Re: TMI against World Republic

by Gamniac Sun May 27, 2012 6:08 am

So you mean Paladius is acting obnoxious on purpose then?
That description sounds familiar, but of what?

by Keinutnai Sun May 27, 2012 12:22 pm

In our yesterdays strike we massed Unimatrix and reaper.

TMI lost:
3,301,669,885,500 kuwal (3.3 trillion)

WR lost:
1,671,002,841,019 kuwal (1.6 trillion)
WR gained:
849,023,625,000 kuwal (0.8 trillion) in raided uu
WR NET loss:
797,004,216,019 kuwal (0.8 trillion)

Kill to death ratio (kuwal value):
4.14 : 1 ratio in WR favour

Population of Unimatrix before and after mass:
Before: 42,360,300
After: 37,563,400
Lost: 4,796,900 units

WR gained 2,202,253 uu from him and suffered much less losses when killing his units as well.
(his 4.8 million losses include the lost uu). He lost attackers, defenders, spies, assassins, workers, miners and uu. Everything you can lose, he lost.

TMI losses of Unimatrix

Before mass:
Army Composition:
Population: 42,360,300
Attack Forces
Mercenaries 0
Soldiers 596,796
Defense Forces
Mercenaries 0
Soldiers 527,894
Spies/Assassins
Spies 572,458
Assassins 526,153
Economic Units
Untrained 2,391,680
Idle Units 0
Farmers 35,659,469
Workers 1,085,858
Miners 1,000,000

After mass:
Army Composition:
Population: 37,563,400
Attack Forces
Mercenaries 0
Soldiers 105,812
Defense Forces
Mercenaries 0
Soldiers 703
Spies/Assassins
Spies 277,115
Assassins 144,845
Economic Units
Untrained 127,617
Idle Units 0
Farmers 35,659,469
Workers 793,287
Miners 454,513

He lost:
490,984 attack soldiers
527,191 defense soldiers
295,343 spies
381,308 assassins
2,264,063 untrained
292,571 workers
545,487 miners

TMI losses in kuwal value:
attack soldiers 514,060,248,000
defense soldiers 551,968,977,000
spies 124,044,060,000
assassins 160,149,360,000
untrained 849,023,625,000
workers 111,908,407,500
miners 210,012,495,000
TOTAL VALUE: 2,521,167,172,500

WR losses in kuwal value:
TOTAL VALUE: 1,021,002,841,019
(calculated estimate. Real losses are within a 15% range of the calculated values)

Value gain due to raided UU:
Raided UU: 2,264,063
UU value: 849,023,625,000

WR losses: 1,021,002,841,019
WR gain: 849,023,625,000
Net losses: 171,979,216,019

Final results of Unimatrix massing:
TMI losses: 2,521,167,172,500
WR losses: 171,979,216,019
14.66 : 1 ratio in WR favor

I believe this is the best ratio we achieved in this war in a single massing.

If we ignore our uu gain, then it's still 2.47 : 1 ratio.
If we didn't raid the uu at all, then the ratio would have been 1.64 : 1 in WR favor.

Obviously the reality is 14.66 : 1 ratio, because the uu has been raided, and we gained it. Of course the amount of turns used is not negligible in any massing, but it's never being recorded in single massings. I did check the war experience and it looks like TMI used not only more resources against us, but also more attack turns. So even if we used many attack turns today, it barely influences the fact that TMI used more AT on us than we used on them.

I find it funny that TMI keeps saying that attackers lose more than defenders, yet almost every single massing we do against TMI we manage to destroy considerably more than TMI. And it doesn't matter if we mass Unimatrix, Magnus, Die Quelle, Quest, Paladius, kingkongfan1 or other TMI members.

And even if we might lose more value in assaults against certain top defense tech players, we kill much more than we lose in the hunt assassin, assassinations, sabotage, destructions and invasions missions which follow!

Btw, reaper got massed even before we massed Unimatrix and lost:
561,917 soldiers with MLRS
=780,502,713,000 kuwal

We lost less against him as well. (We lost a value around 650 billion kuwal)

by seaborgium Sun May 27, 2012 3:20 pm

If you do a whole account massing then it isvery possible to kill more then lose.
But hey thank you for taking out an inactive memeber and saving us the trouble of clearing his def.

by kingkongfan1 Sun May 27, 2012 6:38 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
I find it funny that TMI keeps saying that attackers lose more than defenders,

Thank you for the War experience points, you need to go back & do the math again cause WR lost your asses as far as the XP is concerned, (when compared to what we gained from your attack on unimatrix-001).

you know exactly the point I am making. just cause you refuse to acknowledge that you do understand changes nothing.

rest assured that I am thru with the whole "war experience points" convo.

by Keinutnai Sun May 27, 2012 10:18 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
I find it funny that TMI keeps saying that attackers lose more than defenders,

Thank you for the War experience points, you need to go back & do the math again cause WR lost your asses as far as the XP is concerned, (when compared to what we gained from your attack on unimatrix-001).

you know exactly the point I am making. just cause you refuse to acknowledge that you do understand changes nothing.

rest assured that I am thru with the whole "war experience points" convo.

