Re: Airforce battle system

by kingkongfan1 Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:27 am

Admin wrote:
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
thank you for this answer, now we all know, would it have been so hard to say this from the beginning to keep any confusion from happening?

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
on the contrary to this statement, I am NOT trying to think up ways to make this system appear screwed up in order not to like it... I am just trying to understand what you & kenzu are saying about it, & neither of you are making it easy.

Just think about which alternative makes the system easier, that alternative will be chosen unless explicitly stated otherwise
I have no clue what you mean by this, sorry.

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
whatever

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 this is what you call a clear, concise explaination? ok, I'm starting to understand the real problem here.
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.
"then less good missiles are used too". you are seriously gonna tell me that I am supposed to know what this means? "then less good missiles are used too" for what? I am supposed to instinctively know that "all generations of weapons will fire all generations of munitions" that is total bs.

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
I am expected to understand this gibberish?
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
Sorry, wrong again, I did read it, I just cannot understand what kenzu is prattling on about. there is a difference.

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
like I am supposed to know what that means either?...

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
I will say this one last time, I wish nothing but to understand. if you cannot hear what I am saying then I pity you.
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.
there is a difference between reading something, or reading & understanding something. I have read EVERY post several times over, asked questions when I didn't understand, & I admittedly do not understand a lot. had players try to explain stuff to me off forums. I have asked you several times over to explain things like you would to a 3 year old, but you wont.

I fully understand the issues at hand here now, it took 2+ years to figure it out... it has to do with communication, a language barrier so to speak, whatever language you & kenzu & a few others speak, I do not, I cannot understand what you are saying, I thought that in time I could learn it, but I was wrong. so please accept my apologies for any harm I have done, & do us all a favor by deleting my forum acct. I am done here there is no more for me to say...

by Manleva Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:42 am

@ Kong - don't worry to much. You are correct when you identify the main issue as being a communication problem. It is not uncommon and occurs in many forums. I also have problems understanding a lot of the responses posted but I have to say that Admins responses are generally easier to follow and understand than Kenzu's.

That being said I can also have problems understanding what you Americans post at times (we all live in hope that one day you will learn to use real English)

@Admin - The main reason you keep seeing the same questions over and over again is simply because we do not clearly understand what is being communicated. This is not really anyone's fault but more due to the fact that we all use and speak the English language in a different way. If memory serves me correct I saw it posted somewhere that Kenzu is a Russian living in Austria. Because of this I would draw the conclusion that that English would most likely be his third language and as such I think that he probably uses English in a more technically correct way than those of us who have it as a first language.

A good bit of advice about communication is "Seek to understand before being understood."

by Nomad Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:28 pm

Well it has been asked for time and time again for Martin to speak instead of Kenzu. The more it is asked for the more Martin has Kenzu speak for him.

Even when asked Direct questions about word useage Neither of them would reply. Perfect ecample is the word Lend. I clear asked both of them for a definition from their side, and gave the definition from my side. I never got a response, and still to this day have to believe that both martin and kenzu use the word for 2 totally different things.

Kenzu used lend to mean both "lending as in to give" and "borrowing as in to receive". I cleary defined the difference in the 2 and asked for a clear definition from them,,,,,,,,,, I'm still waiting on that one.

But even just a few posts ago from admin himself we get babble like "everything is identical, Except for the differences". I guess it is a communication error because where I come from nothing can be identical if it has differences.

I just wish both side would actually attempt to understand the other istead of getting all pissy, defensive, and refusing to answer direct well explained (or atleast percieved to be) questions. Its like we overstep the "little things" such as word definitions and useage, to fight over bigger things such as AF systems when it is obvious both sides do not understand what the other is saying.

