Wounded/Healed units

Admin wrote:1) Everyone cut the fantasies about getting only half the WE. Sure, assault and destruction account for a significant portion of war damages. It would be 50% if weapons would also get recovered, they dont. Atm it's 20-35% less if you only count assault and destruction. Around 10-20% if you count everything.

Admin wrote:1) Everyone cut the fantasies about getting only half the WE. Sure, assault and destruction account for a significant portion of war damages. It would be 50% if weapons would also get recovered, they dont. Atm it's 20-35% less if you only count assault and destruction. Around 10-20% if you count everything.

About this i never said anything about it but yes you need to fix WE so we get something for wounding units and get units wounded plus the 100% weapons we destroy and loose.

2) as to my reasoning for the existance of wounded units, imagining we just halve the losses and remove wounded is not the same. Because the attacked person has clearly more units left after having been attacked however considering all the other losses suffered it would be extreme reality warp trying to call it "causing no damage" (see point 1)

Well i like the wounded unit idea but my problem is 1. Wounded units are not counted in WE. 2. Wounded units HEAL WAY WAY WAY WAY to slow to be worth it for you. 3. That you only get wounded in Assault and destruction missions.

3) I'll run through the logs as far as it's possible to add up wounded units since the update and start logging them into a separate column (because as mentioned, I like to keep track of global population and mixing dead with non dead units would make a mess). I have no issues with giving wounded units the full WE value, and apparently that's what people want.

Well you could make a new WE and call it wounded units. Where killed gives for attack 80 wounded attack units 40, def soldiers 200 and wounded def units 100. or they give full for me i do not mind you half the cost on wounded units in WE as long they all count.

4) people voted decisively against having wounded in farming missions. I mean sure, to keep consistency across the line as much as possible I could add it, but I will at the same time increase total losses slightly so that in the end farming costs remain the same.
There is absolutely no reason to change farming costs up or down because it will achieve NOTHING. People will not farm more, people will not make bigger profits, all that will change is the amount of defense people will build for each 1 bil kuwal they want to hold safely.
At the end of the day you will always pay X kuwal in losses to gain Y kuwal in profits by farming others.

Hmm well this is what i and many other want all missions where strike and def meet half are wounded. But i see no reason in increasing the cost as i can't see increasing it will be worth anything as the cost would still be the same as it is now if units where wounded. You still have to buy the same amount of weapon for the units that was killed/wounded.

Say the attacker loose 5k.
The defender loose 2k.

As it is now all units die.

If we change only half die but you still have to buy 5k and 2k weapons back and retrain 5k and 2k units back or thats what i do even if half was wounded.

With the rate units are healed the wounded you lost in farming or being farmed will not be out before like 20 days later which means you increasing anything will just mean its more exspensive than it is now to farm where if you keep it the price will be the same.

And the way we calc profit would be the same as even tho only half die the cost would still be the same as we have to retrain straight away.

If we go by your idea then i also know the following:

I just got farmed and lost some units but because my healed units are bigger they cover the loss should the one attacking then not repay the units killed and the training cost? Offcourse they should.

And if things stay the same but half get wounded nothing should change because the price demanded by alliances would still be the same.

5) hunt, invade could have wounded but since that would reduce costs one sidedly in favor of the attacker there should be some mechanism to allow the defender to offset this, such as enabling combat strategies to affect losses as they do in assault missions (keep in mind that the losses that get affected are always only the soldiers, miners/workers/assassins would remain unaffected by both strategies and wounding)

Not alot in this so i will say ok and trust you.

6) speed of healing will get raised, one way or another.
I would aim to get 75% of wounded units to get healed within 10 days (After 20 days you will have healed 94% of your wounded units)

Currently one will heal 33% of wounded units every 10 days
To reach that you need to heal 0.29% of wounded each TURN (which is a 13% per day heal rate in 48 installments compared to the current 4%)
That with addition of possible options to temporarily increase healing rate at some form of cost

And 20 days for 94% thats still to me a long time to waite to be able to use the healed units and therefore render them useless in the sense that if you make all missions into this concept with half wounded then you should not increase the cost as 20 days to get it back thats wrong and insane. Then with 20 days that covers the cost you wanted to find.

kingkongfan1 wrote: now just for simplicity's sake, all I want to know about is the "units Killed" I am not interested in weapons or anything else...

kingkongfan1 wrote:please if I am wrong on this then by all means correct me, show me how I am mistaken... thank you.

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote: now just for simplicity's sake, all I want to know about is the "units Killed" I am not interested in weapons or anything else...

People were saying "half the WE". Weapons destroyed and units killed go side by side (at least in the majority of cases)
Saying you're not interested in that is like saying you want to sab someone and you are not interested in knowing how many spies you lost.
Either we discuss the whole picture or nothing.

It's like saying "it's so darn expensive to just assassinate someone's spies" and then ignoring that you can sabotage someone's armory for a fraction of the cost to the defender since all defending spies are gone.

kingkongfan1 wrote:please if I am wrong on this then by all means correct me, show me how I am mistaken... thank you.

done?

Admin wrote:1) Everyone cut the fantasies about getting only half the WE.

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:Why do you not get 1/2 the EXP of killing a unit when you wound it? You should get something shouldn't you?

could get arranged

Admin wrote:@ nomad, yes i can imagine even wounding units should count for something

Spoiler:

Admin wrote:1) Everyone cut the fantasies about getting only half the WE. Sure, assault and destruction account for a significant portion of war damages. It would be 50% if weapons would also get recovered, they dont. Atm it's 20-35% less if you only count assault and destruction. Around 10-20% if you count everything.

2) as to my reasoning for the existance of wounded units, imagining we just halve the losses and remove wounded is not the same. Because the attacked person has clearly more units left after having been attacked however considering all the other losses suffered it would be extreme reality warp trying to call it "causing no damage" (see point 1)

Still I am for counting all casualties equally, killed AND wounded. And as you can see, many people on the forum share the opinion.
Obviously since only half get killed, players will regenerate faster, which can THEORETICALLY lead to more wars and bring war experience faster, but that's NOT a drawback. If war experience can grow slightly faster (by 20-30%) as you say, then it's no big deal, as new alliances will be able to catch faster.

If however wounded dont give as much War Experience as killed units, then it's a SERIOUS problem, because most people dont want to gain war experience slower and will never agree with it.

3) I'll run through the logs as far as it's possible to add up wounded units since the update and start logging them into a separate column (because as mentioned, I like to keep track of global population and mixing dead with non dead units would make a mess). I have no issues with giving wounded units the full WE value, and apparently that's what people want.

Sounds good to me

4) people voted decisively against having wounded in farming missions. I mean sure, to keep consistency across the line as much as possible I could add it, but I will at the same time increase total losses slightly so that in the end farming costs remain the same.
There is absolutely no reason to change farming costs up or down because it will achieve NOTHING. People will not farm more, people will not make bigger profits, all that will change is the amount of defense people will build for each 1 bil kuwal they want to hold safely.
At the end of the day you will always pay X kuwal in losses to gain Y kuwal in profits by farming others.

I, like many others don't like that in some missions units get wounded, while others don't.
I propose that discussion will be made, after which we make a vote with 2 options: A) either having all units get wounded in all missions (and making all units cost the same to train) or B) not having wounded at all

I propose this because aparently a lot of people have problems with missions like farm, raid, hunt assassin and invasion where no units get wounded. It makes the game weird if sometimes there are wounded and sometimes there are not. And now imagine there is a new player who asks you why. Not easy to explain, right? I don't think it makes the game look good in someone's eyes if they find out that there are wounded only in some strike missions. Of course if wounded are in all strike missons then it affects also assassins, and thus wounded must be in all missions, or in none

5) hunt, invade could have wounded but since that would reduce costs one sidedly in favor of the attacker there should be some mechanism to allow the defender to offset this, such as enabling combat strategies to affect losses as they do in assault missions (keep in mind that the losses that get affected are always only the soldiers, miners/workers/assassins would remain unaffected by both strategies and wounding)

6) speed of healing will get raised, one way or another.
I would aim to get 75% of wounded units to get healed within 10 days (After 20 days you will have healed 94% of your wounded units)

Currently one will heal 33% of wounded units every 10 days
To reach that you need to heal 0.29% of wounded each TURN (which is a 13% per day heal rate in 48 installments compared to the current 4%)
That with addition of possible options to temporarily increase healing rate at some form of cost

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote: now just for simplicity's sake, all I want to know about is the "units Killed" I am not interested in weapons or anything else...

People were saying "half the WE". Weapons destroyed and units killed go side by side (at least in the majority of cases)
Saying you're not interested in that is like saying you want to sab someone and you are not interested in knowing how many spies you lost.
Either we discuss the whole picture or nothing.

It's like saying "it's so darn expensive to just assassinate someone's spies" and then ignoring that you can sabotage someone's armory for a fraction of the cost to the defender since all defending spies are gone.

kingkongfan1 wrote:please if I am wrong on this then by all means correct me, show me how I am mistaken... thank you.

done?

Then by all means let me rephrase my entire comment..."When you compare the amount of Xp gained in the killing of units after the wounded/healed update was implemented, it would appear that you only get 1/2 or 50% of the Xp that you gain from killing units before the implementing the wounded/healed update... is that better?, now I understand better what you were talking about so I am willing to drop this,,, one last comment tho, ( & honestly I am not trying to be an ass)...
On the military achievements page it reads as follows...

Military Achievements
Items Destroyed/Stolen
Attack Soldiers Killed
Attack Mercs Killed
Defense Soldiers Killed
Defense Mercs Killed
Spies Killed
Assassins Killed
Workers Killed
Miners Killed
Fighters Destroyed
Fighter Value Destroyed
Space Stations Destroyed
Weapons Destroyed
Untrained Soldiers Stolen
Kuwal Stolen
Attack Turns Used
Supply Turns Used

Nowhere on this list does it read "Attack soldiers with weapon, or defense soldiers with weapon, or any merc with weapon," We may get Xp for both units, & weapons, but soldiers, Attack or defense, do not have to be armed to get killed. I feel I was justified in asking about units only because I kill unarmed units everyday... below is an example...

Battle Report

kingkongfan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.

kingkongfan1's army was composed of:
0 Super Soldiers, 50,000 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

50000 Regular Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank

[XXX] awaited the invaders with the following:
0 Super Soldiers, 264 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

264 Regular Soldiers came unarmed

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 11,688,638,559 damage on the enemy!
This results in 2 casualties amongst the defending troops!
The defending forces return fire and inflict 0 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 0 casualties in their enemies ranks!

kingkongfan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As [XXX]army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
It is reported that 573,645,584 Kuwal has been taken from the realm of nokia

I guess what I should ask at this point is did I gain 200xp in this attack, or 400xp?

thank you, & I apologise for being an ass

Nomad wrote:Aye, since admin give word one way, then accuses us of fantasies the next.

When ever you decide just let us know. I have figured out our input isn't wanted in this matter any longer as it once was.

Admin wrote:6) speed of healing will get raised, one way or another.
I would aim to get 75% of wounded units to get healed within 10 days (After 20 days you will have healed 94% of your wounded units)

Currently one will heal 33% of wounded units every 10 days
To reach that you need to heal 0.29% of wounded each TURN (which is a 13% per day heal rate in 48 installments compared to the current 4%)
That with addition of possible options to temporarily increase healing rate at some form of cost

Kenzu wrote:

Still I am for counting all casualties equally, killed AND wounded. And as you can see, many people on the forum share the opinion. Many people? Well if thats the case I see many who disagree with the "many". Wounded can be paid different then killed and its fine.
Obviously since only half get killed, players will regenerate faster, which can THEORETICALLY lead to more wars and bring war experience faster, but that's NOT a drawback. If war experience can grow slightly faster (by 20-30%) as you say, then it's no big deal, as new alliances will be able to catch faster.

If however wounded dont give as much War Experience as killed units, then it's a SERIOUS problem, because most people dont want to gain war experience slower and will never agree with it.
weather they agree to it or not is mute,,, this is admins game, and just like you and RA what the people wont does not always matter. this update has been in effect for some time now,,, and keep in mind, this idea is yours Kenzu, brought here from RA. If you would keep your crappy ideas in RA then we wouldn't be here now would we?

3) I'll run through the logs as far as it's possible to add up wounded units since the update and start logging them into a separate column (because as mentioned, I like to keep track of global population and mixing dead with non dead units would make a mess). I have no issues with giving wounded units the full WE value, and apparently that's what people want.

Sounds good to me
I think you will find most people want something for wounded, weather its full or partial is your call. but if its all or nothing I am sure all will win. Just keep in mind since alliance and personal exp determine rank, you are handicapping future players.

I, like many others don't like that in some missions units get wounded, while others don't.
I propose that discussion will be made, after which we make a vote with 2 options: A) either having all units get wounded in all missions (and making all units cost the same to train) or B) not having wounded at all
that you don't have the power or athority to create or run a poll. This is AW MAIN, not your crap RA game. Admin Martin makes the calls here and not you. If you can make polls then so can everyone else here because your just another player here Kenzu. I will vote that its NOT necissary for all units to get wounded in all missions, I will vote to Keep training cost DIFFERENT, but I am not against removal of wounded since its nothing but a crap idea brought over from a crap game. Now that its proven they do not effect AE, you can untrain them for a very nominal fee, all that needs be done is a increase in the healing rate and wounded are acceptable as they are.


I propose this because aparently a lot of people have problems with missions like farm, raid, hunt assassin and invasion where no units get wounded.I seen 2, you and Nimras It makes the game weird if sometimes there are wounded and sometimes there are not. And now imagine there is a new player who asks you why. Not easy to explain, right?very easy to explain, see below I don't think it makes the game look good in someone's eyes if they find out that there are wounded only in some strike missions. Of course if wounded are in all strike missons then it affects also assassins, and thus wounded must be in all missions, or in none I disagree, and have given exact reasons why, yet you still can not give an exact reason why assassins SHOULD leave half alive,,,, and to cover the see below statement from above

And FTR,,,, I see it as soilders simple shoot till the enemy falls,,, so wounded make some sense. They move quickly and as long as an injured man can't pose a threat they generally don't go around killing downed men. Assassins on the other hand do not have weapons, yet alone long ranged weapons. so if they kill its broken necks, cut throats, and other forms of "personal" killings. Thats why there should be no "wounded" as Admin noted, spies can't kill a damn thing, so making assassins have wounded handicappsd them as a class.

Admin has stated, both assaults and destruction are just as they are named. attacks to do the most massive and broad ranged damage as possible. Farming, raiding, and assassinations are surgical strikes. thats the difference.

5) hunt, invade could have wounded but since that would reduce costs one sidedly in favor of the attacker there should be some mechanism to allow the defender to offset this, such as enabling combat strategies to affect losses as they do in assault missions (keep in mind that the losses that get affected are always only the soldiers, miners/workers/assassins would remain unaffected by both strategies and wounding)totally unneeded. Invasion is an attack mean to literally kill the civilians of another realm, this is an attack type where they would literally go around head shooting civilians to make sure they are dead. No wounded needed

6) speed of healing will get raised, one way or another.
I would aim to get 75% of wounded units to get healed within 10 days (After 20 days you will have healed 94% of your wounded units)
I think this is more then sufficent. In all honestly I hope if upgrades are involved that it starts out much slower and this is more like the fastest pace possible. Something like raw healing is 3 months to get to the 1 a day heal rate, and 1 month at peak performance. the last 25 days at 1 per day shouldnt even be counted.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to have a building which will increase the healing rate, and also a technology, where you can research faster healing speed.
How many times now has that been brought up?




Input is wanted, but it has to be reasonable and well argumented.
Also he said he is ok with letting wounded give you as much war experience as killed. Isn't that what kingkongfan wanted?
I believe it was, so what's the problem?
Saying things in multipe posts saying he IS looking at changing the EP rate for wounded, then giving attitude and stating its a "fantasy" of someones who just going off what HE himself said is not a very well spoken way of "WANTING" input. Plain and simple.

Again, People want SOMETHING. Some want all, some are fine with partial, and some want none(removal of wounded). Is it what Kong wants? I would bet so, but just like I am, and just like you are, Kong is one person and not a representation of the entire playerbase. I'll remind you again that this update came from your crap game and voted for mainly by WR members following you so forgive me for not caring about what you want as it would not be here without you.

As for the problem
1) Admins suddent change of disposition
2) You as always
3) The way you keep trying to twist things to suit you, to make main identical to RA, and the fact you can not, will not, and utterly refuse to take things 1 step at a time. There are multiple issues here, yet you want all or none and are completely unwilling to address each individually.
4) The way you keep saying "Most" like you speak for more then yourself. Well you don't. You need to figure that out. As pointed out above I can claim "most" people agree with me, but that dont make it true. I give every man credit for his opinion, if I agree or not, but if a person doesnt speak for himself than its his fault, You acting like you speak for a multitude of people just makes you look like an ass mainly, because you don't. You may have mindless sheep who do what you ask,,,, but thats still all they are.

Kenzu wrote:

Admin wrote:1) Everyone cut the fantasies about getting only half the WE. Sure, assault and destruction account for a significant portion of war damages. It would be 50% if weapons would also get recovered, they dont. Atm it's 20-35% less if you only count assault and destruction. Around 10-20% if you count everything.

2) as to my reasoning for the existance of wounded units, imagining we just halve the losses and remove wounded is not the same. Because the attacked person has clearly more units left after having been attacked however considering all the other losses suffered it would be extreme reality warp trying to call it "causing no damage" (see point 1)

Still I am for counting all casualties equally, killed AND wounded. And as you can see, many people on the forum share the opinion.
Obviously since only half get killed, players will regenerate faster, which can THEORETICALLY lead to more wars and bring war experience faster, but that's NOT a drawback. If war experience can grow slightly faster (by 20-30%) as you say, then it's no big deal, as new alliances will be able to catch faster.

If however wounded dont give as much War Experience as killed units, then it's a SERIOUS problem, because most people dont want to gain war experience slower and will never agree with it.

3) I'll run through the logs as far as it's possible to add up wounded units since the update and start logging them into a separate column (because as mentioned, I like to keep track of global population and mixing dead with non dead units would make a mess). I have no issues with giving wounded units the full WE value, and apparently that's what people want.

Sounds good to me

4) people voted decisively against having wounded in farming missions. I mean sure, to keep consistency across the line as much as possible I could add it, but I will at the same time increase total losses slightly so that in the end farming costs remain the same.
There is absolutely no reason to change farming costs up or down because it will achieve NOTHING. People will not farm more, people will not make bigger profits, all that will change is the amount of defense people will build for each 1 bil kuwal they want to hold safely.
At the end of the day you will always pay X kuwal in losses to gain Y kuwal in profits by farming others.

I, like many others don't like that in some missions units get wounded, while others don't.
I propose that discussion will be made, after which we make a vote with 2 options: A) either having all units get wounded in all missions (and making all units cost the same to train) or B) not having wounded at all
I vote (B) no wounded, for those who want wounded, go play Red Apocalypse...

I propose this because aparently a lot of people have problems with missions like farm, raid, hunt assassin and invasion where no units get wounded. It makes the game weird if sometimes there are wounded and sometimes there are not. And now imagine there is a new player who asks you why. Not easy to explain, right? I don't think it makes the game look good in someone's eyes if they find out that there are wounded only in some strike missions. Of course if wounded are in all strike missons then it affects also assassins, and thus wounded must be in all missions, or in none

5) hunt, invade could have wounded but since that would reduce costs one sidedly in favor of the attacker there should be some mechanism to allow the defender to offset this, such as enabling combat strategies to affect losses as they do in assault missions (keep in mind that the losses that get affected are always only the soldiers, miners/workers/assassins would remain unaffected by both strategies and wounding)

6) speed of healing will get raised, one way or another.
I would aim to get 75% of wounded units to get healed within 10 days (After 20 days you will have healed 94% of your wounded units)

Currently one will heal 33% of wounded units every 10 days
To reach that you need to heal 0.29% of wounded each TURN (which is a 13% per day heal rate in 48 installments compared to the current 4%)
That with addition of possible options to temporarily increase healing rate at some form of cost

Wouldn't be a bad idea to have a building which will increase the healing rate, and also a technology, where you can research faster healing speed.

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Admin wrote:

kingkongfan1 wrote: now just for simplicity's sake, all I want to know about is the "units Killed" I am not interested in weapons or anything else...

People were saying "half the WE". Weapons destroyed and units killed go side by side (at least in the majority of cases)
Saying you're not interested in that is like saying you want to sab someone and you are not interested in knowing how many spies you lost.
Either we discuss the whole picture or nothing.

It's like saying "it's so darn expensive to just assassinate someone's spies" and then ignoring that you can sabotage someone's armory for a fraction of the cost to the defender since all defending spies are gone.

kingkongfan1 wrote:please if I am wrong on this then by all means correct me, show me how I am mistaken... thank you.

done?

Then by all means let me rephrase my entire comment..."When you compare the amount of Xp gained in the killing of units after the wounded/healed update was implemented, it would appear that you only get 1/2 or 50% of the Xp that you gain from killing units before the implementing the wounded/healed update... is that better?, now I understand better what you were talking about so I am willing to drop this,,, one last comment tho, ( & honestly I am not trying to be an ass)...
On the military achievements page it reads as follows...

Military Achievements
Items Destroyed/Stolen
Attack Soldiers Killed
Attack Mercs Killed
Defense Soldiers Killed
Defense Mercs Killed
Spies Killed
Assassins Killed
Workers Killed
Miners Killed
Fighters Destroyed
Fighter Value Destroyed
Space Stations Destroyed
Weapons Destroyed
Untrained Soldiers Stolen
Kuwal Stolen
Attack Turns Used
Supply Turns Used

Nowhere on this list does it read "Attack soldiers with weapon, or defense soldiers with weapon, or any merc with weapon," We may get Xp for both units, & weapons, but soldiers, Attack or defense, do not have to be armed to get killed. I feel I was justified in asking about units only because I kill unarmed units everyday... below is an example...

Battle Report

kingkongfan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.

kingkongfan1's army was composed of:
0 Super Soldiers, 50,000 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

50000 Regular Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank

[XXX] awaited the invaders with the following:
0 Super Soldiers, 264 Regular Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries

264 Regular Soldiers came unarmed

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 11,688,638,559 damage on the enemy!
This results in 2 casualties amongst the defending troops!
The defending forces return fire and inflict 0 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 0 casualties in their enemies ranks!

kingkongfan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As [XXX]army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
It is reported that 573,645,584 Kuwal has been taken from the realm of nokia

I guess what I should ask at this point is did I gain 200xp in this attack, or 400xp?

thank you, & I apologise for being an ass

You are showing us a report from farming mission. The farming mission doesnt have any wounded at all.

And what admin meant that war experience in massing that you dont get because of wounded being 20-30% is because a player has many spies, assassins and weapons as assets.
Yes, you can sabotage someone and then kill his unarmed units, but no matter how you mass someone, the weapons, spies and assassins killed play a major role here.

An exception would be if a player goes to war with loads of unarmed units, which is almost never the case.

If someone has 10 defense soldiers, 10 tanks, 12 spies and 12 assassins, after being massed he would have 5 wounded.
He lost 15.010.000 kuwal and the wounded he gets back are worth only 2.125.000. That's only 14% value of all he lost in massing.
The War experience you get is based on the values of what you destroy. This shows that wounded account to a small fraction of total value, and if someone has equal share of attackers, then wounded will account for 20-30% of total value lost (and a similar value of war experience that has not been received).

Nomad wrote:Aye, since admin give word one way, then accuses us of fantasies the next.

When ever you decide just let us know. I have figured out our input isn't wanted in this matter any longer as it once was.

I read it too, and I also have the impression that the war experience not gained because of wounded is marginal for 3 reasons:
1) kingkong seems to neglect War exp gained in killing spies and assassins
1A) no I do not Kenzu, you actually have to kill a spy or assassin to gain xp from them, I am not stupid, also see below...
2) he neglects weapons
2A) no I do not, see below,
3) he was pointing at farming missions that dont produce wounded at all
3A) as I have said repeatedly, it is NOT about the wounded at this point, it is about the XP gained in any given Attack... please pay attention, thank you...

Input is wanted, but it has to be reasonable and well argumented.
Are you saying that I have not arguemented this well, & reasonably?
Also he said he is ok with letting wounded give you as much war experience as killed. Isn't that what kingkongfan wanted?
I believe it was, so what's the problem?
that is all fine & good as soon as it gets implemented, my problem is that I/we just ended a war where I got only 1/2 xp that I could have gotten from killing units, & that kinda pisses me off, cause I would have twice the xp I gained from all the units I killed without the wounded/healed update... does that clear things up for you?, Also is Admin gonna go back & give me Xp from all the units that I killed from the time the w/h update was implemented till now?

Nomad wrote:Aye, since admin give word one way, then accuses us of fantasies the next.

When ever you decide just let us know. I have figured out our input isn't wanted in this matter any longer as it once was.