Problem is you have a false understanding of war experience. Let me show you on Unimatrix example that attacker can destroy more than defender, and when he does, he gets more experience than defender.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
Now getting back to the issue we discussed. Imagine two equally strong accounts, with equal techs. You are right that the attacker will have more losses, but only partially. He will have more losses only in taking down the defense. But once the defense is down, he can use other missions to kill assassins, spies, attackers, workers and miners EXTREMELY EFFICIENTLY!

This has nothing to do with efficiency. it has to do with the war experience points gained per attack.

Keinutnai, once again you miss the point. my argument is this, "There is no attack that the attacker can do to an opponent where the attacker gains more war experience points than the defender. The defender always gets more war experience points. I will show you my examples 1 more time, maybe you will get it this time.

the attacker = kingkongfan1
the defender = Keinutnai

the attacker sends his assassins to kill the defenders covert. for every spy I kill (60xp) you kill 3 of my assassins (180xp).

Yes, but ONLY if you overassassinate. Do not overassassinate and attack when there are not enough assassins to defend, then you can kill more than you lose.
When I assassinate, I don't overassassinate, I send only as much as I need for maximum efficiency.
I always kill more than I lose. Look at my recent assassination report.

Assassination Mission Report

Under the cover of night, your 130,000 assassins sneak into Unimatrix-001's realm with a malicious intent.
Your assassins engage their mission in the enemy realm, they attempt to locate their targets and assess the enemy assassin networks. After a brief analysis they engage their enemy and even though the mission is an success, some of your troops fall prey to the defending realms assassination squads. Those who return are able to present you the following report:

Enemy Agents Killed: 21,455

Do you know how many I lost? I lost 7.5%
I lost 130,000*0.075=9,750

Who gained more war experience?

WR gained:
21,455*80= +1,716,400 war exp

TMI gained:
9,750*80= +780,000 war exp

I was the attacker, and I lost less units and got more war experience than my enemy.
Still got questions?

You should realize that admin is not an idiot, and that when he decided how much war exp you get per kill, he made it so that it will correspond to the value of the unit you killed, and he also made the missions in a way that they are balanced. You say that attacker always loses more, and recently you started saying that the attackers also gets less experience, but that's wrong. And I proved you wrong by showing you the results of our mass against Unimatrix

the attacker sends his spies to sabotage the defenders weapons. for every 1 mlrs (172.8xp), or MA (104.4xp), or MBT (61.6xp) the attacker destroys, the defender gains 180xp.

we all know that the attacker loses 7% verses the attackers 5% when using strike. (what the exact ratio is, I am not 100% sure. what I am sure of is that when the strike is used, the attacker always suffers more losses & the defender gets more war experience points because of it.)

show me 1 attack that an attacker can do to an opponent where the attacker gains more war experience points. I have spent a long time hunting & there is not one. [/quote]

I can show you many:

Assassination
Read the example above. All my assassinations and sabotages are like this

Destruction:
Defender lost 38,209 soldiers, attacker lost only 27,025 soldiers
Attacker killed more and gained more war experience.

Twvlsman's soldiers march onto the battlefield.

Twvlsman's army was composed of:
860,971 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
860971 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Unimatrix-001 awaited the invaders with the following:
2,560 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
2560 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 31,072,873,875 damage on the enemy!
This results in 43 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 106,113,024 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 99 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Twvlsman's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Unimatrix-001's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
the way was clear for Twvlsman's forces to engage their true target

With 30,966,760,851 power remaining, Twvlsman's army charges forward engaging Unimatrix-001's own offensive troops.

History will tell that 38,166 troops will have fallen to this force by the end of the battle.

596,796 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries were already awaiting their univited visitors.
596796 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

These forces return fire and inflict 12,114,958,800 damage to their opponents!

As a result of this 26,926 invaders have lost their lives!

Hunt Assassins:
Twvlsman's soldiers march onto the battlefield.

Twvlsman's army was composed of:
866,685 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
866685 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Unimatrix-001 awaited the invaders with the following:
2,575 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
2575 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 31,608,348,624 damage on the enemy!
This results in 15 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 6,212,356,628 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 5,714 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Twvlsman's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Unimatrix-001's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:

It is reported that 23,151 Assassins have been located and executed immediately in the target realm.

Attacker losses:
5,714*1,047k= 5,982,558,000 kuwal
Defender losses:
23,151*420k= 9,723,420,000 kuwal

Attacker experience:
60*23,151= +1,389,060 war exp
Defender experience:
(104.4+80)*5,714= +1,053,661.6 war exp
weapon + attack soldier

Assault:
Defender lost more units than me, because my strike tech is considerably better than his. I attacked, killing more and getting more war experience.
If techs were same, then attacker suffers 20% more losses, however attacker still has more war experience, because if you kill defender you gain 200 war exp, but if you kill attacker you gain only 80.

Keinutnai's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
Keinutnai's army was composed of:
205,571 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
205571 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
Die Quelle awaited the invaders with the following:
310,545 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
310545 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 9,021,031,078 damage on the enemy!
This results in 12,427 casualties amongst the defending troops!
The defending forces return fire and inflict 9,014,810,805 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 10,276 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense
Keinutnai's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Die Quelle's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:

Therefore it's easy to kill more when attacking and also easy to gain more war experience when attacking.

And if you wonder why I have Twvlsman's full reports, it's because I received reports from alliance mates during massing.

by Special Agent 47 Thu May 31, 2012 9:28 am

*applauds*

Wonderful work Kenzu.

