losses

I raid inactives.

They don't have zero defense. This is a problem. If I raid with a 10b strike, I shouldn't take a single loss against anyone with anything lower than a 1b defense.

And then, it should only be slightly gradual until their defense = 10b, at which point both sides lose the same amount.


Actually, with your equation, if both sides have 10b defenses with same amount of soldiers and weapons, who loses more? The answer should be that it's equal.

[quote="Nimras"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 .r was last farmed

Again not realistic if you loose.[/quote]

And in reality is this not exactly what is happening in AW. Farming never takes anything from anyone's bank all it ever takes is the loose change that has not yet been banked.

Remember all you can ever take when farming is the income generated since the defender either last banked or was last farmed by someone else.
Or would you prefer that Admin change thinks so that you could actually raid Banks and kill of Farmers as well.

Mystake wrote:I raid inactives.

They don't have zero defense. This is a problem. If I raid with a 10b strike, I shouldn't take a single loss against anyone with anything lower than a 1b defense.

And then, it should only be slightly gradual until their defense = 10b, at which point both sides lose the same amount.


Actually, with your equation, if both sides have 10b defenses with same amount of soldiers and weapons, who loses more? The answer should be that it's equal.

This makes no sense.
Bigger force doesnt mean your troops are immune to enemy fire.

A big country can invade a small one, and if they have same technology (lets say tanks and rifles), then the big country can have even 100 times more forces and still sustain damages, which may even be similar in absolute values as those of the weaker enemy.

Mystake wrote:I raid inactives.

They don't have zero defense. This is a problem. If I raid with a 10b strike, I shouldn't take a single loss against anyone with anything lower than a 1b defense.

And then, it should only be slightly gradual until their defense = 10b, at which point both sides lose the same amount.


Actually, with your equation, if both sides have 10b defenses with same amount of soldiers and weapons, who loses more? The answer should be that it's equal.

Your logic is flawed.

You are saying your fine with "joe" building a strike 10 times the size of yours and massing you with it and suffering no loses? Because that is what you just said.

Mystake wrote:I raid inactives.

They don't have zero defense.

if they have a defense, no matter how small, the player is active... only true inactives have a 0 defense...

I would disagree Kong, just bc someone has a def doesn't mean they are active. I could clear a 25b def down to 0. Does that mean that person is now inactive?

No mystake is right.
It's totally fair if we do it Dune/SGUW style.
If Strike is 5-10 times larger then defender suffers whatever losses they suffer now but attacker suffers nothing, since they are using their own ST's. Afterall the opposite is true that when there's a big def the defender doesn't lose anything.

NC

seaborgium wrote:I would disagree Kong, just bc someone has a def doesn't mean they are active. I could clear a 25b def down to 0. Does that mean that person is now inactive?

I would say that if the player you speak of did not rebuild at least a token defense, that player is indeed an inactive player, that or said player likes being farmed/raided...JMO.

Admin wrote:No mystake is right.
It's totally fair if we do it Dune/SGUW style.
If Strike is 5-10 times larger then defender suffers whatever losses they suffer now but attacker suffers nothing, since they are using their own ST's. Afterall the opposite is true that when there's a big def the defender doesn't lose anything.

NC

I say that if this is what mystake is after, then mystake should go play Dune/SGUW...

kingkongfan1 wrote:

seaborgium wrote:I would disagree Kong, just bc someone has a def doesn't mean they are active. I could clear a 25b def down to 0. Does that mean that person is now inactive?

I would say that if the player you speak of did not rebuild at least a token defense, that player is indeed an inactive player, that or said player likes being farmed/raided...JMO.

Yes guys, we all understood that someone isn't inactive just cos their def got wiped a couple hours ago.

seaborgium wrote:I would disagree Kong, just bc someone has a def doesn't mean they are active. I could clear a 25b def down to 0. Does that mean that person is now inactive?

Not just that, but the amount of farm hits/raid hits it takes to take a defense from 1b to zero means it would take an eternity to get it down.

I raided someone earlier, I have the logs to show for it.

