Attack Losses

Since you insist on being dense, I will pull examples that show that any reasonable person would recognize that this coding leads to STOOPID results for both assaults and sabotage attacks. FIX IT AND STOP DEFENDING WHAT IS CLEARLY WRONG.

Example #1: Assaulting a 2.5 times more powerful opponent with lower tech weapons (IFV vs. MBT & IFV); mixed super & regular soldiers versus ALL supers; lower offensive research multiplier (122%) than defender's defensive (137%); and finally, REPEATEDLY using the worst possible attack strategy combination, confirming the FACT that the attacker IS INDEED a * when it comes to game play. ~Equal unarmed units (483 vs. 609) didn't play a factor unless the coding REALLY sucks:

Pretty obvious that this attack is going to be a TOTAL disaster for the attacker, right?
WRONG! SURE, it SAYS that the assault was repelled (a ridiculous assertion in itself given the equal number of losses). And it states that the defending troops were cheering and celebrating. What were they celebrating, losing 2,500 civilians to slavery despite having EVERY POSSIBLE ADVANTAGE in Battle?
Yeah, go ahead and keep defending your coding, but even an absolute IDIOT (ask Zar) would recognize that this coding is totally SNAFU and worth exploiting over and over again.
_____________
Zar's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
Zar's army was composed of:
74,231 Super Soldiers, 483 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
57764 Super Soldiers were armed with IFV
6028 Super Soldiers were armed with APC
4541 Super Soldiers were armed with Heavy Mortar
5898 Super Soldiers came unarmed
483 Regular Soldiers came unarmed

T1_T2 awaited the invaders with the following:
159,467 Super Soldiers, 0 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
53245 Super Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank
90123 Super Soldiers were armed with IFV
15490 Super Soldiers were armed with APC
609 Super Soldiers came unarmed

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 721,165,837 damage on the enemy!
This results in 4,571 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 1,778,077,419 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 4,694 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with a frontal assault
The defenders held their ground with launching counter offensives

Zar's attack has been repelled!

The invading soldiers flee in panic whilst T1_T2's forces are cheering and celebrating their victory.
It is reported that 2,586 Civilians have been captured and taken from the realm of T1_T2.
____________

Example #2: Once again, despite being outnumbered by almost 3 to 1 in numbers of covert agents; and having only a 3200 covert level versus 4400, the disgruntled idiot attacker managed to successfully sabotage 2 times before failing on the third attempt.

[05 Sep] 11:09 Zar Sabotage Mission Failed 93,100 details
[05 Sep] 11:09 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 338;615;571;93;99 ???? details
[05 Sep] 11:07 ???? Sabotage Destroyed: 378;688;639;104;110 ???? details


So these examples verify that both the Assault and Sabotage coding are non-sensical in their current forms. That's not a problem if you want to do fantasy game coding where magic happens, but war games/battle simulations require a modicum of logic which appeals to the higher minded, strategy-driven player.

Ok, the attack log is perfectly allright as proven by the following facts.

His attack techs were equal to your defense techs, you know there's such a thing as personal bonus, he had much more in strike than you in def.
Your assumption about better techs is therefore simply wrong
This fact decreases his losses by 20% compared to what you were expecting it to be

He was using the correct strategy to attack your positions. Frontal Assault beats Counter Offensive
Your assumption about strategy combination is not simply false, but actually completely the opposite of what it really is
This fact decreases his losses by 62.5% compared to what you were expecting it to be

His weapons used were indeed "worse" than yours, hence why even despite all these significant strategic advantages over you his losses were still slight higher than yours.

I would like to ask you not to tell me that I should not defend the work I do/have done unless you are absolutely sure I am wrong and you are right.
I try to double check everything if someone points out something might be wrong. In your case that was not even necessary. All that was needed was a look at the attack log you posted.

Also when I tell you that you're supposed to move the discussion elsewhere, I write it because I expect you to follow the rules about not post off topic.
You are hereby receiving a warning for off-topic discussing of game mechanics or bugs thereof in a war thread.

and I looked into the database because i needed more info than the log can provide.

