Pentagon

[enderland]

Hello,

I have a question with how the Pentagon wonder works.

Is the 10% simply added to your normal percent chance to win, so if you have 50% to win without it, you now would have 55%, or would it really be (.5*1.1)/(.5 + 1.1*.5) = 52.3%?

Thanks,

Ender Land

[Brotherington]

it is not added on to your percentage chance to win, its a multiplier for your battle strength.

[enderland]

it is not added on to your percentage chance to win, its a multiplier for your battle strength.

So it is basically useless then? It only increases your chance to win by something like 2% then.

[enderland]

Can this be moved to the Question Center please?

[US of Europe]

The man who spoke above you speaks the truth. It doesn't directly affect the chances, it affects your ground attack strength (and increases it with 10%). So you calculate your ground attack strength (soldiers, tanks, efficiency, etc), and may add 10% to this. Indirectly it will have some influence on the battle odds, though whether this is 0.001% or 10%, is impossible to tell as this will depend on your own force and on your enemy's force.

[Brotherington]

Increased battle strength means increases battle odds and higher casualties for your enemies.

[Reformentia]

Which, at a 10% strength increase, is pretty anemic for a Wonder effect... heck, Barracks are superior. They add on an upkeep cost reduction on top of a 10% strength increase and they only cost 50 grand. Which is why Pentagon and the Foreign Aid Commission are the two last wonders I will ever buy.

What it should do is give you an extra troop deployment per day. Now that would be a Wonder-worthy effect.

Edited February 26, 2008 by Reformentia

[Viluin]

What it should do is give you an extra troop deployment per day. Now that would be a Wonder-worthy effect.

I think that would be seriously overpowered though.

[Reformentia]

I think that would be seriously overpowered though.

No it wouldn't, it just gives you more deployment flexibility. Valuable, but not overpowering. Perhaps you're thinking about an extra attack per day? That would be overpowered.

[Syzygy]

Our battle calculation software says: Pentagon increases your Battle odds between 2.5% and 5.0% for ground attacks only (depending on the attack time, your army strength and the other nations army strength).

All this for ground attacks only. So yes, its currently absolutely useless.

And I agree, giving it a second deployment per day would NOT be overpowered. for 50M you SHOULD get an advance, one Improvements cannot provide.

[Ephriam Grey]

Barracks - $50,000.00 - Increases soldier efficiency +10%, reduces soldier upkeep cost -10%.

Pentagon - $30,000,000 - The Pentagon serves as your nations headquarters for military operations. Increases ground attack battle strength +10%.

Increases ground attack battle strength +10% != Increases soldier efficiency +10%

[Reformentia]

Increases ground attack battle strength +10% != Increases soldier efficiency +10%

So Pentagon boosts tanks as well, but gives no cost savings on upkeep which makes their effects pretty close to a wash. You're still looking at paying 600 times more for a Pentagon than a barracks for something that doesn't do anything better. And you can stack 5 barracks. An extra deployment per day would make it useful, as is it's weak.

[enderland]

You also forgot that Barracks make it harder to anarchy you, whereas this does not

[SilverHawk]

What I think it means is that your percent to win a battle is increased by 10%. So say normally, I would have a 65% chance of winning the battle, with the Pentagon, it becomes 75%, irregardless of modifiers from infra, tech, enemy forces and friendly forces.

Edited March 4, 2008 by SilverHawk

[Emperor Badger]

What I think it means is that your percent to win a battle is increased by 10%. So say normally, I would have a 65% chance of winning the battle, with the Pentagon, it becomes 75%, irregardless of modifiers from infra, tech, enemy forces and friendly forces.

So that means that if you have 0 soldiers and tanks you still have a 10% chance of wining and can't be anarchied. That doesn't seem right.

[Cyrogen]

its a multiplier not an additive percentage. for example were it an additive percentage the following could happen.

Say someone has a 91% chance of winning a battle without the pentagon...if it were additive that would mean that their percentage chance to win is 101%...whereas if it were a multiplicative percentage (assuming the calculations are floored) the winning percentage would be 100%

<.<

>_<

>.>

Edited March 4, 2008 by Cryogen

[enderland]

What I think it means is that your percent to win a battle is increased by 10%. So say normally, I would have a 65% chance of winning the battle, with the Pentagon, it becomes 75%, irregardless of modifiers from infra, tech, enemy forces and friendly forces.

This is incorrect. The net effect is somewhere around 2-3% increase in odds.

[Melos]

Interesting. That's probably why Pentagons are one of the least purchased Wonders in all of CN.

