Re: Airforce battle system

by kingkongfan1 Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:47 pm

Nomad wrote:
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

Oh and I still dont get the level that cost so much yet gives no power increase in the game in the generations aspect.
to my knowledge as kenzu explained it, all that does is "buy" you the ability to buy the next highest generation level, nothing more. without spending that money you cannot purchase the next generation level... if I am not correct then admin or kenzu can correct me.

Also, I guess the SGW comparision is the MS upgrades,,, the one everyone got in a week and then everyone was right back where they were before the update.

Admin wrote:When was there ever a point in attacking anyone in any other game of this sort?
I was under the impression that this was a war game. is there any other reason needed?... if that isn't an adequite answer then I am unsure of how to answer the question, but you cannot say that I didn't try, lol...

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?
my answer is "NO".

(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)

by Kenzu Mon Feb 20, 2012 12:57 pm

Nomad wrote:
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

Oh and I still dont get the level that cost so much yet gives no power increase in the game in the generations aspect.

Also, I guess the SGW comparision is the MS upgrades,,, the one everyone got in a week and then everyone was right back where they were before the update.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand it is that Nomad is unhappy that there is a limit to AF techs, when there is no limit to ground techs. Trust me when I say that should players max out their techs, more techs will be added. You will definitely never see sgw-like occurrences such as many players maxing out their techs and not being able to continue research on Aderan Wars.

You also say that the AF units are the same. How are they the same if they have completely different roles:
SAMs - can only defend, destroys only Fighters, Helis and Bombers. Doesn't require Hangars.
Fighter - can attack or defend, destroys only Fighters, and attacking Helis and Bombers.
Heli - can only attack, destroys only SAMs, and defending Helis and Bombers (in Hangars), and ground forces.
Bomber - can only attack, destroys only SAMs, and defending Helis and Bombers (in Hangars), and training facilities and weapon factories.

The way I see it is that each unit fulfills a completely different role. Sure, you could simplify it and have only 2 units: Fighters and Bombers. Fighters destroying all air units and Bombers destroying all units on land and buildings. But I think having 4 units makes the game more interesting.

Nomad wrote:
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
You realise that there is a big difference between being able to obtain and really obtaining and spending it. Let's see how many people really max out their airforce techs. Maybe it will be only you, to prove a point, crippling your account in the process. Reality is, it's very hard to max it out, and should it ever happen, it's only a matter of very short time to add more generations. Generation 6 for unit and weapon costs 4 trillion each. I don't see a problem adding Gen 7 and Gen 8 costing 8 and 16 trillion each should ever someone reach generation 6.

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?
-No they cannot do everything. Some airforce units can destroy factories, training facilities or other airforce units. Ground forces cannot do that.
-All units can do more than one specific thing (each unit can do multiple missions targeting different units or doing different things). Even ground units. You say that ground units had only 1 specific use? That's wrong. Only ground forces and defense soldiers have only 1 specific use. All other units have multiple uses.
-Which units can do the exactly same thing? I haven't seen a single unit that does exactly the same thing.

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?
It was you, who made the claim that airforce does the same thing what ground forces do. What I am saying is that unit is unique because each unit has a different purpose and a different group of missions that can be undertaken. Because you really make it sound like adding airforce units was nothing more than adding units without adding usefulness.

"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?
No, because more techs can always be added. Do you know that ground weapons are also limited? Currently top 30 players tend to use MLRS, which is level 12 weapon costing 1 trillion to research. Did you know that level 14 weapon is currently the last weapon you can research? How come this doesn't bother you, but AF generations do?
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.
Same answer as above
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 game always improves, and if players reach a limit in research, this is a serious problem and will be solved. There is general consent that people should always be able to research and improve techs. Forever! Maybe admin can confirm that more techs will be added should players reach a limit.

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.

19.4 trillion to max out an AF class on AW. I am pretty sure that the cost to max out weapons for ground forces are close in cost to this. 1 trillion for Level 12, 5 trillion for level 13. Let's say 25 trillion for level 14. That's about 32 trillion to max out weapons from level 1 to level 14 for both attack and defense soldiers.

by Nomad Mon Feb 20, 2012 3:54 pm

Spoiler:

Your going to have to break this down to smaller chunks, this is getting ridiculous in size. I see from your remarks about game rules simply being changed after telling the game players the rules are set has proven you completely missed my attempt to help you understand player logic/mentality/ line of thinking.

Guess in another year or 2 when AF if finally completed we can just see how good or bad it is. It is Your 2's game and your obviously going to do what you feel is right for the game as you should. I see no sense in continueing to fight a lost battle or to even continue coming to a dead forum since you never make any announcements to changes anymore. I'll keep coming because thats just who I am, I just no longer see a point.

@ Kenzu,,,
You just stated perfectly my gripe. Having 4 different classes that can be streamlined down to 2 proves there is no need for the other 2. It proves all they are good for is sucking up Kewal that could be spent elsewhere. Just like the worthless level for generations you guys seem to like so well. I mean it makes sense, and logicly I can accept it, but from a players side you can't tell me you don't understand player frustration at spending weeks of work and gaining NOTHING power wise. You have to the turn around and spend weeks more work to see an actual benifit. Thats all I'm saying.