So i'll summarize the sabs.
You are complaining that the person had a third of your covert power and dealt damage.
Well they lost 5k spies and destroyed ~2k weapons. Looks like they only destroyed one of your weapons for losing 3 spies.
Where's the problem?

Admin wrote:and I looked into the database because i needed more info than the log can provide.

So i'll summarize the sabs.
You are complaining that the person had a third of your covert power and dealt damage.
Well they lost 5k spies and destroyed ~2k weapons. Looks like they only destroyed one of your weapons for losing 3 spies.
Where's the problem?

Not trying to butt in but i do see a problem, well to me it is

Mobile Artillery 522,000

Spy 45,000

so 522,000 kewal versus 316021. and this from a much weaker opponent.

yes but the point is that he didn't lose mobile artillery but

he had according to attack log around the time
30 Tanks
50 IFV's
10 APC's

so that's the same ratio how the weapons got destroyed through the sab

my bad, i was thinking main again.

I assume the stronger weapons would = harder to kill so more spy deaths or less weapons destroyed correct?

Nomad wrote:my bad, i was thinking main again.

I assume the stronger weapons would = harder to kill so more spy deaths or less weapons destroyed correct?

yes

I think it should be this way:

If two sides face each other, have same technology, personal bonus and same weapons, then no matter who is stronger, they should lose the same amount of troops.

Example:
Red team 10.000 troops, blue team 20.000 troops
Red team attacking
Red team loses 5% troops (500)
Blue team loses equal number of troops (500)

Example2:
Red team 40.000 troops, blue team 20.000 troops
Red team attacking
Red team loses 5% troops (2.000)
Blue team loses equal number (2.000)

Example3:
Red team 10.000 troops, blue team 10.000 troops
Red team soldiers have better technology, strike action of 1 soldier 50% higher than defense action of 1 soldier of blue team.
Red team loses 5% (500)
Blue team losses 500x1.5=750 units
because technology is inferior by 50%

Admin wrote:Ok, the attack log is perfectly allright as proven by the following facts.

His attack techs were equal to your defense techs, you know there's such a thing as personal bonus, he had much more in strike than you in def.
Your assumption about better techs is therefore simply wrong
This fact decreases his losses by 20% compared to what you were expecting it to be

He was using the correct strategy to attack your positions. Frontal Assault beats Counter Offensive
Your assumption about strategy combination is not simply false, but actually completely the opposite of what it really is
This fact decreases his losses by 62.5% compared to what you were expecting it to be

His weapons used were indeed "worse" than yours, hence why even despite all these significant strategic advantages over you his losses were still slight higher than yours.

I would like to ask you not to tell me that I should not defend the work I do/have done unless you are absolutely sure I am wrong and you are right.
I try to double check everything if someone points out something might be wrong. In your case that was not even necessary. All that was needed was a look at the attack log you posted.

Also when I tell you that you're supposed to move the discussion elsewhere, I write it because I expect you to follow the rules about not post off topic.
You are hereby receiving a warning for off-topic discussing of game mechanics or bugs thereof in a war thread.

Since strategies are so complicated to understand, it would be a great benefit for the game to get rid of them.
Strategies make the game more complicated than it should be.

Kenzu wrote:I think it should be this way:

If two sides face each other, have same technology, personal bonus and same weapons, then no matter who is stronger, they should lose the same amount of troops.

Example:
Red team 10.000 troops, blue team 20.000 troops
Red team attacking
Red team loses 5% troops (500)
Blue team loses equal number of troops (500)

Example2:
Red team 40.000 troops, blue team 20.000 troops
Red team attacking
Red team loses 5% troops (2.000)
Blue team loses equal number (2.000)

Example3:
Red team 10.000 troops, blue team 10.000 troops
Red team soldiers have better technology, strike action of 1 soldier 50% higher than defense action of 1 soldier of blue team.
Red team loses 5% (500)
Blue team losses 500x1.5=750 units
because technology is inferior by 50%

