On 10 Sep 2003 , Steven Woodcock wrote about Re: [empire-deluxe]
Patch 3.512 (wa:
> I think you're taking what I said out of context.
> I said the better general won't lose as many units, and I stand by
> If you are ruthlessly sacrificing your units into
> out-of-range airplane attacks and futile attacks against battleships
> you're not playing very well, frankly. Same goes if you let your
> trannies get caught loaded a lot.
You already get a bad combat attackratio when you're attacking land
units with aircraft (exceptofr BO-AR, obviously), and that is exactly
the kind of confrontation you could get into in the situation I
described. I don't see how that makes one a bad general.
> I think the better player balances his production efficiency with
> unit production and unit loss--and that's what
> the event organizer was trying to measure.
That's not what you measure with # of units lost. This depends
entirely on the random generator and the chances you have when
entering combat - if you enter lots of combats with good odds (such
as attacking TR), you'll lose less units as if you accept worse odds.
Now I agree in the real world this is certainly the mark of a good
general, but it doesn't necessarily help you win empire games if you
already need to retire cities to keep up your prod. eff. If you have
a choice of either not producing a unit, or producing a unit that
comes up quickly to the the front and is lost quickly there, it makes
sense to maybe produce fighters and smash them against enemy cities.
It'll hurt the enemy more than producing nothing.
What does count is repairing units, but I repair far less units than
I lose, because I incur most losses on land units and aircraft, which
can rarely be repaired, so repairing is not a big factor re: unit
> From: "Michael Mendelsohn" <yahoo@...>
> Actually, that's not necessarily true, especially when playing at
> Adv3. To avoid Efficiency degradation, you can either lay up a lot of
> cities, or start producing units that don't spend so much time in
> transit to the frontlines. In the latter case, destroying your own
> units becomes imperative as not doing that will impair your efficiency
> - you can either not have units by losing them in battle, or by not
> producing them; and given these alternatives, there's not much of a
> drawback accepting bad combat odds.
The beginning starts in the middle, and the end suddenly stops.
"Der Anfang fängt in der Mitte an, und das Ende hört plötzlich auf."
-- zitiert auf http://www.meocom-online.de/home/sabseb/zl.html