Want any specific responses please post them and I'll respond, but that wall of text is getting rediculous.
To simplify it further, anything that you might see an issue with, or validity in my concerns, or you are actually open to changing,, ask about,,,,, if you already know you have no intentions of changing something, do not waste my time or your own asking about it. 1 sided conversations are kinna pointless.

@ Admin,,,
I can accept and swallow a simple answer of No, or at this time there will be no changes. I may not like it but I can respect it. Constant round and round the bush discussions are useless. From my perspective if you are discussing a concern you are open to change or atleast see validity in the concern. If that is the case then continue the discussion. If that is not the case then end the discussion.

I have asked you for soooo many changes. Many you agree with right off the bat and call great/good ideas, and then never do anything about. You have no idea the frustration that causes. Then to come here and bring up concerns only to have Kenzu try twisting them around, and to have it argued around and around and around is even more frustrating.

Ohh @ Kenzu,,,

I do like the links added in the top forum banner to get you in the games themselves. Nice touch.

by Admin Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:31 pm

Nomad wrote:
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.
so we agree that ground forces work identically to AF except for the tiny detail of personal bonus/unlimited techs being available to ground forces but not AF
weapons/skills are capped which could result in 1:1 kill rates, no one has reached this cap, why isn't that a problem?
would all your arguments disappear if i added unlimited AF techs? since then ground and AF would be functionally identical

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
weapon levels/assassin/spy levels maxed => everyone is perfectly = on all ground attacks
Do you understand now?
we already have generations for ground forces and always had them.
No one has had a problem with them being capped so far, no one ever will for the simple reason that if needed more can get added
2. Why you can not see a difference in unlimited ground forces tech and limited AF generations.
ground forces tech have limited levels, they are called "weapons","Spy skill" and "assassin skill".
The % techs are an extra bonus which was even considered to get added for AF too, then it would be literally identical to ground forces stats
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.
I could understand merging bombers/heli's from yoru sentence.
How do you want to merge bombers/fighters/sams into 2 groups?
sam's can't attack
bombers can't hit fighters
fighters can't hit sams

you say it'd be a problem if someone leveled up their sams, people level up their defenses even now, doesn't look to me like it's a problem, if they chose to play defensively thats their choice
4. why was AF adding to ground forces completely abandoned?
I have stated repeatedly since the beginning that I disliked this "ms style boost to ground power". so if you/anyone failed to understand my posts since the time this forum got created, the "adding to ground forces" hasn't been abandoned, it has never even been considered to be in it by default

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

Admin wrote:When was there ever a point in attacking anyone in any other game of this sort?
I was under the impression that this was a war game. is there any other reason needed?... if that isn't an adequite answer then I am unsure of how to answer the question, but you cannot say that I didn't try, lol...
so why do you ask a question you can answer yourself?
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?"...

Should it be possible to wipe out the stats of someone for a fraction of the cost simply because you are attacking?
my answer is "NO".
that's clearly an insufficient answer since my response to that is AF with 1-10:1 kill ratio to which you also reject.
I might aswell start shooting randomly

Sabotage and assassination already fulfill the same role as an assault/destruction
Is that reason enough to remove one but to keep the other?
Obviously not, what is being added isn't the option to destroy more stuff, but to give more OPTIONS to destroy the same stuff in a number of different ways
I might give the option to destroy factories/Af also with ground forces AND spies

doesn't mean that AF ability to destroy these would be a waste since all follow a different purpose.
someoe with good spies would use spies, someone with good strike would use strike, someone with good AF would use AF

by Nomad Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:22 pm

Well you said it all in the first sentance. They are EXACTLY the same EXCEPT the FRIGGAN DIFFERENCE in them. Well said.

And SAM's cant attack? That what the hell do they do when they fire a damn rocket? play tiddly winks? I hope that was a joke.

Its real simple Martin.

Say "This is the avenue that Me and Kenzu wish to pursue as we feel it is best even if there are concerns. There are multiple way to handle or do every update, but we have made a decision and plan to follow this path"

End of discussion.

I'll stop bothering you. It is obvious you see my concern as you state so, but do not feel it an issue. It is you and Kenzu's game and you should follow your heart on what to do. Its your job as the admin.

by Admin Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:43 pm

Nomad wrote:Well you said it all in the first sentance. They are EXACTLY the same EXCEPT the FRIGGAN DIFFERENCE in them. Well said.
and yet you have no issue with assassins existing, or sabotage

And SAM's cant attack? That what the hell do they do when they fire a damn rocket? play tiddly winks? I hope that was a joke.
do you even read the posts? it's been said almost a dozen times by now in all these threads

by Kenzu Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:00 pm

Nomad wrote:
Ohh @ Kenzu,,,

I do like the links added in the top forum banner to get you in the games themselves. Nice touch.

You can thank Manleva for this, as it was Manleva who made me aware of this feature.

by Nomad Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:43 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Ohh @ Kenzu,,,

I do like the links added in the top forum banner to get you in the games themselves. Nice touch.
You can thank Manleva for this, as it was Manleva who made me aware of this feature.

Thanks Manleva.