For all those out there in the real world keep in mind Kenzu is using WR's best account to attack a complete inactive which he outclasses in stats, levels, techs, and weaponry. Again he refuses to acknowledge truths all the while trying to hold onto fantasy. Kenzu we all already know when one severely outclass an opponent who actually has something built that you can get good ratios and gain more XP as an attacker. Now go try to do it to a real account. Oh yeah that's right, you have to use your best accounts to damage our weakest all while building nothing worth killing yourselves and are content with only being able to scratch our lowest few while we hammer your entire alliance like a drum.

You have no common sense nor humility. Your alliance is paying for you arrogance. Since that is not enough for you perhaps letting your officers and commanders to WR pay for your arrogance as well might help get the point across. Yeah your right. Probably not, but since you have nothing to kill, build nothing to kill, and can only seem to make attempts on complete inactive and the same 3 or 4 lower accounts I guess its all your feebleness can allow you to do.

I can only hope no one is dumb enough to believe the crap you try to feed people. Its a joke at best, and not even a good one.

by Gamniac Thu May 31, 2012 12:27 pm

Die Quelle, a complete inactive?
Then who's been bombarding me on Test for the past week?

by navblue Thu May 31, 2012 2:39 pm

Gamniac wrote:Die Quelle, a complete inactive?
Then who's been bombarding me on Test for the past week?

Activity isn't really the point. The choice of his targets are.

by kingkongfan1 Thu May 31, 2012 3:56 pm

Gamniac wrote:Die Quelle, a complete inactive?
Then who's been bombarding me on Test for the past week?

SA47 is refering to unimatrix-001. he is & has been inactive for many months now, he did however serve his one & only purpose & that was as a target for WR to waste vast amounts of resources on.

As for my not understanding how War experience points works, show me a battle report where someone hits an opponent of ~ equal strength/power/tech levels, etc. show me (in numbers, not percentages) the amount of units lost for both, the amount of weapons destroyed for each, & the amount of XP gained for both. do this for assassination attacks, sabotage attacks, assaults, destruction attacks. When you do this, it becomes very clear quickly that I am correct. keinutnai said that I did not understand how the War Experience Points worked, & that may be an issue. part of the problem (as I see it ) is that only part of the needed info is shown on any of the reports so That a player has to "guess" what the rest of the info is, unless that player wants to do a lot of boring & time consuming number crunching that wastes time as most players would rather be doing anything else but math. so maybe a better "explanation" may be in order as what is in the "rules" or in the "Faq" section is vague at best, & non-existent at worst. the "military achievements" page is the only real place to find any info on WXP. & what it says is very clear.

& for the record I do not think that admin is an idiot.

by Special Agent 47 Thu May 31, 2012 5:00 pm

Yes Gamniac I was not very clear there so my apologies for that. I was referring to unimatix. I will try to be more clear next time. As Nav expressed anyone can find 1 example to bolster their claim, while ignoring the hundreds of others proving them wrong. DQ is not inactive, but again lets compare core stats of the 2 accounts. Keeping in mind Kenzu has now adopted our "foolish and nonsense" way of account building. So now he outclasses DQ's account.

As Kong expressed now go reproduce any of the reports Kenzu has used on an account equal to his, even more to the point try to reproduce them from our side against an enemy who does build anything.

Point is you have to have certain things to get these results, it is not the standard. When WR had something to kill we got good ratios. Now WR keeps minimal killables while we mainly stay full strength.

If you like his blinders so well all I can say is wear them, but you will get the same mocking he gets for his very limited and short sighted views.

by Gamniac Thu May 31, 2012 9:24 pm

Hey, I just got a tad confused there, okay?

I could try to go and reproduce kenzu's reports against a equal(ish) account to mine, if that would be any help to the matter.
All's left to do is find one, i.e. someone I don't curb-stomp into oblivion (not that many of those around) while not having such defenses that an assault from my end would end in me spending the following ten minutes scraping my head of the wall I just plowed into.
Not sure what you or the rest of TMI would consider a fair target for such a purpose.

Keeping minimal killables is preferable to continuously building and only getting some nevertheless quite scenic craters to show for it. By my reasoning, it's better to dig in, grow carefully if slowly and above all, try to survive.
If you disagree with the tactic and reasoning it's based on, I can understand that. I'm not overly fond of it either, but that's war.

And I've always thought those blinders make better helmet-padding than a facial fashion item.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Jun 01, 2012 5:08 am

here is an assault I did. show me my war experience verses what keinutnai made. I am the attacker.

Battle Report
KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
400,000 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

400000 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

Keinutnai awaited the invaders with the following:
461,796 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

461796 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 22,334,400,000 damage on the enemy!
This results in 19,136 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 20,811,566,377 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 19,307 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense
KingKongFan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Keinutnai's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
_________________________
here is a destruction mission I did, please show me my war xp verses what keinutnai made.

Battle Report
KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
380,693 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

380693 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

Keinutnai awaited the invaders with the following:
442,660 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

442660 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 20,577,979,422 damage on the enemy!
This results in 3,528 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 18,222,801,622 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 5,374 casualties in their enemies ranks!

