Still trying to understand how defenses work vs assaults

This is in relation to this topic here I posted in another thread. Figured it would be better to post in a separate thread than to hijack the other one. https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2784p270-tmi-against-world-republic#36199

Like the subject says i'm still trying to understand how assaults work against a defense. Some clarification on what I understand so far, probably wrong but this is why I came here.

• Both sides will always lose a +/- percentage of their attacking/defending forces and that value will change with each attack. Sometimes in favor of the attacker, sometimes the defender. Thats the way it goes.
  
  
• Realm Alert levels will have no effect on attack/defense units. According the description it should only affect spies and assassins. If i'm wrong here let me know.
  
  
• In terms of losses basically damage is irrelevant and AT/DT is all that matters. What i understand from keinutai in the thread above.
  

I just assaulted one account three times and i'm trying to understand the results. My account has 50% more base AT, then the defending account. I also have the maximum personal bonus into AT so I can assume that if the defending account has done the same that they don't have much more than an additional ~35% more than I do since you get an additional 35% in PT with DT vs AT.

Assume I have at total AT of 350% (300% base and 50 Personal in attack) and the defender has a total DT of 317.5% lets round up to 320% for simplicity and to give benefit of doubt to defender. (250% base and (50 x 1.35) 67.5% personal bonus in defense). I'm assuming the percentage of personal bonus stacks with the tech bonus. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I chose 50 points in personal bonus for both of us because I know my personal bonus is maxed out and I assume the defenders is as well and if that is true it would also be close to 50.

There is a percentage difference between my AT and defenders DT of 9%. The defender would have to have more than 70 points in personal bonus to even the difference in our AT and DT. I'm not even sure that 70 points in personal bonus possible is it?

Some Damage reports. These are three attacks in a row. Every attack resulted in a loss to me.
Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 47,856,730,157 damage on the enemy!
This results in 10,672 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 6,459,556,452 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 14,197 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 45,691,610,257 damage on the enemy!
This results in 9,718 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 5,474,126,246 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 12,411 casualties in their enemies ranks!

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 46,028,611,534 damage on the enemy!
This results in 8,848 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 5,249,588,739 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 11,657 casualties in their enemies ranks!


So I know this is a long post, thanks for sticking this far. What I don't understand is that even though my account can do significantly more damage (again damage is apparently irrelevant, even though Tech increases your damage it would seem it should have some effect) and have potentially ~10% more AT vs the defenders DT is how I lose more soldiers every single time?

I've been on the losing and winning side of a lot of wars and battles so i'm not really here to gripe about the actual losses. I sincerely do want to understand the losses. Again I know there's a +/- percent chance that calculates losses for both sides and it could sway either way, but I will lose more soldiers against this specific person with lower tech in every attack and I don't understand why.


note: i calculated the percent differences as such [(val1 - val2) / (val1+val2) /2] * 100

Your losses are based on his losses plus 25% adjusted by tech differences.

So the attacker always has to have at least 25% more of a difference in tech (not power or full tech) to have a chance at losing less than the defender. On top of personal points in Defense already being worth 35% more than Attack points.

So I would have to increase my tech percentage total from 350% to 415% to break even against a target with 320% defense tech?
{(415-320) / (415+320)/2} * 100 = 25.8%

I only need ~12T to increase my AT by 65%..... I'm really starting to see why this game sucks so much.

There's also a bit of randomness involved:
Attackers may do 5% less or more damage, Defender damage deviates by a similar margin.
Why a war game would need randomized damage kind of escapes me (it's not like it's Final Fantasy or something, after all).

Gamniac wrote:There's also a bit of randomness involved:
Attackers may do 5% less or more damage, Defender damage deviates by a similar margin.
Why a war game would need randomized damage kind of escapes me (it's not like it's Final Fantasy or something, after all).

Yeah i understand the 5% randomness which doesn't really justify the difference in AT needed vs DT. Also I figure the 5% difference is irrelevant since it will eventually be equal for each person over time. Again from what I understand I don't think damage really matters that much, even as an attacker if I do less damage than the defender and the attack mission is unsuccessful I can still defeat more soldiers and "win" if my tech is high enough.