Maybe you should allow someone like Manleva to help you make these forums all they can be.

by Nomad Mon Feb 20, 2012 7:55 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:Well you said it all in the first sentance. They are EXACTLY the same EXCEPT the FRIGGAN DIFFERENCE in them. Well said.
and yet you have no issue with assassins existing, or sabotage
]You must be thinking in a different direction then I am understanding, because why would I have issue with it? that is what they are made for? **Bit lost on where you were going with that one**
And SAM's cant attack? That what the hell do they do when they fire a damn rocket? play tiddly winks? I hope that was a joke.
do you even read the posts? it's been said almost a dozen times by now in all these threads]Again, what are you trying to say and where are you trying to go with this? I responded to exactly what you said, not sure what point your trying to make now.

I find it funny you have said everything I have said could be done to the same effect as what your doing, yet you wont just say this is how I want to do it and be done with this convo.

I'm sorry but if someone said to you what you just said to me you would laugh at them too. Remove yourself and what you know from the sentance and read what you wrote.

They are the same except for the differences in them. Does that honestly makes sense to you? You cant just admitt there is a difference in weapon levels and assassin/covert levels being capped but having uncapped tech levels backing them,,, and AF having generations that are limited with no tech to back them. Just say thats the way it is and going to be and move on. You can't convience me or anyone else there is no difference when you admitt it in your responses already.

Its clear now that rules and levels, and generation will change, be added, or deleted, and that the set rules you have announced mean nothing. That can be said for anything in the game now and I get that. Lets move on.

Any idea on when the rest of the update will be completed? anything your having trouble with or need help with? You have a sounding board if you choose to use it.

by Manleva Tue Feb 21, 2012 9:12 am

Well I have to say that I have been trying to follow this discussion but I have to say that from what I can see we are only going around in circles and it is getting harder and harder to follow. Basically I am even more confused that I was before it all started.

Hopefully this will get some responses that will clarify the issues.

1. Attack ratio of 1:1 - I do not see this as a ratio that we are used to and I think that is part of the confusion. My understanding is that it is a Kuwal for Kuwal ratio with equal amounts of damage in Kuwal terms being done to both sides. This will mean that while players are at different generation levels UNIT losses will be different

2 That being said I still do not like the implementation as it stands and find it at odds with the existing systems in place. Since all current Airforce Units are battle units the cannot be compared with Spies or Assassins but can be compared with Strike and Defense.

With the current setup we have 3 separate factors in place, The Soldier, The Weapon and The Tech. The base cost and power of the soldier doesn't change, The different weapons that the soldier is equipped with can be researched and results in better weapons and Techs can be researches separately to provide an overall better individual unit.

However this is not the situation with the Airforce. Here we have 4 Units, One purely defensive, two purely offensive and one that is both defensive and offensive, this is fine and workable but the improvements for each unit have all been rolled into a single process that is both costly and includes steps that do nothing.

My personal preference would have been to separate the improvements for the Unit and the Munitions thus getting something along the lines of SAMs and Aircraft being like Weapons Research and Munitions being like Tech research.

The actual costs of the current Techs are fine but I still believe that the initial costs are far to expensive and believe that it would have been better to have more generations overall and started off with less powerful and cheaper options. Since soldiers start out with nothing and the first weapon is a knife it make more sense to start simpler. You could have had a couple of Anti Aircraft weapons before jumping into SAM's and likewise there were plenty of options for different Fighters and Bombers with Helicopters becoming available after some research had been completed. I think that possibly you have been swayed by the incomes that many players now have and have forgotten that it takes new players time to build up their income.

I would also have renamed the Starport to Airport as nothing currently coded fits in any way with a space theme.

One final Point, where is the covert side of the equation and how long before we will see something. It's all very well seeing an overall Airforce action but it is rather pointless to mount an attack if you cannot get some idea as to what opposition you will be facing

by Kenzu Tue Feb 21, 2012 12:42 pm

Nomad wrote:
Kenzu wrote:
Nomad wrote:
Ohh @ Kenzu,,,

I do like the links added in the top forum banner to get you in the games themselves. Nice touch.
You can thank Manleva for this, as it was Manleva who made me aware of this feature.

Thanks Manleva.

Maybe you should allow someone like Manleva to help you make these forums all they can be.

I'm always open for good suggestions. If Manleva or anyone else come up with something else we can make work on this forum, then please let me know.

Manleva wrote:Well I have to say that I have been trying to follow this discussion but I have to say that from what I can see we are only going around in circles and it is getting harder and harder to follow. Basically I am even more confused that I was before it all started.

Hopefully this will get some responses that will clarify the issues.

1. Attack ratio of 1:1 - I do not see this as a ratio that we are used to and I think that is part of the confusion. My understanding is that it is a Kuwal for Kuwal ratio with equal amounts of damage in Kuwal terms being done to both sides. This will mean that while players are at different generation levels UNIT losses will be different

2 That being said I still do not like the implementation as it stands and find it at odds with the existing systems in place. Since all current Airforce Units are battle units the cannot be compared with Spies or Assassins but can be compared with Strike and Defense.

