the topic nomad missed...

Since nomad has brought forth several discussions that he & I have had; I will bring forth the one that causes the most strife between us...

Early on when he first showed me this game I asked why it was that I had to send my full strike to attack an opponent? as I could choose the number of spies or assassins to send but was forced to send my "full" strike against someone. his response was/is twofold 1) that is the way it has always been. 2) if a player could choose the amount of his strike to send; as opposed to being forced to send his "full strike" that player "could figure the proper formula to send the least amount of strike to do the most damage, thus decimating his enemy"...

unfortunately I am rather thick headed & neither explanations were satisfactory to me, let me explain.

1) is just a retarded answer, sorry that is my opinion. you do not do something just because it has always been...
2) would have merit if it were not for the fact that I can choose the number of spies/assassins I send; & by using the proper formula to send the least amount of one, or the other, or both, to do the most damage, thus decimating my enemy...

in all honesty what is the difference whether I "choose" the number of my strike that I send to hit an opponent, verses me being able to "choose" the number of spies/assassins I send to hit an opponent? either way I decimate my opponent...

I have been around long enough to figure out that using my strike is my last option as I can do practically the same job with spies/assassins, & they are cheaper to train/rebuild.( with the exception of income units. I cannot assassinate income units, but I think I said something about that in another thread so I wont bring it up here.)

anyway I am opening the floor for discussion on this, or at least looking for a "better" explanation than what I got above.

I can give you my explanation, if you are interested:

1) It's easier for new players to use, as they don't need to figure out how much to send, if they automatically send all units at once.

2) Easier to code I believe

3) No reason why you should attack with less. Read explanation below:

Explanation:
Each time you attack, you spend the same amount of Supply Turns, so why should you attack with a smaller force if you can attack with a bigger force? Attacking with a bigger force has virtually no disadvantages. If you mass with a bigger force, you can destroy more units at once (my impression). Yes, you lose more units too, it's not more efficient in terms of kill:death ratio, but it saves you Supply Turns and Attack Turns. And if you farm someone, you better attack with full force, because if your attacking force is not enough, you will not steal any kuwal, but if your force is much stronger than needed, you will still suffer similar losses as with a smaller force.

Kenzu wrote:I can give you my explanation, if you are interested:

1) It's easier for new players to use, as they don't need to figure out how much to send, if they automatically send all units at once.

2) Easier to code I believe

3) No reason why you should attack with less. Read explanation below:

Explanation:
Each time you attack, you spend the same amount of Supply Turns, so why should you attack with a smaller force if you can attack with a bigger force? Attacking with a bigger force has virtually no disadvantages. If you mass with a bigger force, you can destroy more units at once (my impression). Yes, you lose more units too, it's not more efficient in terms of kill:death ratio, but it saves you Supply Turns and Attack Turns. And if you farm someone, you better attack with full force, because if your attacking force is not enough, you will not steal any kuwal, but if your force is much stronger than needed, you will still suffer similar losses as with a smaller force.

thank you for this information; it is helpful.

Unfortunately its completely incorrect and I can not believe you can not see the problems with that after our 3 hr discussion earlier today.

Not trying to be an ass, just offering an honest rebuttle.

Explanation:
Each time you attack, you spend the same amount of Supply Turns, so why should you attack with a smaller force if you can attack with a bigger force?efficiency and the loss ratio Attacking with a bigger force has virtually no disadvantages.I consider having losses of 32 bill in repairs to be a Massive disadvantage If you mass with a bigger force, you can destroy more units at once (my impression).AFAIK this is absolutely correct and it how I see it. Yes, you lose more units tooExactly!!!!, it's not more efficient in terms of kill:death ratio, but it saves you Supply Turns and Attack Turns.During massing yes, during farming No And if you farm someone, you better attack with full force, because if your attacking force is not enough, you will not steal any kuwal, but if your force is much stronger than needed, you will still suffer similar losses as with a smaller force.I would like to request confirmation on this. It is my understand that the AW main game was infact set up so a smaller strike can steal a % based on the strike to Defense ratio. It is also my understanding that losses are set by the size of the force so a larger force loses much more units then a smaller force when strike an identical defense. So either I am confused, or these last two statements made by Kenzu are incorrect.

***in the updates link noted feb 28 2010

Farming: You can now steal some kuwal even if the target has a higher defense than your strike. However the lower your strike compared to their defense, the less kuwal you will steal and the higher your losses will be (%-wise).

Still requesting confirmation on the losses part tho.

I has to say that I agree with you Nomad. If I attack with a Smaller force than all of my strike and win then I would expect to still take all Kuwal and suffer lower losses.

This also brings up another question with regard to AT usage when Farming.
It is my understanding that if less that 10 AT are used then Less Kuwal will be taken. The question is if Less At are used what happens with losses.

Ie If 1 AT is used the Kuwal taken is much smaller but are the losses also smaller?

Nomad wrote:Unfortunately its completely incorrect and I can not believe you can not see the problems with that after our 3 hr discussion earlier today.

@nomad- do not take this the wrong way, but kenzu took the time to explain something to me from his p.o.v. which believe it or not is/was very helpful as he has a completely different play style than I, as well as having different way of looking at how things work. Understanding how another player thinks is helpful, & that is what I was thanking kenzu for, his thoughts...

@manleva- please bear with me atm, RL is taking a priority for now, when things calm down a bit I will reread your posts & give you my thoughts on them. I do not want you to think that I am snubbing you, for that is not the case...

I was not referring to his POV,,, that part is fine, it was the incorrect parts such as if your strike is smaller then a defense, it gets rejected. That is not the case at all and is completely incorrect.


I personally think the reason it existing is due completely to the fact it is a protection mechanism for smaller and newer accounts. I wish I had the correct numbers so I could provide a good example, but I do not so in this example all the numbers will have to be made up.