Simple question to Admin Martin.
*In ground force battles, doesn't the attacking force loose a higher % of units then the defending force on any standard battle with both size using identical weapondry, levels, PBP, and tech's?
*If the answer is no please explain when it changed, because in times past the attacker has always suffered higher losses as a way to protect those weaker, smaller, and newer in the game. It stops the killing of noobies for profit
*If the answer is yes, then I ask you how can AF battles and GF battles be "identical"? In these questions we will already put aside the agreed upon differences of Tech,s and PBP that are known differences.

**Edit**
Oh and I forgot, You have bugs in test because what you describe as above where all weapons can use every generation, well you may "say" thats what is "suppose" to happen,,,, but in reality that is NOT what IS happening ingame. Unless you want to change your explination yet again to state weapons will use their own generation munitions first, before using the most powerful avalible. I am sure you will say there is no difference there either but I assure you there most definitely is.

by Kenzu Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:53 pm

I have to admit I have as well stumbled upon sentences which seemed to make no sense whatsoever, written by native speakers, I assume Americans, even though I understood the meaning of every single word used. Usually these were some expressions not used internationally.

@Nomad
You know, when someone asks a question and I am around, I answer it, so that the person doesn't have to wait for admin. In 99% of cases I will tell you the same thing as admin. If I am not sure, I will say that too. Because most people simply want a true answer. If guys like you are unhappy with my response, you can wait until admin has time to reply.

Manleva wrote:
@Admin - The main reason you keep seeing the same questions over and over again is simply because we do not clearly understand what is being communicated. This is not really anyone's fault but more due to the fact that we all use and speak the English language in a different way. If memory serves me correct I saw it posted somewhere that Kenzu is a Russian living in Austria. Because of this I would draw the conclusion that that English would most likely be his third language and as such I think that he probably uses English in a more technically correct way than those of us who have it as a first language.
A good bit of advice about communication is "Seek to understand before being understood."

Wow, you guessed the 3rd language part right. You probably assume that German is my second language and I started learning English after I moved to Austria, but actually German is my fourth language and I moved to Austria years after I started learning English.

by Admin Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:58 pm

Nomad wrote:
Simple question to Admin Martin.
*In ground force battles, doesn't the attacking force loose a higher % of units then the defending force on any standard battle with both size using identical weapondry, levels, PBP, and tech's?
yes, base losses are:
att 5%, def 4%
*If the answer is no please explain when it changed, because in times past the attacker has always suffered higher losses as a way to protect those weaker, smaller, and newer in the game. It stops the killing of noobies for profit
*If the answer is yes, then I ask you how can AF battles and GF battles be "identical"? In these questions we will already put aside the agreed upon differences of Tech,s and PBP that are known differences.
they are identical in the sense that sending MORE forces will not get you a BETTER KILL RATE
because kill rate was the topic of discussion

**Edit**
Oh and I forgot, You have bugs in test because what you describe as above where all weapons can use every generation, well you may "say" thats what is "suppose" to happen,,,, but in reality that is NOT what IS happening ingame. Unless you want to change your explination yet again to state weapons will use their own generation munitions first, before using the most powerful avalible. I am sure you will say there is no difference there either but I assure you there most definitely is.
post a bug report then of what you notice. as long as it's the same type (fighter,sam,heli,bomber) then each unit SHOULD work with every generation of munition

About the english part, mine and kenzu's english are on par with a native speaker.
It's rather the problem that written communication is usually error prone if exact wording is required and one doesn't spend much time proofreading and correcting the text (hence the reason why law texts are written the way they do)

Manleva wrote:A good bit of advice about communication is "Seek to understand before being understood."

that was the reason why I offered king to try and think about it himself giving him an easy to imagine scenario which he can run through instead of mindlessly reading my posts and ignoring anything he does not understand.
I was literally out of options in trying to explain it myself
It wouldn't work if I would be taking everything people write here word by word instead of actually trying to figure out what they wanted to say instead of they have actually written (funnily enough which has also caused us problems a bunch of times)

by Nomad Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:58 am

And you honestly can not understand my confusion and frustration when still now after pointing out 5 seperate "differences" yet you still insist they are "identical"?

