Airforce battle system

Nomad wrote:So buying any generation other then the best is a waste?

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:So buying any generation other then the best is a waste?

obviously not
What? take Kong as an example, Kong just got gen 3 sams & munitions, so now Kong can no longer build gen 2 sams or gen 2 sam munitions after what Kong has in stock is destroyed, so all Kong can build is the best Kong has researched atm, so Kong cannot understand how your response can be "obviously not" when it is quite "obvious" that only the best can be built after upgrading. what is Kong missing?

when kenzu told me people would understand that as someone having 1 better fighter than the rest of their airforce so in all missions only that 1 would launch I thought he was being ridiculous about people looking to misunderstand what I write, I will have to apologize to him for being right apparently
Kong doesn't understand any of what is posted above. 1 better fighter than the rest of the airforce? each weapon & munition has a specialized attack, one cannot use one type of fighter to do all different types of attacks. has this been changed?

anyways, edited the notes, should be more understandable now

also how do you want to manipulate munition?

Manleva wrote:Well I can answer Nomads question about attacking players with no Airforce Action.

Attacking ground forces destroys weapons

as for attacking buildings I don't know because I got the following

Query failed: Unknown column 'ID' in 'where clause'Query failed: Unknown column 'BuildingsDestroyed' in 'field list'Query failed: Unknown column 'BuildingsLost' in 'field list'INSERT INTO `mission_air_factories` (userID, toUserID, result_primary,result_tertiary,att_AG_type,att_AG_count,att_AG_mun_type,att_AG_mun_count,att_ag_lost,att_ag_mun_lost,bomb_target_mun_used,att_fighter_type,att_fighter_count,att_fighter_mun_type,att_fighter_mun_count,att_fighter_lost,att_fighter_mun_lost,time ) VALUES (999,3023, '0','0;0;0','2;1','585;20','2;1','5850;200',0,0,,'2;1','1100;10','2;1','11000;100',0,0,1324458579 )Query failed1: You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ''2;1','1100;10','2;1','11000;100',0,0,1324458579 )' at line 1

Nomad wrote:How can it be "wrong" if thats exactly how it operates now? It may be changed in the future, but presently your the one who is "Wrong" not Manleva.

So why the lie about munitions in the past? Why was the change not made public until AFTER the attacks are released and you are questioned about it? I mean Why? Whats the point other then to intentionally piss people off?

You clear stated previously the decrease in power due to not having 10 munition per weapon was completely cosmetic, now your saying if a weapon is not fully armed with 10 munitions then it will not even enter the battle.
Kong tried to tell you this is how it would end up being, but nooooo couldn't listen to the dumb old monkey

That changes thing pretty signifigantly. Instead of 10 SAM units being able to fire defensively 2 or 3 times, now only 1 maybe 2 can fire definsively before being removed from the battle?

On top of that, you still have not addressed what happens to unarmed weapons, since they will not enter battle, does that mean they can not be attacked as well?

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:So buying any generation other then the best is a waste?

obviously not

Nomad wrote:So if you have no fighters you negate your opponents fighters?
are you defending or attacking? yes in both cases, but when you're defender you also have chance of attacking bomber/heli
I thought ground troops were attacked by heli's?
yes they are
Bombers attacked only buildings?
yes they do
Sama attack all AF weapons?
yes they do
So fighters do not shoot down Helis or bombers?
yes they do shoot them down

Guess I'll have to see it in action, this makes no sense.

still need to know if ground troops can fight back against AF or not
no they cant

kingkongfan1 wrote:

Nomad wrote:How can it be "wrong" if thats exactly how it operates now? It may be changed in the future, but presently your the one who is "Wrong" not Manleva.

So why the lie about munitions in the past? Why was the change not made public until AFTER the attacks are released and you are questioned about it? I mean Why? Whats the point other then to intentionally piss people off?
because it was NOT going to change anything, either way you would have to have enough munition to have 1) max power 2) a sufficiently reliable defense and 3) being able to attack a couple times

You clear stated previously the decrease in power due to not having 10 munition per weapon was completely cosmetic, now your saying if a weapon is not fully armed with 10 munitions then it will not even enter the battle.
Kong tried to tell you this is how it would end up being, but nooooo couldn't listen to the dumb old monkey
This got changed for 2 reasons. 1) at least from your action you're able to judge how much damage you do per battle 2) it's a ton easier on the code