Why not? Assassins for example are pretty similar to attack soldiers as both types of units destroy units. Spies are a little bit special because they destroy weapons and not units.
But airforce units destroy units (airforce units) and weapons (munition that is being used to destroy them).
I find land units comparable to airforce units and land weapons comparable to airforce weapons (munition)

With the current setup we have 3 separate factors in place, The Soldier, The Weapon and The Tech. The base cost and power of the soldier doesn't change, The different weapons that the soldier is equipped with can be researched and results in better weapons and Techs can be researches separately to provide an overall better individual unit.

How about we call the soldier a unit. Then we have for both land and air, three types: units, weapons and techs.

Land unit:
carries 1 weapon,
kill:death ratio depends on weapon tech and additional techs
weapon is used until unit dies

Airforce unit:
carries 10 weapon
kill:death ratio depends on weapon tech and unit tech
each weapon can be used only once and a unit uses one weapon per attack

I think there are some similarities.

However this is not the situation with the Airforce. Here we have 4 Units, One purely defensive, two purely offensive and one that is both defensive and offensive, this is fine and workable but the improvements for each unit have all been rolled into a single process that is both costly and includes steps that do nothing.

My personal preference would have been to separate the improvements for the Unit and the Munitions thus getting something along the lines of SAMs and Aircraft being like Weapons Research and Munitions being like Tech research.

I applaud your suggestion. I also support separating unit and munition research and getting rid of the "tech that unlocks new generations"

The actual costs of the current Techs are fine but I still believe that the initial costs are far to expensive and believe that it would have been better to have more generations overall and started off with less powerful and cheaper options. Since soldiers start out with nothing and the first weapon is a knife it make more sense to start simpler. You could have had a couple of Anti Aircraft weapons before jumping into SAM's and likewise there were plenty of options for different Fighters and Bombers with Helicopters becoming available after some research had been completed. I think that possibly you have been swayed by the incomes that many players now have and have forgotten that it takes new players time to build up their income.

Good point, except that 50 billion is not much. Any new player can sell 400 attack turns in the trade center and will have the necessary 50 billion to make the first SAM research.
But maybe players could have some backward air defense from the start without research. Not very efficient, but at least they are not completely powerless against enemy air units.

More generations sounds like a good idea too.

I would also have renamed the Starport to Airport as nothing currently coded fits in any way with a space theme.

You are right! Airport makes more sense!

One final Point, where is the covert side of the equation and how long before we will see something. It's all very well seeing an overall Airforce action but it is rather pointless to mount an attack if you cannot get some idea as to what opposition you will be facing

I really hope admin will listen to your suggestions!

by Nomad Tue Feb 21, 2012 2:47 pm

Even tho they are the same, I would like to bring up another difference in Ground Force Attacks and AF attacks.

It has been proven time and time again in battles that the strongest weapon is not always the most efficent. Often times you can get a better cost ratio when a force has 1 or 2 levels below another. While the UU kill ratio is often better for the high weapon classed army, the overall kewal cost ratio is often better for the lower weapon classed army. This will not carry over to AF attacks.

I also wonder why you can not buy lower classed weapons and munitions? The problem I am experiancing is I can not keep the 10 to 1 ratio needed for maximum power. All the lower leveled generations of weapons and munitions are getting skewed in their count.

3 possible suggestions to solve this. (if you even see it as an issue, and if not please just say so)

1. Allow purchase of lower generations of weapons and munitions, or atleast munitions as long as you have 1 weapon of that generation

2. Allow the sale of all lower generations of weapons and munitions at 100% of their cost so they can be sold and turned into present generation weapons at minimul cost (biggest being time lost building them)

3. Allow older generations to simply be "upgraded". By paying the difference in price between generations you upgrade it to the newest generation. A better option to 2. from a players perspective as you do not lose the build time.

by Kenzu Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:55 pm

why would you want to buy a lower generation at all if the newer generation has no disadvantages?

the issue you mention is nothing compared to the advantage you have by using better generation, in other words, buying worse generation never makes sense.

It's a good idea to make weapons upgradable, but why allowing weapons to be sold at 100% of its price? What's wrong with selling them for 50% price or using them?

by Manleva Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:07 am

@ Kenzu - I did not compare the Airforce units to Assassins for the simple reason that I am not discussing a comparison of their abilities but rather how they are researched and Improved. With Assassins you simply Train them and improve them by researching Techs, you do not arm them as well.

If you want to simplify things and equate Airforce and Land Units and then call Munitions the equivalent of the Weapon used by a land unit and use Techs to alter the Kill:Death ratio that's fine. However using this option means that there needs to be a justification for a change in the cost of the Base Airforce Units. Land Units do not change in cost.

Also your costing analysis for New players is false. 50 Bil for Generation 1 is not that great when taken on it's own and also given the ability to build up to this by using partial payments. However there is also a lot of Construction that must be paid for before you can even build 1 unit and no way to pay for it except in 1 single payment. Given that new players only start with a 50 Million bank account and they also will be wanting to build their account in other ways as well it will mean that there will be a lot of Kuwal at risk. This amount will not seam like much to many existing players but it would obviously be a temptation to other new players.

@ Nomad - I can agree with point one, you should be able to purchase any of the Aircraft, Sam's and munitions that you have researched. I would even be happy if there was a downward limit of 6 Generations if more are added.