This is ridiculous. In no way should a 4bil attack power have more damages than the defending 2bil defense (with same techs and stuff). That would make big strikes extremely useful. If someone attacked a 2bil defense with a 6bil strike, they would lose the same amount of troops regardless? If that's the case, then big players could just wipe out smaller players because they have more troops to use and bigger techs, which could litteraly wipe out small defenses with a few attacks (5% of 400k for example is 20,000 troops lost. (that doesnt even consider techs) A person with 100k defense supers would be wiped out extremely fast. Just doesn't seem very fair to the smaller guys if the big players decide to go on a rampage.

really the whole system is flawed in my mind, when you play and invest in techs and weapon levels it really doesn't matter too much, because you have to keep it balanced for small players..which is crap... maybe implement a system where a large player CANNOT attack a player a certain percentage smaller then him...but the way it is now is silly as shown by the attacks on t1t2...... no matter how well you play
/ time you invest in the game a tiny player could just attack you down.. take the tyrant, hes only building assasin level and nothing else and will probably use that to take out a large player who spreads there income through out the differnt categories.....

i duno i just think the whole system needs to be revised

melonhead wrote:but the way it is now is silly as shown by the attacks on t1t2

Which part of the attacks was silly and why?

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:

Spoiler:

This is ridiculous.

Agreed

melonhead wrote: take the tyrant, hes only building assasin level and nothing else and will probably use that to take out a large player who spreads there income through out the differnt categories.....

you know, you can never tell what a players true intentions are until he/she does something.

Good job not putting a message there in the original thread letting me know that you had moved my post. That failure might explain my utter lack of interest in this topic after I started it.

Having re-read the attack strategy explanations, I acknowledge that my defense was the worst possible choice.
See how that works when a person acknowledges they are wrong?

This mystery personal bonus that you are saying somehow doesn't show itself in the logs but magically heals an attacker who is outmatched by 250% is still a mystery to me. The term comes to mind.

Ultimately, the example below perfectly illustrates the problem with all of your coding. It is touched upon in this thread even, where someone worries about big players running rampant over smaller players. Well, THAT's precisely what big players do and little players should NEVER be able to beat up the big players just because they think the world isn't fair since they didn't EARN 'Big Player' status. This isn't kindergarten where EVERYONE is a winner. Real life means there are winners and losers, and usually it's the winners taking advantage of the losers.


The results below ( see E X A M P L E BEING CITED) CLEARLY illustrate that the basis of your
coding is flawed.
An attacker with a more powerful army (mine has all supers and MBTs),
STILL loses 40% more than a smaller army who faces a stiffer defense from a common defender.
THAT'S JUST PLAIN WRONG!!!

It's because your coding bases losses as a % of each player's army instead of
doing it the right way, which is purely about losses CAUSED BY YOUR OPPONENT, NOT SOME UNSEEN CODER DEITY WHO FIGHTS FOR THE WEAK AND OPPRESSED!
Afterall, an army doesn't fight itself, it's fighting its adversary.

You need to fix this (in some way that you consider friendly to your idea
that you don't want big players just stomping all over little players -- like
a losses cap that is reflected on both sides). A huge player may kill fewer and
fewer units of the small army, but he should also lose less to reflect his clear
superiority on the field of battle. In that way, the loss of efficient AT use should
be deterrent enough against the big player.
Why is that concept so hard to implement? There are many ways to do so. Examples from the game you clearly hate (SGW) abound.
Forget that lazy same % losses each time formula. That's just plain RIDICULOUS!

E X A M P L E BEING CITED
[13 Sep] 22:49 A** 1,152,602,688 Kuwal Stolen 10 1183 317 1,544,688,520 931,614,716
[13 Sep] 08:43 T1_T2 1,473,676,904 Kuwal Stolen 10 1563 306 1,913,373,543 759,360,919


Now I'm sure you're gonna use some excuse involving personal bonus or lucky attack strategy choices, but these should be reflected in the FINAL attack and defense powers as displayed in the attack log. If someone is a small player and manages to get a bigger attack, then you can spy them and figure out what they're doing.