So let me get this straight. The Pentagon increases your Soldier/Tank Efficiency by 10%, right? So say you already have a 200% Soldier Efficiency, your Soldiers will now be 210% Efficient (+10%) or 220% (+10% of the 200%)?

[Kung Fu Geeks]

lets look at what this really does. its a 10% boost to attack STRENGTH, not effeciency, not battle odds.

so what are things strengths? well thats in the docs

# Soldier battle strength = Number of soldiers * efficiency modifiers * 2 (stated here for reference)

# Attacking tank battle strength = Number of attacking tanks * 25

and lets grab costs to while we're at it

soldier = $5.60 (my costs)

tank Purchase cost = 224 (again my costs)

pentagon = 30mil

lets say, i have 40,000 soldiers with no modifires, so they have an effeciency of 40000. therefor they have a battle strength of 80000

if i got a pentagon my soldiers would now have a battle strength of 88000. nice right?

well that 8000 extra battle strenght cost me 30mil so thats $3,750.00 per pt of battle strenght, wheras i can purchase another soldier for $5.60 and gain 2pts of battle strength. yup at 40k soldiers it costs almost 1340 times as much to improve your battle strength with a petagon over just buying soldiers.

Ok, so what if i had a maxed out military?

67027(67027) troops with a strength of 134054 at a cost of $375,351.20

6702 tanks with attacking strength of 167550 at a cost of $1,501,248

total strength 301604 at a total cost of $1,876,599.20 which gets me a cost of $6.22 per pt of strength

now lets throw the pentegon on top of that

i get an extra 30160.4 attacking strength at an additional cost of $30,000,000 which makes it cost $994.68 per pt of strength.

basically it comes down to if you are maxed out and have no other way to gain strength, it will give you a boost you cannot get otherwise, however given that soldiers and tanks die in battle, it would be MUCH more effective to save that 30mil just for replenishing ground troops.

For the cost of buying the pentagon, i could replinish my entire army from nothing almost 16 times, so my full battle strength * 16 or my full battle strength * 0.10

In order for the price per strenght pt to match what i would get from my combined tanks and soldiers (roughly 6.22 per pt) i'd have to field an army with a strenght over 16 times the size of what i show in the numbers above.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Kung Fu Geeks

[Guido]

Although your calculations look good, I think you are overlooking one thing. The pentagon is meant to give you the advantage in battles so that you win more ground battles. Saying that you can replenish your troops 16 times from nothing is a moot point, because you are always limited to your max # of soldiers and tanks. This essentially raises that maximum number.

Now since the battle system is so screwed up anyway, that makes this wonder even less than worthless than it would be if the battle system were well designed.

I'd pay about a million for it, no more.

It's horrible.

[JoshuaR]

I agree with Reformentia. An extra deployment is much more interesting and unlike other wonders/improvements.

[admin]

Although your calculations look good, I think you are overlooking one thing. The pentagon is meant to give you the advantage in battles so that you win more ground battles. Saying that you can replenish your troops 16 times from nothing is a moot point, because you are always limited to your max # of soldiers and tanks. This essentially raises that maximum number.

Now since the battle system is so screwed up anyway, that makes this wonder even less than worthless than it would be if the battle system were well designed.

I'd pay about a million for it, no more.

It's horrible.

Thanks for reviewing the Pentagon wonder. I've increased the battle attack modifyer for the wonder from 10% to 20% and will consider lowering the price for this wonder as well.

[Syzygy]

Thanks for reviewing the Pentagon wonder. I've increased the battle attack modifyer for the wonder from 10% to 20% and will consider lowering the price for this wonder as well.

a step in the right direction, however, granting a second deployment would give a "strategical" advantage, an option the user has to USE, rather then an automatic bonus. way more elegant imho, and probably what the players want

[Reformentia]

a step in the right direction, however, granting a second deployment would give a "strategical" advantage, an option the user has to USE, rather then an automatic bonus. way more elegant imho, and probably what the players want

He clearly did the 20% thing instead in an attempt to make me cry... heartless monster.

[Seti Cruncher]

Thanks for reviewing the Pentagon wonder. I've increased the battle attack modifyer for the wonder from 10% to 20% and will consider lowering the price for this wonder as well.

Thank You for the Change to the Pentagon. It's a good start

One of the idea's for the Pentagon that has been brought up in the suggestion thread and is receiving good player support is adding an extra deployment to the wonder as found here.

Would you consider adding this Change to the Pentagon?

Since posting this suggestion its been brought to my attention that this idea has been brought up and discussed a couple times (in this very thread as well) and all with good support. This would definitely make the Pentagon a wonder worth having and help nations defend themselves when triple teamed.

I hope you'll consider this change.