I guess that brings up an entirely new question. Why do we have damage at all if tech trumps all anyway?

I gave up long ago. I just play it as its better then the instant train clickers" like SGW.

I like the randomness myself. It keeps people honest so they cant sit and wait till your 1 minute past banking time to hit you. A little variance never hurt anyone,,,, much.

The 5% randomness is fine, but I don't think that it stops anyone if your worth farming.

navblue wrote:The 5% randomness is fine, but I don't think that it stops anyone if your worth farming.

damage randomness in farming and farming allone follows a bell curve

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

meaning you have a very high chance of being close to your original power, but there's a slight chance of getting an extremely lucky or unlucky shot

Gamniac wrote:Why a war game would need randomized damage kind of escapes me (it's not like it's Final Fantasy or something, after all).

your soldiers could have a headache and miss shots, "for want of a nail" if you want to call it that
If the game were perfectly solvable with math equations (which imo is much more than it should be), then only 2 types of people would play.
Those who know maths (and potentially those who get told the right equations) and those who dont realize that you need to play by those equations otherwise you're screwed

A game needs some fuzzyness and a chance for one to win/lose. I get that. What I was trying to understand was the mechanics of what goes into the attack / defense losses. From what I can tell Attack / Defense action is nearly irrelevant and tech plays the biggest role in determining losses.

Getting to the Standard deviations, that would mean the 5% percent is merely the extreme point, correct? Like rolling either a 1 or a 20 on a d20.
Just thinking aloud here, but if I understand Standard-deviations correctly, this would mean fluctuations up to 5%, so therefor it would be perfectly possible (or even normal) to see one side suffer a 2% malus while the other gains a 1% bonus.

I'd say it something similar to this:
30% chance that it's 100-101% of damage
10% chance that it's 101-102%
5% chance that it's 102-103%
3.9% chance it's 103-104%
1% chance it's 104-104.5%
0.1% chance it's 104.5-105%

And same percentages for opposite ranges:
95-100%

Sorry that everyone seems to be ignoring your actual question and centering on the "random" part of the equation. Maybe you will get a decent answer one day Nav.

keinutnai/kenzu has stated several times over that when the attacker/defender are at equal techs, the attacker will lose 25% more than the defender. as such it appears to me that when the attacker has substantially larger attack tech verses the defenders relatively weak defense tech,(including the possibility that the attacker has maxed out the attack pbp & the defender has maxed out the defense pbp). the attacker will always lose substantially more than the defender. in the end I think it comes down to army size & the percentages lost from each. the larger the attack force/action, the more losses incurred, (percentage lost) verses the defenders smaller defense force/action, (percentage lost).

In plain English, (as best as I can comprehend) if you have a large attack action, with your attack techs built up, & a large percentage of your pbp in attack, & you go after an acct that is inferior to yours, you will always lose substantially more than the one you are attacking. how else can anyone explain when a hit results in the defender losing 3-5,000 in defenders while the attacker loses 30-35,000 or more in attackers. this imo does not look like 25% more losses for the attacker, but then again I have proven several times over that I am no math head. (no offense intended towards anyone)

Yeah, it has always been confusing that what is "said" will happen never matches what really does happen.

as a comparison, take a look at the following hits. maybe someone can explain the difference in the losses in each hit... as a point of record my attack tech is 300%, & I have 0 in attack pbp.
**********
this player has a defense tech of 130% when I get the info on his pbp's I will post it.

Battle Report

KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
1,000,000 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
1000000 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

opponent awaited the invaders with the following:
307,068 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
306974 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
94 Soldiers came unarmed

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 56,160,000,000 damage on the enemy!
This results in 27,465 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 6,019,031,077 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 11,983 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 opponent army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
**********
this would seem to make my previous post void.
**********
this second hit, this player has 247% in defense tech, when I get the info on the pbp's I will post it.

battle report

KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
988,017 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
988017 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

opponent awaited the invaders with the following:
2,970,443 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
2058910 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
911533 Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 51,218,801,280 damage on the enemy!
This results in 78,817 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 116,402,040,416 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 74,474 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense

KingKongFan1's attack has been repelled!