Account A is an older established account. He has MLRS weaponry. 300% attack tech. 20 personal bonus points. His power per 1 soldier is roughly 27,772. thats taking his total strike power and dividing by his total number of men in strike.

Account B is a newer account. He has Main Battle Tanks for weapons. 125% tech, and 10 PBP in strike. His power per 1 soldier is roughly 14,125. Thats taking his total strike power and dividing it by the total number of men in strike.

Now presently The established account has to send its entire strike force against the new account to farm it. With a large strike force the losses to the attacker are great and therefore the newer account is safe from being farmed for a long time. IF Account A could choose to send just enough to win, Then he can literally (in this example) send 1/2 the men in strike as there are in defense and win the battle. This drops the losses significantly and allows the attacker for farm and profit from much smaller hits.

Now instead of repair bills of 5, 10, or 20 bill per hit your looking at 1/2 as much. In extreme cases You could see players sending literally just a few hundred or a thousand against account and winning, all with repair bills in the millions. This cuts the protection time/ no worries of being farmed time for new accounts down significantly. Another admittedly extreme case who be a lone player who wanted to be a jerk. Having millions of men in strike and defense, and going around whacking accounts just a few days/weeks old just for the fun of it. Sending only 10 men would only net him losses of 1 man and one weapon, a spit in the bucket when producing 50 to 70K men a day and 20 to 30 bill kewul every day.

I can't explain why its there, but I feel it is a necessary evil that needs to exist.

From what I can see from the other posts and my personal opinion, I think that adding the feature to be able to fully or partially control the amount of strike force both increases flexibility as to how much force you want to use, gives you a chance to decrease your losses and in general increases realism.

Forgive me for not giving any examples or technical information, but the general conclusion I am coming up with is that it would be a pretty good idea to allow players to control freely or partially how big an attacking force they send and would add a bit more of a skill/experience factor into conventional massing.

goku1719 wrote:From what I can see from the other posts and my personal opinion, I think that adding the feature to be able to fully or partially control the amount of strike force both increases flexibility as to how much force you want to use, gives you a chance to decrease your losses and in general increases realism.

Forgive me for not giving any examples or technical information, but the general conclusion I am coming up with is that it would be a pretty good idea to allow players to control freely or partially how big an attacking force they send and would add a bit more of a skill/experience factor into conventional massing.

OK,,,, BUT,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Do you realize the other side of that, and what it will cause? You see if you allow a player with rank 1 strike to only be able to send in a part of their strike you allow them to do 2 very destructive things.

1. Presently farming is a simple ratio of cost versus profit. If you make more then you lose then your OK. This means those with massive strikes just simply can't make a profit hitting those really small. Now if you allow the bigger strikes, who by chance do seem to have the largest techs, to just send a small fraction of their strike they would then be able to farm even the smallest players for a fraction of the amount they could before. Those who were safe with 30 bill out would now be targeted at 5 to 10 bill. Now I am not arguing for nor against. I just want you to tell me you see the issue here and how you feel about it.

2. Presently when the massive strikes in the game go to war they might get 2 accounts broken down before their strike is burnt up. Under present conditions you have to send your entire strike so it adds a "buffer" so to speak to first strikes. Removing that and allowing accounts to just use what is needed means those same strikes can now mass 3, 4, 5, or more accounts, or be able to mass the defense, then hunt assassins, followed by destruction, and possibly even killing spies. Means where before 1 or 2 stats got broken in first strikes, under this an account can be wiped out completely. Again I am not arguing for nor against. I just want you to state if you see the issue and how you feel about it.

I can see those happening. As for the farming of the little, that might be a pain and a negative thing, but as for the warring thing: I am a lover of war, no matter what the outcome is. I think that would add an interesting twist to things and a little change might just be in order to the old strategies.

Alrighty then, given WR's political positioning in the AW realms I feel you guys will feel the brunt of that if it ever comes to life but atleast you acknowledge you do see and realize the issues it may create.


*(Keep in mind with AF update all your buildings can be destroyed and your rebuilding efforts and income drastically reduced. Making it even easier for someone to hold another down after they are "broken" . May be more then this game can take)*

That wasn't me speaking as a 2ic, or as a political figure in the game. Just my honest personal opinion as a closet warmonger. I would appreciate it if you didn't pull politics over my head in such an inconvenient situation -_-

I never meant to imply you were speaking as anything other then a player of the game. I never took it as such.

The WR thing was just an observation. Just saying I find it odd that people in the group who gets attacked most often asking for an easier way to utterly and completely break an account even more than is allowed now.

Haha, you are saying that to the person that deliberately made only miners in his earlier days of the game because he thought getting massed and fighting over it was fun.

EDIT: You say that Nomad, but in my 2 years in this game, I don't have any conscious memory of losing a single war, and I have been with WR from the beginning. (I consider doing more damage winning a war, if you want to know.)

Only you have mentioned "winning or losing", keep that in mind.

goku1719 wrote:Haha, you are saying that to the person that deliberately made only miners in his earlier days of the game because he thought getting massed and fighting over it was fun.

EDIT: You say that Nomad, but in my 2 years in this game, I don't have any conscious memory of losing a single war, and I have been with WR from the beginning. (I consider doing more damage winning a war, if you want to know.)

Theres many ways to have "lost".

Yes, but that is my personal philosophy. Simple and straight forward. Whoever loses more, loses the war.

goku1719 wrote:Yes, but that is my personal philosophy. Simple and straight forward. Whoever loses more, loses the war.

And how would u say the current war is playing out?

I am not going to answer a trick question, since its a lose-lose situation for me, and I don't wanna give you an excuse to pull one over my head. So the classic; NO COMMENT!