No vill limit; how many do you make?

[Goodspeed]

Given reinforcements it's pretty easy to be more accurate. With 20% more dps you are killing 20% more than the other guy, so you are spending 20% less resources on reinforcements. So 20% is the upper limit, not 50%. Realistically it'll be much less because you don't actually have +20% dps, after all not all of your units will be fighting. Of course he has 20% more eco so he is winning cost effectively but you are "pushing" as they say in treaty which means you do win ground over time (still depending on the match up).

[iNcog]

please don't associate kaiser with french schools (didn't read this whole debate), they are among the best in the world

lol wuat

french schools are trash

unless you live in rich neighborhoods or something?

[Kaiserklein]

Jesus fucking christ. Can you finally let go your musk vs musk battles? There are other units in this game and your "simulations" in fucking scenarios have nothing to do with math....
The same way your russian musks vs normal musks epic scenario battles proved exactly how many % better normal muskets are.
Wtf are they doing at french schools? Definitely not learning english (you do ok, you are an exception kaiser), rational thinking or math.

Do you really think I would say "simulation" if it was just in scenario editor ? I'm talking about an actual simulation. So yes, it has to do with maths...
Anyway, in your school they definitely don't teach you to be polite.

Youre not taking the defenders advantage into acc. We are talking about lategame here. So its likely that youll have a wall and constant unit production. That combined with the fact that your units spawn at your base while his have to walk should be enough to equal out the odds. YOu cant run a test with 12 musks vs 10 musks in an editor and apply the results onto a lategame situation. Thats like comparing apples with noggins. Neither can you simulate a full scale fight in an editor and draw conclusions on that matter. In the end the question wont be answered unless some1 would edit the gamefiles to allow unlimited settler training that question wont be answered.

I know it's not really accurate. That's why I wrote : "Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.", because yeah, new units will come to reinforce and limit the damages of the drop-off effect. But it still shows that 20% more military does matter, seeing how easily the +20% side wins. That was my point, was just answering to people saying that +20% military wasn't enough to swing a fight.
Also I said 12 vs 10 musks for the sake of the explanation, but it works with 120 vs 100 as well, and for any unit.
About defenders advantage, when you're pushing in treaty you build new military buildings to spam closer to the fight, so I don't think that's a problem.

THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

Honestly I wasn't even saying that the guy with less eco would win. As I said, you would have to use your advantage fast enough to push in your opponent's eco, before you run out of resources because of your own inferior eco. If you can't reach his eco in time, you lose. So idk who would win, just saying that +20% military is enough to gain military advantage, unlike what some people were saying.

This is not a good representation, as Jerom said the fight doesn't end and in a 100 vs 120 musk battle not all of those units are shooting. You're never going to actually have 20% more dps than him, just 20% more units. And even if you did have 20% more dps than him, due to constant reinforcements it wouldn't steadily increase during the fight from 20% to 5900% (60 musks vs 1) like in your scenario so you would not be getting even near that kind of value.

Yes I know it's not accurate, but as I said it still shows that 20% matters. And you could have +20% dps if you were using like 3 extra horse artillery. And yeah again, drop off wouldn't be as drastic as in my simulation, but I do believe it would still be significant.

[deuxballesman]

please don't associate kaiser with french schools (didn't read this whole debate), they are among the best in the world

lol wuat

french schools are trash

unless you live in rich neighborhoods or something?

Incog I think Benji meant either l'X ,Mines, Ponts or Centrale ^^

[iNcog]

i don't really think those are global class either

[lordraphael]

i think we are running in circles here. I was only arguing with supremacy in mind and not treaty . i dont care about treaty nor do i have any expertise in it. So coming with a treaty argument is irrelevant. Also theres a defenders advantage in treaty aswell just a lot smaller than in sup.

In any case the whole discusssion is kinda irrelevant. So im out, I expressed my opinion and now you could or could not argue about that matter forever.