For point 2 I cannot agree to selling at 100% of cost. Currently any weapon you sell is sold for less than it costs to produce so I cannot see the justification. I look at it more like selling a used car, Unless it a special model in short supply anyone would laugh at you if you tried to sell it at the same price you brought it for when it was new.

Point 3 is not a bad option and better than point 2 however I think that there need to be some time involved for the upgrade process, possibly a 1 to 4 ratio meaning that a factory that can build i unit from scratch is capable of upgrading 4 in the same time period.

Again @ Kenzu - Why would I want to build a lower Generation - Simply put I'm at war, I had more Airforce than you and have destroyed all of yours and crippled you Airforce and munitions factories. I'm now going after your ground forces with my airforce before using my land forces and spending less of the Airforce means more can be spent on the land based units who along with their weapons can be produced at a much faster rate.

A reasonable sell rate would be one that matches the Current Weapons Rate, of course I would also expect to see a black market as well.

by Kenzu Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:40 am

Why does it matter so much how much units cost?
The only difference will be that if they are more expensive you will have less of them. And when armies are in the millions, it's normal that airforces will be in the thousands.

USA for example has a total of 1,129,275 soldiers (Regular army + National Guard + Reserve), but has only 5,573 aircraft.

Also, everyone knows that air units are more costly than land units.

M1A2 US tank costs around 6 million USD

Air units:
Raptor (Fighter) 150 million
F-15E Strike Eagle (Fighter) 100 million
AH-64 Apache (Helicopter) 18 million
A-10 Thunderbolt II (Ground) 12 million
AC-130 Spectre (Ground) 130-190 million
B-1 Lancer (Bomber) 452 million
B-2 Spirit (Bomber) 1 billion

In Aderan Wars AF units cost 100-200 million and Mobile Artillery 522,000. I think the costs we have reflect the real world prices pretty well!

by Nomad Wed Feb 22, 2012 3:56 pm

@ Manleva,,,

I totally agree with you on "true" cost of the first AF upgrade. Kenzu is only able to see how things effect him in his present state. He never has been able to look at things from all angles and from all account states from smallest to largest.

As for upgrading I think using the existing system is fine. If you can build 1,000 per turn then you can upgrade 1,000 per turn. No need to change unless you just wanted to.(many real life upgrades take longer then building from scratch)

As for why I suggested resale at 100% is simple. The game FORCES you to have worthless or unuseable units. By not allowing you to buy munitions for lower generations, coupled with an uneven weapon loss to munitions used ratio I keep ending up with far less munitions then weapons of a select generation.

@ Kenzu,,,,

You ask why anyone would buy lower generations? If that does not explain it to you I have no other way to express it. Having 10 to 1 munitions to weapons is not a viable system. If you buy 20 to 1 you will have munitions left after the weapons are gone. If you buy 10 to 1 you will have weapons left after the munitions are gone. Neither is the players fault, both are a fault in the system the players should not be punished for.

What is so wrong with allowing munition purchases of past generations to keep them at full power? I am fine with forcing us to buy the most up to date or newest weapons, but then removing our ability to buy munitions for weapons in stock is just a shitty system.

Since your hung up on real life examples, here is one for you.

China has a fleet of 2000 year model Ford Crown Victoria cab's. They upgrade there expanding fleet with 2010 year model Ford Taurus. Well they can still buy parts for the older vehicles to keep them running!?!?!?! You guys are saying if they have 1000 Crown Vic's and buy 10 Taurus then they can no longer buy parts for the older vehicles which is complete balogna.

I am not asking you to agree with me, just tell me if you see the validity in the point being made, and in the Fact you will end up with useless weapons or munitions sooner or later. Lord firbid someone make a mistake and buy a fleet of a certain generation and before they can get munition built buy another generation. They did it to themselves yes, but they really would be screwed.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:44 pm

Nomad wrote:@ Manleva,,,

I totally agree with you on "true" cost of the first AF upgrade. Kenzu is only able to see how things effect him in his present state. He never has been able to look at things from all angles and from all account states from smallest to largest.

As for upgrading I think using the existing system is fine. If you can build 1,000 per turn then you can upgrade 1,000 per turn. No need to change unless you just wanted to.(many real life upgrades take longer then building from scratch)

As for why I suggested resale at 100% is simple. The game FORCES you to have worthless or unuseable units. By not allowing you to buy munitions for lower generations, coupled with an uneven weapon loss to munitions used ratio I keep ending up with far less munitions then weapons of a select generation.

@ Kenzu,,,,

You ask why anyone would buy lower generations? If that does not explain it to you I have no other way to express it. Having 10 to 1 munitions to weapons is not a viable system. If you buy 20 to 1 you will have munitions left after the weapons are gone. If you buy 10 to 1 you will have weapons left after the munitions are gone. Neither is the players fault, both are a fault in the system the players should not be punished for.

What is so wrong with allowing munition purchases of past generations to keep them at full power? I am fine with forcing us to buy the most up to date or newest weapons, but then removing our ability to buy munitions for weapons in stock is just a shitty system.

Since your hung up on real life examples, here is one for you.

