losses

well


in real war, you wouldn't send 30m men running head on to 3m men either.

I mean, there's quite a bit more strategy to that. I was just generalising it even further than you were.

Mystake wrote:well
in real war, you wouldn't send 30m men running head on to 3m men either.

I mean, there's quite a bit more strategy to that. I was just generalising it even further than you were.

There's a difference though if you want to pillage some warehouse or go and occupy some territory.

because I'm not really sure i'm getting your argument.
Are we talking raid/farm or assault missions?

In this thread he has been discussing raiding, thats what I assumed hes taking about specificly, but also losses in general.

Nomad wrote:In this thread he has been discussing raiding, thats what I assumed hes taking about specificly, but also losses in general.

well ok then my last argument

why should you be able to kill as many as you lose if at the same time you're actually stealing something from them

I thought he talked about assaults since he talked about big armies, and there's never big armies in raiding, you always mass down first

ok, I thought that we had already discussed this elsewhere in these forums? about the losses being set the way they are so that the biggest & strongest accounts cannot bully the newer, smaller accts, to give the smaller guys a fighting chance to grow...
Idk, maybe I dreamed it...

Because that's what happens when you WIN.

Also, I've shown the math up above that you actually LOSE, even though you're raiding at what the market considers a profitable rate.


Anyway, what is over sabbing

kingkongfan1 wrote:ok, I thought that we had already discussed this elsewhere in these forums? about the losses being set the way they are so that the biggest & strongest accounts cannot bully the newer, smaller accts, to give the smaller guys a fighting chance to grow...
Idk, maybe I dreamed it...

then add rank modifiers

edit: game is set up in a manner that that is actually legitimately a possible solution. And, if someone wants to get around it by untraining their army, so be it. It'll be at a huge cost to them which essentialyl makes its still a possibility, just not viable for /everyone/ and it still makes it so its harder on the bigger accounts/higher ranks.

edit: add a size modifier too so ppl don't drop to rank 150 to mass rank 80, even though it might be a 30m size v. 10m size situation.

basically, if the difference in total size in % is between Y and Z, then the rank modifier either does not come into effect, or comes in at a reduced level.
sort of like admin efficiency, but for fighting.

that could be a solution to prevent bullying, while still keeping the point of winning, actually that. winning.

or, just make raiding a viable option again. It currently isn't.

The modifier will have to consider a lot more than just army size, that's what I've been playing with in first round of reset, with decent success.

Mystake wrote:or, just make raiding a viable option again. It currently isn't.

~1.2k raid missions each day
~800 farm missions each day

or you just talking about the occasional targets which are atm accumulating units because their defs are too high for it to be profitable to raid them?

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:In this thread he has been discussing raiding, thats what I assumed hes taking about specificly, but also losses in general.

well ok then my last argument

why should you be able to kill as many as you lose if at the same time you're actually stealing something from them

I thought he talked about assaults since he talked about big armies, and there's never big armies in raiding, you always mass down first

Well first off you are assuming, and you know what that does

I think from his perspective what he thinks is wrong is when your vastly superior militarially, but yet you lose soooooooooo many men that it overtakes the value of what you won/the UU raided.

He also did state hes talking about low activity or abandoned accounts with very, very little def left, I think his example is 200 mill def.

As pointed out You can not realisticly 0 a def through military strike, and that is the issue he is raising(i think)

He has asked more then once for someone to explain over sabbing/assassinating to 0 the defense but no one has offered an explination.

Maybe if you advised him on how to do so, it would make it so his other issue (cant 0 a def with a strike) is no longer an issue.

Nomad wrote:He has asked more then once for someone to explain over sabbing/assassinating to 0 the defense but no one has offered an explination.

Oversabbing/assassinating works by sending A LOT more units than would normally be required in order to kill beyond the usual few % per mission.

the rule is that you need to lose 3 units for every unit/weapon you destroy. Obviously if you have better assassin level than your enemy (or are destroying weaker weapons) then you will not lose as many units.
The losses for the attacker are still the same, a % of units sent. So to destroy 1k weapons and the target having no covert whatsoever, you need to send 60k spies. (5% loss means you will lose 3k spies while destroying 1k weapons)

Ok, that's still inefficient then.