My first hit, I produced a 487m strike.
They produced a 209m defense. I then did 515 dmg, then 446.
They did 189, 207, 204 199.

by the end, I was hitting the about ~400m strike size, (last hit was 416, 384, 403) they were doing 205, 190, 210.

each hit I lost more than twice what the defender did. My techs are double theirs, they were using the 800 defense weapons.
I sent 70% of the units he did too. I'm just showing all this to show how many less units I had to send but how much more damage I had to take. Not including the ST and AT I used.


And uh, I am going to bold something in the next quote

Admin wrote:No mystake is right.
It's totally fair if we do it Dune/SGUW style.
If Strike is 5-10 times larger then defender suffers whatever losses they suffer now but attacker suffers nothing, since they are using their own ST's. Afterall the opposite is true that when there's a big def the defender doesn't lose anything.

NC

I just wanted to point that out, because I didn't know that.


And because of it,


Now, to compromise with the people who disagree. Let's keep SOME damage for raid assaults. Just make it a very, very small percentage. When we compare to SGW, we were talking about strikes ranging in the trillions, where being 10x larger was not actually a difficult task. Here, it's much, much MUCH harder to accomplish. The wide range of SGW's strike isn't mirrored here, which is why here in ADW it won't have an enormous effect on game play and can't really be used strategically. Unless you have a 15-25b strike and you go after someone with 3b, but then you're using your ST so really whats it worth to you?


also for the kuwal not being stolen thing, I get the analogy. You pillage through the cities and steal what they have 'on hand' and a victory means you've invaded /all/ the cities and defeated them all.

but then the same goes for raiding. NOT THAT IM TRYING TO MAKE THEM THE SAME.
I'm just saying... if you look at it as the weaker cities are the ones that fell, then surely they must be the poorest, no? And therefore carry the least amount
then i'd say as the gap from aggressor to defender strikes narrows, the margin of kuwal stolen goes up, but maybe never past 75%?

Mystake wrote:Not just that, but the amount of farm hits/raid hits it takes to take a defense from 1b to zero means it would take an eternity to get it down.

I raided someone earlier, I have the logs to show for it.

My first hit, I produced a 487m strike.
They produced a 209m defense. I then did 515 dmg, then 446.
They did 189, 207, 204 199.

by the end, I was hitting the about ~400m strike size, (last hit was 416, 384, 403) they were doing 205, 190, 210.

each hit I lost more than twice what the defender did. My techs are double theirs, they were using the 800 defense weapons.
I sent 70% of the units he did too. I'm just showing all this to show how many less units I had to send but how much more damage I had to take. Not including the ST and AT I used.

I'm not quite sure why you were trying to lower a defense using farm/raid attacks considering the attacker has a base loss of 2% and defender only 0.25%.

Obviously your strike would drop quicker than theirs. Not to mention that assault gets the job done around 15 times faster and obviously for much less AT's

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:Not just that, but the amount of farm hits/raid hits it takes to take a defense from 1b to zero means it would take an eternity to get it down.

I raided someone earlier, I have the logs to show for it.

My first hit, I produced a 487m strike.
They produced a 209m defense. I then did 515 dmg, then 446.
They did 189, 207, 204 199.

by the end, I was hitting the about ~400m strike size, (last hit was 416, 384, 403) they were doing 205, 190, 210.

each hit I lost more than twice what the defender did. My techs are double theirs, they were using the 800 defense weapons.
I sent 70% of the units he did too. I'm just showing all this to show how many less units I had to send but how much more damage I had to take. Not including the ST and AT I used.

I'm not quite sure why you were trying to lower a defense using farm/raid attacks considering the attacker has a base loss of 2% and defender only 0.25%.

Obviously your strike would drop quicker than theirs. Not to mention that assault gets the job done around 15 times faster and obviously for much less AT's

I wasn't, I was raiding. I was just making a point of how much greater mine had been. I still stole UU off the target but I'm keeping in theme of the thread.

Mystake wrote:I wasn't, I was raiding. I was just making a point of how much greater mine had been. I still stole UU off the target but I'm keeping in theme of the thread.