Admin wrote:@ nimras:
1) guess we are in agreement
2) here too
3) here aswell
4) I'm not really sure but I think you are agreeing with me that price should not change, with or withough having wounded units in farming/raiding missions
5) nothing to discuss
6) you have said nothing about 75% in 10 days. that's 50% of wounded recovered every 5 days.

Nomad wrote:@Manleva,,,,
I am no math whizz, but I assumed going on a % per day it would not matter how many a person had, everyone would take the same time to train (unless the amounts were small enough to be effected by the 1% rule). Can you explain that tome a bit?

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:Aye, since admin give word one way, then accuses us of fantasies the next.

When ever you decide just let us know. I have figured out our input isn't wanted in this matter any longer as it once was.

we said over and over that only assault and destruction have wounded, I wasn't sure waht to think of his question
because he clearly and unmistakenly posted a farm mission

@ king you killed 2 units, you didn't wound anyone, 400 xp for that

Nomad wrote:@ Nimras,,,, I'm not sure that answer fit my question,,, what I was asking, is if you have 500K wounded, and I have 200K wounded, and we both heal a straight 4% per day, will we both not end up finishing at the same time? You have more total wounded so you heal more per turn, I have less wounded so I heal fewer per turn, but end result is the same amount of time?


I agree with you admin, getting them all back is not important, thats why all my suggestions have disregarded the last 25 days it takes to get the last 25 men.

Manleva wrote:
The simple answer to your question Nomad is No. The more wounded you have to heal the longer it will take. 150,000 will take 2464 Turns to heal (just over 51 days) while 200,000 will take 2563 Turns to heal (just over 53 days) Note this is using Admins suggested rate of 0.29% per turn (13% per day)

Nomad wrote:

Manleva wrote:
The simple answer to your question Nomad is No. The more wounded you have to heal the longer it will take. 150,000 will take 2464 Turns to heal (just over 51 days) while 200,000 will take 2563 Turns to heal (just over 53 days) Note this is using Admins suggested rate of 0.29% per turn (13% per day)

Wow,,,, I really do suck at math.

Manleva, check your PM's please

*edit*

Thanks Manleva.

Admin wrote:Why is it important to get every single unit back quickly?
Imagining the latter scenario where you have 13% heal rate.
After 40 days you have 1904 wounded units left, out of 500,000.

That's 0.4%, I think looking at anything beyond that is not very productive.
Considering I doubt that 1904 units more or less will make much of a difference.

Some soldiers will end up comatose and whatnot.

Nomad wrote:@ Nimras,,,, I'm not sure that answer fit my question,,, what I was asking, is if you have 500K wounded, and I have 200K wounded, and we both heal a straight 4% per day, will we both not end up finishing at the same time? You have more total wounded so you heal more per turn, I have less wounded so I heal fewer per turn, but end result is the same amount of time?


I agree with you admin, getting them all back is not important, thats why all my suggestions have disregarded the last 25 days it takes to get the last 25 men.

Manleva wrote:

Nomad wrote:@ Nimras,,,, I'm not sure that answer fit my question,,, what I was asking, is if you have 500K wounded, and I have 200K wounded, and we both heal a straight 4% per day, will we both not end up finishing at the same time? You have more total wounded so you heal more per turn, I have less wounded so I heal fewer per turn, but end result is the same amount of time?


I agree with you admin, getting them all back is not important, thats why all my suggestions have disregarded the last 25 days it takes to get the last 25 men.

The simple answer to your question Nomad is No. The more wounded you have to heal the longer it will take. 150,000 will take 2464 Turns to heal (just over 51 days) while 200,000 will take 2563 Turns to heal (just over 53 days) Note this is using Admins suggested rate of 0.29% per turn (13% per day)

@ nimras, where did you get the idea that Admin would reduce the percentage from 13% to 4% after day 20. While I find it doubtful that Admin will do anything to speed up the Healing process for the last 4% of wounded I would also find it less believable that he would alter the percentage to lengthen the process.

Nimras wrote:I agree with you admin, getting them all back is not important, thats why all my suggestions have disregarded the last 25 days it takes to get the last 25 men.

Nimras wrote:Because of the fact that he said 20 days so much then i read somewhere else it was back to normal = 4%.
Heck if we keep it at 13% then we might get somewhere lol.