You need to send 60x the amount of weapons you want to destroy, in spies.


So if someone has 10 000 weapons, I need to send 600 000 spies? and lose 30k units?

hard to make it worth raiding at that point

Mystake wrote:Ok, that's still inefficient then.

You need to send 60x the amount of weapons you want to destroy, in spies.


So if someone has 10 000 weapons, I need to send 600 000 spies? and lose 30k units?

hard to make it worth raiding at that point

basically? yeah lol. though considering a lot of those accs have 250k+ uu out some people consider it worth it

If I'm not mistaking the oversab formula goes like this:

Your Covert - Enemy Covert = Power Difference / Covert Tech % / 240 = Oversabbing Formula

The end result ist he amount of weapon POINTS you will destroy. So if it says 14500 then you are going to destroy 10 MAs to make it simple.

Mystake, I have to ask the same question that Kingofshinobus did.

Why are you raiding accounts that have a defense when there are so many abandoned inactive accounts that have 0 defense?

A lot of these also have good UP as well.

Now before you jump down my throat I also partially agree with some of what your saying, the issue is how to balance things so that new smaller players are pounded down to the point where they give up and leave the game and it is an issue I have seen in other games.

You need to consider both sides, the losses you suffer when raiding are the same losses that protect you from being raided yourself.

I think myself that there is room for change in both Farming and Raiding both in terms of the games mechanics and the players attitudes.

A possibility may be to be able to send less of your strike force on these missions after all why would you send 30 million units against 3 million when your only really making a quick raid to steal some resources. You don't use a sledgehammer to nail in a tack.

Manleva wrote:A possibility may be to be able to send less of your strike force on these missions after all why would you send 30 million units against 3 million when your only really making a quick raid to steal some resources. You don't use a sledgehammer to nail in a tack.

That's why I adjusted a formula that you will not suffer worse killing ratios when you go in with a high strike instead of a similar one

Mystake wrote:Ok, that's still inefficient then.

You need to send 60x the amount of weapons you want to destroy, in spies.


So if someone has 10 000 weapons, I need to send 600 000 spies? and lose 30k units?

hard to make it worth raiding at that point

not if the target has 300k uu's out

Nomad wrote:

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:In this thread he has been discussing raiding, thats what I assumed hes taking about specificly, but also losses in general.

well ok then my last argument

why should you be able to kill as many as you lose if at the same time you're actually stealing something from them

I thought he talked about assaults since he talked about big armies, and there's never big armies in raiding, you always mass down first

Well first off you are assuming, and you know what that does

I think from his perspective what he thinks is wrong is when your vastly superior militarially, but yet you lose soooooooooo many men that it overtakes the value of what you won/the UU raided.

He also did state hes talking about low activity or abandoned accounts with very, very little def left, I think his example is 200 mill def.

As pointed out You can not realisticly 0 a def through military strike, and that is the issue he is raising(i think)

He has asked more then once for someone to explain over sabbing/assassinating to 0 the defense but no one has offered an explination.

Maybe if you advised him on how to do so, it would make it so his other issue (cant 0 a def with a strike) is no longer an issue.

I think what he wants to say is that a player should be able to ZERO someone's defense in one assault, if its vastly smaller than his strike.
For example I assault someone with a strike 20 or 100 times bigger than someones defense, and his defense will be zero after this one hit.

If a defender has for example 250 million defense, and someone assaults him with 25 billion strike, it should be ZEROed in one assault
In the case of 20 times bigger strike, I must assault with 5 billion strike to ZERO a 250 million defense in one assault.

About oversabbing, as far as I know you will end up spending about 2 kuwal for each 1 kuwal you destroy, for example send 600k spies on oversab, 30k will die and you will destroy 15k tanks.
1 spy costs roughly as much as 1 tank.