[benj89]

please don't associate kaiser with french schools (didn't read this whole debate), they are among the best in the world

lol wuat

french schools are trash

unless you live in rich neighborhoods or something?

trash? we are speaking about the level of education right, not about their prestige or the fact that they aren't mentioned in gossip girl?
Of course some french schools sux, but some usa/uk sux too.
They don't have dozens of millions to be invested in research such as few us schools.
They don't have beautiful campuses similar to yale or princeton.
They don't have the diversity of students and unique experience you can have in oxbridge/ivies.
That being said, and it was a response to somppu, they are among the most selective/rigorous to get in in term of curriculum.
Few of them are what you call "world class": polytechnique, ens ulm, hec, ena. (centrale paris, mines, essec/escp)
. L'x is probably the most selective math school, above princeton/mit/cambridge some people would argue: <3% selection rate, and the fact that you volunteered in bali and were president of your drama club in hs doesn't matter. In fact, most polytechnique students who spend a semester at stanford/imperial get a 4.0 in machine learning and their peers consider them as geniuses.
L'x as a 15% admission rate at mckinsey, they could get goldman sacks in investment banking or any google jobs even easier. not many schools in the world can say that. Most of students still focus more on quant/entreprenarial jobs. There is also the El karoui master (not world class?) which give them access to the most selective quant job you can think of.

The rich neighborhood reference: even if you come from brittany there are prepas over there (rennes, brest, lorient, vannes), they are free and cost of living is close to free. Centrale, mines etc are almost free and still great schools. Only issue would come from top business schools but they give generous need based scholarship.
So yea, if you went to université of clermont ferrant you have: a bad education/bad campus and all that is bad, but you could have been to Montana state uni and it would've been the same.
Even though us systems has its advantages in term of giving opportunities to the lower class, it has its flows too. Most rich people get in ivies either because they went to a top prep high school (5-6 hs which costs about 50000 a year send most of their students in ivies. Otherwise there are "development admits". Meh, at least french schools are solely based on a "concours" and even top high schools are almost free).

[iNcog]

i didn't educate myself in brittany, tbh education here is probably above average compared to france, not that i know better

i went to UPEM, i have a MD in engineering and i can't say that i have a bac+5 in terms of education. my education was absolute tripe, i learn more browsing youtube than the garbage i did these past three years. i feel like i'm cheating employers by telling them i have a master's degree.

very close to considering applying for a phd in an american university, maybe to actually learn something. if i were still pursuing engineering i probably would

but i'm going to pursue something else

[benj89]

i didn't educate myself in brittany, tbh education here is probably above average compared to france, not that i know better

i went to UPEM, i have a MD in engineering and i can't say that i have a bac+5 in terms of education. my education was absolute tripe, i learn more browsing youtube than the garbage i did these past three years. i feel like i'm cheating employers by telling them i have a master's degree.

very close to considering applying for a phd in an american university, maybe to actually learn something. if i were still pursuing engineering i probably would

but i'm going to pursue something else

Well yea the issue comes from UPEM then, pretty obvious. But why did you go there in the first place, or why didn't you transfer after the licence? Bac+5 or bac+7 means nothing, one could spend 7 years at novancia, parents who paid 10k a year for a non selective business school, and have a bac+7.
Oxford students have a bac+3 yet qualified for any jobs

[iNcog]

> Meh, at least french schools are solely based on a "concours" and even top high schools are almost free

i probably wasted €2000 on "concours" to be quite frank, they cost me more than my entire university tuition

> top high schools are almost free

no they aren't, you need to live in posh areas or you need to be the principal's fuck-buddy to get your children there. my mom had to go through a ton of administrative horse-shit so my siblings could go to the better high school than the one they were supposed to to (sector thing)

[iNcog]

Well yea the issue comes from UPEM then, pretty obvious. But why did you go there in the first place, or why didn't you transfer after the licence?

honestly didn't know better, though personal reasons kept me in the area as well. i didn't expect harvard, but i didn't expect it to be this bad either. i basically expected to LEARN something

it's not like i'm clueless either. i got some experience and learned some things; but hardly one which i would consider actual master's degree

still, it's a stepping stone for a phd if i want to go down that route, so it's not all bad

[Goodspeed]

please don't associate kaiser with french schools (didn't read this whole debate), they are among the best in the world

lol wuat

french schools are trash

unless you live in rich neighborhoods or something?

