rubbish math on crossbow being a 7.5% damage bonus. With my testing of crit, it appears to be a 50% damage bonus. I did my testing with Pompey in expedition. If anyone else has done testing on this and got results that differ than please share them, but I am fairly confident it is a 50% bonus.

So if crit is always 50% more damage that tells us we can just divide our crit chance by 50% and that is our actual % damage bonus provided by that crit chance. Say you have 100 damage and 40% chance to crit, this means 4 out of 10 attacks will do 150 damage and the other 6 give us just 100 for a total of 1200. 200 of that damage is the extra damage from our crits, divide that from our total attacks made which is 10, and you get 20, this is the percentage of extra damage you receive from a 40% crit chance. Which obviously, is half.

Now we run that with a crossbow. 100 damage, 10hits, 1.5 will crit for an extra 50 damage each for 75 total added to the 1000 base for 1075 damage. 75 is the extra damage from crit out of 10 attacks, which averages to 7.5 extra damage per hit. 7.5 out of 100 is a 7.5% increase in damage, or half of 15, which is what crossbow provides.

It does not matter how many sources of crit you add together or what the base damage values are, crit chance will always provide the same % damage increase because the % of bonus damage provided is static.

Do you understand now?

If you would like to be constructive instead of being rude and mocking me then please explain where I have made an error. I accept I am human and make mistakes, but I would like those mistakes to be corrected if I am wrong about something.

Lucius Vorenus

I admit that perhaps I was not as polite as I should be, but your arrogance was under my skin, you know. Try to be more respectful of others, even if their opinion differs from your "Math"
That, what you are saying, doesn't make any sense to me, for several reasons:

1. You say: oh, I understand now that AC does not work in defence, but I don't care, because I'll always try to protect my archers. But that psychological component can't be added to your calculations by any standards. It does not matter whether you care or don't care. It is something you can not control or calculate with precision. Your archers can be attacked by AI 5 times per turn and perhaps twice by AI's archers, then what? Will you continue to insist that you are really good in defence and won't let this happen. Is this math? Inspire and AC are two different skills. They are working differently.

2. Inspire is not only working in defence as well as in attack, but it means a stable, constant damage bonus in every situation. AC, though great, is a completely different skill . How often it will trigger in a real mission and (what is more important) where it will trigger - this doesn't depend on you, your abilities and strategies. You can't build your strategy around it, you simply move your Octavian to an enemy general and hope that this time AC will trigger. Do you really continue to insist that a talent of one general and a skill of another (both are working completely different in different situations) can cancel each other out? It does not make any sense to me, sorry.

3. All your calculations were done in a vacuum. These are like plans of the Prussian General staff before. Jena/Auerstaedt. In a real world we meet different unit types with different armor types and weapon types, you simply can't calculate it, therefore it is better to admit it, rather than to insist that your "math" can solve this.

4. Your calculations of a critical damage do not make any sense to me either. If an average damage of our general is 100 points, that fits perfectly well with your "theory". But what if it is not 100 points, but 200, then what? Do you really believe that Octavian attacking Surena (let's suppose 200 damage plus 20 points from Accuracy while he is attacking or plus 20 when he counterattacks) has any advantage over Drusus who has 40% probability to deal more than 300 damage in attack as well as in defence? And what if our archer general will attack a unit with a weak Armor type, then what? Don't you think it will change things? Is it reflected in your calculations?

5. The whole your "theory" that Octavian is better than Drusus has a dubious foundation. Namely, that you can always maintain high moral of Octavian, thus making him better because he has some additional skills. But it is anything else but not a math. You swear you can do it, I bet you can't. We can not add this to our calculations. Just play a single mission after an update and demonstrate how it was possible always to maintain high moral of your Octavian using only a ring.

I really can't accept your theory simply because I do not believe that your methodology makes sense. You simply can't calculate everything because it is too complex to be done with precision. And without precision it is not a math but... well, something else. If you can convince yourself, that's fine. But to say that it is "laughable" even to compare Octavian and Drusus is not only arrogant but stupid as well. If people with some experience in ET games find this not only "laughable" but even quite possible - then you have to show more respect for their opinion, even if you don't fully grasp their motifs.

Lucius Vorenus, your wording probably ticked him off . Also, although math cannot be argued against unless your calculations are wrong, it doesn't matter as much. There's theoretic advantage and practical advantage. And also we have to consider the fact that their advantages may not be too far compared to those they are compared to. Also, there are several situations to consider in which one may be better than the other. I also agree with stoic about the Prussians. They waged war mechanically and they planned all the way. Problem is, they only considered what is obvious, and hidden factors, such as Napoleon's revolutionary military system, them being arrogant over their past victories, and them not adapting to their strengths and weaknesses. That's why they got blitzkrieged before blitzkrieg was even invented.

Since we really can't place generals in terms of pure numbers, why not use the closest thing to numbers and math, which is logic. Just give a Premise that is correct, a flow of logic that is correct, and your conclusion will be correct . Just make sure that the Premise is correct tho, no matter how solid your logical reasoning is if your Premise is wrong, then your conclusion will be wrong.

I don't think theories need evidence, but rather proof itself, like mathematical equations or logical reasoning. We can prove that the earth is an oblate spheroid by simply using math, but we need to see it in order to believe it . Basically evidence is there to make us believe, rather than actually proving it as true. Problem is if the math is incomplete, and we have a wrong interpretation of those numbers.