Assassinating income units...

by kingkongfan1 Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:47 pm

I noticed here a while back that there is no setup for assassination missions on income units, as such I have the following Questions...

A) is there a particular reason why Income units cannot be assassinated?

B) is it "to complicated/impossible to code" for income units to be assassinated?

C) if the answer to (B) is no, then is this something that Admin would be willing to implement or discuss implementing?

I have noticed that doing an invasion mission, ( killing income units with strike) costs a player 5 Attack & 25 supply turns... I have also noted that doing assassination missions on those units that can be assassinated, (strike, defense, spies, & assassins) costs a player 3 covert & 12 supply turns.

If Admin would see fit to implement assassination of income units, I would suggest a cost of maybe 5 covert & 25 supply turns for such a mission.

I know of several players who would like to see this implemented, & I am sure that there are probably just as many who don't... was just a thought I had & decided to ask about it.

by Mystake Sun Nov 06, 2011 6:22 pm

hard to do in a % based game

martin didn't code ADW to have variables.

by Nomad Sun Nov 06, 2011 7:42 pm

Mystake wrote:hard to do in a % based game

martin didn't code ADW to have variables.

Explain?

I see many variables in AW, but you may mean something I don't understand.

by Mystake Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:30 pm

Nomad wrote:
Mystake wrote:hard to do in a % based game

martin didn't code ADW to have variables.

Explain?

I see many variables in AW, but you may mean something I don't understand.

I meant that in relation to things like assault which do damage based on a %, with slight variation so you don't get the exact same number over and over.

No offense to Martin but his formulas are awful, from what I've seen anyway. Like how there's no point getting anything after weapons 13, or spy 7200.

by Nomad Sun Nov 06, 2011 9:42 pm

Damaged based on % or kill ratio based on %?

I do think I got what you mean tho.

by Admin Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:15 am

Mystake wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Mystake wrote:hard to do in a % based game

martin didn't code ADW to have variables.

Explain?

I see many variables in AW, but you may mean something I don't understand.

I meant that in relation to things like assault which do damage based on a %, with slight variation so you don't get the exact same number over and over.

No offense to Martin but his formulas are awful, from what I've seen anyway. Like how there's no point getting anything after weapons 13, or spy 7200.

in games where you usually attack 5-20 times with the same attack, giving a bigger variation wouldn't have much effect, since you'd end up with a bunch of lucky hits and a bunch of bad hits anyway

about assassinating, i'd rather discuss a new method of sabotage/assassination calculation
whining of certain players aside, it should actually possible to destroy someone's strike with only covert or only assassination
with each mission the profitability decreases (has to send almost same amount each time, kills less each time)
unlike with strike where the ratio stays overall the same (kills decrease but so do losses)

by Nomad Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:30 am

Admin wrote:
about assassinating, i'd rather discuss a new method of sabotage/assassination calculation
whining of certain players aside, it should actually possible to destroy someone's strike with only covert or only assassination
with each mission the profitability decreases (has to send almost same amount each time, kills less each time)
unlike with strike where the ratio stays overall the same (kills decrease but so do losses)

The problem is strike is the direct opponent of defense

assassination is the direct opponent of covert

if you use assassination against strike of covert you should have to overcome covert and strike/def. otherwise you should have to remove the covert power first to not pay the higher cost to assassinate

JMO

by Admin Mon Nov 07, 2011 12:54 am

yh but assassinate again has the same story
each time you assassinate, you kill less and less spies/att/whatever while losing the same amount of assassins

by Lord Ishurue Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:05 am

i like the idea to assassinate Farmers.

a touch of Refusers in other games .

say u have 100mil

90 mil farmers (are untouchable)

9mil of them are Executive farmers ( these can be killed in invasion missions the kill rate is .00009 ( first hit target loses 810 )

1mil of those Farmers are Senior Executive farmers ( these can be killed in invasion mission at a kill rate of .009 ( 9k killed first hit.) and they also can be targeted for assassination.

90% of yor farmers are regular farmers
9 or 9.5% of yor farmers are Executive Farmers
0.5-1% of yor farmers are Senior Executive Farmers

https://aderanwars.forumotion.com/t2911-new-income-unit

Anayalator suggested a new income unit, and with Invasion mission well some what being useless

to fuse Kong, anayalor's and prolly an idea i had in past together

Executive Farmers make 55 income per turn
Senior Executive Farmers make 65 income per turn

untraining EF & SEF as as them getting killed .

Untraining EF & SEF will result in yor farmers suffering an income penalty of up to 30-50% until they are replaced. ( this is adding the refuser element into the game)

if they get killed in combat etc. yor farmers suffer an income penalty of 5- 15% based on AE. The closer yor AE is to 100% the larger the income penalty.

by Nomad Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:02 am

I really did not get the idea, could you maybe try a different approach?

by Lord Ishurue Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:23 am

Nomad wrote:I really did not get the idea, could you maybe try a different approach?

hmm

9% of the farmers become Executive Farmers. they make 55 income per turn. these can be killed during invasion missions

1% of yor farmers become Senior Executive Farmers they make 60 income per turn, these can be killed during invasion as well as assassination.

both these units can be untrained however if u untrain them yor regular farmers make up to 30-40% less income

If these units get killed by invasion or assassination yor farmers suffer an income penalty of up to 15% The closer yor AE is to 100% the larger the penalty is.

So lets say u have 100mil farmers.
9mil will be executive farmers
1mil will be senior executive Farmers

lets say half of them get killed and yor left with 4.5mil Executive Farmers and 500k Senior executive Farmers.

until u replace those lost units your regular farmers suffer an income penalty.

either the game can auto train 10% of yor farmer population to EF or SEF or u do it manually with in a reasonable time frame.

Is that a lil better of an explaination ?

by Nomad Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:11 pm

Yes I get it now.

So do we get rid of the other income units(Workers & miners)?

Why would you train these new income units at all knowing they can be killed and with losing them you also lose an additional % of income from your normal income units?

I'm still missing why someone would want them? What good would they bring? How would it not just be another thorn in the eye of accounts who actually grow over those who choose to stay smaller for various reasons.

by Keinutnai Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:50 pm

@kingkongfan1
I believe there is no reason why assassins shouldnt be able to assassinate enemy income units, if the enemies assassins have been already taken out.
However for this to be implemented the missions should be changed, and cant be working like they are now.

Mystake wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Mystake wrote:hard to do in a % based game

martin didn't code ADW to have variables.

Explain?

I see many variables in AW, but you may mean something I don't understand.

I meant that in relation to things like assault which do damage based on a %, with slight variation so you don't get the exact same number over and over.

No offense to Martin but his formulas are awful, from what I've seen anyway. Like how there's no point getting anything after weapons 13, or spy 7200.

If you made your first game, would you have predicted all things that would happen 3 years in advance? Would you be able to predict what the prices should be so that weapon upgrades keep on making sense forever, but at the same time won't make a player overpowered? I don't think so.

The prices of techs and the benefit they give are not formulas, those are just variables. I do admit that they should be updated, to be more fitting for the present time.
For example MLRS should be better than MA and ICBM should be better than MLRS. And by better not only stronger, but the price should be right.
On the other hand, I dont think Spy skills or Assassin skills are off. A better skill is much better than the previous skill, and the benefit and high level justifies the price. The prices of new techs cannot remain low on all levels, because then players would be ridiculously strong against new players. Prices have to go up exponencially, while the benefit each new level gives, I believe should either be constant, or the difference not big.

by Sponsored content

Assassinating income units...

Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...

Re: Assassinating income units...