trash? we are speaking about the level of education right, not about their prestige or the fact that they aren't mentioned in gossip girl?
Of course some french schools sux, but some usa/uk sux too.
They don't have dozens of millions to be invested in research such as few us schools.
They don't have beautiful campuses similar to yale or princeton.
They don't have the diversity of students and unique experience you can have in oxbridge/ivies.
That being said, and it was a response to somppu, they are among the most selective/rigorous to get in in term of curriculum.
Few of them are what you call "world class": polytechnique, ens ulm, hec, ena. (centrale paris, mines, essec/escp)
. L'x is probably the most selective math school, above princeton/mit/cambridge some people would argue: <3% selection rate, and the fact that you volunteered in bali and were president of your drama club in hs doesn't matter. In fact, most polytechnique students who spend a semester at stanford/imperial get a 4.0 in machine learning and their peers consider them as geniuses.
L'x as a 15% admission rate at mckinsey, they could get goldman sacks in investment banking or any google jobs even easier. not many schools in the world can say that. Most of students still focus more on quant/entreprenarial jobs. There is also the El karoui master (not world class?) which give them access to the most selective quant job you can think of.

The rich neighborhood reference: even if you come from brittany there are prepas over there (rennes, brest, lorient, vannes), they are free and cost of living is close to free. Centrale, mines etc are almost free and still great schools. Only issue would come from top business schools but they give generous need based scholarship.
So yea, if you went to université of clermont ferrant you have: a bad education/bad campus and all that is bad, but you could have been to Montana state uni and it would've been the same.
Even though us systems has its advantages in term of giving opportunities to the lower class, it has its flows too. Most rich people get in ivies either because they went to a top prep high school (5-6 hs which costs about 50000 a year send most of their students in ivies. Otherwise there are "development admits". Meh, at least french schools are solely based on a "concours" and even top high schools are almost free).

I don't think listing the top universities is the best way to assess the overall quality of schools in a country.

[benj89]

> Meh, at least french schools are solely based on a "concours" and even top high schools are almost free

i probably wasted €2000 on "concours" to be quite frank, they cost me more than my entire university tuition

> top high schools are almost free

no they aren't, you need to live in posh areas or you need to be the principal's fuck-buddy to get your children there. my mom had to go through a ton of administrative horse-shit so my siblings could go to the better high school than the one they were supposed to to (sector thing)

if you wasted money on concours and didn't get in any good schools that means you didn't had the level. ie, in france or abroad in would've been the same.

I went to a very good high school not far from Paris, it was about 1500-2000e per year I believe and it was considered an expensive one. To get in: either you are from the area (and this area includes some very poor cities. People from there get free tuition). Either you did very well in college.
In paris: yea if you live in the area you are privileged and living in Paris is extremely expensive, but tbh a 15/20 gpa gets you to most good prepa as long as you didn't go to a trash high school. No need to go to Louis le Grand or stanislas in hs, and it saves you few years from some retarded fils a papa anyway.
Besides living in the area, you can be accepted as long as you have a good dossier after "college", I know 2 guys from random schools in the Yvelines who got in the boarding school at LLG (about 2.5K per year I believe? that's nothing). Just smart with great grades

[Jaeger]

Given reinforcements it's pretty easy to be more accurate. With 20% more dps you are killing 20% more than the other guy, so you are spending 20% less resources on reinforcements. So 20% is the upper limit, not 50%. Realistically it'll be much less because you don't actually have +20% dps, after all not all of your units will be fighting. Of course he has 20% more eco so he is winning cost effectively but you are "pushing" as they say in treaty which means you do win ground over time (still depending on the match up).

There are many other factors that can push it over 20%. For example you can pop 6 gendarmes onto the skirms next to the stable; you can force skirms between some buildings and then get some insane cannon volleys; you can make them lose their forward art foundry which will delays their culvs. etc.

[benj89]

I don't think listing the top universities is the best way to assess the overall quality of schools in a country.

Well I believe the overall quality of schools in france is great, and top students in most decent french high schools can get in any schools in the world. that's about how I assessed the overall quality of schools, just wanted to say that somppu better donate to the schools of his own country to improve the math department that's all :). it has nothing to do with the fact that kaiser is retarded or not

[Goodspeed]

Given reinforcements it's pretty easy to be more accurate. With 20% more dps you are killing 20% more than the other guy, so you are spending 20% less resources on reinforcements. So 20% is the upper limit, not 50%. Realistically it'll be much less because you don't actually have +20% dps, after all not all of your units will be fighting. Of course he has 20% more eco so he is winning cost effectively but you are "pushing" as they say in treaty which means you do win ground over time (still depending on the match up).

