Profile of Dullahan

What if instead of changing all of the popcap settings and fuel costs okw just got -50 basic manpower. Its a lot. That would mean okw at 50 pop are as much starved for manpower as any other faction at 100 pop. They would have to choose between infantry bolbs and building multiple vehicles, as we can see now one of the 2 is actually enough for okw to win.

It would also fit historical context becouse axis were not starved for vehicles in ardennes, they managed to gather as many tanks as they wanted. What they failed to do was to gather manpower, only half of planned number of soldiers were used in assoult due to shortages.

What is even more important such change would still let them benefit from multiple vetted squads but would hit them hard if they wanted to rebuild squads after wipes.

Messing with manpower income is dangerous, in terms of game balance. Manpower decides games.

I'd rather they just paid a lot more for their units. 300mp for volks, 400mp sturms.

(Or revert the patch and make OKW cool again.)

MG42 build time was increased to compensate for this iirc. I don't think it actually comes out any faster than it used to, just lets you get it while skipping t1.

Panzerfaust doesn't negate light vehicle play. It just deters you from steamrolling them. Keep in mind that ostheer can't build an AT gun or handheld AT until 60 fuel. Every other faction has one or the other much earlier. (Bazookas for US, Zis for Sov, ATG for Brits etc)

Rifle grenade.
https://youtu.be/CQYArVXnY0M

According to the chart UKF only played a whooping 26 games yesterday. The fact that they managed to win over half of them on one day doesn't mean jack for such a small sample size on a single day.

Meanwhile OKW played 7X as many games that day and continued their 70+% winrate.

Oh I know.

Statistically this is relevant. Your small sample size complaint makes sense when samples fall below 5. We call 30 tests a large sample size, but most tests I work with will happily take sample sizes at around 10 and report meaningful output. We don't know the true chance (it depends on the map, game type, plane origin), but 10-20% is also reasonable based on simple calculations.

It depends what you're doing. In this case, I think 10 isn't enough simply because there are so many other variables. (Rotation on the guns when the plane comes in affecting time to fire, potential accuracy modifiers, plane origin, gun placement etc.) And that's before we talk about the map.

Each shot from the base structure has a 0.5% chance to knock down the plane. If you have 10 base structures and they all fire 10 rounds at the plane you have 10x10x0.005=50% chance.

That's not really how the math works. Would be around 40% chance for 100 total shots fired.

Also why is 1v1 the only place to run the test?

Because it determines how good the panzer command and base structures actually are against planes. If in a team game scenario there's more flak emplacements in the HQ (or there could be none and they could be bunkers!), or multiple panzer commands, that complicates things. On the flip side though, maps are bigger (plane spends more time out of range of stuff) and calling in more planes at once surely is going to effect targeting priority. Simple calling in a recon plane before calling in a fuel drop could let the fuel drop make it through, which is only possible in a team game iirc. 1v1 is clean and simple to test.

Show Spoiler

If you feel so inclined not to trust the data Australian generated feel free to run the test yourself, you should not demand he do the work for you.

If you want to make the claim, it's on you to support it.

If you went through thread you would knew cause I did a tests.

5/11 for Schwerer.
1-2/for flak bases.

Not a statistically relevant sample size. Especially when you have two of them!

Do 1v1, have one schwerer and do it 30-50 times and report back to have meaningful data.