KingKongFan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Keinutnai's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
the way was clear for KingKongFan1's forces to engage their true target

With 2,355,177,800 power remaining, KingKongFan1's army charges forward engaging Keinutnai's own offensive troops.
History will tell that 3,734 troops will have fallen to this force by the end of the battle.

172,330 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries were already awaiting their univited visitors.

172330 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

These forces return fire and inflict 8,030,095,476 damage to their opponents!
As a result of this 35,148 invaders have lost their lives!
_________________________
I lost 750,000 spies attempting a sabotage mission for this example. don't figure keinutnai lost any. (45,000,000 war xp to the defender)
_________________________
I lost 337,500 assassins attempting an assassination mission for this example. I don't figure that keinutnai lost any.(20,250,000 war xp to the defender)

the above 2 examples do not really bother me that much, but it does make me wonder why it is that keinutnai lost nothing in either attack that I did. but yet, when I attack an opponent with a zero assassination action, no assassins. with around 20,000 or so unarmed defenders. I still lose men due to the unarmed defenders getting "lucky" & killing a percentage of my men anyway. but yet, my well armed, well trained, spies & assassins can't get "lucky" & kill a percentage of keinutnai's? what gives? there is nothing showing in my reports concerning any losses he may have taken. how am I supposed to figure my war experience points?

please explain this.

by Special Agent 47 Fri Jun 01, 2012 10:11 am

Gamniac wrote:Hey, I just got a tad confused there, okay?

I could try to go and reproduce kenzu's reports against a equal(ish) account to mine, if that would be any help to the matter.
All's left to do is find one, i.e. someone I don't curb-stomp into oblivion (not that many of those around) while not having such defenses that an assault from my end would end in me spending the following ten minutes scraping my head of the wall I just plowed into.
Not sure what you or the rest of TMI would consider a fair target for such a purpose.

Keeping minimal killables is preferable to continuously building and only getting some nevertheless quite scenic craters to show for it. By my reasoning, it's better to dig in, grow carefully if slowly and above all, try to survive.
If you disagree with the tactic and reasoning it's based on, I can understand that. I'm not overly fond of it either, but that's war.

And I've always thought those blinders make better helmet-padding than a facial fashion item.

The point that has been made (or tried to be made) is On average equal accounts will equal more experience for the defender based on account mechanics from losses being much higher for attacker. We punched WR in the face because of Kenzu's bold and proven false claims. When WR had something to kill we killed it. We had good ratios because we simply outclassed WR as a whole. Since then Kenzu has adopted our "foolish and nonsense" account building style. He can now pull better kill ratios due to 2 game mechanic. 1 he outclasses some of his targets. Its a proven fact. We proved that when we waxed WR. Secondly he also uses the % losses from size. He comes here boasting about his kill ratio from attacks on an inactive account, and we know he knew it was inactive because in week 1 or 2 of the war he hit it and it never repaired. So he boast about his 1 shining example but refuses to except the hundreds of examples that prove it was an exception, not a rule. What it boils down to is Kenzu has no humility, has not learned a lesson at all, still runs his mouth which is one of the main reason WR is getting slammed now and more then likely will keep getting slammed. I'm glad much good has come from this war. WR has cleaned up its ranks. Has gained so leadership. Has performed its best to date. Sadly its dictator leader ( I still say it is so because Nothing has of yet changed) is still leading WR down a path of thrashing and gnashing of teeth.

I can stand here and applaud WR for what it has accomplished and how well it is done. To bad WR and its dictator of a leader can't even acknowledge 1 simple fact.

Rank Name Leader Power War Experience Size
1 Red_Solo_Cup KingKongFan1 4,661,959,267,921 63,428,002,810 25
2 World_Republic_(TOC) Keinutnai 1,217,601,260,904 64,025,367,192 58

That's with our most dangerous account vacated due to a R/L issue. WR's claim is they are the oldest, the biggest, and the best at account building,,,,,,, I guess saying "maybe we were wrong on a few points" is just to much like swallowing pride, and to bitter a pill to do. So WR will keep getting hammered. Keep being forced to grow under pressure. TMI will keep accepting those losses. Will keep accepting the game mechanics that limit us, and help WR. Will keep growing with few restrictions. Sooner or later we will outpace WR. Or maybe its all a big waiting game to see who gets bored to the point of quitting. IDK. Guess Time will tell.

by Paladius Fri Jun 01, 2012 2:34 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
Paladius wrote:Oh my God, I offended Kenny!

@Keinutnai
Are you really that easily offended?
I'm not really offended by you calling me "Penny" because I'm not easily offended.

Based on your provocative response, I assume you must either have serious RL issues, or are simply emotionally immature.No I'm not having real life issues and I'm not emotionally immature. It is nothing but an assumption. Just because you assume something doesn't make it true. If I was emotionally immature I would have called you something a lot worse than "Kenny". Why is calling you "Kenny" offensive to you? Im not even making fun of your real name. Is it a provocative statement to say that you calling me "penny" doesn't offend me in any way at all? You must be referring to the "Oh my God, I offended Kenny" part of my post.

I wonder if you talk like this in real life too. But don't bother answering. I don't care what you say anymore. It will probably take a long time until you grow up and become capable of having a decent conversation and treating people you disagree with, with respect. If you are like this because of a game, I wonder how you will react if you have an arguments about something important that matters in life. I would expect something like this from a 14 year old, but not from a 24 year old. Just read your other posts!
No, I don't talk like this in real life and I really don't care if you believe it or not. I am completely capable of having a decent conversation. And I would expect a 25 year to not be offended by me calling them "Kenny". Like I said before I could call you something a lot worse than "Kenny"you know,something worth being offended over. I think only a child would be offended by someone calling them "Kenny". Are you really that upset about me making fun of your name in a game?