The invading soldiers flee in panic whilst opponent forces are cheering and celebrating their victory.
**********
Interesting that the losses are almost equal, considering the differences, (tech, weapons, etc.)
**********
this last hit, this player has 300% defense tech, when I get the info on the pbp's I will post it.

Battle Report

KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
913,543 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
913543 Soldiers were armed with MLRS

opponent awaited the invaders with the following:
Huge Load of Soldiers
Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 49,824,635,220 damage on the enemy!
This results in 0 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict DEVASTATING damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 102,138 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense

KingKongFan1's attack has been repelled!

The invading soldiers flee in panic whilst opponent forces are cheering and celebrating their victory.
**********
as is quite obvious with this attack, at equal techs, I lost substantially more than 1/4 more than the defender did in this attack. I guess none of my guys got "lucky" ... Anyway even with accounting for the percentage of randomness thrown in, the losses in these attacks seem "off" to me, but then again what do I know?

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

about kingkongfan1's last post:

300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

1 assault:
27,465 defender losses with MA
11,983 attacker losses with MLRS

defender has 130%
MLRS is 24% stronger than MA

Formula: 2.25*1.24/1.3=2.14
This means attacker will kill about 2.14 times more than the defender

27,465/11,983=2.3 ratio
pretty close!

This number is different due to PBP of defender and randomness of the attack (95-105% damage dealt).


mission 2:

247% def tech + unknown PBP

78,817
74,474
ratio: 1.06

2/3 tanks and 1/3 MA for defender = 1216 average power per units compared to 1800 of attacker.
2.25*1.48/2.47=1.34

This means defender has a lot of points in defense, most likely the maximum number of possible points.

3rd mission:

defender had a defense action more than 5 times higher than the attacker's strike action.
In such case attacker deals no damage and doesn't kill a single unit.
You dealt 50 billion damage, this means defenders action must be more than 250 billion.

kingkongfan1 wrote:keinutnai/kenzu has stated several times over that when the attacker/defender are at equal techs, the attacker will lose 25% more than the defender. as such it appears to me that when the attacker has substantially larger attack tech verses the defenders relatively weak defense tech,(including the possibility that the attacker has maxed out the attack pbp & the defender has maxed out the defense pbp). the attacker will always lose substantially more than the defender. in the end I think it comes down to army size & the percentages lost from each. the larger the attack force/action, the more losses incurred, (percentage lost) verses the defenders smaller defense force/action, (percentage lost).

In plain English, (as best as I can comprehend) if you have a large attack action, with your attack techs built up, & a large percentage of your pbp in attack, & you go after an acct that is inferior to yours, you will always lose substantially more than the one you are attacking. how else can anyone explain when a hit results in the defender losing 3-5,000 in defenders while the attacker loses 30-35,000 or more in attackers. this imo does not look like 25% more losses for the attacker, but then again I have proven several times over that I am no math head. (no offense intended towards anyone)

I noticed that this pattern which kingkongfan1 describes is to some extent true when doing hunt assassin missions. In hunt assassin missions it's always the most efficient to use a strike that is only slightly higher than the cummulated value of defense and assassin actions.

But when assaulting, a bigger strike will not suffer higher losses than a smaller strike. ie: I will have the same losses assaulting a 20 bill def, no matter if I have 30 billion strike, or 300 billion strike. Only when my strike is smaller than the def, then both sides will suffer less losses.

Keinutnai wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Spoiler:

about kingkongfan1's last post:

300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

1 assault:
27,465 defender losses with MA
11,983 attacker losses with MLRS

defender has 130%
MLRS is 24% stronger than MA

Formula: 2.25*1.24/1.3=2.14
This means attacker will kill about 2.14 times more than the defender

27,465/11,983=2.3 ratio
pretty close!