And for the record,,,, You may be on the topic of specificly just loss ratio and no other aspect,,, but I was not.

As for bug report, I made it here in rebuttle to you. If you want more info check Kenzu's logs,,, where the last bug was found. logs are still there.

by Admin Fri Feb 24, 2012 1:34 pm

Nomad wrote:And for the record,,,, You may be on the topic of specificly just loss ratio and no other aspect,,, but I was not.

All we ever talked about was loss ratio, you know this whole 1:1 kill rate business which was also the reason why claims were made that main is becoming RA copy or something

by Nomad Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:29 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:And for the record,,,, You may be on the topic of specificly just loss ratio and no other aspect,,, but I was not.
All we ever talked about was loss ratio, you know this whole 1:1 kill rate business which was also the reason why claims were made that main is becoming RA copy or something

No the 1 to 1 ratio was brought up and you single it out. I did not. It is why I have stated time and time again that the "differences" are what make AF and GF attacks "not identical". You never stated the loss ratio is identical, you said the attacks are. Which we have proven many times over are not identical. This subject is settled. I understand the parts that are the same, and the parts that are different, and I assume you do as well. There is no need in continuing as its taking away from the topic. So lets get back to it.

by Manleva Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:28 pm

Nomad wrote:
Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:And for the record,,,, You may be on the topic of specificly just loss ratio and no other aspect,,, but I was not.
All we ever talked about was loss ratio, you know this whole 1:1 kill rate business which was also the reason why claims were made that main is becoming RA copy or something

No the 1 to 1 ratio was brought up and you single it out. I did not. It is why I have stated time and time again that the "differences" are what make AF and GF attacks "not identical". You never stated the loss ratio is identical, you said the attacks are. Which we have proven many times over are not identical. This subject is settled. I understand the parts that are the same, and the parts that are different, and I assume you do as well. There is no need in continuing as its taking away from the topic. So lets get back to it.

This actually explains much of what the underlying issue are. We will start on one very distinct topic and expand on it, bring other points of interest and concerns into the discussion, meanwhile Admin will stick totally to one single point.

This leaves us with two options going forward

1. read through the entire thread and then create a new topic for every single different question and concern we have raised so that we can get answers for all of them or,
2. Admin reads beck through the entire thread and joins us in the complete discussion answering all of the questions and concerns.

My preference is obviously for option 2. it is far more relevant to the whole discussion because everything is inter related. We are in fact trying to understand the whole concept behind the Airforce implementation and not just very small and distinct parts. What we want really is a full conversation that is not restricted to the original matter at hand. A conversation that will wander about from one place to another where we all feel happy that we are getting somewhere, where all of us can help and clarify each others points or reword things so that we all gain the same understanding.

@ Admin, While I can understand you feelings that you can use English as well as those of us who have it as a native language, from what I have read you in fact use it better than Kenzu and please remember that really there is no native English. KingkongFan1 and Nomad speak the same English, Rebel and I speak the same English. Kong and Nomad are Americans while Rebel and I are not ans while we all speak English as our native language we use it in very different ways so even we can have difficulties understanding each other.

@Kenzu - It was an educated guess that put English as your third language and it was not based on the order in which you learnt the languages so much as to their usage. I simply assumed Russian was your first language as you had said you were from Russia, I also assumed German would be or be classed as your second language as you live in a German speaking country. I also thought that there was the distinct possibility that there was a forth language but did not include it as it was not relevant to the discussion.

by Admin Sat Feb 25, 2012 12:41 am

[quote="Manleva"]This actually explains much of what the underlying issue are. We will start on one very distinct topic and expand on it, bring other points of interest and concerns into the discussion, meanwhile Admin will stick totally to one single point./quote]
The cause is twofold, I think, (though I agree with the rest of what you said)

