- Oct 5, 2007
Great stuff dhelmet, its fascinating stuff just to read about : )
The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.
Thanks. I want to present the data and let people make their own conclusions as much as possible. I do put in some of my own conclusions, but because everything depends on everything else there really is no "one ring to rule them all" that I've found so far. That's encouraging; I want there to be multiple good strategies.Great stuff dhelmet, its fascinating stuff just to read about : )
I wrote the original, but I replaced it with a table of 1947 stats because it was a bit misleading--not all techs start at the same year, have the same offsets, etc. I could generate stats for some intermediate years if that would help.There used to be a table on the wiki showing the change in unit statistics for each tech level, but it disappeared in the last couple of days. Does anyone know if that was because it was wrong?
Kinda expensive, but powerful.I personally use ARM+ARM+AC+SP ART as my armor units, how does that compare?
Also; do you take into account the modifiers to other units that come with the tech needed to unlock things like SP ART and MEC?
It was kind of misleading without context, but still useful. What I would really love is to have the availability year for each brigade type and then modifiers for each tech year. I could then modify my spreadsheet to accept tech year for each brigade type and modify stats accordingly. That would be pretty sweet, but a lot more work.I wrote the original, but I replaced it with a table of 1947 stats because it was a bit misleading--not all techs start at the same year, have the same offsets, etc. I could generate stats for some intermediate years if that would help.
Probably not. The options in ship design are in determining which components to upgrade when. The permanent parts of the ship should obviously be researched ahead, since things like AA can be upgraded later. I suppose something similar could be done to look at ideal fleet composition, but I have no plans to do that.Any chances of doing similar for aircraft and ships?
Probably the best thing to do is to work out a few key characteristics for each division model and graph them against tech-year.I think that people are most interested in ~1940 tech year, a much simpler solution would be to post a table of brigade stats with everything at that tech level. It would be really easy for me to modify my spreadsheet with that data, and update some of the tables. Maybe an additional tech year of interest could be 1943 or 44, so that we could also examine how the best division types change over time.
All divisions in the front line have a chance to fire and are eligible to be damaged. Divisions keep being added to the frontline until the frontage limit is exceeded.As I said, dunno if this is how it works - but it kind of makes sense to me.
That is correct. The key aspect is using support brigades to achieve concentration of force. 0 width brigades -> more brigades on the front line -> more casualties inflicted early in the battle and enemy attack capability diminishing more rapidly.So basically combat width matters in that it determines how many divisions you can stuff into the front, but width has no independent effect on the divisions ability to inflict damage.
I'm not claiming the build is superior - I'm looking for reason to justify building or having just Combat Brigades in a division like with the starting OOBs.dhemet99 said:It was primarily the Soviets who attached massive numbers of artillery to divisions, so the divisions of most countries will be the plain old vanilla infantry. This has nothing to do with that build being superior.