You took a lot of risk with what you sent vs neutrals. Overkill is your friend as failing vs neutrals as sm ukraine, particularly rc and rnw can be devastating. Not to mention you tend to conserve more bombers by playing it safe due to the effects of sending more units(more units less casualties).
Ya, that stuff of "More units, more critical".... I don't believe it but wont get out of the topic. I dont think overkill lead to more safety but:
It had been demonstrated that the more rolls in a battle, the more casualties. This fit with the fact that there is no casualties for take an empty city, or the fact that infantries deal a noticeable amount of collateral even when they have less collateral than offensive units.
About expansion:
Ya, RNW was probably too risky. I send 4 bombers, 4 infantry and general. In moscow I send 7 bombers and 3 infantry, from all my AW career only had failed this two times.
So any charges I could do to the expansion? like taking a particular country, etc.
You took a lot of risk with what you sent vs neutrals. Overkill is your friend as failing vs neutrals as sm ukraine, particularly rc and rnw can be devastating. Not to mention you tend to conserve more bombers by playing it safe due to the effects of sending more units(more units less casualties).
Ya, that stuff of "More units, more critical".... I don't believe it but wont get out of the topic. I dont think overkill lead to more safety but:
It had been demonstrated that the more rolls in a battle, the more casualties. This fit with the fact that there is no casualties for take an empty city, or the fact that infantries deal a noticeable amount of collateral even when they have less collateral than offensive units.
About expansion:
Ya, RNW was probably too risky. I send 4 bombers, 4 infantry and general. In moscow I send 7 bombers and 3 infantry, from all my AW career only had failed this two times.
So any charges I could do to the expansion? like taking a particular country, etc.
i performed tests vs syrian to test the effects of sending more units, i sent X2,X3,X4 the defending units, the results were interesting you should check it out. you'll be a believer after and this is certainly applicable in games.
Rnw finland and moscow were risky. With moscow you're unlikely to fail but i failed it once with 7 bombers and never sent that many again.
I have a similar expansion to yours with 2 improvements that i use sometimes when germany and turk are enemies, i take lithuania and latvia rather than minsk because they've higher income and belarus can be capped by turk. It's a super safe expansion.
You took a lot of risk with what you sent vs neutrals. Overkill is your friend as failing vs neutrals as sm ukraine, particularly rc and rnw can be devastating. Not to mention you tend to conserve more bombers by playing it safe due to the effects of sending more units(more units less casualties).
Ya, that stuff of "More units, more critical".... I don't believe it but wont get out of the topic. I dont think overkill lead to more safety but:
It had been demonstrated that the more rolls in a battle, the more casualties. This fit with the fact that there is no casualties for take an empty city, or the fact that infantries deal a noticeable amount of collateral even when they have less collateral than offensive units.
About expansion:
Ya, RNW was probably too risky. I send 4 bombers, 4 infantry and general. In moscow I send 7 bombers and 3 infantry, from all my AW career only had failed this two times.
So any charges I could do to the expansion? like taking a particular country, etc.
i performed tests vs syrian to test the effects of sending more units, i sent X2,X3,X4 the defending units, the results were interesting you should check it out. you'll be a believer after and this is certainly applicable in games.
Rnw finland and moscow were risky. With moscow you're unlikely to fail but i failed it once with 7 bombers and never sent that many again.
I have a similar expansion to yours with 2 improvements that i use sometimes when germany and turk are enemies, i take lithuania and latvia rather than minsk because they've higher income and belarus can be capped by turk. It's a super safe expansion.
1.Yeah please post those results.
2. I saw CREATIN failing moscow... he had all upgrades and sent 10 bombers and general. When game wants you to fail, you fail.
3. I will make another expansion with latvia and lithuania insteat of belarus then thanks for the suggestion.
i performed tests vs syrian to test the effects of sending more units, i sent X2,X3,X4 the defending units, the results were interesting you should check it out. you'll be a believer after and this is certainly applicable in games.
Rnw finland and moscow were risky. With moscow you're unlikely to fail but i failed it once with 7 bombers and never sent that many again.
I have a similar expansion to yours with 2 improvements that i use sometimes when germany and turk are enemies, i take lithuania and latvia rather than minsk because they've higher income and belarus can be capped by turk. It's a super safe expansion.
i performed tests vs syrian to test the effects of sending more units, i sent X2,X3,X4 the defending units, the results were interesting you should check it out. you'll be a believer after and this is certainly applicable in games.
Rnw finland and moscow were risky. With moscow you're unlikely to fail but i failed it once with 7 bombers and never sent that many again.
I have a similar expansion to yours with 2 improvements that i use sometimes when germany and turk are enemies, i take lithuania and latvia rather than minsk because they've higher income and belarus can be capped by turk. It's a super safe expansion.
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD i laughed so hard when I heard this while reading clovi's's bitch comment on lao and i knew it was you XDD
You took a lot of risk with what you sent vs neutrals. Overkill is your friend as failing vs neutrals as sm ukraine, particularly rc and rnw can be devastating. Not to mention you tend to conserve more bombers by playing it safe due to the effects of sending more units(more units less casualties).
Ya, that stuff of "More units, more critical".... I don't believe it but wont get out of the topic. I dont think overkill lead to more safety but:
It had been demonstrated that the more rolls in a battle, the more casualties. This fit with the fact that there is no casualties for take an empty city, or the fact that infantries deal a noticeable amount of collateral even when they have less collateral than offensive units.
About expansion:
Ya, RNW was probably too risky. I send 4 bombers, 4 infantry and general. In moscow I send 7 bombers and 3 infantry, from all my AW career only had failed this two times.
So any charges I could do to the expansion? like taking a particular country, etc.
I'm looking at the Russia NW expansion... seems safe enough to me... clovis, you had something else sent, since 8 units survived - if 8 units are surviving, i'm thinking that's pretty safe.