1) quotes upon quotes (which is a direct consequences of branching of those other points of interest) result into posts that would stretch over several screens of text, by the end you forgot the start (hell, same with law texts, there's often SENTENCES that stretch over 50-80 words)
2) people posting over each other, so infos get lost, I might reply to 2-3 posts at the same time but even if a question is asked by multiple people, i'll only answer it once in that post. So others might miss out on the response if they only read their part first

by Nomad Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:03 am

I agree with Manleva about being able to understand you far more then Kenzu,, and I agree with his request for more communications from and with you.. More chats would be nice but I also understand the constraints and load that places on you as a person and an admin

I also agree with the two fold statement, and the quotes upon quotes. Its why I have asked for things to be broken up. I often figure things out when they are discussed by more then 2 people (Me and The other) Many times Kong or Manleva say it in a way I understand, and I am much more likely to understand a full and complete explination for Martin alone. Explinations from Kenzu or Responses from martin after Kenzu are often very hard to understand.

Now lets please get back to the topic at hand, and let please talk about and discuss the AF battle system.

(Not trying to be pushy, just trying to get back on topic)
Any idea when the next round of updates such as income attacks, and the spy report updates, and GF attacks on AF will be released?

Will we see proper definitions of attacks in the quicklinks added anytime soon?

I do have a specific question which I hope you can answer clearly. I will attempt to explain it as best as possible.

It is my understanding that
A) Any weapon can use any generation of munitions. Is this correct?
B) All weapons are armed with the most powerful munition first regardless of weapon generation and munitions generation. Is this correct?

If the above are correct, or if they are not please explain the result of the following battle

Player A and B are identical in every aspect as far as AF goes with weapondry, generations, and munitions in power , levels, and count

Players have
1,000 Gen 1 SAMs with 10K gen 1 munitions
1,000 gen 2 sams with 10K gen 2 munitions
1,000 Gen 3 SAMs with 10K gen 3 munitions
1,000 Gen 4 SAMs with 10K gen 4 munitions
1,000 Gen 5 SAMs with 10K gen 5 munitions
1,000 Gen 6 SAMs with 100K gen 6 munitions
and
1,000 gen 1 bombers with 10K gen 1 munitions
1,000 gen 2 bombers with 10K gen 2 munitions
1,000 gen 3 bombers with 10K gen 3 munitions
1,000 gen 4 bombers with 10K gen 4 munitions
1,000 gen 5 bombers with 10K gen 5 munitions
1,000 gen 6 bombers with 100K gen 6 munitions

If the above is correct all 6 generations should be firing gen 6 munitions and doing the same damage as a gen 6 weapon, just dieing faster from being weaker. Is this the case? Will all gen 6 munitions be used up before gen 5? etc?

by Kenzu Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:00 pm

Maybe we should agree that fighters+helis+bombers+SAM Systems are units and that munitions are weapons so that there are no misunderstandings.

by Admin Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:21 am

Nomad wrote:
It is my understanding that
A) Any weapon can use any generation of munitions. Is this correct? YES
B) All weapons are armed with the most powerful munition first regardless of weapon generation and munitions generation. Is this correct? YES

If the above is correct all 6 generations should be firing gen 6 munitions and doing the same damage as a gen 6 weapon, just dieing faster from being weaker. Is this the case? Will all gen 6 munitions be used up before gen 5? etc?
YES
Even a Generation 1 fighter will deal the same damage as a Generation 6 fighter if they both use the same generation of munition

The generation 1 fighter however will require fewer pieces of munition to be destroyed than a gen 6
(keep in mind that 1 unit can fire per battle on average 1 piece of munition, so if you send 10k fighters with gen 6 munitions, then the max number of air units you can destroy in that battle is the power/cost [both are identical since units are 10 times more powerful and 10 times more expensive than munition] equivalent of 10k gen 6 munitions)

Losses/munition used is averaged out between all generations used, just like you use the same proportion of different weapon levels in normal strike missions, same principle is applied to airforce
if you send 1k G6 and 2k G3 and lose 600 units, then 200 will be G6 and 400 G3