You are talking about why you didn't kill many units compared to the amount you lost/how much your strike dropped compared to def almost not dropping at all.
Which I'm saying is perfectly what the system is supposed to do. If you farm/raid the target alone then you will trash your strike several times over before the def disappears. That's what assault is for

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:Not just that, but the amount of farm hits/raid hits it takes to take a defense from 1b to zero means it would take an eternity to get it down.

I raided someone earlier, I have the logs to show for it.

My first hit, I produced a 487m strike.
They produced a 209m defense. I then did 515 dmg, then 446.
They did 189, 207, 204 199.

by the end, I was hitting the about ~400m strike size, (last hit was 416, 384, 403) they were doing 205, 190, 210.

each hit I lost more than twice what the defender did. My techs are double theirs, they were using the 800 defense weapons.
I sent 70% of the units he did too. I'm just showing all this to show how many less units I had to send but how much more damage I had to take. Not including the ST and AT I used.

I'm not quite sure why you were trying to lower a defense using farm/raid attacks considering the attacker has a base loss of 2% and defender only 0.25%.

Obviously your strike would drop quicker than theirs. Not to mention that assault gets the job done around 15 times faster and obviously for much less AT's

It's not so obvios that when you have 20b strike and the defender only 100m, some of attacker troops get slaughtered. It's quite the contrary. His losses should converge 0. And why to use asault if what you want to do is raid ? To waste the ST?
And don't say that it's a RAID missing and the attackers will just go and grab the resources, and get killed in the process. First they will kill whoever opposes them(the ones fool enough) and then get what they want.

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:I wasn't, I was raiding. I was just making a point of how much greater mine had been. I still stole UU off the target but I'm keeping in theme of the thread.

You are talking about why you didn't kill many units compared to the amount you lost/how much your strike dropped compared to def almost not dropping at all.
Which I'm saying is perfectly what the system is supposed to do. If you farm/raid the target alone then you will trash your strike several times over before the def disappears. That's what assault is for

It's not perfect at all, it defies logic.

damgood wrote:

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:I wasn't, I was raiding. I was just making a point of how much greater mine had been. I still stole UU off the target but I'm keeping in theme of the thread.

You are talking about why you didn't kill many units compared to the amount you lost/how much your strike dropped compared to def almost not dropping at all.
Which I'm saying is perfectly what the system is supposed to do. If you farm/raid the target alone then you will trash your strike several times over before the def disappears. That's what assault is for

It's not perfect at all, it defies logic.

not everything has to be logical in a game, but if it's better for the gameplay, then so be it.

For example we both know that soldiers can shoot forever with small arms at tanks, and will never harm them, but in 90% of all strategy games, like Command & Conquer, Red Alert, Tiberium wars, Civilisations, Rise of Nations, you can send normal soldiers with rifles to shoot at tanks, and even though not efficient, you can destroy them. It's completely not logical, but it's better for gameplay.

All I can say is that in farm and raid mission your troops focus on stealing of kuwal, not on fighting the enemy and thats why kill death ratio is so bad. That's all I can give you as an explanation, because the real reason why it is this way is to improve gameplay. You got an assault mission for a reason.

Kenzu wrote:

damgood wrote:

Admin wrote:

Mystake wrote:I wasn't, I was raiding. I was just making a point of how much greater mine had been. I still stole UU off the target but I'm keeping in theme of the thread.

You are talking about why you didn't kill many units compared to the amount you lost/how much your strike dropped compared to def almost not dropping at all.
Which I'm saying is perfectly what the system is supposed to do. If you farm/raid the target alone then you will trash your strike several times over before the def disappears. That's what assault is for

It's not perfect at all, it defies logic.

not everything has to be logical in a game, but if it's better for the gameplay, then so be it.

For example we both know that soldiers can shoot forever with small arms at tanks, and will never harm them, but in 90% of all strategy games, like Command & Conquer, Red Alert, Tiberium wars, Civilisations, Rise of Nations, you can send normal soldiers with rifles to shoot at tanks, and even though not efficient, you can destroy them. It's completely not logical, but it's better for gameplay.