Paladius wrote:
Kenny the Wall wrote:
Paladius wrote:Is it that hard to understand the reason why vacated members of tmi haven't been booted yet? Obviously, it's because the time limit hasn't expired yet. When the time expires they will be booted.
Yes, because saying that there is a time limit doesn't answer the question why you keep them at all.
Why do you have a time limit? Why don't you boot them straight away?

Why do I feel like I'm talking to a wall right now? You can't be this stupid.

Last edited by Paladius on Sun May 06, 2012 1:56 am; edited 4 times in total (Reason for editing : Changed Kenny's name to wall...and spelling errors.)
I really felt like I was talking to a wall at that moment, because it seemed like you weren't listening. Do you know how annoying it is talking to someone who isn't listening to you? It's really irritating to have to answer the same question over and over again and you seem unable to accept the answer. I'm sure others have told you this as well.

Paladius wrote:One thing i want to know is if Kenny thinks clicking a mouse requires any special skills? and since when is hiding behind game mechanics a skill? If wr was as skilled as kenny seems to think then why aren't there any members of wr on page one of the rankings. I don't think war experience is an accurate measurement of skill.
well does it take any special skill to click a mouse?The hiding behind game mechanics might have sounded a little harsh but it is my true opinion.
Paladius wrote:
seaborgium wrote:
kingkongfan1 wrote:according to the alliance ranking page...

(Rank)-----Name----- Leader----- Power ----- War Experience------- Size
(1) Red_Solo_Cup-- Seaborgium- 5,229,073,678,478-- 56,655,276,873 ---30

(2) World_Republic_(TOC)- Keinutnai- 974,742,690,054-- 55,790,803,352 ---58

I'm so confused,,, what does this mean?

Means we are losing
Don't you know that nobody wins against the mighty world republic. *sarcasm*
I see you have a problem with my sarcasm, but you realize that I'm not the only one being sarcastic towards you. Do you think they have real life issues or they are emotionally immature also?

Paladius wrote:Kong, you were the lady in the second row?
This was a joke, me and kong like to joke with each other. You can ask him yourself. Unlike you, Kong can take a joke.

Paladius, you got a serious issue and the sooner you realise it, the better for you. Offending others might be a lot of fun for you, but it won't be funny for you once you realize what consequences can come out of it. I don't deal with you in RL, but others do, and you never know how strangers will react to your offensive words. Your right you don't deal with me in real life. Therefore you don't know how I deal with others and how I talk to people in real life.
Some people might ignore it, others will get violent, and if you want to stay on the safe side, you better learn to be normal and get used to it. And even if you offend others and they don't do anything to you today, you never know when you will meet them again, and maybe you might end up in a situation where you need their help, but if you were disrespectful before, don't expect them to help you.I know all of this already i don't need you telling me. I am not saying this to make you feel bad or anything. Just trying to help you. Believe me it doesn't influence me at all if you change your attitude or not. I don't deal much with you anyway. And it's no problem for me to skip your posts. Don't worry. Your not making me feel bad. I don't care if I influence you or not. The world is full of good people, so why should I waste my time with someone who is arrogant, rude and hateful?Are you trying to say that I'm a bad person Keinutnai? Now is it really fair to make such a judgement based on my actions in a "game"?I don't care if you think I'm rude,arrogant or hateful. You may be confusing my sarcasm with arrogance. I'm not the arrogant one. Im not the one who tries to make myself look good by bragging about how much better my alliance is than all other alliances(I'm talking about you btw). For some reason it always feels like your bragging even though there are no world republic members on page one of the ranks. In my opinion there is nothing to brag about. Why should I waste my time on someone who is arrogant,thick skulled and has an apparent listening disorder?I won't deny some of my comments are rude(like my comment above in bold and underlined) or they may seemhateful to you or other people.

There are more people who should read this, because I saw a couple who are offensive sometimes.

I really don't care if you respond to any of this or not. If me calling you "Kenny" offends you so bad then maybe I will not call you that anymore. I guess I should understand that everyone can't handle being called out of their name like I can.

by kingkongfan1 Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:30 am

Spoiler:

since nobody seems to have the time to tackle this yet, then I shall post what I have come up with.

In the Assault mission I did above, I got 5,324,998.4 war experience points.
Keinutnai got 4,880,809.6. yes I know that I actually got 444,188.8 war xp more than keinutnai.

In the destruction mission I did, I got 1,761,872.8 war experience points. keinutnai got 9,315,334.4war experience points. keinutnai got 7,553,461.6 war xp more than me.

considering that I apparently got nothing from either of the other 2 attacks I did, (the sabotage & the assassination mission) do you still want to try to tell me that T.M.I. attacking world republic is not the reason why world republics war xp is as it is? look at the difference above & explain to me the reason anyone has to be aggressive when the defender gains more from "MOST" attacks.