There are many other factors that can push it over 20%. For example you can pop 6 gendarmes onto the skirms next to the stable; you can force skirms between some buildings and then get some insane cannon volleys; you can make them lose their forward art foundry which will delays their culvs. etc.

You can't just assume the pushing player is better than the defending player at using their units. Defender's advantage is at least as significant as attacker's advantage in this scenario. Interestingly, your first example is something only the defending player would be able to do since the attacking player won't have a stable next to the defending player's skirms. The other 2 rely on the defending player being bad, not having pulled back his skirms or rebuilt his art foundry in time.

[Jaeger]

Given reinforcements it's pretty easy to be more accurate. With 20% more dps you are killing 20% more than the other guy, so you are spending 20% less resources on reinforcements. So 20% is the upper limit, not 50%. Realistically it'll be much less because you don't actually have +20% dps, after all not all of your units will be fighting. Of course he has 20% more eco so he is winning cost effectively but you are "pushing" as they say in treaty which means you do win ground over time (still depending on the match up).

There are many other factors that can push it over 20%. For example you can pop 6 gendarmes onto the skirms next to the stable; you can force skirms between some buildings and then get some insane cannon volleys; you can make them lose their forward art foundry which will delays their culvs. etc.

You can't just assume the pushing player is also better than the defending player. Defender's advantage is at least as significant as attacker's advantage in this scenario.

I think assuming that the defending player is able to keep his army in the same shape all the time while being pushed (balanced composition, enough artillery, having army always in good position) is assuming that the defending player is better. Anyway maybe on average the advantage is some low number other than 20%, but since there are so many random things that can happen and snowball, I wouldn't be comfortable bounding the advantage between 0 and 40% at least, unless someone did a bunch of tests.

[iNcog]

> Meh, at least french schools are solely based on a "concours" and even top high schools are almost free

i probably wasted €2000 on "concours" to be quite frank, they cost me more than my entire university tuition

> top high schools are almost free

no they aren't, you need to live in posh areas or you need to be the principal's fuck-buddy to get your children there. my mom had to go through a ton of administrative horse-shit so my siblings could go to the better high school than the one they were supposed to to (sector thing)

if you wasted money on concours and didn't get in any good schools that means you didn't had the level. ie, in france or abroad in would've been the same.

I went to a very good high school not far from Paris, it was about 1500-2000e per year I believe and it was considered an expensive one. To get in: either you are from the area (and this area includes some very poor cities. People from there get free tuition). Either you did very well in college.
In paris: yea if you live in the area you are privileged and living in Paris is extremely expensive, but tbh a 15/20 gpa gets you to most good prepa as long as you didn't go to a trash high school. No need to go to Louis le Grand or stanislas in hs, and it saves you few years from some retarded fils a papa anyway.
Besides living in the area, you can be accepted as long as you have a good dossier after "college", I know 2 guys from random schools in the Yvelines who got in the boarding school at LLG (about 2.5K per year I believe? that's nothing). Just smart with great grades

prépas are flawed in the way they work though

it's all theory, no real application. it's very good for getting math and physics fundamentals, that's for sure. even a struggling student like me was able to breeze though university after going through that.

if anything, it would have been nice to have a middle ground between the ruthless amount of work in prépas and some actual application of what you're learning. in the end what you're doing in the company is a bit different from what you're doing in prépas.

but honestly in all of my education, i never once felt like i was learning something useful at an advanced level. i have pretty good knowledge of many different subjects in physics (electromagnetism, waves, electricity, etc.) as well as good knowledge in engineering (can read diagrams, know what a grafcet is, cinematic, torque, tensile strength, blahblahblah list goes on), but nothing which i feel like i could field today in an actual company. these people aren't looking for good knowledge, they're looking for a useful employee they can count on to get things done. working for a company goes beyond doing well in theoretical exercises, is what i'm saying basically. i'm quite sure that i could probably design some basic, working mechanical systems. but who the hell is going to hire me when i've never actually done any of that?

