Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Rather than defining a cell reference Chance to Win = Sum(L1:L7), it's defined as Sum(L1:L(value of B), where B is a formula dependent on variables. It's a cell reference that's dependent on the a, which used to be done with concactenating the values you need together with the & sign, by defining the row and column references seperately. I think it might be a function call now, so I'm looking around.
Anyways, the final outcome of this is having a similar calculator for use in balancing units. When you attack an enemy stack with equal hammer-cost of units of your own, I'm using the average hammers remaining after the attack for an estimate of combat effectiveness. It's much easier than trying to eyeball many variables (some new gameplay mechanics). For example, to find the break-even point in value with a unit that has a 100% capture chance on the attack where cost (around 50) and withdraw rates are variable, compared to a unit costing 120 hammers and much higher strength. It spun my head trying to find a starting point until I decided to measure the ambiguous property of value with a more definable quantity like hammers remaining after engagements.
For example, I've found that if an equal hammer's-worth of Submarines with Flanking II attacks a stack of Battleships with Combat II (15 subs vs 10 battleships, 2250 hammers each), the attacker will lose an average 298 hammers in the engagement, with the defender losing an average of 18. This results in a significant net loss of hammers (this takes into account second-attacks where the defender is wounded). This is in comparison to equal stacks of battleships engaging, or battleships with aircraft, which are both currently better. The Destroyer is also a very useless unit type right now, since subs actually beat it on the defense (due to withdraw and lower cost), as do battleships.
To create good unit-counters with multiple variables (combat bonuses, withdraw, capture) the catch is then finding what bonuses the attacker might recieve that bring the cost-effectiveness to a break-even point. In the case of subs I slightly lowered their cost and gave them a combat modifier to bring them to 10% more effective than battleships when attacking that unit type, and gave destroyers a defensive bonus to make them better at countering subs.
This also works great when creating new units, to give a starting point on balancing and save a lot of playtesting
Anyways, the final outcome of this is having a similar calculator for use in balancing units. When you attack an enemy stack with equal hammer-cost of units of your own, I'm using the average hammers remaining after the attack for an estimate of combat effectiveness. It's much easier than trying to eyeball many variables (some new gameplay mechanics). For example, to find the break-even point in value with a unit that has a 100% capture chance on the attack where cost (around 50) and withdraw rates are variable, compared to a unit costing 120 hammers and much higher strength. It spun my head trying to find a starting point until I decided to measure the ambiguous property of value with a more definable quantity like hammers remaining after engagements.
For example, I've found that if an equal hammer's-worth of Submarines with Flanking II attacks a stack of Battleships with Combat II (15 subs vs 10 battleships, 2250 hammers each), the attacker will lose an average 298 hammers in the engagement, with the defender losing an average of 18. This results in a significant net loss of hammers (this takes into account second-attacks where the defender is wounded). This is in comparison to equal stacks of battleships engaging, or battleships with aircraft, which are both currently better. The Destroyer is also a very useless unit type right now, since subs actually beat it on the defense (due to withdraw and lower cost), as do battleships.
To create good unit-counters with multiple variables (combat bonuses, withdraw, capture) the catch is then finding what bonuses the attacker might recieve that bring the cost-effectiveness to a break-even point. In the case of subs I slightly lowered their cost and gave them a combat modifier to bring them to 10% more effective than battleships when attacking that unit type, and gave destroyers a defensive bonus to make them better at countering subs.
This also works great when creating new units, to give a starting point on balancing and save a lot of playtesting
