The balance between attacker and defender

by vaga Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:28 pm

The defender had 4 more advantages than the attacker:

1) Pbp for defence is 1,35% and attacker has just 1%
2) Attacker losses 5% and defender 4% when assaulting
3) Attacker losses at's and st's when massing
4) The variation for strike is larger with 5% or 10%. ( not sure of this)

Admin should change something about this. My oppinion scratch

cuz this is a war game not "keepers of peace".

by fivel Wed Oct 17, 2012 1:41 pm

vaga wrote:The defender had 4 more advantages than the attacker:

1) Pbp for defence is 1,35% and attacker has just 1%
this one you applies for almost all the games i've played (it's not so bad)
2) Attacker losses 5% and defender 4% when assaulting
this is not such a big problem (almost in every game i've played defence weapons were more powerful, but...when your strike was > 5x the defence, the invader's loses were much smaller than the defender's loses)
3) Attacker losses at's and st's when massing
i don't think there are games out there were you can mass someone without AT, but ST are kinda pointless
4) The variation for strike is larger with 5% or 10%. ( not sure of this)
i think this variation:
The Strike power in battle during a regular kuwal stealing attack can have a spread from 75-120% of your real value (from the previous 90-105%)

is to big, i think the old one was more appropriate (i dont know were you can find the strike / defence variation for different types of attack)
Admin should change something about this. My opinion cuz this is a war game not "keepers of peace".

by Gamniac Wed Oct 17, 2012 3:57 pm

fivel wrote:
vaga wrote:The defender had 4 more advantages than the attacker:

1) Pbp for defence is 1,35% and attacker has just 1%
this one you applies for almost all the games i've played (it's not so bad)
2) Attacker losses 5% and defender 4% when assaulting
this is not such a big problem (almost in every game i've played defence weapons were more powerful, but...when your strike was > 5x the defence, the invader's loses were much smaller than the defender's loses)
Also works like this in Aderan Wars, look for admin's first post here: https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2901p15-losses .
3) Attacker losses at's and st's when massing
i don't think there are games out there were you can mass someone without AT, but ST are kinda pointless
4) The variation for strike is larger with 5% or 10%. ( not sure of this)
i think this variation:
The Strike power in battle during a regular kuwal stealing attack can have a spread from 75-120% of your real value (from the previous 90-105%)

is to big, i think the old one was more appropriate (i dont know were you can find the strike / defence variation for different types of attack)
Admin should change something about this. My opinion cuz this is a war game not "keepers of peace".
There are two ways I can respond to that, and one of 'em is a bit nasty. Which response do you want?

by vaga Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:13 pm

Be nasty gamniac Twisted Evil

by fivel Wed Oct 17, 2012 5:21 pm

yeah, i think i want the nasty one too Smile

by Gamniac Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:51 pm

The ayes have it.

Message runs:
You go ahead and make your own game following your exact standards, and let us know how that works out for you.
Until then, please keep your trap shut.
Message ends.

by vaga Wed Oct 17, 2012 8:52 pm

Hmmm. All i was trying to say was that the defender had by far more advantages than the attacker. I wanted oppinions from people if something about this can be changed.
If u tell me to go play something else, it means that i dont have nothing to talk to you gamniac.

by Gamniac Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:36 am

Opinions, eh? It seems to me you're aiming for an immediate and not necessarily needed personal advantage, similar to (some of) your previous suggestions (also made during a war). As suggestions go, this one's a tad shortsighted.

And I'm not telling you to play something else, I'm telling you to go try and create your own game. Tearing down is easier than shoring up.

by fivel Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:52 am

@gamniac - i had a better opinion about you (now i'm not talking about your ''nasty'' post), i thought that you were one of the ones who understud what admin said in his post from the loses thread, but it seams that you have no clue. I sugest you to reread admin's post, after that my post and maibe you will see a diference

by Gamniac Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:31 pm

Right, I'll get on that once I'm capable of thinking in straight lines again.

by fivel Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:37 pm

let me save you the trouble
Admin said that in AW, if you have a strike of 5x defence you will have "X" loses (so "X" is the cap for loses), if you have a strike > 5x defence the loses will be also "X" because the number of loses will not change over this limit.

I said that in almost every other game i've played IF YOU HAVE a strike > 5x defence the loses on the attacker side WILL REDUCE.

do you see the difference in that or not? (my bet is on not)

by Gamniac Thu Oct 18, 2012 7:44 pm

Seems I misinterpreted admin, then.

(incidentally, you lost your bet Smile

)

by fivel Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:22 pm

guess so, it seams i'm not that good at bets

by Lord Ishurue Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:22 am

My 2 cents, lower AT cost, Raise War exp gained from killing Defense Troops.

currently its 200 points per defense soldier and 150 per defense merc.

maybe raise the War exp to 300 points for defense soldier and 225 per merc.

If your strike is 2 or 3 times bigger then the enemy DA then the kill ratio drops a bit.

the attacker loses 3% and the defender loses 4%

by fivel Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:35 pm

Lord Ishurue wrote:
My 2 cents, lower AT cost, Raise War exp gained from killing Defense Troops.

currently its 200 points per defense soldier and 150 per defense merc.

maybe raise the War exp to 300 points for defense soldier and 225 per merc.