Also I'd suggest to apply something similar to what kenzu said and define the terms.
"weapons" doesn't allow for enough distinction between units and munition, IMO (since both are weapons)
munitions are the things that get shot WITH and deal the damage
units are the things that get shot AT, receive damage and get destroyed
I'd rather avoid labelling either of those separately as "weapon"

For future reference when I say weapons with respect to airforce it means units and munition TOGETHER i.e. "airforce weapons". otherwise i'll say units or munition specifically

Comparing airforce to strike/defense then units would be the fighters/helis/bombers/sams and the munition types are the weapons you get in the armory.

by Nomad Sun Feb 26, 2012 5:47 am

I dont ever compare ground units to AF,,, there nothing alike but yes lets all use the same termanalogy.

AF Unit = SAMs, Heli, Bomber, and fighter
Munitions = munitions (No offense Kenzu, but no way should ammo be called weapons)

With your above answers Then again I can confirm you have bugs in the AF system on test. All units are not firing top generation munitions before firing lower generation munitions.

Will we see AF weapons in the weapon's dealer black market?

*edit*
One more questions, if a person with no AF other then SAM's was attacked by someone with only fighters,,,,,, What would be the result?

Nothing but wasted AT?

*****double edit*****

- Defender cannot lose more than 10% of their fighters per battle

In you opening post to this thread, what exactly does this mean and what is it in reference too? AF attacking ground units? AF is limitied to killing a max of 10% of GF per attack?

by Manleva Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:41 am

I'll also agree with Admin and Nomad on the definitions of the Airforce units.

I'll also admin that I am probably the person who made the comparisons between the Airforce Units and the Ground Force Units. However this comparison was not about the Units themselves or how they behave in battle. It was a comparison on the mechanics as to how the improvements and upgrades are researched. It's about the fact that we are forced to alternately research the unit and then the munitions and then research something that does nothing. I would prefer to see this altered and research for the Unit and the munitions split and the useless research scrapped.

The other issue I have is with the 1 to 10 Ratio for the Units and Munitions. If I follow Admins comment

keep in mind that 1 unit can fire per battle on average 1 piece of munition

then I have to question the need for the 1:10 ratio.

I could understand a 1:10 ratio for generation 1 and could equate it with a basic unit and armament but given the cost of investment I would be expecting a significant improvement as research is undertaken

by Kenzu Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:06 pm

Nomad wrote:
*edit*
One more questions, if a person with no AF other then SAM's was attacked by someone with only fighters,,,,,, What would be the result?

Attacker loses fighters, defenders loses SAM missiles. If SAM missiles have higher generation than fighters, then value of fighters destroyed will be higher than value of SAM missiles. (and vice versa)

by Nomad Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:21 pm

Thank you for clarifying that fighters can attack ground based SAM sites, but not Ground Forces. The description given in the first post lead me to think Fighters could not target SAMs is why I asked.

Any clarification to

Defender can not lose more then 10% of their fighters per battle.

by Nomad Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:39 pm

Manleva wrote:I'll also agree with Admin and Nomad on the definitions of the Airforce units.

I'll also admin that I am probably the person who made the comparisons between the Airforce Units and the Ground Force Units. However this comparison was not about the Units themselves or how they behave in battle. It was a comparison on the mechanics as to how the improvements and upgrades are researched. It's about the fact that we are forced to alternately research the unit and then the munitions and then research something that does nothing. I would prefer to see this altered and research for the Unit and the munitions split and the useless research scrapped.
At the very least give us munitions before the unit, as it stands we actually have to make 2 researches that do not increase power. Increasing the unit generation does not increase your striking or defending power, only the death rate. You should atleast make the first upgrade the one that packs the punch and has some teeth. Then make the second the one to improve the death rate of your units, and I fully agree the wasted and useless upgrade needs to be scrapped or made useful in some manner

The other issue I have is with the 1 to 10 Ratio for the Units and Munitions. If I follow Admins comment
keep in mind that 1 unit can fire per battle on average 1 piece of munition
then I have to question the need for the 1:10 ratio.
I'll give you the explanation I got from Admin as best I can, but do not guarantee that I understood it properly, so feel free to chime in Martin. FTR I think the 10 to 1 ratio is a horrible idea and useless other then forcing people to expend 10 times the kewal to get base power.

Admin originally said the 10 to 1 ratio was "cosmetic". It cut the "shown" power down from actual power to give a visual indicator that you needed to buy more munitions. The reasoning given was to protect noobies. Basically a way to "persuade" people to keep an ample amount of munitions to avoid running out in a defensive battle. Example would be 100 SAMS with 100 munitions would last 1 attack and then be useless because all munitions would be used, where as 100 SAMs with 1,000 munitions would last roughly 12 to 15 (or more)rounds in battle when you account for lost units and less munition being fired each round. Also as pointed out before your units lost to munitions consumed in AF battles is not consistent and therefore in a defensive battle you will end up with units that have no munitions. Then it was changed to no longer being cosmetic, but to actual. I have no idea why, and can offer no explanation.

I could understand a 1:10 ratio for generation 1 and could equate it with a basic unit and armament but given the cost of investment I would be expecting a significant improvement as research is undertaken
I see your point and it makes sense Manleva, not sure how it would be coding wise tho. If I understood you right it would be like,,,
Gen 1 10 munitions to 1 unit
Gen 2 8 munitions to 1 unit
Gen 3 6 munitions to 1 unit
Gen 4 4 munitions to 1 unit
Gen 5 2 munitions to 1 unit
Gen 6 1 munitions to 1 unit

Is that what your saying? If it is it makes sense to me, but since Admins Kenzu and Martin say generations will be added later I do not know if this could be used, unless anything after gen 6 is a 1 to 1 ratio no matter the generation? and again not sure what it would do coding wise.

by Admin Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:16 pm

Kenzu wrote:
Nomad wrote:
*edit*
One more questions, if a person with no AF other then SAM's was attacked by someone with only fighters,,,,,, What would be the result?
Attacker loses fighters, defenders loses SAM missiles. If SAM missiles have higher generation than fighters, then value of fighters destroyed will be higher than value of SAM missiles. (and vice versa)

Wrong, if you have only fighters and try to do any mission it'll give you an error message that you have nothing to attack ground troops with and mission will not start

Nomad wrote:Thank you for clarifying that fighters can attack ground based SAM sites, but not Ground Forces. The description given in the first post lead me to think Fighters could not target SAMs is why I asked.
Any clarification to
Defender can not lose more then 10% of their fighters per battle.

Nomad, he said defender loses SAM MISSILES, NOT SAMs. Just like attacker loses only FIGHTERS, he didn't say a word about fighter missiles
Vice versa was referring to situation when SAMs having LOWER generation missiles and value of fighters destroyed being LOWER than value of SAM missiles
Fighters attack only AIR targets

by Admin Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:19 pm

Nomad wrote:
The other issue I have is with the 1 to 10 Ratio for the Units and Munitions. If I follow Admins comment
keep in mind that 1 unit can fire per battle on average 1 piece of munition
then I have to question the need for the 1:10 ratio.
[color=blue]I'll give you the explanation I got from Admin as best I can, but do not guarantee that I understood it properly, so feel free to chime in Martin. FTR I think the 10 to 1 ratio is a horrible idea and useless other then forcing people to expend 10 times the kewal to get base power.

The 1:10 ratio is the literal equivalent of having a 10% base death rate, just like an assault mission has 5% for attackers and 4% for defenders.