China has a fleet of 2000 year model Ford Crown Victoria cab's. They upgrade there expanding fleet with 2010 year model Ford Taurus. Well they can still buy parts for the older vehicles to keep them running!?!?!?! You guys are saying if they have 1000 Crown Vic's and buy 10 Taurus then they can no longer buy parts for the older vehicles which is complete balogna.

I am not asking you to agree with me, just tell me if you see the validity in the point being made, and in the Fact you will end up with useless weapons or munitions sooner or later. Lord firbid someone make a mistake and buy a fleet of a certain generation and before they can get munition built buy another generation. They did it to themselves yes, but they really would be screwed.

I am waiting on them, (admin or kenzu) to tell you to sell off your lower generation weapons, (the ones you can no longer buy/build munitions for) & build only the weapons/munitions that you have the ability to. (the highest generation you have accessed...)

I brought up this very issue when AF was first put out on test, & that is basicly what I was told... (there was an issue of not having a "sell" button so I could sell off the older gen weapons & munitions because my hangars were full of unuseable weapons/ munitions for about 10 days- 2 weeks... could not build new, could not use the old...

& before anyone gets riled up, sit back & think for a second...

If I have just purchased the ability to build gen3 fighters, or any of the others, I automatically lose the ability to build any of the other generations,(1/2) regardless of what I actually have in stock, & I agree that it is a bit on the crappy side that I have to waste precious kuwal selling perfectly good weapons or munitions for half the cost to build them or less because I do not have the ability to build the weapons or munitions of the same type I still have in stock, if you do not agree then that is fine with me. just do not tell me that my opinion is wrong. If I still have the ability to build weapons or munitions of the lower gens I still have in stock then please tell me how to do it as there is currently no way shown on my starport page atm...

by Nomad Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:52 pm

Another good point Kong, I had forgot about the hangers and the "room" issues they present.

This is why I asked for the option to sell at 100% cost any unit "other" then top tier. They should remain at 50% or what ever the current it. OR to allow the upgrading of existing weapons and munitions to the current generation level. The second option makes the most sense, and is the lest destructive from the players perspective.

We are already forced to waste an entire upgrade cost on an upgrade that gives no return in power increase, and now we are forced to sell perfectly good weapons and munitions at 1/2 price plus losing all the time invested building them, and stopping you from build more until they are finished. Taking hangers into consideration you will be forced to rebuild your entire AF everytime you go up a generation.

by Manleva Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:25 pm

@ Kong - Earlier on I found that because of the way that you research the Techs you can find yourself in a position where by the weapon is one generation ahead of the munition. i.e. the research order is weapon generation then munition generation then the useless waste of kuwal then the next weapon generation and so on.

Because of this I found myself able to still produce both weapons and munitions and use them. As I was testing the ground force action against players with no Airforce I was suffering no losses. At the time I thought that I could happily use the earlier generation munitions with the later generation weapons but I cannot confirm this as fact.

I think this is now a point that needs clarification ie can the Weapons utilize earlier generation munitions?

if they cannot for what ever reason then this needs to be clearly stated so that players are aware of the fact that if they are not careful they can find themselves in a situation where while they may think that they have a reasonable force what in fact they have is useless.

if the weapon will not use the previous generations of munitions in stock then extreme care will need to be taken by the players when upgrading especially at the higher generations where the cost is proportionally higher. You actually would not want to build the weapons until you has researched the munitions as well simply because the weapon would be useless and once the weapon was researched you would be hoping like hell that war did not break out until the munition was researched.

@Kenzu - I cannot disagree with your logic. All I can say is just because something is logical does not mean that people will all want to do it. Some people may simply prefer to have 1,000,000 generation units as opposed to 6579 generation 6 units simply because they like the look of the numbers. What the logical is not always right.

by Nomad Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:13 pm

I can confirm yes a generation 6 can and will use munitions of Generation 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

The problem comes in as loss of power, and a generation 1 weapon can NOT use generation 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Since munitions are used up faster then weapons are lost sooner or later you have 3 otions

1. sell for massive kewal losses
2. End up with useless weapons with no useable munitions
3. Accept loss of power from using past generations of munitions on up to dat weapondry rendering it less and less effective.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:22 pm

Manleva wrote:@ Kong - Earlier on I found that because of the way that you research the Techs you can find yourself in a position where by the weapon is one generation ahead of the munition. i.e. the research order is weapon generation then munition generation then the useless waste of kuwal then the next weapon generation and so on.

Because of this I found myself able to still produce both weapons and munitions and use them. As I was testing the ground force action against players with no Airforce I was suffering no losses. At the time I thought that I could happily use the earlier generation munitions with the later generation weapons but I cannot confirm this as fact.