Manleva wrote:Why are you raiding accounts that have a defense when there are so many abandoned inactive accounts that have 0 defense?

I raid accounts with and without def.

Most of the accounts i raid i loose max 500 units but gain minimum of 2.000 units thats a profit still.

Even with our numbers
Lost: 500 * 947k (522k Weapons + 150k Training + 275k Units) = 473.500.000 Kuwal
Profit: 2k * 275k = 550.000.000 Kuwal
Total profit: 550.000.000 - 473.500.000 = 76.500.000 kuwal.

And i often get alot more UU at a lot less losses.

Anyway back to the issue.

Mystake i do not see a problem with the losses I still find the problem with if you WIN you still loose KUWAL. It's not realistick, IRL this would not happen unless the attackers attack and keep def occopiede while Spies runs in under the cover and steals the money. And in this case then your spiese need to die as well while trying.

If we just go on the fact you attack with your attack units run in and hit a army bigger than you then in a real world would you not have a chance getting past their lines into the BANK get the money and out again with them its unrealistick.

If you won the fight and while the defender men are retreating your men steal what they can and take with them that i would understand.

But hey Admin and others want this game to be "REALISTIC" and comes with a UNREALISTIC answer to why its possible to loose to a def and still get their KUWAL.

Where as the senario that someone with a def half the striker size kill more than they loose before they retreate is 100% logical and makes sense.

Admin fix this farming ISSUE make it so you need to beat the damn def.

Nimras wrote:

Manleva wrote:Why are you raiding accounts that have a defense when there are so many abandoned inactive accounts that have 0 defense?

I raid accounts with and without def.

Most of the accounts i raid i loose max 500 units but gain minimum of 2.000 units thats a profit still.

Even with our numbers
Lost: 500 * 947k (522k Weapons + 150k Training + 275k Units) = 473.500.000 Kuwal
Profit: 2k * 275k = 550.000.000 Kuwal
Total profit: 550.000.000 - 473.500.000 = 76.500.000 kuwal.

Actually this hit is a loss. You neglect that attack turns have a value too. You can easily sell 10 AT for 200-300 million kuwal.

Lost: 473.500.000 kuwal for units and weapons + attack turns worth 200.000.000 kuwal.
Gained: 550.000.000
Profit: -123.500.000

You would do better if instead of attacking such guy you sold your AT for 200 million kuwal.

Nimras wrote:Admin fix this farming ISSUE make it so you need to beat the damn def.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_(military)

Nothing is broken, especially since using a lower strike carries no benefits whatsoever.
Lower strike = lower profits

no one ever stores everything at one single place but many different places. In RL you also dont keep all your savings in one single bank, you leave it with different banks and you dont keep it all in one currency, you keep several. So in case one bank/currency screws up you dont lose everything you had.
If you have 50 warehouses and 100 soldiers guarding them all, means you have 2 soldiers per warehouse. I can send 3 to any particular one and I will steal whatever is in it.

Kenzu wrote:

Nimras wrote:

Manleva wrote:Why are you raiding accounts that have a defense when there are so many abandoned inactive accounts that have 0 defense?

I raid accounts with and without def.

Most of the accounts i raid i loose max 500 units but gain minimum of 2.000 units thats a profit still.

Even with our numbers
Lost: 500 * 947k (522k Weapons + 150k Training + 275k Units) = 473.500.000 Kuwal
Profit: 2k * 275k = 550.000.000 Kuwal
Total profit: 550.000.000 - 473.500.000 = 76.500.000 kuwal.

Actually this hit is a loss. You neglect that attack turns have a value too. You can easily sell 10 AT for 200-300 million kuwal.

Lost: 473.500.000 kuwal for units and weapons + attack turns worth 200.000.000 kuwal.
Gained: 550.000.000
Profit: -123.500.000

You would do better if instead of attacking such guy you sold your AT for 200 million kuwal.

LOL m8 i do not count the turns what so ever.