I send 100 attackers vs 100 defenders, same techs whatever.
Kill rate for attacker is 1:25 (100 attackers and 4 defenders killed, that's 1:25)
Kill rate for attacker is 1:20 (100 defenders and 4 attackers killed, that's 1:20)

And I have no clue what you mean by "to get base power"

by Admin Sun Feb 26, 2012 11:23 pm

Nomad wrote:With your above answers Then again I can confirm you have bugs in the AF system on test. All units are not firing top generation munitions before firing lower generation munitions.
Admin wrote:Losses/munition used is averaged out between all generations used, just like you use the same proportion of different weapon levels in normal strike missions, same principle is applied to airforce
if you send 1k G6 and 2k G3 and lose 600 units, then 200 will be G6 and 400 G3
Your fighters get armed using best munition available, so they start the battle with the best stuff they can get
But what gets SHOT (aka munition used) is the average of what's available IN BATTLE
Just like what gets shot DOWN (aka units destroyed) is the average of what went into battle

Will we see AF weapons in the weapon's dealer black market?
yes, since now i'm considering splitting unit and munition research, so you can do it in either order

will give rest of the answers after this information settles in

by Kenzu Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:07 am

Nomad wrote:Thank you for clarifying that fighters can attack ground based SAM sites, but not Ground Forces. The description given in the first post lead me to think Fighters could not target SAMs is why I asked.

Any clarification to
Defender can not lose more then 10% of their fighters per battle.

I have never said that fighters can attack SAM sites.
You got it wrong!

Fighters cannot target them at all. They do not fight back against SAM Systems. All they can do is fly around and get shot down using up the defenders munition (Sam Missiles)

What you could do is sending high generation fighters against low generation SAM Systems and then the defender will lose much more kuwal value as he will spend much more on munition than you on units.

(Let's assume that you attack with 1 bomber so that the mission can be started, or that you target airforce, in this case if enemy has at least 1 fighter, your fighters will attack and get shot down by SAM Systems, using up SAM System munition)

Nomad wrote:"I'll give you the explanation I got from Admin as best I can, but do not guarantee that I understood it properly, so feel free to chime in Martin. FTR I think the 10 to 1 ratio is a horrible idea and useless other then forcing people to expend 10 times the kewal to get base power."

The statement in bold is incorrect, because if you spend 10 times more kuwal, you will have 10 times higher base power. What do you actually want to say? It is not clear!

And the currency is called Kuwal

by Nomad Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am

Gonna let this sink in overnight,,, just wanted to point out a few things off the bat.

@ Martin,,,,

Can you even remotely see any communication issues here? Any at all?

1 is you have Kenzu and yourself giving contradictory information, your both giving different outcomes to the same situation. So who is right and who is wrong? Secondly, when plainly asked about what munitions were armed,,, did you not have any incling of an idea you might want to give the whole explination instead of just part of it? Can you atleast understand how when I directly asked you what munitions get armed, and plainly stated best gets armed, that the normal person would simply assume that what is armed would be shot? Why did you not feel the need to give the full and complete explination you just gave me now from the start?

Or is it just me?

by Admin Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:37 am

Nomad wrote:1 is you have Kenzu and yourself giving contradictory information, your both giving different outcomes to the same situation. So who is right and who is wrong?
show me where, the part about mission not even starting if you have only fighters? or any other examples?
you can test that anywhere then prove kenzu wrong and tell him not to post stuff if he isn't sure about it