I think this is now a point that needs clarification ie can the Weapons utilize earlier generation munitions?

if they cannot for what ever reason then this needs to be clearly stated so that players are aware of the fact that if they are not careful they can find themselves in a situation where while they may think that they have a reasonable force what in fact they have is useless.

if the weapon will not use the previous generations of munitions in stock then extreme care will need to be taken by the players when upgrading especially at the higher generations where the cost is proportionally higher. You actually would not want to build the weapons until you has researched the munitions as well simply because the weapon would be useless and once the weapon was researched you would be hoping like hell that war did not break out until the munition was researched.
It never occurred to me that gen3 weapons could use anything but gen3 munitions, (I do not recall reading anything anywhere saying one way or the other so I "assumed" (gonna quit doing that) that a particular generation weapon could only use the same generation munitions.)(think about it this way, can a M1911 .45 acp fire .357 mag ammo? no it cannot. so why would I think that gen3 weapons could fire gen1/2 munitions? that was my line of thinking). Also in researching generations I never built anything until I had kuwal enough to build both weapons & munitions of the same generation, (example I "researched & got" gen3 fighters only when I had enough kuwal to get both weapon & munitions at the same time, it cost me 1,250,000,000,000 kuwal as I recall. Also lets not forget that I had to sell off all my gen2 stock to make room for the incoming gen3 as there wasn't enough time to build more hangars.

@Kenzu - I cannot disagree with your logic. All I can say is just because something is logical does not mean that people will all want to do it. Some people may simply prefer to have 1,000,000 generation units as opposed to 6579 generation 6 units simply because they like the look of the numbers. What the logical is not always right.
Good luck getting kenzu to understand this fact, I tried to explain the exact same thing to him but it apparently didn't sink in.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Feb 22, 2012 7:32 pm

Nomad wrote:I can confirm yes a generation 6 can and will use munitions of Generation 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1.

The problem comes in as loss of power, and a generation 1 weapon can NOT use generation 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6. Since munitions are used up faster then weapons are lost sooner or later you have 3 otions

1. sell for massive kewal losses
2. End up with useless weapons with no useable munitions
3. Accept loss of power from using past generations of munitions on up to dat weapondry rendering it less and less effective.

In a way I wish I had known this info earlier, in a way I am glad I did not, had I known earlier this convo would have been had weeks ago, & I wouldn't have wasted the kuwal I have doing the research in the manner in which I have, I would have gone about things differently... thanks for explaining to me now so I can adjust how I do things.

by Admin Wed Feb 22, 2012 8:20 pm

Nomad wrote:Another good point Kong, I had forgot about the hangers and the "room" issues they present.

This is why I asked for the option to sell at 100% cost any unit "other" then top tier. They should remain at 50% or what ever the current it. OR to allow the upgrading of existing weapons and munitions to the current generation level. The second option makes the most sense, and is the lest destructive from the players perspective.

We are already forced to waste an entire upgrade cost on an upgrade that gives no return in power increase, and now we are forced to sell perfectly good weapons and munitions at 1/2 price plus losing all the time invested building them, and stopping you from build more until they are finished. Taking hangers into consideration you will be forced to rebuild your entire AF everytime you go up a generation.

Might I point out that this is what happens when you upgrade to a new weapon level?
You have 2 choices, keep using up those weapons and slowly replace them with more powerful versions

Technically you're better off throwing those lower gen versions against an enemy and then building the new version. Since you recover 50% of the kuwal, but the weapons are only 10% weaker than the generation above them

Aside of that, even in RL it is not possible to upgrade a Generation 4 Fighter to a Generation 5 Standard. There have been upgrade kits available to get it to a 4.5 Generation but more often than not it's actually a brand new construction of the Generation 4 frame with upgraded technologies (which means either way you're buying a new fighter and left with the "old")

Also, selling sold lower gen vehicles (tanks, aircraft) only usually nets you a fraction of the cost you normally pay to get a fresh unit.

by kingkongfan1 Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:15 am

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:Another good point Kong, I had forgot about the hangers and the "room" issues they present.

This is why I asked for the option to sell at 100% cost any unit "other" then top tier. They should remain at 50% or what ever the current it. OR to allow the upgrading of existing weapons and munitions to the current generation level. The second option makes the most sense, and is the lest destructive from the players perspective.

We are already forced to waste an entire upgrade cost on an upgrade that gives no return in power increase, and now we are forced to sell perfectly good weapons and munitions at 1/2 price plus losing all the time invested building them, and stopping you from build more until they are finished. Taking hangers into consideration you will be forced to rebuild your entire AF everytime you go up a generation.
Might I point out that this is what happens when you upgrade to a new weapon level?
You have 2 choices, keep using up those weapons and slowly replace them with more powerful versions

Technically you're better off throwing those lower gen versions against an enemy and then building the new version. Since you recover 50% of the kuwal, but the weapons are only 10% weaker than the generation above them

Aside of that, even in RL it is not possible to upgrade a Generation 4 Fighter to a Generation 5 Standard. There have been upgrade kits available to get it to a 4.5 Generation but more often than not it's actually a brand new construction of the Generation 4 frame with upgraded technologies (which means either way you're buying a new fighter and left with the "old")
I swear that I am not trying to be an ass; but you are still missing the point... gen2 fighters WILL NOT fire anything but gen1/2 munitions. why do I have to sell off perfectly good weapons? I could not build anymore gen1/2 fighter munitions after I upgraded to gen3 weapons & munitions because the option to build gen1/2 weapons was taken away from me. gen2 fighters WILL NOT fire gen3 munition from my understanding so what was I supposed to do with the gen2 fighters I had? could not buy/build gen1/2 munitions for them, or use gen3 munitions. all they were doing was taking up precious hangar space preventing me from building any gen3 fighters. please tell me what other option I had other than to sell? I could not use them...
I thought it was posted by manleva or nomad, but I cannot find it so I will ask this question- "is it possible for a lower generation weapon to fire a higher generation munitions?" (example- can gen2 fighters fire gen3 munitions?). if it can then that is something else I was not aware of...

