explain to me the attack formula

so i increased my defense so that I'd be farmed less... turns out my attackers aren't sustaining any more losses even though my defense is now 1.5x bigger than before, on top of hitting me with a smaller strike than my defense is (before it was other way around).


so explain this to me martin; how do your calculations work?

why are you assuming you didn't increase their losses. I see a clear increase from 4k to 4.5k

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2114-looking-for-help-figuring-losses

base value x (attack/defense)^0.5
the first x is either a multiply or divide depending on if your calculating for defender or attacker

also a warning is given for the cussing word

ok, so how big of a defense do I need here? It seems pointless to make it bigger if it can't defend your income unless I increased to something stupid like 40b.

I need a couple clarifications on the formula - what base value; strike action? x or / (attack; what att value?,defense(again what defense value or number?)^0.5

or you could just skim through that thread in 30 secs where your answers are posted about 3 times

base value = base % loss, farming 2%
attack/defense are the respective damages in the report

Admin wrote:or you could just skim through that thread in 30 secs where your answers are posted about 3 times

base value = base % loss, farming 2%
attack/defense are the respective damages in the report

look i only understand math when it's in code... never when it's typed in elsewise...

and i think you're missing some brackets or something.
also does it not take into account how many soldiers you have? cause ya know.. with less soldiers, you can carry less kuwal back with you.

no, we're still doing the good old formula 1 person can carry billions of kuwal

anyways losses consist of a BASE value and a MULTIPLIER
the base value is static, 2%, based on what you send. So 0.02 x soldiers sent

the multiplier is the square root of attack power divided by defense power,
so worse ratio (basically when you send less soldiers and have lower power) means higher losses for you and lower losses for enemy

Mystake wrote:

Admin wrote:or you could just skim through that thread in 30 secs where your answers are posted about 3 times

base value = base % loss, farming 2%
attack/defense are the respective damages in the report

look i only understand math when it's in code... never when it's typed in elsewise...

and i think you're missing some brackets or something.
also does it not take into account how many soldiers you have? cause ya know.. with less soldiers, you can carry less kuwal back with you.

How about explain it like this:
You can send 1 soldier to attack, but soldiers don't need to carry anything. All kuwal is loaded on trucks or ships and carried to their new owner.
(The local population will happily load the kuwal for you. Afterall, they don't want trouble with the occupational forces.)

and what are the %s at which kuwal is taken?

such as, if a 9b strike hits a 10b def, with 10b kuwal out, do they get 9b kuwal?

or is it more of 'the poorer cities are the least well defended since they can't afford a better defense and so therefore less is taken'

it's taken proportionately, so in your example, your strike is 90% of the enemy def so you take 90% of the kuwal. so yes 9b

but, if the invading army can't reach the 'stronger', and obviously 'richer' cities, then shouldn't they consequently take less? The better defended cities are arguably richer, therefore holding a larger percentage of the kuwal in the realm.

the value should be on a curve, and if you were to graph it, y = difference of strike and defense in %, x = % of kuwal stolen

as y approaches 0, x approaches 100, so basically you'd have a graph that looks something like y = x^0.5 or y = x^(1/3)

something more accurate though would probably be more like y = log(x)

but that is getting way beyond me I haven't done that kind of math in years, but that's what I think you should do. But all in all, I've given you logic and I've even provided you the math needed to make it real. On a quick review, might wanna do something different with the y = mx + c where y = diff in strike and x = kuwal stolen, as you want y to be the kuwal stolen (its just easier to code).

all in all it makes sense, no?

your argumentation is accepted and will be looked into

I'll add another bit in here as well

What effect to the number of AT used have when farming?

I note that there is a link between AT used and Supply Turns used.
I also seem to remember some discussion around a relationship between AT and Kuwal stolen so I suppose there are two questions.

1. Is there a relationship between AT used and Kuwal Stolen?
i.e. 10 AT steal all Kuwal while 1 AT only steals 10%

2. Is there a difference in losses to both attacker and defender when different amounts of AT are used?
i.e. would a 1 AT attack result in less losses than a 10 AT attack

1 AT = 10% losses
% stolen gets displayed on attack page

What I have noticed is that about 1 year ago, for each 1 kuwal you had out you needed about 1 defense action.

So if you often wake up with say 8 billion kuwal, then you needed at least 8 billion defense action.

However, now it's common for a couple farmers to have 250% or even 300% attack tech, while before they had no more than 130%. This obviously means that now you will need not 8 billion DA to defend your 8 billion kuwal, but probably 12 billion DA.

Kenzu wrote:What I have noticed is that about 1 year ago, for each 1 kuwal you had out you needed about 1 defense action.

So if you often wake up with say 8 billion kuwal, then you needed at least 8 billion defense action.

However, now it's common for a couple farmers to have 250% or even 300% attack tech, while before they had no more than 130%. This obviously means that now you will need not 8 billion DA to defend your 8 billion kuwal, but probably 12 billion DA.