That changes thing pretty signifigantly. Instead of 10 SAM units being able to fire defensively 2 or 3 times, now only 1 maybe 2 can fire definsively before being removed from the battle?
wrong, it changes NOTHING if similar forces attack each other and you lose sams as you fire munition.
Using your logic:
Before: sams fire 10 times, full power, after that NONE of them will defend
Now: sams fire full power once, 90% munition remains, 90% of sams fire in second battle, 81% in third, etc.
Also I'll remind you that you're not limited to having 10 munition in stock for each unit, you can have 2k sams and 40k munition

On top of that, you still have not addressed what happens to unarmed weapons, since they will not enter battle, does that mean they can not be attacked as well?
attacking someone's airforce you'll go after their sams,helis,bombers,fighters and hangars, munition will be untouchable for now

Nomad wrote:I am afraid that is a thing of the past. this new system is going to be a straight up XXX kewal for XXX kewal wars. Once everyone maxes out (and including the "techs" to negate the attackers bonus), then AF will be nothing more then trading kewal for the exact same amount of Kewal.


The past way of thinking has gone away. Ground wars and AF working together will never happen. Honestly I in its present state I hope AF is scrapped and never released as it adds nothing to the game. Its to complicated, having to maintain multiple classes that can/could do the exact same thing, and most definitely insanely expensive when it offers you no edge in battle(once all are maxed out). The biggest and richest players will have fun till everyone catches up in generations then it will be pointless. The only way I see anyone using it is if they have a negative kill ration with ground forces. You can use AF and get a 1 to 1 ratio so no loss but no gain.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:I am afraid that is a thing of the past. this new system is going to be a straight up XXX kewal for XXX kewal wars. Once everyone maxes out (and including the "techs" to negate the attackers bonus), then AF will be nothing more then trading kewal for the exact same amount of Kewal.


The past way of thinking has gone away. Ground wars and AF working together will never happen. Honestly I in its present state I hope AF is scrapped and never released as it adds nothing to the game. Its to complicated, having to maintain multiple classes that can/could do the exact same thing, and most definitely insanely expensive when it offers you no edge in battle(once all are maxed out). The biggest and richest players will have fun till everyone catches up in generations then it will be pointless. The only way I see anyone using it is if they have a negative kill ration with ground forces. You can use AF and get a 1 to 1 ratio so no loss but no gain.

I don't think you have the necessary trillions to max out your tech.

And now please answer some of my questions, because I really like to hear your answer:

"Its to complicated, having to maintain multiple classes that can/could do the exact same thing..."
Q:So maintaining multiple classes of air units is complicated but maintaining multiple classes of ground units (attack soldiers, defense soldiers, spies and assassins) isnt?
A:Sams & fighters serve as defensive units (2 different units),,, heli's & bombers both act as attack units,(2 different units),,, right now in main we have only "1" attack unit (a players strike) & "1" defensive unit, (a players defense) spies & assassins are specialized units that do not attack nor defend... please read the statement again, for better understanding...
Q:How are missions that target ground units, air units, buildings the same thing? If targeting different units and buildings is the same thing, does it mean that all land missions are also the same thing?
A:

"and most definitely insanely expensive when it offers you no edge in battle(once all are maxed out)."
Q:Are land techs not insanely expensive too? Paying 50 bill to increase strike from 250 to 251% that's a real increase by 0.4%, is that cheap?
A:I find this funny that you compare a 50,000,000,000 increase to a 1,250,000,000,000 increase, IMO 50 bill "IS" cheap when compared to 1.250 trill...(anyone currently playing on test knows "EXACTLY" what I am talking about,,, the rest don't care)
Q:Why should you max out all techs if it costs more than you can afford and is less effective than using the money to buy more units instead?
A:because having the best is what competetive players want, & they will do whatever it takes to achieve that goal whether it makes sense to you or not... do not take this as an insult; as it is not meant to be one, but in the 2 years I have been playing this game I have never met anyone who thinks as you do;(not necessarrily a bad thing) unfortunately being stuck in your own little box, (as I will call it) you have no comprehension of the average players competative spirit or what they will do to reach the goals they have set for themselves, (some want the highest tech, some want the highest UP, some want the highest army size) just because some players goals do not fit into your logic, doesn't mean they are not going to try to do it anyway...

"The biggest and richest players will have fun till everyone catches up in generations then it will be pointless."
Q:Did everyone catch up in tech for land units?
A:every competative player who wanted to has, most active players are in the 250%-300% or above.(I am not talking about players who play just to stat build, or players who are building up resources to sell for $$)
Q:If they didn't catch up with land units, why should they catch up with air units?
A:
Q:Are you aware that it's not hard to add more generations?
A:who but the richest & biggest players could afford it? (considering the cost now)

The last one is a rhetorical question:
Do you think anyone will spend 19.4 trillion kuwal to max out a class, if instead he can buy 51 million uu? Not sure how about you, but if on Aderan Wars you are trying to max out any tech, you are just weakening your potential.
I already answered this question above... competative players want what they want, screw potential...