Also, selling sold lower gen vehicles (tanks, aircraft) only usually nets you a fraction of the cost you normally pay to get a fresh unit.

I would also like to add that nowhere in here...

Spoiler:

or here...

Spoiler:

does it "SPECIFICALLY" state that any weapon of a higher generation may use any munition of a lower generation. this is why I "ASSUMED" it wasn't possible. I would have assumed that if it were possible that there would have been a statement saying something along the lines of... "It is possible that higher generation weapons can use lower generations munitions"... but anyway.

Also, first you say this...

Spoiler:

it is a 1:1 kill/lose ratio, then you backtrack & say...

Spoiler:

that it is only a 1:1 kill ratio on the "first" attack...

when you continually go back & change what you are telling us, do you not see where that can/will/does cause confusion on the part of us players?

A clear, concise explaination of what is, what will be, & what is being considered, is all I am looking for...

As I said, I am not trying to be an ass, I am just trying to understand. (for the record, I do not have the years of experience in this type of game that other players may have, I played sgw for 3 weeks before quitting, & have played AW for the last 2+ years, so please forgive me for not having the same kind of experience & understanding that some other players & yourself have as to how these types of games work, cause tbh all I know is what I have seen here in AW...)

by Admin Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:29 am

kingkongfan1 wrote:
I swear that I am not trying to be an ass; but you are still missing the point... gen2 fighters WILL NOT fire anything but gen1/2 munitions. why do I have to sell off perfectly good weapons? I could not build anymore gen1/2 fighter munitions after I upgraded to gen3 weapons & munitions because the option to build gen1/2 weapons was taken away from me. gen2 fighters WILL NOT fire gen3 munition from my understanding so what was I supposed to do with the gen2 fighters I had? could not buy/build gen1/2 munitions for them, or use gen3 munitions. all they were doing was taking up precious hangar space preventing me from building any gen3 fighters. please tell me what other option I had other than to sell? I could not use them...
I thought it was posted by manleva or nomad, but I cannot find it so I will ask this question- "is it possible for a lower generation weapon to fire a higher generation munitions?" (example- can gen2 fighters fire gen3 munitions?). if it can then that is something else I was not aware of...
Any generation of unit can use any generation of munition

I would also like to add that nowhere in here...

does it "SPECIFICALLY" state that any weapon of a higher generation may use any munition of a lower generation. this is why I "ASSUMED" it wasn't possible. I would have assumed that if it were possible that there would have been a statement saying something along the lines of... "It is possible that higher generation weapons can use lower generations munitions"... but anyway.
actually if there is such an exclusion, it would make more sense to state that than stating the opposite. but I guess that depends on the observer. Really, I would have never been able to make such connection
hence i'm kinda in a WTF state in terms of what kind of ways you guys are thinking up how to make this system appear screwed up in order to dislike it

Just think about which alternative makes the system easier, that alternative will be chosen unless explicitly stated otherwise

Also, first you say this...

Spoiler:

it is a 1:1 kill/lose ratio, then you backtrack & say...

I dont backtrack, you're either not reading at all or not bothering to think how massing works, it's not rocket science, read it again

when you continually go back & change what you are telling us, do you not see where that can/will/does cause confusion on the part of us players?
it would cause confusion if i were actually going back and changing stuff, alas that is not the case

A clear, concise explaination of what is, what will be, & what is being considered, is all I am looking for...
It has already been posted and you just copy pasted it in your quotes

So, imagine the sabotage example again and imagine AF is used to kill enemy spies with a 1:1 kill ratio.
How would normally the rest of the massing proceed against a target with no covert?
What kind of kill ratio will you be able achieve overall?

ALSO

kingkongfan1 wrote:
I would also like to add that nowhere in here...

Kenzu wrote:In all missions best units are armed first, if more missiles are available, less good units will be armed too.
best missiles are being used first, but if more missiles are necessary to arm all units, then less good missiles are used too.

does it "SPECIFICALLY" state that any weapon of a higher generation may use any munition of a lower generation. this is why I "ASSUMED" it wasn't possible. I would have assumed that if it were possible that there would have been a statement saying something along the lines of... "It is possible that higher generation weapons can use lower generations munitions"... but anyway.
Kenzu wrote: In all missions best units are armed first, ... best missiles are being used first, but if more missiles are necessary to arm all units,then less good missiles are used too

Sorry but this is proof that you dont bother to read the posts, kenzu explicitly has written what you claim AND QUOTE that he didn't

And if you read whole part again you'll also notice he says "less good units will be armed too" which by implication results in lower generation units using higher generation munition

Which just keeps returning me to my assumption that you apparently wish the airforce to be as screwed up as possible, hence refuse any extra information/make up stuff/or otherwise claim bullhorns
And if you refuse to read the posts, then why do you post afterwards that you aren't given any information and hence make false assumptions

by Sponsored content