If your strike is 2 or 3 times bigger then the enemy DA then the kill ratio drops a bit.

the attacker loses 3% and the defender loses 4%

sorry, but i need to ask this: what does war exp have to do with kill ratio??

by Lord Ishurue Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:41 pm

fivel wrote:
Lord Ishurue wrote:
My 2 cents, lower AT cost, Raise War exp gained from killing Defense Troops.

currently its 200 points per defense soldier and 150 per defense merc.

maybe raise the War exp to 300 points for defense soldier and 225 per merc.

If your strike is 2 or 3 times bigger then the enemy DA then the kill ratio drops a bit.

the attacker loses 3% and the defender loses 4%

sorry, but i need to ask this: what does war exp have to do with kill ratio??

Nothing other then going hand in hand with its a war game.

even if the defender 50% of time is better off in units the attacker is better off in War exp.

by Special Agent 47 Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:36 pm

vaga wrote:The defender had 4 more advantages than the attacker:

1) Pbp for defence is 1,35% and attacker has just 1%
2) Attacker losses 5% and defender 4% when assaulting
3) Attacker losses at's and st's when massing
4) The variation for strike is larger with 5% or 10%. ( not sure of this)

Admin should change something about this. My oppinion cuz this is a war game not "keepers of peace".

Lets look at this realistically. Both from a real life setting and a game play setting.

1. While this is true, I contend it needs to be. RL = defense is sitting under cover firing against an advancing target covering open ground. they should have an advantage. Another point is an attacking army (especially those made specific for attack with everything thrown in att boosters) has only 1 stat to funnel everything into. Where a defensive of rounded account has to increase their chosen stat but also has to attempt to counter the attack specialist in some fashion.

2. Again, the aggressor should have a cost. If there is no higher cost then the most active will always rule the game and that if a very small few in AW. If losses were the same then its just a race to get the most members who are active and the game is won. I would consider a different veiw if it wasnt for the fact 100% of the time the striker is online, and 99% of the time the defender is not.

3. Yes and why should it be any different? If you make defending require AT and ST then it will become a 1 sided war because multiple attackers can effectively drain a defenders AT and ST. This means they can not retaliate. No retaliation becomes very boring wars. This would also lead to the alliance with the most actives win.

4. I and not for nor against changing this. It runs both ways. Your stirke can drop further, but can also jump much higher. I think the reason it is disliked is the strike knows the defense before attacking and is built to suit the attacker before the battle ever begins, therefore removing 80% of the variables. I

by Kenzu Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:36 pm

vaga wrote:The defender had 4 more advantages than the attacker:

1) Pbp for defence is 1,35% and attacker has just 1%
2) Attacker losses 5% and defender 4% when assaulting
3) Attacker losses at's and st's when massing
4) The variation for strike is larger with 5% or 10%. ( not sure of this)

Admin should change something about this. My oppinion cuz this is a war game not "keepers of peace".

I came to announce that after the airforce update is completed, an update on missions will be worked on and released (but it will take certain time to make the changes).

One of the changes in the missions will be that a player who has a better technology will do more damage (the bigger the tech gap, the better). And if a player assaults another player who has the same technology, then losses on both sides will be the same (if both sides deal 100% damage). PBP in defense will remain to give more tech bonus to defense than attack.

The strike mission changes will not put players who attack at a disadvantage, but at the same time the game will remain enjoyable for everyone, even the newest players.

For more details ask admin.

Lord Ishurue wrote:
If your strike is 2 or 3 times bigger then the enemy DA then the kill ratio drops a bit.

Why? In real life sending more troops than necessary is more likely to lead more losses (because more units will be destroyed by artillery fire)

I see no reason why your army should become more efficient at destroying the enemy if your technology doesn't improve.

by Special Agent 47 Sun Oct 21, 2012 3:44 pm

Admin can you come and respond to this to verify if it is correct and true? From what is being said the 5% losses for attackers while 4% losses for defenders will be removed with this update with only 1 tech level. Surely the losses of thousands, even 10s of thousands can not and should not be decided by a single tech level?

I have to say I still dislike the fact total power is completely ignored, and winning or losing a battle has no effect, but it is obvious that is the gameplay mechanics you want and feel are the correct ones to use.

I have a question, and would like some discussion on it. If Admin thinks its worth discussing feel free to split this out to a suggestion.

1 thing that keeps bothering me is how losses on both sides are based off of only 1 side of a battle. So a massive strike hitting a small defense kills it very slowly and burns a large amount of AT and ST. Same for a strike hitting a def much, much larger then itself. So keeping in mind my grasp on mathematics and coding are very limited, could it be possible to add the 2 forces together, get an average for both sides, and then account for losses? This would remove the "little losses" aspect of a battle skewed by size. Hope That got the idea across. May not be viable but I threw it out there.

by Sponsored content

The balance between attacker and defender

The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender

Re: The balance between attacker and defender