(I do not have the exact numbers) for every 1 attack that some WR member does against a T.M.I. member. T.M.I. easily has done 5-10 attacks. we hit more often, & harder than any WR members, against active fighters, verses WR attacking inactives. I will say again, "look at the ranks if you need any proof of what we have done".

does anyone else see the issue here, or am I banging my head against a brick wall?
_________________________

@keinutnai & world republic, concerning the following...

Spoiler:

we were bored so we started a war. the only question was how to keep keinutnai from giving in to our demands & ending the war as soon as it started. I said to make him/WR "boot" their vacated members as keinutnai will never do this & the war will go on forever. this is why we have the demands that we have. I have spoken to T.M.I. & the majority have voted to continue this war until said demands are met. that means this war continues until such time as all current vacated members have been "booted". once that happens, this war is over. so if you want to end this war, you know what must be done. "the ball is in your court" as the saying goes.

by curumo Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:12 am

Kong you're not banging your head alone. I'm there with you ... what bugs me most, though, isn't exactly ME as that in itself is irrelevant, really, imo. IT's nice to have a high one, of course ... but I'd rather see the kill/loss ratios instead of pure ME ...

what bugs me is THIS:
[03 Jun] 11:51 XXXXX 49939 46486 35,167,427,100 73,473,839,640

The attacker had 1/2 HALF of the defenders strike and their losses are the same ... mind someone explaining to me how the heck this works?

by kingkongfan1 Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:13 pm

curumo wrote:Kong you're not banging your head alone. I'm there with you ... what bugs me most, though, isn't exactly ME as that in itself is irrelevant, really, imo. IT's nice to have a high one, of course ... but I'd rather see the kill/loss ratios instead of pure ME ...

I do appreciate you backing me up on this, & you have the same p.o.v. as most playing this type of game. which is fine. but lets be honest here, the only thing that matters in this game is a players rank. & the Kill/loss ratio has absolutely nothing to do with rank. on the other hand, I have already shown that War experience points (M.E.) is 1/4 of the measurement of rank.
Spoiler:

Now If by pummeling my opponent I cause him to gain more war experience points than I, thus giving him an edge on outranking me, what is my motivation to be an aggressive attacker? when I would be better off not attacking & just letting my opponent pummel me. A tactic that keinutnai & WR have adopted in this war.

keinutnai thinks that he & WR are winning this war, I happen to think that T.M.I. is winning as we outrank them. so we have a stalemate that will stand until one side or the other decides to give up.

Enjoy the war while it lasts.

what bugs me is THIS:
[03 Jun] 11:51 XXXXX 49939 46486 35,167,427,100 73,473,839,640

The attacker had 1/2 HALF of the defenders strike and their losses are the same ... mind someone explaining to me how the heck this works?

All I can tell you concerning this is it has everything to do with numbers & percentages, the attacker always loses more. it also concerns different weapons strength etc. I am doing a poor job at explaining & I hope that someone else who can explain it better than I gets on here & does so.

by curumo Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:25 pm

Kong, it's not that the attacker looses more than the defender ... it's how the hell can someone have the same losses than someone who has double his power? I understand certain things in this game but this one isn't one of them. If someone has 50 % of the power then he should loose WAY more than the defender in any attack. That would be logical imo...

As for winning ... well all I can say are a couple of facts:
- Some members in TMI have never been massed in this war.
- What they build up, we destroy.
- What resources they have, we take for almost free.

As for ME, it's nice and dandy but it doesn't amount to anything if you can't keep any stats to back them up. They got most of their ME from our attacks, which is funny but acceptable.

In any case, I'd still like a reasoning as to why there's such a discrepancy in those attacks. I know for a fact that there's not more than a 50 % difference between the attacker's attack bonus and the defender's defense bonus. I'll try to re-do this attack with a similar difference in boni and see if I get a similar result ...

EDIT: Ok I got similar results and it is just omg ... This means that I can take down any defense with 1/2 the strength of it and it's viable. Shocked

by Keinutnai Mon Jun 04, 2012 6:08 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Spoiler:

since nobody seems to have the time to tackle this yet, then I shall post what I have come up with.

In the Assault mission I did above, I got 5,324,998.4 war experience points.
Keinutnai got 4,880,809.6. yes I know that I actually got 444,188.8 war xp more than keinutnai.

In the destruction mission I did, I got 1,761,872.8 war experience points. keinutnai got 9,315,334.4war experience points. keinutnai got 7,553,461.6 war xp more than me.

considering that I apparently got nothing from either of the other 2 attacks I did, (the sabotage & the assassination mission) do you still want to try to tell me that T.M.I. attacking world republic is not the reason why world republics war xp is as it is? look at the difference above & explain to me the reason anyone has to be aggressive when the defender gains more from "MOST" attacks.

(I do not have the exact numbers) for every 1 attack that some WR member does against a T.M.I. member. T.M.I. easily has done 5-10 attacks. we hit more often, & harder than any WR members, against active fighters, verses WR attacking inactives. I will say again, "look at the ranks if you need any proof of what we have done".

does anyone else see the issue here, or am I banging my head against a brick wall?
_________________________

@keinutnai & world republic, concerning the following...

Spoiler:

we were bored so we started a war. the only question was how to keep keinutnai from giving in to our demands & ending the war as soon as it started. I said to make him/WR "boot" their vacated members as keinutnai will never do this & the war will go on forever. this is why we have the demands that we have. I have spoken to T.M.I. & the majority have voted to continue this war until said demands are met. that means this war continues until such time as all current vacated members have been "booted". once that happens, this war is over. so if you want to end this war, you know what must be done. "the ball is in your court" as the saying goes.

