Profile of Hannibal

To the topic:
I've always considered population to reflect the unit value at later stages of the game, while resources rather take the role of reflecting the value of the unit right out of the gate. Obviously it's not as black and white as that, but the general idea works well.

POP always defined for me how much combat power you could squeeze into your army. Units that scale very well via upgrades and veterancy should therefore be more expensive in population. Buying a unit or upgrade is an upfront investment, for which you usually need quicker return. Goes more towards the "shock value" of the unit.
I agree with Sanders that these values are balanced within their faction, although I'd say "mostly" instead of "only". We've regularly had standardization of units or abilities across factions, and this makes sense to some extend.
Regarding your example: I think in the end probably no one would really notice the difference between a 16 POP or 15 POP Firefly or Jackson. The Jackson should not be overly expensive since it's your only AT unit to really scale into the late game as USF, unless you want to spend all your munis on those special AT rounds of the 57mm ATG. I think this is why it did not get a price increase: To not risk gating USF out of AT options more than necessary. On the other hand it performs so well that Jacksons need to be population intensive. I assume this is why they cost both less resources and more POP than the Firefly.

We didn't forget anything, Rangers were purposefully left at 10 pop because of how effective tripple elite Bazooka Rangers are and we didn't want to encourage spamming them. Thompson Rangers being affected by this was a sacrifice that was made deliberately. If it wasn't for the zooks they could've been 9 pop like other elite infantry.

Quick question:
Was it considered to give Thompsons a tiny buff then to make them on par in value with triple zook Rangers? If so, what was the reason against it?

Hi guys

New update on the player cards. Now it shows also AI games and custom games.
The right top info "card" has also changed - previously it was calculated from all the games. Now it's calculated only from ranked games.



Isildur example:


Or here is player with lot of AI games https://coh2stats.com/players/76561198132689304

Cheers
pagep

Very neat addition!

Out of interest, could you look up how the number of games or the total play time of AI games, custom games and ranked games compare? It would give a good indication how much of the community is actually participating in ranked matches.
Is this doable somehow, at least with some random selection of players to estimate? I know that you don't have complete data on every game that is being played, but might there be a way to do it?

Think he is referring to the tournament where the majority of games where Ostruppen vs Mechanized.

Wasn't this AE's Chaos Krieg tournament with 250 VPs? In this case it's not very surprising that players go for strong early game strategies.
Although Osttruppen have dominated at least one other, "normal" tournament iirc.

Note that these assume every shot hits as I haven't wrapped my head around how to properly add hit chance into the pen binary distribution yet.

As long as there is no deflection damage there is no functional difference between a miss and a bounce. You can just multiply pen chance with hit chance.
Scatter hits are a different topic and depend on what you want to 'simulate'. For standing targets, 50-60% of scatter shots still hit on max range as a rule of thumb.

Yes there is. If a person plays enough game he get both "good" and "bad" RNGs. Problem is perception one since many that people tend to remember only the "bad" RNG that "cost" the game they had won by playing "better" and the good RNG that give them victory when they actually played worse.

This is completely missing the point. Both of these are stupid and should be diminished as much as possible. Your good RNG is your opponent's bad RNG. Either way, the game has been decided by RNG and not by skill.

Anyway, my point is that there rarely are enough "RNG checks" in a single game to even out. You're not going to have 10 Panthers with each of them having 10 engagements so that one or two dying by RNG won't matter as much. You're going to have 1-2. If you lose one of them because every shot is penetrating (insert Hans meme here), that is game changing.

...

No one in this thread seriously suggested otherwise.