Income - Farming - Raiding Discussion

RA has introduced a new concept with the way that income works with usable income trickling in to the home planet slowly while income from other planets is not usable as it is still in transit. This is a fairly simple concept and is workable.

However Farming mechanics have not changed to match this change in the way that income works. I would expect that if income is in transit then it would be guarded in some way but I do have issues around the fact that when you farm the you come up against the full defense of the person you are farming.

Raiding also has the same inconsistency where you still come up against the full defense.

As apparently the intention is that all players will start with an empire that encompasses a number of planets I think we should also be looking at all of the attack mechanics as the current ones are inconsistent with an empire. Basically if your empire stretches across a number of planets the your forces should also be spread across them as well. Since it takes time for income to be transported to the home planet then it should also take time for forces to move between planets as well.

This leads to the conclusion that only in times of war should an attacker face the defenders full defensive strength. A farming raid should only meet those defenders that are guarding the Kuwal that is being transported. A Raid for UU should only encounter the defensive force where the Training Centres are located.

With raiding it could be argued that Training Centres are located on all planets which leads on to the possibilities that the attacker should then be able to target individual planets.

As the Title says this is a discussion, so lets see some constructive input.

I had a similiar idea for admin once before, but it was based on 2 principles forgein to AW.

1. is a Def covers a planet, so in actuality is should be divided by 360 degrees, where a strike force is concentrated and all in one spot(can use 180 in the place of 360) So if I sent a strike team to steal funds it would be my entire strike teams strike power versus 1/360th(or 1/180th) of the planets defense
*this has to work in conjunction with #2

2. The strike can only be used 1 time per turn, but can be broken up. The idea behind this all was each Unit has 1 AT per turn, so if you have 100K men in strike you can
A. send 100K men against 1 target
B. send 50K men against 2 targets
3. Send 25K men against 4 targets
4. send 10K men against 10 targets
5. send 1K men against 100 targets
6. send 1 man against 100K targets
or any combination of men versus targets that does not exceed total men acting in a single turn.


Can't really make this idea work with the principles of AW tho, just throwing it out there.



personally I think the entire "empires" idea is kinna off. All the weapons are land based or ground based, and the attack systems are instant where as space travel is not. Maybe in the future we can start planet hopping, maybe that can be this games version of ascended or something, but planet hopping with tanks, and jet planes is,,,,well,,,,, kinna foolish.


When AW started it was everyone on the same planet, then it changed to each his own planet, yet we can attack other planets even tho we have no interplanitary forms of travel, to now we can control more then 1 planets? IDK

The AW story line is good in the races sense, but pitifly weak in basic functions aspects such as travel and weapondry.

Actually, you shoud imagine it this way (which can be imagined to main as well)

If your attack forces are much stronger than enemy, you will deploy troops in each single planet of the enemy realm and steal 100% of kuwal.

If your strike action is only half of enemy defense, then you will deploy your troops only in half the planets, so that you can still beat the enemy and thus steal only 50% kuwal.

In Red Apocalypse it's basically the same, except that you steal only 50% instead of 100%.

-----------------------------------

@Nomad
The way I imagine is not that tanks themselves jump, but simply that you deploy your military on spaceships, just like you transport tanks with ships in an ocean, you transport your units in spaceships that land on a undefended region on a planet and try to take over some vital resources.

of course, in reality, building a tank costs nothing compared to bringing a tank into space, on AW, it's the other way round and transporting cargo to space is neglected, aparently Aderan races have some sort of technology that makes it cheap and fast.

yeah, we can do space travel, but can't build a plane yet LOL


some things you just have to take for granted I guess.

Kenzu wrote:Actually, you shoud imagine it this way (which can be imagined to main as well)

If your attack forces are much stronger than enemy, you will deploy troops in each single planet of the enemy realm and steal 100% of kuwal.

If your strike action is only half of enemy defense, then you will deploy your troops only in half the planets, so that you can still beat the enemy and thus steal only 50% kuwal.

In Red Apocalypse it's basically the same, except that you steal only 50% instead of 100%.

I have no problem with that, it's more of the concept that you have brought in with the way that Income works.

You have introduced the concept of distance and time by restricting bankable income because income from other planets is in transit and will take time to reach the home planet.

Because of this concept I think it should lead to the conclusion that someone engaging in farming activities is attacking this income while it is in transit and as such should not be encountering the full defense of the person being attacked. Simple logic would assume that if income takes time to transport then it cannot be instantly defended.

When going the other way if Income in Transit can be instantly defended then it should also be instantly transported.

To me it seems logical to assume that a farming attack should incur far less losses for both the attacker and the defender and the fact that you can only obtain 50% indicates that because Income is coming from multiple locations then you just can't attack every transporter at once.

One of the biggest issues that comes up in main is unprofitable farming caused by unit and weapon losses and training and it's not something that I would like to see in RA. RA with its 50% restriction give us the opportunity to class farming as a quick hit and run attack as opposed to a full blown attack. It gives the opportunity to clearly differentiate between raiding activities and war actions.

I kinna see Manleva's point, if we can't steal but 1/2 the income then max we should hit is 1/2 the defense


just not sure its aplicable. if farming cost are to cheap then no one will try to grow or use income for growth, it will be all attack based accounts living off others incomes.

Manleva wrote:

Kenzu wrote:Actually, you shoud imagine it this way (which can be imagined to main as well)

If your attack forces are much stronger than enemy, you will deploy troops in each single planet of the enemy realm and steal 100% of kuwal.

If your strike action is only half of enemy defense, then you will deploy your troops only in half the planets, so that you can still beat the enemy and thus steal only 50% kuwal.

In Red Apocalypse it's basically the same, except that you steal only 50% instead of 100%.

I have no problem with that, it's more of the concept that you have brought in with the way that Income works.

You have introduced the concept of distance and time by restricting bankable income because income from other planets is in transit and will take time to reach the home planet.

Because of this concept I think it should lead to the conclusion that someone engaging in farming activities is attacking this income while it is in transit and as such should not be encountering the full defense of the person being attacked. Simple logic would assume that if income takes time to transport then it cannot be instantly defended.

When going the other way if Income in Transit can be instantly defended then it should also be instantly transported.

To me it seems logical to assume that a farming attack should incur far less losses for both the attacker and the defender and the fact that you can only obtain 50% indicates that because Income is coming from multiple locations then you just can't attack every transporter at once.

One of the biggest issues that comes up in main is unprofitable farming caused by unit and weapon losses and training and it's not something that I would like to see in RA. RA with its 50% restriction give us the opportunity to class farming as a quick hit and run attack as opposed to a full blown attack. It gives the opportunity to clearly differentiate between raiding activities and war actions.

You attack not the kuwal which is in transit (yellow), but the kuwal which is on empire planets, namely Empire Kuwal (red). Also since you are attacking the defender will project all force he can on a certain area. Why have military spread out everywhere equally, when he can keep all military on border/frontier regions.

You attack kuwal on land, not in space, that's also the reason why your troops are armed with weapons and tanks and not spaceships.

@nomad
Farming costs will be much higher, because income units will produce less income and attackers will lose 3 times not 2 times more units by default.

Kenzu wrote:
@nomad
Farming costs will be much higher, because income units will produce less income and attackers will lose 3 times not 2 times more units by default.

since when?

so you can not even get an even kill ratio now?


why even play this game? If you do anything but build a def and live on your own income you lose. pffft.

Why do you want farm missions to deal same kills on attackers as defenders?
Why is it so important to you?

You couldn't get an even kill ratio in main server, why do you want it for RA?

For your Information:
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f44/your-account-will-start-with-this-t2042.htm

Kenzu wrote:Why do you want farm missions to deal same kills on attackers as defenders?
Why is it so important to you?
Do you ever even listen or read what is said? Where have I asked for an even kill ratio for attackers and defenders? By all means, show me.

You couldn't get an even kill ratio in main server, why do you want it for RA?
Your right, you can get a positive ratio in main, if you play and build your account.

For your Information:
https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/general-discussion-f44/your-account-will-start-with-this-t2042.htm

As I said, good luck with your game Kenzu, I hope you make a playable game sometime soon.

You want to tell me that on main you can farm someone who has armed units and suffer less losses? I don't think so.

The only time when you can kill more than what you lose is when the target has loads of unarmed units. Usually if he has zero defense.

Farm missions and Raid missions on RA don't kill untrained, only assaults and destruction missions do, that's why you won't be able to kill more than what you lose in a farm mission.

Kenzu wrote:You want to tell me that on main you can farm someone who has armed units and suffer less losses? I don't think so.

The only time when you can kill more than what you lose is when the target has loads of unarmed units. Usually if he has zero defense.

Farm missions and Raid missions on RA don't kill untrained, only assaults and destruction missions do, that's why you won't be able to kill more than what you lose in a farm mission.

woahhhhh, wait a min?

So your telling me that if I take 10 men armed with MBT against 25 men armed with pistols that i will lose more men then the defender? Or if we are even equaled in # but I outclass them in tech, *training, and weapondry?
*Edit, I meant PBP not training*

Now you want to answer that?


And AFAIK there is NO attack in either game that kills untrained units? so you have lost me there.

I think it is possible in main, if your techs and pb points are much higher

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:You want to tell me that on main you can farm someone who has armed units and suffer less losses? I don't think so.

The only time when you can kill more than what you lose is when the target has loads of unarmed units. Usually if he has zero defense.

Farm missions and Raid missions on RA don't kill untrained, only assaults and destruction missions do, that's why you won't be able to kill more than what you lose in a farm mission.

woahhhhh, wait a min?

So your telling me that if I take 10 men armed with MBT against 25 men armed with pistols that i will lose more men then the defender? Or if we are even equaled in # but I outclass them in tech, *training, and weapondry?
*Edit, I meant PBP not training*

Now you want to answer that?


And AFAIK there is NO attack in either game that kills untrained units? so you have lost me there.

sorry, I meant unarmed units.

If you send 1000 men with same weapons and tech against enemy 1000 men, then you will not lose the same number of men.
Attacker will lose: 20 men, defender will lose 2 men.

Here a mission I have done on main:

[28 Oct] 04:47 sandokan555 492,920,587 Kuwal Stolen 10 78 149 6,663,518 2,544,639,813 details

I have done 2.500 million damage, enemy only 7 million damage.
I had 140k armed with tanks and a some armed with mobile artilleries.
He had only 298 armed with tanks and 13.000 unarmed.

I lost 149 units he lost only 78.

You can attack pretty much anyone who has all armed men and he will always lose less than you.
You will kill more only if your technology is more than 10 times higher than his, or if he has many unarmed troops.

If you attack someone with say mobile artilleries and the defender has the same number of men with tanks,
then you might lose 5000 men with artillery and he only 1000 men with tanks.

You expect something from RA, which not even main has.
Besides, even if it was not logical, it's better for the game, because farm mission already gives you kuwal, and isnt meant to harm defenses much anyway.

5000 MA vs 1000 MBT? wow that's kind of unfair, don't u think?
what's the point of farming that kind of target then? shit..
i haven't seen this unfair numbers though in my hits though =/
usually it's 3:1 or 2.5:1.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:

Kenzu wrote:You want to tell me that on main you can farm someone who has armed units and suffer less losses? I don't think so.

The only time when you can kill more than what you lose is when the target has loads of unarmed units. Usually if he has zero defense.

Farm missions and Raid missions on RA don't kill untrained, only assaults and destruction missions do, that's why you won't be able to kill more than what you lose in a farm mission.

woahhhhh, wait a min?

So your telling me that if I take 10 men armed with MBT against 25 men armed with pistols that i will lose more men then the defender? Or if we are even equaled in # but I outclass them in tech, *training, and weapondry?
*Edit, I meant PBP not training*

Now you want to answer that?


And AFAIK there is NO attack in either game that kills untrained units? so you have lost me there.

sorry, I meant unarmed units.

If you send 1000 men with same weapons and tech against enemy 1000 men, then you will not lose the same number of men.
Attacker will lose: 20 men, defender will lose 2 men.

Here a mission I have done on main:

[28 Oct] 04:47 sandokan555 492,920,587 Kuwal Stolen 10 78 149 6,663,518 2,544,639,813 details

I have done 2.500 million damage, enemy only 7 million damage.
I had 140k armed with tanks and a some armed with mobile artilleries.
He had only 298 armed with tanks and 13.000 unarmed.

I lost 149 units he lost only 78.

You can attack pretty much anyone who has all armed men and he will always lose less than you.
You will kill more only if your technology is more than 10 times higher than his, or if he has many unarmed troops.

If you attack someone with say mobile artilleries and the defender has the same number of men with tanks,
then you might lose 5000 men with artillery and he only 1000 men with tanks.

You expect something from RA, which not even main has.
Besides, even if it was not logical, it's better for the game, because farm mission already gives you kuwal, and isnt meant to harm defenses much anyway.

TY for proving my point.


Just two questions for my own personal clarification.

1. When the ratio moves to 3 to 1 kill ratio against the attacker, will the damage/kill capps still stay in place? meaning that no matter how well you have built your account, or how far advanced you are over your opponent as a striker, that you will always lose more men then the defender? (Presently the damage capps state you can lose no more then 1/2 and kill no more then 2 times)

2. Does this 3 to 1 kill ratio effect all forms of attack? or just farming/raiding attacks?

Just to clarify:
i might be wrong about my numbers.
and i was only talking about farm attacks.

1) the caps apply in addition to the differences in farm missions.

If in assaults for each 2 soldiers you lose you can kill between 1 and 4,

then in new farm missions, when you lose 3 and kill 1 with same technology, then with worst technology, you will lose 6 and kill 1
and with best technology, you will lose 1.5 and kill 1

2) only farm and raid.
all other missions will kill exactly the same number of units if technology is the same.

HOWEVER in destruction missions defending strike units suffer a 25% penalty, and in assassin missions, any defending unit other than other assassins suffer also a 25% penalty, because for example spies are not trained to fight assassins which attack them..

the last part, I understand the strike suffering a small penalty, but all classes suffering a penalty to assassins ,,,,, isnt that giving the assassin class a good bit of an advantage?


I mean, why do assassins not get a penalty when hunted by strike?

Why doesnt strike and defense get a penalty when sabbed by spies?

I hope you rethink that penalty given to all classes against assassins.

the penalties will give more incentive to players to make a first strike against a potential enemy.

Of course assassins will also suffer a 25% penalty when hunted by strike units.

I am also considering giving a 25% penalty for weapons that are attacked by spies.
Sabotage works in a way that only if attacking covert is higher than defending covert, only then spies will be able to destroy weapons.
Their explosives can be 25% more efficient, which means that a player who doesnt have enough spies will suffer more than a player who has enough covert, because when spies fight spies no penalty is given.

definitely making the assassin race one of the strongest. Can already outclass everyone in PBP, and now adding a 25% boost against every class but assassins. When you have 1, 5, or 10 mill assassins 25% is going to be massive.

(a 25% penalty is a 30% bonus for the attacker)

Every unit fighting against a unit not trained to fight against, will get a penalty:

Attack soldiers fight without boost against defense soldiers
Spies fight without boost against other spies
Special Forces fight without boost against other Special Forces

Attack soldiers get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy attack soldiers
Attack soldiers get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy spies (Hunt Spies mission has not been added yet)
Attack soldiers get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy assassins

Spies get a KILL BONUS when destroying enemy weapons (you will be able to chose if you destroy attack or defense weapons)

Assassins get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy attack soldiers
Assassins get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy defense soldiers
Assassins get a KILL BONUS when killing enemy spies

So every "Stat based" race but the defensive race will get a 25% bonus to their natural skill. Sucks to be a defensive race then, but they do have the built in capps and massive initial protection from the 3 to 1 kill ratio attackers face so maybe it will balance? IDK.