Whatever happened to mercs?

[zoom]

You either use the value for Qiang within the Ming army (preferable if you are interested only in Keshiks) or average the values for Qiang within the Ming and Old Han armies.

but how do you decide to weight the keshiks compared to the pikes? why is 1 keshik more expensive than the qiang pike in that banner army? surely, the actual cost of a keshik is simply 1/5th of the banner army cost. Because thats what you actually pay for 1 unit out of the 5 that come for the cost of the entire banner.

You don't decide it – it's already decided. That's literally the applied meaning of the nominal cost.

[deleted_user0]

its not decided, you are applying a different value to the units, you arent simply dividing the cost of the banner by 1/5th, which is the actual cost for each individual unit of that banner. instead you are saying, a keshik ought to be more expensive than a pike, but theres the thing, how much more expensive it ought to be, that is subjective. or atleast, you havent explained to me your reasoning for coming to the cost.

[Kaiserklein]

I find that funny, as you seemed immensely interested in this discussion until I so comprehensively dismissed your customary insults and personal attacks and went on to explain the rationale behind my claim.

I explained earlier why you're wrong. You can't even calculate VS properly, you think dividing hp by VS or attack by VS id relevant while it doesn't take drop-off and overkill into account... Your maths sucks :/

It's true that I won't admit I'm wrong though, as I tend not to do so when basic logic dictates it is not the case.

Then you have no logic. I proved mathematically that you're wrong.

Just as you point out – and just as I did in my last response to you, in case you missed it – the nominal cost of a Qiang Pikeman is indeed 60w, and the nominal cost of a Keshik is indeed 115f. However, what I am suggesting is that since you are always* training 3 Keshiks with 2 Qiang Pikemen, you are actually paying a proportion of both resources for the two respective units. Therefore, applying the nominal value of one unit's cost will yield misrepresentative results unless you are training that unit exclusively – which is in fact not the practical case.

No, a qiang pike is always worth 60w. So, then, keshiks cost 115f, according to basic maths (which I'm really not sure you master).

Please read the above as well as my last reply to you and you might notice I did in fact very thoroughly respond to your "arguments", pointing out how they are either invalid or irrelevant and that your logic has glaring flaws.

Lol please quote any sentence where you prove me wrong... You're just so full of yourself, doing the same false reasonings over and over, thinking you can calculate your fucking hp/VS stuff, that you don't even realize it's wrong. Quoting someone I won't name : "he thinks he's a genius"

I have no reason to ignore you. I find ignoring someone over a disagreement juvenile. Then again so do I find constant unprovoked aggression for the same reason, so by all means feel free to...

I'm being aggressive because you break my balls 24/7 on twitch chats and forums, while I try to ignore you in order to not cause more problems. Also I don't want people like you to mislead new players with their false ideas. Because sorry, but you don't really know this game, you're not even playing it, you're just trying to apply wrong maths... And it doesn't work. And I find it annoying that you try to be seen as an aoe theoretician, or whatever we could call this, while in fact you don't know shit
Basically you seek for attention, acting like a know-it-all on the forums. I can't stand that. You remind me of hermione granger in harry potter. Makes me want to puke on your face really. Except at least hermione granger had knowledge

[Jaeger]

@Kaiserklein

notification

While it's true that hp/cost and attack/cost don't take into account important factors, I believe that it's not a completely random indicator. You definitely can't argue that one unit beats another just because it has better stats per cost, but I wouldn't be surprised if, as a general trend, stats/cost loosely correlated directly with power. In other words, I think if unit A has better stats per cost than unit B, you could say with more than 50% certainty that unit A beats unit B.

[zoom]

It appears he still has not bothered to read the following excerpt from my initial reply:

I hope you slept well after writing this post. I am fully aware that other factors (including all of those you mention above) than mere statistics are important. In fact, I've acknowledged this many times when discussing this subject and others like it, and elaborated on whether those factors favor the unit in question or not – so also ITT. Nevertheless, statistics per cost (in "villager-seconds") remain good indicators of the general performance of a unit as they are absolute (as opposed to relative) and fundamental and therefore lend themselves well to comparisons. In light of this, my reasoning isn't wrong, nor is it limited to this information – which it seems you have misunderstood it to be. All in all, you make some good points about factors other than those we are seemingly in disagreement on.

So don't bother Ovi; if he isn't willing to even read what anyone who dares slightly disagree with him has to say in direct response to his claims, he's unlikely to comprehend what you and I both mention above. This is painfully evident as he is still desperately trying to make the same ignorant argument – whose validity I acknowledged and whose relevance I proved lacking, just as you did – as he was many posts ago.

[Kaiserklein]

Well I showed a long time ago in that thread (cba to find where exactly) that it's irrelevant. Ofc overall higher hp per cost and higher attack per cost means a better unit, BUT that's considering a constant cost. If you change the cost, it really doesn't work. Really doesn't, I insist. Because then you neglect the amount of units involved, and that really, really sucks cocks. I'm not talking about small stuff like pathing etc. Drop off can change the result by 25 or 50% for example. It's too huge to be ignored.

[Kaiserklein]

It appears he still has not bothered to read the following excerpt from my initial reply:

I hope you slept well after writing this post. I am fully aware that other factors (including all of those you mention above) than mere statistics are important. In fact, I've acknowledged this many times when discussing this subject and others like it, and elaborated on whether those factors favor the unit in question or not – so also ITT. Nevertheless, statistics per cost (in "villager-seconds") remain good indicators of the general performance of a unit as they are absolute (as opposed to relative) and fundamental and therefore lend themselves well to comparisons. In light of this, my reasoning isn't wrong, nor is it limited to this information – which it seems you have misunderstood it to be. All in all, you make some good points about factors other than those we are seemingly in disagreement on.

So don't bother Ovi; if he isn't willing to even read what anyone who dares slightly disagree with him has to say in direct response to his claims, he's unlikely to comprehend what you and I both mention above. This is painfully evident as he is still desperately trying to make the same ignorant argument – whose validity I acknowledged and whose relevance I proved lacking, just as you did – as he was many posts ago.

I read that, and it's shit. As I just told ovi, i'm not talking about some slight overkill or pathing issues. Considering the amount of units on both sides, and not just hp/cost etc, can change the result by 50% or sth. So no, it's definitely not a "good indicator".

[_venox_]

Just use the units and if they are underwhelming try not to rely on them. Even if a qiang pikeman would be worse than a regular pikeman per cost or whatever, the qiang pikeman still fulfills the role as melee anti cavalry, no matter how efficient it is compared to similar units of other nations. After all it's not like you have to decide if you want to train qiangs or regulars, you're stuck with one option.

Also Kaiserklein has a point: Even if X Russian musketeers and Y Japanese ashigaru (X > Y) would be totally equal in theory, in practice not all Russian musketeers are taking part in the battle in larger numbers. This can't be calculated.

[Triple Tits]

The two Qiang pikemen + three Keshiks I believe are for defence...if you were to get attacked in the rear by five hussars or any type of cavalry, that tiny army is probably your best chance at repelling it if you were to fight it, the han banner you'll be running around, the standard army your steppe riders could be surrounded and the crossbows picked off... if your keshiks are to be pursued you have pikes to circle around and those keshiks in turn can pursue the cav. The Manchurian mercs are definitely a better choice if you are going to attack the enemy as you'de get way more for your buck than say keshiks and those two pikemen would be worthless if you are not going to use them, like raiding...the 2pike/3keshiks are pretty much a shittier version of the Manchu/ming iron troops synergy...the 2qiang/3keshiks are a good combo to stop raiding cavalry early on I find.