Admin wrote:your argumentation is accepted and will be looked into

update on this situation plz

Mystake wrote:but, if the invading army can't reach the 'stronger', and obviously 'richer' cities, then shouldn't they consequently take less? The better defended cities are arguably richer, therefore holding a larger percentage of the kuwal in the realm.

the value should be on a curve, and if you were to graph it, y = difference of strike and defense in %, x = % of kuwal stolen

as y approaches 0, x approaches 100, so basically you'd have a graph that looks something like y = x^0.5 or y = x^(1/3)

something more accurate though would probably be more like y = log(x)

but that is getting way beyond me I haven't done that kind of math in years, but that's what I think you should do. But all in all, I've given you logic and I've even provided you the math needed to make it real. On a quick review, might wanna do something different with the y = mx + c where y = diff in strike and x = kuwal stolen, as you want y to be the kuwal stolen (its just easier to code).

all in all it makes sense, no?

I like this way of thinking.

I think it would be reasonable to steal not 50% with 50% strike, but say only 25% (0.5^2)
and with 25% strike steal only 6% (0.25^2)

This would be a very good formula.

I'm sure everyone with an unreasonably high defense would agree ... especially as this would make it impossible for those of us who have built our accounts on activity (farming and raiding) moot ... although I do agree that it's folly to farm people with a bigger defence than your strike is.

But my post actually has a point:

What about the attack modifier and the alliance farming policies?

As a bad modifier may VERY well influence those two things and will make farming targets that I farm now a LOT harder ...

can you also explain the variation of the strike...
EG: i have 10kkk strike, i attack someone with high kuwal with 9kkk defence... my strike in the actual attack is 7kkk... i dont get all his kuwal bcuz my strike is less than his defence (even tho i checked beforehand and it is higher) and as a result i gain less for the attack than i thought i would and am unable to achieve a suitable profit which then results in that defendee moaning that i am not abiding by farming regulations and blah blah blah... its horribly frustrating and detrimental to my mental health
(the values used in this example may seem exagerrated but they arnt... iv seen my strike vary by up to 4kkk below my actual strike (thats a LOT))

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t1850-attack-modifier

2nd post from the bottom

why is there is an attack modifier?
i understand perhaps for war... it makes things more interesting... but with general farming it just causes sand in people's vaginas bcuz of such stingent farming policies

I do kinna agree with the sentiment here.

Maybe we should consider a smaller variation or no variation to "non war" type attacks such as farming and raiding,,, or atleast a smaller variation


I'm personally fine with it the way it is,,,,,, just saying I see his point

I can see what the sentiment is here as well but rather than the suggested change i would prefer to see the modifier added to the defensive side as well if we are only talking about the formula.

My real preference would be to look at the overall mechanics of all of the attack options and make some changes that would make them more realistic.

Lets face it in reality Farming and Raiding are a targeted attack with the specific aim of taking the targeted resources from the defender. The attackers forces are focused on this and are not really wanting to engage the defenders forces in all out battle. In real life no commander would commit 1 mill units against 100K units rather they would only send the amount of units that they consider necessary to accomplish the task and this force is always much smaller than the defense.

If we look at the other attack options then it is very seldom that a commander would send all of their units into an attack, rather they would be keeping some in reserve for use if required.

Now I will be the first to admit that this is not an easy thing to do in a game like this and something I have only seen in other games where time is also a factor in military actions (i.e. it takes time for the units sent to reach their target have their battle and return home again, and is not what I would want to see here)

J1nx wrote:can you also explain the variation of the strike...
EG: i have 10kkk strike, i attack someone with high kuwal with 9kkk defence... my strike in the actual attack is 7kkk... i dont get all his kuwal bcuz my strike is less than his defence (even tho i checked beforehand and it is higher) and as a result i gain less for the attack than i thought i would and am unable to achieve a suitable profit which then results in that defendee moaning that i am not abiding by farming regulations and blah blah blah... its horribly frustrating and detrimental to my mental health
(the values used in this example may seem exagerrated but they arnt... iv seen my strike vary by up to 4kkk below my actual strike (thats a LOT))

strike:defense ratio varies too much.
It shouldnt vary more than 10%
In other words, if my strike is 10% higher than enemy defense, I should always have a higher strike and take all kuwal.

Kenzu wrote:

J1nx wrote:can you also explain the variation of the strike...
EG: i have 10kkk strike, i attack someone with high kuwal with 9kkk defence... my strike in the actual attack is 7kkk... i dont get all his kuwal bcuz my strike is less than his defence (even tho i checked beforehand and it is higher) and as a result i gain less for the attack than i thought i would and am unable to achieve a suitable profit which then results in that defendee moaning that i am not abiding by farming regulations and blah blah blah... its horribly frustrating and detrimental to my mental health
(the values used in this example may seem exagerrated but they arnt... iv seen my strike vary by up to 4kkk below my actual strike (thats a LOT))

strike:defense ratio varies too much.
It shouldnt vary more than 10%
In other words, if my strike is 10% higher than enemy defense, I should always have a higher strike and take all kuwal.

In your opinion.

Again I notice you continue to abuse your admin powers by posting on your admin account and not your player account so the "foe" feature can not be used.