OME Question

[Demented Logic]

ok but what I didn't understand was why the intel is inconsistant within itself.

Why does the SOM have the numbers for troops then a difference in value for total defence when it calculates it for itself.

I get that it can be inaccurate but why do 100 archers = 560 defence... even factoring in ME mod (lets say 100% efficiency in this example), shouldn't it be 500 in this case.

I believe that each line in the SoM has inaccuracy in it, and that net defense isn't recalculated based on the numbers given to you. Looking at tactician SoMs, the net defense does agree with the the troops and DME.

[Palar]

^ As he said there is no calculations in the SoM itself, it just gives you numbers which are probably pre-calculated and with random factors for each value unless tactician in war.

[Kolgar Damodread]

A simple answer would have been, "Just add 15% to what your Military Advisor is showing."
I don't know how the rest got started except to ridicule me for even asking the question.
Sorry for being so stupid and not understanding every detail of the game.
It is a game, Right?
I don't sit up at night with my calculator out and 4 pages open looking at all Utopia information trying to figure out how to gain 112 acres compared to 110 acres.
I just play the game.
Again, my bad.

[nooblet]

Yes, that would be simple. I thought I gave simple answers...

[Demented Logic]

A simple answer would have been, "Just add 15% to what your Military Advisor is showing."
I don't know how the rest got started except to ridicule me for even asking the question.
Sorry for being so stupid and not understanding every detail of the game.
It is a game, Right?
I don't sit up at night with my calculator out and 4 pages open looking at all Utopia information trying to figure out how to gain 112 acres compared to 110 acres.
I just play the game.
Again, my bad.

Its still not quite that simple, because the bonus multiplies with the General Bonus as well. So add 15+3.45*(number of generals sent - 1) If you want to figure your max offense for a single attack, add 28.8% to what the military advisor is showing.

[Ethan]

Its still not quite that simple, because the bonus multiplies with the General Bonus as well. So add 15+3.45*(number of generals sent - 1) If you want to figure your max offense for a single attack, add 28.8% to what the military advisor is showing.

Even that isn't quite right, because the generals are *added* to existing OME. So it would be 3.45/[some weird factor] per general - or perhaps easier to do 3/[some weird factor] per general, then multiply that result by 1.15 for warrior.

Aka - it gets messy, fast.

[nooblet]

I think someone stated that warrior (sorry for the confusion, I don't know why I put generals) multiply with mod offense, and every other OME mod adds. I tested this and confirmed with OME from generals and training grounds, have not tested with honor or warrior bonus.
Of course we could just ask a warrior to test and confirm this and the question is settled. What is clear is that wiki's formula is wrong.

I do believe that the strategy board could use a FAQ for frequently asked questions, like how the new intel system works, or why warrior bonuses do not show on throne room/military advisor. They are, after all, frequently asked questions that should be answered, and this prevents people from being embarassed and told that they're nubs.

[Demented Logic]

I think someone stated that generals multiply with mod offense, and every other OME mod adds. I tested this and confirmed with OME from generals and training grounds, have not tested with honor or warrior bonus.
Of course we could just ask a warrior to test and confirm this and the question is settled. What is clear is that wiki's formula is wrong.

I do believe that the strategy board could use a FAQ for frequently asked questions, like how the new intel system works, or why warrior bonuses do not show on throne room/military advisor. They are, after all, frequently asked questions that should be answered, and this prevents people from being embarassed and told that they're nubs.

I am a warrior and I have tested it. I posted in the Dwarf Warrior thread the results that showed that the Warrior bonus multiplies.

[Ethan]

Re-factoring the wiki formula might help, as it makes things "clearer". The strange mix of add and multiply, 0 and 1 indexed, is awkward.
First, "1 index", or "percentize" everything. So Warrior is 1.15, 4 generals is 1.09, and TGs give 1.x is the same as build adviser reporting "+x% OME" or whatever language it uses. This is a change from the wiki only for TGs and generals.

Second, express in standardized representations. First, a total addition version:
Total OME = Pay*Honor*Fanat*Warrior + TGs*Honor*Fanat*Warrior - Honor*Fanat*Warrior + General*Warrior - Warrior

Note, there are 3 "+" sections, and 2 "-" sections, so the "1's" from the extras cancel out, and leave only 1 "1".
Sadly enough, this is almost certainly the simplest representation of the OME formula. Where Warrior appears 5 times, and even honor and fanat 3.

Another, even "worse" representation. This is the *correct* IMEO (In My Educated Opinion) method of thinking of a bonus - something (fanat, for example) giving me 5% higher of a bonus should provide an actual 5% increase in offense. As this form shows... it does not.

Total OME = Pay*TGs*Honor*Fanat*General*Warrior*[ 1/(TGs*General) + 1/(Pay*General) - 1(Pay*TGs*General) + 1/(Pay*TGs*Honor*Fanat) - 1/(Pay*TGs*Honor*Fanat*General) ]

So, note how the first part multiplies, exactly like it should. And then the open bracket happens, and all sanity gets chucked out the window. Note, the 1 factor that doesn't appear inside the []? Warrior.


BTW, simple suggestion for next age: remove the bracketed part of the OME formula. It really isn't adding much of anything to anything.


@nooblet - what part do you think is wrong? I've tested what I can, and had it show up as correct every time I've tested it... so, which part is in dispute?

[DHaran]

I don't understand why you guys spend so much time overcomplicating such simple matters.

[nooblet]

Definitely. It doesn't help when I screw up in writing my post.

Wiki has been updated since I last checked, so I was wrong.

[Demented Logic]

I don't understand why you guys spend so much time overcomplicating such simple matters.

Because I'm an Engineer, and I like to understand how things work.