losses

fivel wrote:(def/att)^0.5 means:
you make this easy calc: def / att
after that you take your result and made another calc using "^0.5"

now idk what is the word used in english for "^" but if you take it from my example you might get it: lets say we have 1^3=1*1*1, or 10^5=10*10*10*10*10

but to make it more clear (i think this is more clear) (def/att)^0.5 is the square root of (def/att)

i think the forumula is not that difficult, if you know some excel you can make it work very easy

EDIT: i made a test and this formula is very accurate, the only thing that make's a difference is the fact that strike and defence action fluctuate during an attack (are not exact the one from a spy report and the one from the base page, but i think you knew that)

Gamniac wrote:

fivel wrote:(def/att)^0.5 means:
you make this easy calc: def / att
after that you take your result and made another calc using "^0.5"

now idk what is the word used in english for "^" but if you take it from my example you might get it: lets say we have 1^3=1*1*1, or 10^5=10*10*10*10*10

but to make it more clear (i think this is more clear) (def/att)^0.5 is the square root of (def/att)

i think the forumula is not that difficult, if you know some excel you can make it work very easy

EDIT: i made a test and this formula is very accurate, the only thing that make's a difference is the fact that strike and defence action fluctuate during an attack (are not exact the one from a spy report and the one from the base page, but i think you knew that)

The word you're looking for is in fact a phrase:
"10^5" is pronounced as "10 to the power of 5".
Admin probably wrote it the way he did because there's no "square root" key on a keyboard (unless there is and I haven't found it yet).
The rest is as accurate as can be.

(I always forget that "^0.5" is the same as a square root, so I almost explained this as (def/att)*(0.5*def/0.5*att). That only would've complicated matters a bit much.)

fivel wrote:the next step is to calculate the "adjustment"
and after that you can calculate your loses and his loses
but you need to take into consideration the defender strategy (Normal, Counter Offensive or Fortified) to use the best way to attack

if you need, i made an rough excel calc (it's quite accurate), so if you want i could send it to you, for more info send me a PM with the method you want me to send it to you

fivel wrote:lol,
1. Microsoft excel is a program from the Microsoft Office pack.
2. the method you want me to send it, means how do you want me to send it to you: email, MSN, or any other method you know to send data

but the fact is you dont need to calculate the loses from 1 assault because you can always do an actual ASSAULT MISSION and find out if you lose more then the defender or not (this way you dont waist time to enter the fallowing numbers: your SA, the target's DA, the number of your Strike Supers and the numbers of the defender Defence Supers)

kingkongfan1 wrote:thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.

Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

Admin wrote:First time anyone has ever written that they have no clue what "^" means mathematically
Plus I'm still not sure if you weren't aware of those threads or you simply didn't think of posting into them, cos you know, that's the point of a forum, to post into threads.
I really do appreciate your information & assistance here, but one of the first posts I ever made was to state that math wasn't my "thing". to clarify I shall spell it out further. I understand addition (A number plus [+] a second number), I understand subtraction (a number minus [-] a second number), I understand simple multiplication (a number times [X] a second number), & I have a pretty good grasp on long division (a number divided [no symbol on my computer for the symbol I know] into a second number)... I was ok with geometry but have forgotten it due to never using it after high school. I made it thru sophomore algebra with a D- average.( I got the answers right but couldn't work the problems the way they insisted I had to). anything more than the above mentioned or especially when you throw letters of the alphabet & weird symbols into the mix then I am completely lost. hope this explains things for anyone interested. the symbols I have learned in the last few years are as follows...[* = multiply],[/= divide],[~ = approximately], & maybe a few others I cannot think of atm. Also, yes I did see the threads, but it's kinda hard to make a post in a thread when you have no clue what is being discussed, or have any useful information to add. I read everything in these forums with the exception of the RA portion as I do not play RA.

kingkongfan1 wrote:thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.

Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers xwhat is a "super"? also, what is the x? [Times? or the same as *] .05 x[is this times or * as well?] adjustmentadjustment is the 0.5 correct? = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

The adjustment only works until whichever side is 5 times stronger than the weaker side
After that it will ignore any further change increase in the stronger side and losses will remain identical to the situation where the stronger power is only 5 times larger

If defender power keeps increasing:
Losses on both sides will be identical on each attack (and by identical I mean att loss on mission 1 is equal to att loss on mission 2 and same with defender, NOT that att loss on mission 1 is equal to def loss on mission 1) if you make an attack with a 20 bil strike vs a 100 bil defense or with a 20 bil strike vs a 200 bil defense defender always loses zero units
This is fairly simple to understand.

If strike keeps increasing it works out to the same thing:
100 bil strike vs 20 bil def will have exactly identical losses to a 200 bil strike vs a 20 bil def in the same way as a higher defense will leave losses unchanged (att loss mission 1 = att loss mission 2, def loss mission 1 = def loss mission 2)
so is this.


Now if you observe actually anything different from this, then it's a bug and you can report it.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
1) defender loses 4% when attacked, attacker loses 5% when attacking.
as best as I can tell you just showed this one to be true from your example above.
2) attacker will lose 25% more than defender, (when at equal techs).
I always thought that this meant that the attacker lost 25% more than the defender,(example- the defender loses 100 defense soldiers, & the attacker would lose 125 attack soldiers. I have made enough assaults to know that this is not the case, so please answer this one.
3) 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225%[240%?] defense tech. (I misquoted my last post concerning this. keinutnai/kenzu has stated #2 multiple times, but then states this & I believed he changed it to 240%). I am just trying to understand what I am being told.

is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what I am not understanding. (if it has been explained before, point me to it please?)

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:First time anyone has ever written that they have no clue what "^" means mathematically
Plus I'm still not sure if you weren't aware of those threads or you simply didn't think of posting into them, cos you know, that's the point of a forum, to post into threads.
I really do appreciate your information & assistance here, but one of the first posts I ever made was to state that math wasn't my "thing". to clarify I shall spell it out further. I understand addition (A number plus [+] a second number), I understand subtraction (a number minus [-] a second number), I understand simple multiplication (a number times [X] a second number), & I have a pretty good grasp on long division (a number divided [no symbol on my computer for the symbol I know] (you already wrote the symbol and it's " / " )into a second number)... I was ok with geometry but have forgotten it due to never using it after high school. I made it thru sophomore algebra with a D- average.( I got the answers right but couldn't work the problems the way they insisted I had to). anything more than the above mentioned or especially when you throw letters of the alphabet & weird symbols into the mix then I am completely lost. hope this explains things for anyone interested. the symbols I have learned in the last few years are as follows...[* = multiply],[/= divide],[~ = approximately], & maybe a few others I cannot think of atm. Also, yes I did see the threads, but it's kinda hard to make a post in a thread when you have no clue what is being discussed, or have any useful information to add. I read everything in these forums with the exception of the RA portion as I do not play RA.

kingkongfan1 wrote:thank you both, now I am another step closer to understanding more of the maths involved, I do appreciate what nomad had put forth, tho I must admit that it was quite confusing on exactly what was being defined. now help me just a bit more with the following... (the Da is from a random player I spy op'd, the AA is mine)

(defensive action- 104,862,439,974/ attack action- 3,480,010,500)
so the next step would be...

would someone please carry the equation out in detail to its completion & then explain what the results tell me? thank you.

Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers xwhat is a "super"? (there are attack soldiers and defence soldiers, before there were also attack supers and defence supers, so, many players refer to soldiers as supers, in this case admin is refering to attack soldiers)also, what is the x? (you are right, "x" is the same as " * ") [Times? or the same as *] .05 x[is this times or * as well?] adjustmentadjustment is the 0.5 correct? (adjustment is not 0.5, it's (def/att)^0.5)= losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

The adjustment only works until whichever side is 5 times stronger than the weaker side
After that it will ignore any further change increase in the stronger side and losses will remain identical to the situation where the stronger power is only 5 times larger

If defender power keeps increasing:
Losses on both sides will be identical on each attack (and by identical I mean att loss on mission 1 is equal to att loss on mission 2 and same with defender, NOT that att loss on mission 1 is equal to def loss on mission 1) if you make an attack with a 20 bil strike vs a 100 bil defense or with a 20 bil strike vs a 200 bil defense defender always loses zero units
This is fairly simple to understand.