This number is different due to PBP of defender and randomness of the attack (95-105% damage dealt).


mission 2:

247% def tech + unknown PBP

78,817
74,474
ratio: 1.06

2/3 tanks and 1/3 MA for defender = 1216 average power per units compared to 1800 of attacker.
2.25*1.48/2.47=1.34

This means defender has a lot of points in defense, most likely the maximum number of possible points.

3rd mission:

defender had a defense action more than 5 times higher than the attacker's strike action.
In such case attacker deals no damage and doesn't kill a single unit.
You dealt 50 billion damage, this means defenders action must be more than 250 billion.

kingkongfan1 wrote:keinutnai/kenzu has stated several times over that when the attacker/defender are at equal techs, the attacker will lose 25% more than the defender. as such it appears to me that when the attacker has substantially larger attack tech verses the defenders relatively weak defense tech,(including the possibility that the attacker has maxed out the attack pbp & the defender has maxed out the defense pbp). the attacker will always lose substantially more than the defender. in the end I think it comes down to army size & the percentages lost from each. the larger the attack force/action, the more losses incurred, (percentage lost) verses the defenders smaller defense force/action, (percentage lost).

In plain English, (as best as I can comprehend) if you have a large attack action, with your attack techs built up, & a large percentage of your pbp in attack, & you go after an acct that is inferior to yours, you will always lose substantially more than the one you are attacking. how else can anyone explain when a hit results in the defender losing 3-5,000 in defenders while the attacker loses 30-35,000 or more in attackers. this imo does not look like 25% more losses for the attacker, but then again I have proven several times over that I am no math head. (no offense intended towards anyone)

I noticed that this pattern which kingkongfan1 describes is to some extent true when doing hunt assassin missions. In hunt assassin missions it's always the most efficient to use a strike that is only slightly higher than the cummulated value of defense and assassin actions.

But when assaulting, a bigger strike will not suffer higher losses than a smaller strike. ie: I will have the same losses assaulting a 20 bill def, no matter if I have 30 billion strike, or 300 billion strike. Only when my strike is smaller than the def, then both sides will suffer less losses.

This is a very informative post & hopefully one day I will understand the information contained within, (it's not you, it's me). Anyway the one thing that I am taking from this is that I have wasted kuwal by the bucketful in building up my Attack tech. I find this statement mind-blowing ...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

It does however explain quite a bit Imo, but this does not seem to be anywhere near "fair & balanced" to me. I would suggest getting rid of the tech's & pbp's entirely,(gold could be given as a reward for medals gotten) but I know that would go over like a lead balloon...

Nomad wrote:Sorry that everyone seems to be ignoring your actual question and centering on the "random" part of the equation. Maybe you will get a decent answer one day Nav.

lol thanks! someone understands!

kingkongfan1 wrote:

This is a very informative post & hopefully one day I will understand the information contained within, (it's not you, it's me). Anyway the one thing that I am taking from this is that I have wasted kuwal by the bucketful in building up my Attack tech. I find this statement mind-blowing ...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
It does however explain quite a bit Imo, but this does not seem to be anywhere near "fair & balanced" to me. I would suggest getting rid of the tech's & pbp's entirely,(gold could be given as a reward for medals gotten) but I know that would go over like a lead balloon...

I feel the same way kong and I dont know if I want to put the effort into trying to understand it anymore. I just know is it doesn't make sense, doesn't feel balanced in anyway and I'm getting tired of it.

why should we get rid of techs and PBP? If we got rid of them, then all losses in all attack would be the same (or simply the attacker would always have 25% more losses)


It is clearly not fair that attacker loses 25% more than defender, but in the recent survey most people voted that attacker will lose the same when techs are the same, which means that admin will change the code and assaults will be always fair, and assaulting someone with better techs will lead less losses for the attacker.