Thanks for saying finally what WR thought for a long time. War started because you guys were bored. Since you know that our members want a fair peace treaty and your members want either war or an unfair treaty (that we kick all our vacated), there is nothing left to discuss, and the war will continue until you guys get bored of it.

Now let's go to war experience conversation:
If I was you and you were me, then I would have done the assault, but wouldn't have done the destruction mission. And if you spied me, you would have known that there is no point sabotaging or assassinating me, as you will lose more than me, because I don't have a weakness in my spies or assassins distribution. If however you saw someone who has 2 million defenders, and only say 200k spies, then it would be a nice target to sabotage, and if he had only 200k assassins, a good one to assassinate. So if I was you, I would still have gotten more war experience than you, even though I had more losses in the assault, but as you said, I wouldn't have cared, because TMI doctrine says that the number of losses is not important.

curumo wrote:Kong, it's not that the attacker looses more than the defender ... it's how the hell can someone have the same losses than someone who has double his power? I understand certain things in this game but this one isn't one of them. If someone has 50 % of the power then he should loose WAY more than the defender in any attack. That would be logical imo...

As for winning ... well all I can say are a couple of facts:
- Some members in TMI have never been massed in this war.
- What they build up, we destroy.
- What resources they have, we take for almost free.

As for ME, it's nice and dandy but it doesn't amount to anything if you can't keep any stats to back them up. They got most of their ME from our attacks, which is funny but acceptable.

In any case, I'd still like a reasoning as to why there's such a discrepancy in those attacks. I know for a fact that there's not more than a 50 % difference between the attacker's attack bonus and the defender's defense bonus. I'll try to re-do this attack with a similar difference in boni and see if I get a similar result ...

EDIT: Ok I got similar results and it is just omg ... This means that I can take down any defense with 1/2 the strength of it and it's viable.

Read this and you will know how it works:

In assaults for the kill:death ratio it is irrelevant who has what strike/defense action. What matters are techs and weapons employed.

If you have same tech and weapons as your enemy, then you will lose 20% more units if you assault him.
If your technology is 2 times higher than his, instead of having 20% more losses than him, you will have 40% less losses than him. (120%/2 = 60%)

Guys, forget what you saw in other browser games. Sending more guys will not improve your kill ratio. Better technology and better weapons will.

Explanation: There is no reason why sending more soldiers should lower your losses, especially if you fight a better trained and better equipped foe. Here a couple real world examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
Situation:
US soldiers are better trained and better equipped than Somali rebels.
Somali rebels vastly outnumber US forces so that Somali rebels have more power/ are stronger than the US forces
The two sides fight, US have no chance of securing the area, even if they wanted
US has much less losses than Somalians, despite Somalians being stronger, because their technology and training is inferior.

Somalians outnumbered and outpowered US troops, but suffered 500-1500 losses
US troops suffered only 18 losses.

Battle of Kursk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_kursk
Soviets outnumbered, outpowered Germany and won the battle decisively,
but they lost

863,303 casualties
6,064 tanks and assault guns
1,626 aircraft

and Germany lost only:
203,000 casualties
1200 tanks and assault guns
681 aircraft

In real life better trained and better equiped armies have less losses than less well equipped/trained armies, why should it be different in Aderan Wars?

Why do some people keep on believing that if they send more units at technologically more advanced enemy they should have less losses than the high-tech enemy?

by Paladius Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:00 pm

Keinutnai wrote:Why do some people keep on believing that if they send more units at technologically more advanced enemy they should have less losses than the high-tech enemy?

Are you suggesting that World Republic is more technically advanced than The Marauders Imperium?

by curumo Mon Jun 04, 2012 7:50 pm

Wait, you said that having higher techs is better and that matters, yes?

But you just said this and contradicted yourself:

If you have same tech and weapons as your enemy, then you will lose 20% more units if you assault him.
If your technology is 2 times higher than his, instead of having 20% more losses than him, you will have 40% less losses than him. (120%/2 = 60%)

or did I read that wrong?

Also TMI (least the big ones) have far better techs than most WR members. I myself have one of the highest attack boni in the game (340%) and it apparently doesn't help me at all. Also I didn't say 'number of soldiers', I said attack power. Any serious player knows that THAT thing is not made of numbers in strength but in strength of techs.

It IS, however, utterly unfair that you should have the same losses as the defender when having ONE HALF of his power. Also the tech difference shouldn't play such a difference as I am sure that there isn't more than a 50 % discrepancy between the attack and the defence (talking techs here)...

Also please don't make RL references here. This is a game. What accounts in RL is strategy and tactics, calculating in the weather, the ground, army positioning, etc ... Those things can't be calculated in here and should therefore NOT be taken into account.

And one last question: IS it then, in this game, irrelevant if I win the attack or loose it? I mean, as I think now, thinking away all the bull, that it doesn't ... I'll say it again, WTF?

by Gamniac Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:56 pm

Paladius wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Why do some people keep on believing that if they send more units at technologically more advanced enemy they should have less losses than the high-tech enemy?
Are you suggesting that World Republic is more technologically advanced than The Marauders Imperium?

Fixed a typo there. There's a bit of a gap between "technologically" and "technically".

I don't see where he said that.
Besides, WR sticks with Mobile Artillery, while TMI typically uses the rather more powerful Monkey Loving Radio Stations (getting a building launched at you is bound to break your face, no matter what tank you're driving) and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.
Now who's technologically superior, again?

Now on to something else:

Keinutnai wrote:
Thanks for saying finally what WR thought for a long time. War started because you guys were bored.

I think they stated something like this a few times already, just FYI.

Not to undermine or anything, but I'd like to add my thoughts to these RL examples for accuracy's sake:

Keinutnai wrote:
Situation:
US soldiers are better trained and better equipped than Somali rebels.
Somali rebels vastly outnumber US forces so that Somali rebels have more power/ are stronger than the US forces
The two sides fight, US have no chance of securing the area, even if they wanted
US has much less losses than Somalians, despite Somalians being stronger, because their technology and training is inferior.

Somalians outnumbered and outpowered US troops, but suffered 500-1500 losses
US troops suffered only 18 losses.

Somehow, I doubt the Somali had Artillery, Aircraft and other long-range splash damage dealers.
I imagine that, for the US, the battle was more of a shooting gallery.
Plus, an army versus a militia? Not a fair fight, no matter what army you send, at least in terms of losses.
Not gonna calculate how this battle would have gone using in-game rulings, maybe some other time.

Keinutnai wrote:
Battle of Kursk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_kursk
Soviets outnumbered, outpowered Germany and won the battle decisively,
but they lost

863,303 casualties
6,064 tanks and assault guns
1,626 aircraft

and Germany lost only:
203,000 casualties
1200 tanks and assault guns
681 aircraft

I seem to recall the Soviets were a tad short in armament. I read/heard that there was about 1 rifle for about every 5 soldiers.
If your soldiers have to wait until most of their squad is wiped out before they can fight back, it's no wonder the Soviet suffered heavy losses.
Plus, that battle was a massive turning point in favor of the Soviets, but that's beside your point.

What is consistently skipped is the home-ground advantage, such as knowing where to find cover and such things.
There's also the determination of the troops. (How come Aderan Wars never did anything with that? you could do a lot of fun stuff with it.)
For an example of both determination and territory, just look at the Vietnam war.
I know I'm probably kicking a sore leg here, but it was the most usable and recent example that would come to mind, so sorry about bringing that up.
Training, equipment and technology are not everything, at least not in a real war.

by Paladius Mon Jun 04, 2012 10:16 pm

Gamniac wrote:
Paladius wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Why do some people keep on believing that if they send more units at technologically more advanced enemy they should have less losses than the high-tech enemy?
Are you suggesting that World Republic is more technologically advanced than The Marauders Imperium?
Fixed a typo there. There's a bit of a gap between "technologically" and "technically".

I don't see where he said that.
Besides, WR sticks with Mobile Artillery, while TMI typically uses the rather more powerful Monkey Loving Radio Stations (getting a building launched at you is bound to break your face, no matter what tank you're driving) and Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.
Now who's technologically superior, again?

Thanks for fixing my typo. I didn't say that Keinutnai suggested the WR is more technologically advanced than TMI, I was asking if that was what he meant. There is a difference between making a statement and asking a question.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Jun 04, 2012 11:26 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
(1)Thanks for saying finally what WR thought for a long time. War started because you guys were bored.
(1a) I don't think we ever denied it, I thought this was common knowledge & had been stated already, but you are welcome anyway.
(2)Since you know that our members want a fair peace treaty and your members want either war or an unfair treaty (that we kick all our vacated), there is nothing left to discuss,
(2a) I have yet to see your version of a "fair" treaty. you want us to stop the war & walk away as if it never happened to begin with. you stated at one point that if we wanted you to "boot" all of your vacated then it is only "fair" that we should "boot" ours as well. we have. we have 1 member left on vacation due to his computer blowing up. but you have yet to "boot" any of your vacated. so exactly who is it that wants the war to continue? I am open to peace, you know what you have to do to get it. by you not "booting" your vacated, you are stating that you (keinutnai) & WR want this war to continue.
(2b) I am unclear as to why it is that you think that our asking you to "boot" your vacated is unfair. they do nothing for the alliance. it isn't like we asked you to step down from the leadership of WR, or asked that you have sara change her MOTD as vis has been disbanded for over a year now. I will never understand your idea of "fairness" in a war game, but whatever...
(3)and the war will continue until you guys get bored of it.
(3a) Well to be perfectly honest I & most of T.M.I. got bored with this war a week after we started it due to the tactics that you & WR insist upon employing. the problem is that we are too damned stubborn to just lay down arms & walk away from this without something to show for our effort, so yea, this will continue until you "boot" those useless vacated members...

by seaborgium Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:14 am

There are more reasons for the war, but boredom wasn't the #1 reason, it just happen to be the motivational part used Wink

At the start of the war I had a list of things needed to end the war, but as time war moved on, I found that I was crossing them off as they seem to be to high a level of understanding.

Kong I hear theres a box of cookies under sara's bed.

Now that WR has built some stuff lets knock it back down. Sooner or later we will figure out a way to end it, or maybe even bring more ~~farmers~~ players into the war since they want to take things, with out helping in the party.

by Sponsored content