Please answer these questions, because I have really no idea what you were thinking about when you wrote the post. I would love to see your opinion on that.

Admin wrote:When was there ever a point in attacking anyone in any other game of this sort?

I have asked this simple question, along with another, dozens of times, no one has ever responded to it even a single time.

Here's the other question:
Should it be possible to wipe out the stats of someone for a fraction of the cost simply because you are attacking?

(sgw had this, there were no techs [there were planets but let's not get into that], but if you attacked someone you could destroy their defense with at least a 2.5:1 kill ratio easily [i was doing routinely 15:1 with planets]
And you could kill millions of enemy spies once the defense was gone without a single loss to your units)

kingkongfan1 wrote: but I do have to agree with this point,,, "What is the point of attacking someone; when you will lose as much as you destroy? What is gained by doing this?"...

Nomad wrote:I am not sure I understand the question TBH. When was there ever a point in attacking anyone in any other game of this sort????? I can think of multiple reasons. Gaining of resources, multiple or singular. Military actions, Chest thumping, Weaking the enemy, makeing statements,, etc, etc.

Please explain your question as it seems incredably simple in answer and obvious in answer.
I'm just repeating king's question

As for your "cost" question,,,,,, First digg your head out of your ASS and stop being so damn melodramatic. NO ONE BUT YOU are asking for or discussing getting free or even cheap Kills. Most of us have specificly ASKED for and DEMANDED for the price to stay high.
Am I seriously asked to make a headcount of the times people whined about wars being "too expensive" compared to the number of times someone defended (mostly or actually ONLY you, which I do appreciate) this AFTER me having to justify myself and getting bashed over multiple pages of posts
Let alone make a count of the times when support was voiced without me writing up 2 pages of justifications

The same way certain people accuse me of "standing up for" kenzu or whatever (screw semantics now, "protect", whatever), I never felt that kind of protection when getting bashed in these situations, obviously that's part of being admin. The whiners are always loud, but if the rest doesn't make themselves heard at least as much the game will also suffer

Now you explain to me how you find it "fun" in any game where two people can not effect each other in any way shape or form? Point being if me and you go to war, any damage I do to you I accept the same, and any damage you do to me you accept yourself. So the end result of a fight is the exact same as having never fought at all since we both lose the exact same amount or %.

Nomad wrote:I can do the same with a better then 1 to 1 ratio now, so again I say this only helps someone with a negative kill ratio.

Again I ask whats the point in creating "differences" by generation if the defender can buy a tech to negate it.
exactly the same point of having techs for strike/def/covert/assassin

Again I ask what good it is if it has a cap, and once that capp is reached everyone is equal and all damage is completely equal.
same as with strike/def having atm a cap on weapon levels and spy/assassin skill having a cap

The only argument I have seen so far is simply the fact you can attack
OTHER things you can not attack with normal attacks. I would love to focus more on that, but that part of the update is still incomplete, still hazy, and constantly changing. Maybe when that side is completed I will see a silver lining. In its present state I see it as useless,,, well not useless but not an addition to the game. Thats just my opinion, and yes I am 1 person. I do wish we had more active players who would participate in discussion. Seems all but a few have either left or do not wish to participate.

Kenzu wrote:

Nomad wrote:I am afraid that is a thing of the past. this new system is going to be a straight up XXX kewal for XXX kewal wars. Once everyone maxes out (and including the "techs" to negate the attackers bonus), then AF will be nothing more then trading kewal for the exact same amount of Kewal.


The past way of thinking has gone away. Ground wars and AF working together will never happen. Honestly I in its present state I hope AF is scrapped and never released as it adds nothing to the game. Its to complicated, having to maintain multiple classes that can/could do the exact same thing, and most definitely insanely expensive when it offers you no edge in battle(once all are maxed out). The biggest and richest players will have fun till everyone catches up in generations then it will be pointless. The only way I see anyone using it is if they have a negative kill ration with ground forces. You can use AF and get a 1 to 1 ratio so no loss but no gain.

I don't think you have the necessary trillions to max out your tech.
]First off it does not matter, at some point someone will. As for what is achievable, presently With bank capasities at 7/8 trill, plus an unlimited bank on GM coupled with 13 trill purchasable in 1 go, and with some accounts with 10, 20, even 30+ mill idles that can be liquidated I am willing to bet 20 trill kewal is obtainable at the present point in time,,, but again I don't see what the point in even making this statement was. You could clarify exactly what it would cost to max a single generation and the cost to max all of them. Atleast then it would be known. That is actual useful information


And now please answer some of my questions, because I really like to hear your answer:

"Its to complicated, having to maintain multiple classes that can/could do the exact same thing..."
Q:So maintaining multiple classes of air units is complicated but maintaining multiple classes of ground units (attack soldiers, defense soldiers, spies and assassins) isnt?
A:]Thank you for proving my point in your question. We have multiple units already. Those same units can do EVERYTHING these new units are meant to do. The major difference is each present unit has a specific use, Att is used for Att, Def is Def, etc, etc. Now these new classes can attack or do more then 1 specific thing. So in effect you went from 4 classes with 1 specific use, to 8 classes with 3 of them have multiple uses. What exactly is the point in have multiple units that can attack the same thing? Why not simplify it to an attack and a defense class?
Q:How are missions that target ground units, air units, buildings the same thing? If targeting different units and buildings is the same thing, does it mean that all land missions are also the same thing?
A:]Not sure what your question is so its difficult to respond. I have never stated attacking ground units, attacking air units, and attacking buildings is the same thing, only you have. What I have stated is the more then 1 type of weapon can attack multiple of the same unit. Guess I need to clarify something. I see 2 seperate things. 1 is AF units attacking AF units and Ground units is rather useless, redundent with multiple umits attacking the same thing, and not an addition to the game. 2. you have the attacks on buildings and such which is useful if done correctly, but unfinished presently. These attacks may become a useful addition.

"and most definitely insanely expensive when it offers you no edge in battle(once all are maxed out)."
Q:Are land techs not insanely expensive too? Paying 50 bill to increase strike from 250 to 251% that's a real increase by 0.4%, is that cheap?
A:In my onest opinion no land techs are not insanely expensive. They start small and grow over time. They are also unlimited. They also directly corolate to the size and strength of the account. AF techs are A. limited, B. at 2 trill for 1 upgrade they are massively more expensive the 1 tech level. Couple that with a few facts. 1. AF techs can (planned to be according to admin) negated. They have NO bearing on ground forces. Tech for ground forces are effected by the size of the ground forces and how much you invested in them. AF tech don't change anything with concerns of the size of the force since everything is made to be = losses. End result is you can not compare the two. One is limited, one is not. One is directly effected or negated depending on the size of the force used, the other is not.
Q:Why should you max out all techs if it costs more than you can afford and is less effective than using the money to buy more units instead?
A:Again your looking at a set period of time and not opening your mind to all options/possibilities. As for why? What if you have 50 mill idles and it will take 3 month to train them? why would you keep buying more men? Why would you want to keep dropping you AE when you have been dealing with 20$, 30% or 40% AE already? So can you see how its possible that the largest players have no will or want to "increase" there size anymore?

"The biggest and richest players will have fun till everyone catches up in generations then it will be pointless."
Q:Did everyone catch up in tech for land units?
A:No not yet, but there is a "pack" all pretty close. The major difference is AF tech's are limited at 6 levels. Normal techs are unlimited. You don't think that makes one hell of a difference?
Q:If they didn't catch up with land units, why should they catch up with air units?
A:Because AF techs are limited to 6 levels, ground force techs are unlimited.I fail to see how you can not or do not understand the difference in limited and unlimited, nor that you can not understand the different effects limited and unlimited will have on said tech.
Q:Are you aware that it's not hard to add more generations?
A:I know little to nothing about coding. I have told you this time and time again so I feel you are attempting to be condensending with this question. I think it shows quit alot about you. Now if more are planned to be added then fine. FRIGGAN SAY SO!!!!! but dont give explination stating there is a SET NUMBER OF LEVELS/GENERATIONS and then expect people to think or expect more will be added later. In cases like that you STATE that more may or may not be added later. Its this mentality ,,, where you change the rules, or can change rules and expect us to think the same or think like you. We as players are bound by rules you make and we can not change. You can not expect us to have the same line of thinking because WE can't change the rules. You can. We are bound by Your rules weather we like them or not, you are not bound by anything from us. You make this so damn difficult for no damn reason. Why you choose to do so is beyond me. You have to atleast attempt to look at things from a players point of veiw from time to time. Not an admins who can simply change whatever he wants, when he wants, how he wants, weather anyone agrees or disagrees. That type of insight will help you.

The last one is a rhetorical question:
Do you think anyone will spend 19.4 trillion kuwal to max out a class, if instead he can buy 51 million uu? Not sure how about you, but if on Aderan Wars you are trying to max out any tech, you are just weakening your potential.
Yes I do. When dealing with account 100 mill plus dealing with 20 to 40% AE already and dealing with 10, 20, 30+ mill idles they cant train fast enought then hell yes I think the SAMs will get maxed out quickly (atleast taken higher faster then any other) because it is a defense measure that can stop all 3 classes of Att AF weapons. I will not argue the point of weakening your potential because I largely agree with you. But its the same when you have a 140 trill def and a 0 strike and look how many players follow this same set up now. Max Sams, the Fighters, and if your a defensive player you have no need to make attack units when you can do more damage with ground units then with AF units.

Please answer these questions, because I have really no idea what you were thinking about when you wrote the post. I would love to see your opinion on that.
I do actually like and enjoy good discussions with you. i just have a difficult time understanding how nor why you can't seem to grasp things from a player/users perspective. It is an unfortunate thing that we as players can't really afford to look at things like an admin where we "should/could" change this or that code/rules wise. We have to look at things inside the set rules given to us by you. You have to take the extra step of attempting to not only see what can be changed code/rules wise, and to be able to see things when bound by the rules given.

Admin wrote:

Nomad wrote:I can do the same with a better then 1 to 1 ratio now, so again I say this only helps someone with a negative kill ratio.

Again I ask whats the point in creating "differences" by generation if the defender can buy a tech to negate it.
exactly the same point of having techs for strike/def/covert/assassin
There is a difference in ground forces and AF and you know it. Stop ignoring it. You buy att tech and the defender buys def tech. Your saying att buys a generation, but def buys a tech and negates a generation, plus the def can buy a generation. You do not see a difference? Honestly? Ground forces are not = losses so the techs are different the generations.
Again I ask what good it is if it has a cap, and once that capp is reached everyone is equal and all damage is completely equal.
same as with strike/def having atm a cap on weapon levels and spy/assassin skill having a cap
NO it is not. Because yes the levels and weapons are capped but the techs are not. The size of the forces (att and def) makes a difference while with AF on AF attacks there is no difference because the damage is = no matter the sizes of each forces. Maybe it is just me who can not understand you or your logic. I honestly can not see how you can not see any validity in any of my points/concerns/issues.


The only argument I have seen so far is simply the fact you can attack
OTHER things you can not attack with normal attacks. I would love to focus more on that, but that part of the update is still incomplete, still hazy, and constantly changing. Maybe when that side is completed I will see a silver lining. In its present state I see it as useless,,, well not useless but not an addition to the game. Thats just my opinion, and yes I am 1 person. I do wish we had more active players who would participate in discussion. Seems all but a few have either left or do not wish to participate.

Destroying airforce itself works
Destroying training facilities/weapon factories works

would that be also useless if there would also get an option added to destroy these same two things with your spies and with a normal strike?
No. It would simplify everything and make the AF update completely useless. It actually makes a good bit of sense TBH.

I am not argueing against the attacking buildings, its the AF to AF issues that aggervate me.

Nomad wrote:There is a difference in ground forces and AF and you know it. Stop ignoring it. You buy att tech and the defender buys def tech. Your saying att buys a generation, but def buys a tech and negates a generation, plus the def can buy a generation. You do not see a difference? Honestly?
Ground forces are not = losses so the techs are different the generations.

Admin wrote:The kill ratio on att vs def is/was NEVER affected by size of armies going against each other.
You send more, you kill more, but you also lose more, the ratio is identical.
ok, kinna seeing your line of thinking, now again let me try to explain mine. They are not clashing, just different veiws. In ground to ground force attacks.I can reach a better then 1 to 1 ratio because there is NO limit to techs. With there being a 6 generation limit on AF techs then when everyone in the game maxes out then every AF to AF attack will = a 1 to 1 ration period.

Which is on the list of having been repeated several dozen times already

Which is also exactly how the AF works

Nomad wrote:There is a difference in ground forces and AF and you know it. Stop ignoring it. You buy att tech and the defender buys def tech. Your saying att buys a generation, but def buys a tech and negates a generation, plus the def can buy a generation. You do not see a difference? Honestly?
Ground forces are not = losses so the techs are different the generations.

I dont get the last line
Yeah I see where I am not being clear and can see your confusion. Sorry about that.
I just can not understand
1. 6 generation and then everyone is perfectly = on all AF to AF attacks
2. Why you can not see a difference in unlimited ground forces tech and limited AF generations.
3.With GF attacks each has a set use, but with AF its different. You have chosen 4 weapons that can be simplified to 2 or even never built but added to ground attacks to do the same.
4. why was AF adding to ground forces completely abandoned?



seriously now, which one are you describing here?
AF has techs/generations, ground forces have techs