I dont even understand why i bother letting test server run, everything you want to know, you can find out in max four 30 minute sessions of testing with another 1-2 people over several days, so instead of writing up pages of stuff on the forum, test the stuff, and post about anything that appears to be weird and i'll tell you if it's correct or not and fix everything that is wrong
Secondly, when plainly asked about what munitions were armed,,, did you not have any incling of an idea you might want to give the whole explination instead of just part of it?
not the tiniest bit
Everywhere in the game you lose the average of what is sent/available, sabotage destroys average of all weapons, ground missions destroy average of all weapons used, etc.
Logical conclusion is that average of munition and units in battle is destroyed instead of going from best to worst
Can you atleast understand how when I directly asked you what munitions get armed, and plainly stated best gets armed, that the normal person would simply assume that what is armed would be shot?
Again, comparing it to ground forces, because as I said, it works identically:
You only send the BEST weapons with your soldiers, you still lose THE AVERAGE of ALL weapons that go into battle
If you have 5k artilleries and 5k tanks and lose 1k soldiers then you will lose 500 artilleries and 500 tanks

so keeping that in mind, the logical conclusion would be to assume that ALL units are sent on airforce missions using BEST munition available. and losing an average of all units / munition used in combat.
However adding the information I provided that only armed units will go into battle gives you a complete picture of stuff sent + stuff lost
Why did you not feel the need to give the full and complete explination you just gave me now from the start?
I assumed that the normal person has a basic understanding of losses calculation on normal missions so airforce will ALSO work identically by the same principles applied TO ALL OTHER MISSIONS unless contradictory information is available in any particular aspect

by Nomad Mon Feb 27, 2012 2:32 pm

Admin wrote:
Nomad wrote:1 is you have Kenzu and yourself giving contradictory information, your both giving different outcomes to the same situation. So who is right and who is wrong?
show me where, the part about mission not even starting if you have only fighters? or any other examples?
you can test that anywhere then prove kenzu wrong and tell him not to post stuff if he isn't sure about it

I dont even understand why i bother letting test server run, everything you want to know, you can find out in max four 30 minute sessions of testing with another 1-2 people over several days, so instead of writing up pages of stuff on the forum, test the stuff, and post about anything that appears to be weird and i'll tell you if it's correct or not and fix everything that is wrong
Secondly, when plainly asked about what munitions were armed,,, did you not have any incling of an idea you might want to give the whole explination instead of just part of it?
not the tiniest bit
Everywhere in the game you lose the average of what is sent/available, sabotage destroys average of all weapons, ground missions destroy average of all weapons used, etc.
Logical conclusion is that average of munition and units in battle is destroyed instead of going from best to worst
Can you atleast understand how when I directly asked you what munitions get armed, and plainly stated best gets armed, that the normal person would simply assume that what is armed would be shot?
Again, comparing it to ground forces, because as I said, it works identically:
You only send the BEST weapons with your soldiers, you still lose THE AVERAGE of ALL weapons that go into battle
If you have 5k artilleries and 5k tanks and lose 1k soldiers then you will lose 500 artilleries and 500 tanks

so keeping that in mind, the logical conclusion would be to assume that ALL units are sent on airforce missions using BEST munition available. and losing an average of all units / munition used in combat.
However adding the information I provided that only armed units will go into battle gives you a complete picture of stuff sent + stuff lost
Why did you not feel the need to give the full and complete explination you just gave me now from the start?
I assumed that the normal person has a basic understanding of losses calculation on normal missions so airforce will ALSO work identically by the same principles applied TO ALL OTHER MISSIONS unless contradictory information is available in any particular aspect

Well that explains it then. We work with different sets of "known" information. When someone does not know certain information then they could never make certain conclusion which are known to another. I have never stockpiled enough top teir weapons in GF attacks to cover every soldier, but kept large amounts of lower powered weapons, so I never "knew" what you think is basic knowledge, and again asking for complete and total explinations to how something works is a total failure because anything you take for granted you do not feel the need to explain.

As for Testing, I will assume your right. I just happen to look at it differently because my though process is different then yours. I naturally assume you have done your job correctly, so I assume everything it the way it should be. I ask questions before testing to know if the outcome is like its suppose to be. Your line of thinking is test first, then question the outcome of everything as right or wrong because you have no idea what is right or wrong.

Not saying either path is right or wrong, just pointing out the difference. But atleast some understanding has come out of this. well for me anyway. I won't speak for you.

by Sponsored content