but education is really your entry ticket in the industry, doubtlessly a couple of years of actual engineering experience is where you start actually learning the concrete applications. maybe i'm just sore up the ass because i really don't feel like i've learned much which is useful, you tell me. also i can't compare to what they do in the USA or germany or the UK (normal countries) where there's none of this grandes écoles dumbassery

[benj89]

prépas are flawed in the way they work though

it's all theory, no real application. it's very good for getting math and physics fundamentals, that's for sure. even a struggling student like me was able to breeze though university after going through that.
Any good school is all about theory, no application. For most selective jobs, there is a 1-2month training period where you learn everything practical. That's why many history/english major are able to land jobs in top investment banks, consulting and so on (except for comp science jobs, obviously). What it comes down to today: showing that you can be good (excellent) at what you study, no matter the subject unless it's women studies. If you can show that, the firm is confident that they can teach you anything you need to know in 1-2 month. That's at least how it is in the US. In France, you are supposed to learn the theorical in prepa, and the practical/networking in schools. In the US, most schools especially good ones have the same approach: 2 years of common core, and 2 years where you study your major/minor. Still, I can tell you that a Finance major won't learn more 10% of what's needed to work in most finance jobs. It gets even worse (or better) in liberal art schools, where you do 4 years of theoritical and no worries, swarthmore students do have good jobs :).
From what I heard, application at google/fb are solely based on the white board test (theoritical) and eventually your comp sci skills if required. Talked to 2 polytechnique students who interned at FB in new york, they told me it was really,really easy .

if anything, it would have been nice to have a middle ground between the ruthless amount of work in prépas and some actual application of what you're learning. in the end what you're doing in the company is a bit different from what you're doing in prépas.
Again the actual application comes after the 2 years of prepa, I know that for sure for the business schools. But even then, the application are some useless finance/marketing/management classes, that's why no one cares about your gpa in grande ecole as long as you went to the right schools. I heard about HEC students who got jobs with 2.5-7gpa that ivy league student would never get without 3.5+.

but honestly in all of my education, i never once felt like i was learning something useful at an advanced level. i have pretty good knowledge of many different subjects in physics (electromagnetism, waves, electricity, etc.) as well as good knowledge in engineering (can read diagrams, know what a grafcet is, cinematic, torque, tensile strength, blahblahblah list goes on), but nothing which i feel like i could field today in an actual company. these people aren't looking for good knowledge, they're looking for a useful employee they can count on to get things done. working for a company goes beyond doing well in theoretical exercises, is what i'm saying basically. i'm quite sure that i could probably design some basic, working mechanical systems. but who the hell is going to hire me when i've never actually done any of that?
employers want smart kids, best way for them to know that: how good are they at what's the hardest: theoritical. So which school did they go to (+ their gpa for the US), and then which internship did they do (which is where you are supposed to learn some of the practical needed for your future job, ideally). In grande ecole like in the US, you are more or less required to do 2 internships.

but education is really your entry ticket in the industry, doubtlessly a couple of years of actual engineering experience is where you start actually learning the concrete applications. maybe i'm just sore up the ass because i really don't feel like i've learned much which is useful, you tell me. also i can't compare to what they do in the USA or germany or the UK (normal countries) where there's none of this grandes écoles dumbassery
I feel like you don't understand how things works and are frustrated about it, come on. You went to prepa and are mad because learnt nothing useful (that's the point of the prepa), then went to a no name uni (my cousin study law there actually) and complain because it sux and you learnt nothing. You could have gone to a post-bac like INSA/UTC, it's less selective than grand ecole but more practical.. you just had to educate yourself in high school, or you could have gone their after the licence.
I don't know much about germany, they have good but not top schools (same as dutch in a sense) and their most of their students stay in german speaking areas/less connection than France to London.

[pecelot]

Btw, I simulated that case (20% more military on one side) and it just so happens that the side with 120% military has half his army left at the end of the battle. For example, with zero overkill, in a 12 musks vs 10 musks fight, there should be 6 musks left to 0. If that's not enough to swing a fight, I don't know what is. Those 20% extra military are actually worth 40% resources saved : you lose 6 musks instead of 10 musks in that case (it's the same for other units and amounts in the same proportions). And so, saving 40% of your units is worth more than 20% extra eco. Though I must say this is biased because in treaty the guy would constantly keep 200 pop, so drop-off isn't as important as in my simulation.

