Matrix Games Forums

the numbers shown against units e.g. 1 Lt Inf 0.n?

That's the number of men in the division (rounded up or down accordingly). So '0.8' means 8,000 men, '1.0' is 10,000. I'm not quite sure why this is presented in this slightly cryptic way, though...[&:]

Thanks for prompt reply.[:)]

I guess I could show it as a percent: "80%" takes up as much room as ".8"


Eric

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I guess I could show it as a percent: "80%" takes up as much room as ".8"


Eric

That would be MUCH better from a clarity of information standpoint.

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

I guess I could show it as a percent: "80%" takes up as much room as ".8"


Eric

Sorry to drag this old thread up, but this has been puzzling me. So are you saying that the '0.8' doesn't mean 8,000 men unless you coincidentally happen to have an infantry division of 10,000 at full strength? That it really is a decimal value to represent 80%, and not just a shorthand way of writing '8,000'?

No, currently the number represents 10,000 times that value. So an infantry unit with .8 has 8,000 men, and an artillery unit with .3 has 3,000 men.

I think a straight numerical representation (as is the case now) would be preferable to a percentage value since not all units top out at 10,000 men.

For example an infantry division with 80% can be said to have exactly 8,000 men. But an artillery division at 80% is actually 2,400 men, and who needs to do that math? Using the current representation the 80% artillery unit is shown as .2 which while not nearly as accurate as the 2,400 represented by the 80%, is still close enough to show that the artillery is understrength without having the player do 'what is 80% of 3,000' in his head every time they look at the army display.

Actually, the only change necessary I think would be lose the decimal point, which I think is the source of the confusion. It would be much clearer if the unit strengths were shown as:

1 Lt Inf 10 <--- full strength with 10,000 men
2 Lt Inf 6 <--- depleted division with 6,000 men

So my original supposition was correct, and Eric's bringing percentages into it is incorrect? Is that it? [&:]

Well, I definitely would say not incorrect. As a matter of fact as I mentioned a percentage value would actually provide greater accuracy, since the current value is rounded off to the nearest 1,000 men, but I am a big fan of simplicity and as a personal preference I would rather work with approximations that have to do the occasional math in my head.

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Well, I definitely would say not incorrect. As a matter of fact as I mentioned a percentage value would actually provide greater accuracy, since the current value is rounded off to the nearest 1,000 men, but I am a big fan of simplicity and as a personal preference I would rather work with approximations that have to do the occasional math in my head.

Is it me just being thick, or is that no answer at all? [;)]

Does '0.3' mean (a) - 3,000 men or (b) - 30% of the full strength of the unit?

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Actually, the only change necessary I think would be lose the decimal point, which I think is the source of the confusion. It would be much clearer if the unit strengths were shown as:

If 3 characters would fit (ie. "80%") then why not include an additional digit of precision and make it 3.0 or 2.4 to represent the number of thousand of men?

(a)

Good. So Eric's mentioning of percentages was just a total red herring put in to confuse me. And it worked! [:D]