If you should count the turns then when you farm for KUWAL you should count the loss of turns in there as well YOU DON'T.

Plus even if i count the turns then the units still is a bigger asset as they increase my income.

Last time i raided and when done i had lost including your TURNS 3bill i gained including the income they generate 6bill because of the fact i now include income.

Jesus will the next farming policy from WR be:

275k UU price
10 turns 250mill

Meaning to count rep you do losses * 250.947.000 (275k UU + 522k weapons + 150k training + 250mill) = actually rep

And for farming:

losses * 250.947.000 (275k UU + 522k weapons + 150k training + 250mill) = actually rep.

LOL right.

The turns i lost raided even included does not in the long run mean anything the UU i get increased my income even tho i have officers and WE with so much that the 10 turns value was earned back within 4 turns TOPS.

Admin wrote:

Nimras wrote:Admin fix this farming ISSUE make it so you need to beat the damn def.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_(military)

Nothing is broken, especially since using a lower strike carries no benefits whatsoever.
Lower strike = lower profits

no one ever stores everything at one single place but many different places. In RL you also dont keep all your savings in one single bank, you leave it with different banks and you dont keep it all in one currency, you keep several. So in case one bank/currency screws up you dont lose everything you had.
If you have 50 warehouses and 100 soldiers guarding them all, means you have 2 soldiers per warehouse. I can send 3 to any particular one and I will steal whatever is in it.

Well thats not true either.

The fact still remains IRL has a attack from one country on another never resultet in MONEY stolen from the NATION/COUNTRY. But from the people/townsmen in the towns that the attacker made it 2. But the money of the Country/Nations has never ever been stolen if the country that was attacked won.

The reteating army might gotten a few coints from the people in the towns they managed to get to. Thats it. Banks not seen.

Again if you wanted to make it realistic then you could make it that the kuwal they got was from the poor people they managed to get to in the outer towns where security was bad. And then we have nother thing in those towns will there be NO BANKS to rob only the towns people.

So that could be lets say if you loose you get a a few kuwal from those people which are NOT taken from the players account as you never made it to the players bank .

Again not realistic if you loose.

Nimras wrote:So that could be lets say if you loose you get a a few kuwal from those people which are NOT taken from the players account as you never made it to the players bank .

Again not realistic if you loose.

I have already shown that you can make it into the enemy bank for the simple reason that your defense protects your whole country. An attacker doesn't need to attack your whole country but only one single place.

If the attacker wins it means they got to all your banks wherever they were. If the defender wins then the attacker only managed to grab a few.

Besides your money is the money of the people. Leaving us with 2 options:
The people have the money until you click that bank or spend button.
Or what you steal is just theirs but part of it eventually always ends up in your pocked so if someone would go and rob them every day, then it probably wouldn't affect your current kuwal you're holding at all. But it would definitely affect the income for the next few turns.

Obviously the second system is just so complicated no new player would ever understand it so it's simpler to go with the first option.

nimras to clarify, your point isn't wrong. However my main issue here is that you're categorically vs lower strike farming while knowing too well that lower strike means lower profit. Being against something for the pure lulz of it while having no real argument as to how it is detrimenal to the game makes the whole point of discussing it somewhat moot.

There's 2 major reasons why it is a good setup:
- It only is relevant when attacking active players since inactives have no def anyways. Removing this update and there will be less attacks on active players.
- It offers extra possibilities to someone who cannot afford a top notch strike while not putting someone with a bigger strike at a disadvantage

It will also remain in the game until these 2 points have been invalidated or at least put seriously into question.

RL example:

Your forces might be too weak to beat all defenders and rob all banks of their gold reserves, but you might be able to rob a couple banks if you focus all your forces on a small area of the country.

You can not compare to Real Life.

So stop trying.


You all also forget we are all on our own PLANET.

@ Nimras,,,, I hate to tell you, but stealing from the town folk of a country IS stealing from that country. If the town folk don't have it the taxes are not paid, items are not bought and the money is no longer in the economy of that country.