Also, the assault mission results should not tell a player what defense you are using. If so, then why doesn't a farming or raiding mission do the same? And it should not be a matter of just selecting a different dot to change that attack strategy. It takes time to redeploy troops and perhaps even change what weapons you bring to bear on a battle field, but perhaps you never took a military history class, before. Here's an idea, take the time to watch Braveheart. So make it so that it takes at least a couple of turns to enact a strategy change. It's bad enough that a person rarely is online when their poor defenseless account is getting attacked. Attackers shouldn't get all of the advantages (unless they're smaller and have lower tech weapons in which case they will always kick butt in your world).

T1_T2 wrote:This mystery personal bonus that you are saying somehow doesn't show itself in the logs but magically heals an attacker who is outmatched by 250% is still a mystery to me.

this mystery personal bonus is the personal bonus everyone is allowed to assign as they wish. If someone puts most of their points into attack while others divide their bonus evenly, then that's their choice

T1_T2 wrote:Also, the assault mission results should not tell a player what defense you are using. If so, then why doesn't a farming or raiding mission do the same?

Because it's clearly stated that strategies only matter during real battles, i.e. assaults
farm, raid and other missions is you sending some troops to keep the defenders occupied while the rest of the units go and ransack warehouses

T1_T2 wrote:And it should not be a matter of just selecting a different dot to change that attack strategy.

I've had a couple online battles, believe it or not, 10 seconds to read the attack log, guess what strategy your enemy will use next and then change yours is not much.

T1_T2 wrote:Here's an idea, take the time to watch Braveheart.

What about the patriot? another historically inaccurate movie. still bloody funny to watch, I agree with you completely.

T1_T2 wrote:Attackers shouldn't get all of the advantages

What kind of advantage can an attacker get if your defense strategy is set to normal?

Oh yeh and last note, losses are not based on % of units sent.
You can try attacking someone with 1k defense and 1 bil defense, you'll notice the difference in losses easily.
As extra homework you're welcome to attack a 1 bil def with a 500 mil strike and a 2 bil strike, again you can try comparing the losses. You'll see that reality is far from what you imagine it to be.
Less enemy power = less losses for you, more losses for enemy
More own power = less losses for you, more losses for enemy
You double the amount of units you send into battle, surprise you also double your power, hence less losses for you more losses for them.

Admin wrote:
You double the amount of units you send into battle, surprise you also double your power, hence less losses for you more losses for them.

1 quick question.

are you saying that total loses will decrease? or lose % will decrease?

example
you send 100K super attackers in against 100K super defenders and lose 5,000 men

So if you go back and send 200K super attackers against the same 100K super defenders, does that mean you lose less then 5000 men? or your losses are less then 5%? meaning you could lose 4% which is less percentage but still more total men as 4% of 200K is 8K where 5% of 100% is 5K?

That make sense?

well you would lose less than 5% is what i think he means. obviously you would kill more as well though. i could be wrong though.

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:well you would lose less than 5% is what i think he means. obviously you would kill more as well though. i could be wrong though.

yeah, made perfect sense LOL

*i didnt really get what you meant BTW*

Nomad wrote:

Kingofshinobis1 wrote:well you would lose less than 5% is what i think he means. obviously you would kill more as well though. i could be wrong though.

yeah, made perfect sense LOL

*i didnt really get what you meant BTW*

well what king said, bigger power decreases % of units you lose as well as increases % of units you kill.

Normally the losses for assault are 4.5% for attacker and 4% for defender.
Imagine 2 accounts with identical techs, weapons, no personal bonuses, etc.
If both send 100k units at each other then they will lose above %, so 4.5k units lost for attacker and 4k units lost for defender
But if attacker now sends 500k units while defender only has 100k the losses will be as follows
Attacker 2% = 10k losses
Defender 8.95% = 8.95k Losses

So as you see bigger strike means the def goes down more quickly with less turns.

So in this question

1 quick question.

are you saying that total loses will decrease? or lose % will decrease?

Your saying its the losses % which decreases, not total losses.

TY Admin.