Keinutnai wrote:why should we get rid of techs and PBP? If we got rid of them, then all losses in all attack would be the same (or simply the attacker would always have 25% more losses)


It is clearly not fair that attacker loses 25% more than defender, but in the recent survey most people voted that attacker will lose the same when techs are the same, which means that admin will change the code and assaults will be always fair, and assaulting someone with better techs will lead less losses for the attacker.

no offense intended here, but I have to disagree with you on this. If I have to do math to do an efficient attack, then I want it to be as simple as possible, & the simple fact that I know that I will lose 25% more than the player I attack (+/- 5% randomness) goes a long way towards getting rid of the headache this game has become. pardon this expression, but "I do not get my rocks off doing math". if you did not understand what I said in my previous post, I will clarify. "tho you gave plenty of info, I have no clue as to what any of it means nor where you got any of your numbers."... So getting rid of the pbp's & the tech's is something I would back if it were seriously considered.

question,

why do you think the attacker always losing more is unfair? as it is now, 9 out of 10 hits I have come across the attacker has lost more (during war) ask anyone. if I had any logs left from the war I would show you what I mean.

2nd question,

if it is unfair, why cannot it be changed? (the 25% more that an attacker loses than a defender)

You dont need any math for assaults.

You make assaults and if your think your losses are too high, increase your technology. The game rules work the same for everyone.

Simple rules: Better tech, better results.



Well if you mass properly, then defender will lose more than attacker. But this implies that you also kill assassins and preferably also spies. Attacker usually only loses more if he does a couple assaults and stops there, but if the attacker kills assassins and spies as well, then usually attacker kills much more than defender.

In all wars that I have participated it was common that defenders lost around 2 times more than attackers. The war with TMI was an exception though. But all wars with Mujengan or Imperium, when an account got massed he lost more than the attackers.

Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

navblue wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

agreed.

@keinutnai/ kenzu- first you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

then you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
Simple rules: Better tech, better results.

first I would like to point out that you failed (again) to answer my questions in my previous post, but I have gotten used to that so nevermind about it now.

second I want to point out your first statement above. the cost difference between what 225% defense tech is, & what 300% attack tech is, nullifies your second statement. think about it for a second,,, seriously.

navblue wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

And I was ALWAYS against having to make calculations. Look at red apocalypse, there sabotage and assassinations is as easy as assault. All you need to do is click the sabotage/assassination button.

Fortunately there was a survey where people voted on new sabotage and assassination missions. This will make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

navblue wrote:

Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

agreed.

@keinutnai/ kenzu- first you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

then you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
Simple rules: Better tech, better results.

first I would like to point out that you failed (again) to answer my questions in my previous post, but I have gotten used to that so nevermind about it now.

second I want to point out your first statement above. the cost difference between what 225% defense tech is, & what 300% attack tech is, nullifies your second statement. think about it for a second,,, seriously.

I don't see a contradiction.

1st statement:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech

2nd statement:
higher tech will yield better results

Put these statements together and you will get:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech
but if I increase my tech by 1% to 301%, then I will kill more than 225% defense tech
OR
whatever I lost in a mission against someone, if I increase my tech by 1%, my losses will be smaller compared to his.
OR
any tech will become more efficient if increased by 1%

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

Keinutnai wrote:
1st statement:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech

2nd statement:
higher tech will yield better results

Put these statements together and you will get:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech
but if I increase my tech by 1% to 301%, then I will kill more than 225% defense tech
OR
whatever I lost in a mission against someone, if I increase my tech by 1%, my losses will be smaller compared to his.
OR
any tech will become more efficient if increased by 1%

This is where we all become confused because I read the two quotes above very differently. To me the 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech. means that 300% attack equals 225% Defense even though there is a 75% difference between the Tech levels.

You then state 300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech and I have to ask equally strong to What?

Of course this is all really of interest only to those who have to do everything based on the maths which Kenzu should know by now that in my case the maths is totally irrelevant because in war situations I won't pay any attention to the maths but rather I work on the basis that irrespective of my losses I attain the result against my opponent that I am after. Of course it also helps if you can locate other easy targets to offset your losses.

I do have to agree that there is far to much maths involved in the game and that the arguments put forward so far to justify the mechanics stretch the bounds of reality far to much and believe that a much simpler and clearer approach needs to be considered