All I can say is that in farm and raid mission your troops focus on stealing of kuwal, not on fighting the enemy and thats why kill death ratio is so bad. That's all I can give you as an explanation, because the real reason why it is this way is to improve gameplay. You got an assault mission for a reason.

Improved gameplay can be a good argument indeed, but I don't think it's the case in the current situation(same weapons, same soldiers).
I don't see any benefit on preventing raiding active people or inactive with coverging to 0 defences. Basically
you're encouraging attacking/raiding only 0 def guys, which I don't agree with. It's not the way it's supposed to
be.

Spoiler:

Its called recieving "Devistaing damage",,,, and I know you have seen/heard of it before mate

Again, like others have asked, why are you raiding them with a defense? When you have been told how to sabb/assassinate/or assult to remove a def in just a few actions,,,, then raid the UU for free?

Nomad wrote:Again, like others have asked, why are you raiding them with a defense? When you have been told how to sabb/assassinate/or assult to remove a def in just a few actions,,,, then raid the UU for free?

He'll argue that he doesn't want to waste AT/ST assaulting/sabbing.
To which I will reply that it's either that or he's wasting units and kuwal dying to the enemy defense.
To which he'll reply is stupid or unrealistic.
To which I'll reply that nothing is perfect and one always has to pay the cost, one way or another. Otherwise it might just be a "free resources" or "target everything with one single attack" button.

aworon wrote:

Nomad wrote:Again, like others have asked, why are you raiding them with a defense? When you have been told how to sabb/assassinate/or assult to remove a def in just a few actions,,,, then raid the UU for free?

He'll argue that he doesn't want to waste AT/ST assaulting/sabbing.
To which I will reply that it's either that or he's wasting units and kuwal dying to the enemy defense.
To which he'll reply is stupid or unrealistic.
To which I'll reply that nothing is perfect and one always has to pay the cost, one way or another. Otherwise I might just give a "free resources" or "target everything with one single attack" button.

Few actions to remove defence? Just remember that all the shitty accounts have a big covert and shitty defences
because that's the way the game is built. When massing someone in most of the cases killing spies/assasins is way
too expensive to worth doing unless you REALLY want to hurt that person. Try to look at the bigger picture both of you .

damgood wrote:Try to look at the bigger picture both of you .

Then again I ask you and Mystake both to explain a system you think is fair that does not blow the other end of the spectrum out. I mean Mystake wants it so if a strike is 10 times your def, it can mass you with 0 losses. Is this also what you see as fair and legitamate? I mean not liking the system is fine, but if no one can create a better system then it must not be too bad. Any new system has got to cover all players from the 1 day old, to the returning player, the the beginner, to the intermediate, the the experianced, the the biggest and most powerful. You can't just make a change based on 1 class.

As for small def versus Raiding. 0 def raiding is free(no losses). If they built a def, and a defenses pourpose is to defend, then why should anyone be able to bypass it to raid? Use 1 or 2 assaults to end it, use some spys and assassins to end it, then raid for free.

I don't wanna mass, I wanna raid!


and if 1 or 2 assaults should be able to end it, then give me the ability to totally wipe someone's defense out if I assault with a strike 5-10x bigger then!

and BTW, whoever said anythng about increasing the gap between big and little players, you're all forgetting about PTR and Admin Efficiency.

Those two things protect (PTR also affects little guys too though) the little guys from the big guys getting too far away.

It's the little guy's responsibility at that point to raid. Just because they aren't active enough doesn't mean they should get an extra push forward.
Also, again, if you have 150-180k uu out and your defense is less than 1b, you're inactive. Srsly. If you count one of the bigger UP's of 30k, that's still 5-6 days of UP that hasn't been trained into idle. And you're gunna tell me thats not an inactive?

waits for that update and then takes out the top 5 allainces in 123 hits.
hmm
saves 800 ATs and 800 STs.

No thats not inactive, when I know 4 people who can't play on the weekends.

seaborgium wrote:waits for that update and then takes out the top 5 allainces in 123 hits.
hmm
saves 800 ATs and 800 STs.

No thats not inactive, when I know 4 people who can't play on the weekends.

huh ?