Well, I don't think you can draw such conclusions, simply because enemy if you fight 12 vs 10 musks in late game, the enemy ones won't be dropping as he'll be constantly reinforcing his lost troops, so your +2 musks advantage will not stack up that well as it would do in early stages (with no immediate support).
Fortunately, you do realise that in your last sentence, so my point was just to underline its importance

THe only thing i know is that in aoc the player with more vills aka the better eco wins in 90 % of cases ( talking about super late game situations.). But theres is a certain threshold for settler pop. If you go over a certain amount of vills you gonna lose there aswell. Of course you cant compare that 100 %, but its a good indicator how things would play out in aoe 3.

Generally you couldn't argue otherwise, but for certain it also comes down to gold supply, be it remaining mines in 1v1s or trade in team/team late games, as gold units are just too superior to non-gold (a.k.a. trash) ones.

[momuuu]

In aoc you field more army per population on average though, so getting a much larger army of 100 pop isnt that much more efficient than a 60 pop one (also bad game engine ofc when it comes to pathing). I think the difference in efficiency and cost efficiency between the two for aoe would be quite a bit larger.

In a treaty state, where theres continuous fighting, I estimate its very close to a 100 vills. In sup lategame the banks are minimal and pushing beyond walls is much harder, so I think there it could be all the way up to 140 or so, vs 100 pop that should still be fine I guess, so the meta would become 200 vills then?

[Jaeger]

In aoc you field more army per population on average though, so getting a much larger army of 100 pop isnt that much more efficient than a 60 pop one (also bad game engine ofc when it comes to pathing). I think the difference in efficiency and cost efficiency between the two for aoe would be quite a bit larger.

In a treaty state, where theres continuous fighting, I estimate its very close to a 100 vills. In sup lategame the banks are minimal and pushing beyond walls is much harder, so I think there it could be all the way up to 140 or so, vs 100 pop that should still be fine I guess, so the meta would become 200 vills then?

Tbh I'm kindda surprised that in treaty, civs with a large bank (like germany) don't just delete all but like 5 FB vills. It's true that if the enemy deletes only 90 vills he will (maybe?) outeco you and win, but no one can know for sure how many vills the other player deleted; so if you delete 94 and suspect your opponent deleted only 85, you can retrain like 15-20 more and outeco him in turn, most likely without him noticing the small difference (it becomes even less noticeable if you split) @Gichtenlord

notification

@charlemagen

notification

@Lukas_L99

notification

@dicktator_

notification

[momuuu]

Because in about twenty minutes time you gather resources to double your bank basically. So the starting res are only like half of the res you get in a normal/short game.

[pecelot]

well in AoC I think you have much more vills to begin with, you age up to II sometimes with even 30 vills, whereas in AoE3 you can get away with 12/10
deleting more vills is risky as you may not harm your opponent as much as you'd like because of certain factors, like his ability to spam units (let's say strong muskets) and an overall defender's advantage

[Goodspeed]

In aoc you field more army per population on average though, so getting a much larger army of 100 pop isnt that much more efficient than a 60 pop one (also bad game engine ofc when it comes to pathing). I think the difference in efficiency and cost efficiency between the two for aoe would be quite a bit larger.

In a treaty state, where theres continuous fighting, I estimate its very close to a 100 vills. In sup lategame the banks are minimal and pushing beyond walls is much harder, so I think there it could be all the way up to 140 or so, vs 100 pop that should still be fine I guess, so the meta would become 200 vills then?

Tbh I'm kindda surprised that in treaty, civs with a large bank (like germany) don't just delete all but like 5 FB vills. It's true that if the enemy deletes only 90 vills he will (maybe?) outeco you and win, but no one can know for sure how many vills the other player deleted; so if you delete 94 and suspect your opponent deleted only 85, you can retrain like 15-20 more and outeco him in turn, most likely without him noticing the small difference (it becomes even less noticeable if you split)

The bank may seem large but if you're fighting with 200 pop it actually disappears rather quickly. I would guess a 200 pop army costs about 20k resources which is a significant part of your bank at 40 min. Now if they had 100k+ of each resource I believe it would be a different story.