If strike keeps increasing it works out to the same thing:
100 bil strike vs 20 bil def will have exactly identical losses to a 200 bil strike vs a 20 bil def in the same way as a higher defense will leave losses unchanged (att loss mission 1 = att loss mission 2, def loss mission 1 = def loss mission 2)
so is this.


Now if you observe actually anything different from this, then it's a bug and you can report it.

Now if you will address the following then I'll be a bit closer to understanding even more of the game. a true/ false & a simple explanation will suffice.( example = #3 is true, because I choose it to be that way)...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
1) defender loses 4% when attacked, attacker loses 5% when attacking.
as best as I can tell you just showed this one to be true from your example above.
2) attacker will lose 25% more than defender, (when at equal techs).
I always thought that this meant that the attacker lost 25% more than the defender,(example- the defender loses 100 defense soldiers, & the attacker would lose 125 attack soldiers. I have made enough assaults to know that this is not the case, so please answer this one.(this is not the case because you didn't took into consideration techs, and this is were ADJUSTMENT came into play)
3) 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225%[240%?] defense tech. (I misquoted my last post concerning this. keinutnai/kenzu has stated #2 multiple times, but then states this & I believed he changed it to 240%). I am just trying to understand what I am being told.

is this correct? If not, please explain exactly what I am not understanding. (if it has been explained before, point me to it please?)

thank you for your attention in this matter.

Spoiler:

fivel wrote:there are more than 1 signs in math,
for "divide" you can use " : " or " / " or the one you said

well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

Admin wrote:

Admin on 23 November 2010 wrote:well ok, the adjustment is (def/att) ^0.5
which then makes assault
supers x .05 x adjustment = losses on attacker side
supers x .04 / adjustment = losses on defender side

kingkongfan1 wrote:
1) defender loses 4% when attacked, attacker loses 5% when attacking.
2) attacker will lose 25% more than defender, (when at equal techs).
3) 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

Manleva wrote:To write it in English it would look like the following.

Adjustment equals the Square Root of (Defensive Action divided by Strike Action) OR (Defensive Action divided by Strike action) to the power of 0.5
The part in brackets is calculated first.

Attackers losses equal 5% of Attackers Strike Units multiplied by the Adjustment
Defenders losses equal 4% of the defenders Defense Units divided by the Adjustment

A quick calc I did yesterday against a well known player showed that if I did and assault mission against the player I would actually loose 2% of my strike units while he would loose 9% of his defense units. The adjustment resulted in a lowering of my losses by 3% and an increase in his losses of 5%

Of course the formula posted by Admin is not fully correct as there is also the adjustment for Fighting Strategy that would need to be included. The formula would only be accurate if both Attacker and Defender were using Normal Strategy
I had thought about this, & was going to ask, thank you for helping

Nomad wrote:Thanks Fivel. Been trying to tell you I was mathmatically inept but you wouldnt believe me LOL
the same goes for me as well, lol...

fivel wrote:omg, you really are hard students

i'll give you an example:
you have a guy with 100,000,000,000 Defence Action
you have 120,000,000,000 Strike (or Attack) Action
you divide 100 bil DA to 120 SA and than press sqrt button
the result will be: 0.913 ( this IS THE ADJUSTMENT you forget about the 0.5)

after this you go and find out your loses: let's say you have that SA with 3mil ATACK soldiers, so the formula will be:
4,000,000 * 0.05 * 0.913 = 136,950 ATACK SOLDIERS LOST BY YOU (the attacker)

and the defender let's say will have that DA with 2 mil defence soldiers, so the formula will be:
2,000,000 * 0.04 / 0.913 = 87,623 defence SOLDIERS LOST BY THE DEFENDER

fivel wrote:YOUR formulas are correct


BUT,... IF your are trying to kill something from a defense of 114 bil with a strike of only 8.7bil you will do no damage BECAUSE the result from def / att MUST BE < 5
ah yes, you are correct, I remember that now. thanks for the reminder, & for me "FINALLY" understanding this formula. (sorry, I had to toot me own horn a little bit. )

admin already explain why is that into his last post i think so i'm not going to try and explain again the same thing, so i ask you to read and reread admin's post until you will get it (if you wont get it i'll send you a PM because this thread is getting spamed)

Spoiler: