Re: Still trying to understand how defenses work vs assaults

by Keinutnai Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:10 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Spoiler:

about kingkongfan1's last post:

300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

1 assault:
27,465 defender losses with MA
11,983 attacker losses with MLRS

defender has 130%
MLRS is 24% stronger than MA

Formula: 2.25*1.24/1.3=2.14
This means attacker will kill about 2.14 times more than the defender

27,465/11,983=2.3 ratio
pretty close!

This number is different due to PBP of defender and randomness of the attack (95-105% damage dealt).

mission 2:

247% def tech + unknown PBP

78,817
74,474
ratio: 1.06

2/3 tanks and 1/3 MA for defender = 1216 average power per units compared to 1800 of attacker.
2.25*1.48/2.47=1.34

This means defender has a lot of points in defense, most likely the maximum number of possible points.

3rd mission:

defender had a defense action more than 5 times higher than the attacker's strike action.
In such case attacker deals no damage and doesn't kill a single unit.
You dealt 50 billion damage, this means defenders action must be more than 250 billion.

kingkongfan1 wrote:keinutnai/kenzu has stated several times over that when the attacker/defender are at equal techs, the attacker will lose 25% more than the defender. as such it appears to me that when the attacker has substantially larger attack tech verses the defenders relatively weak defense tech,(including the possibility that the attacker has maxed out the attack pbp & the defender has maxed out the defense pbp). the attacker will always lose substantially more than the defender. in the end I think it comes down to army size & the percentages lost from each. the larger the attack force/action, the more losses incurred, (percentage lost) verses the defenders smaller defense force/action, (percentage lost).

In plain English, (as best as I can comprehend) if you have a large attack action, with your attack techs built up, & a large percentage of your pbp in attack, & you go after an acct that is inferior to yours, you will always lose substantially more than the one you are attacking. how else can anyone explain when a hit results in the defender losing 3-5,000 in defenders while the attacker loses 30-35,000 or more in attackers. this imo does not look like 25% more losses for the attacker, but then again I have proven several times over that I am no math head. (no offense intended towards anyone)

I noticed that this pattern which kingkongfan1 describes is to some extent true when doing hunt assassin missions. In hunt assassin missions it's always the most efficient to use a strike that is only slightly higher than the cummulated value of defense and assassin actions.

But when assaulting, a bigger strike will not suffer higher losses than a smaller strike. ie: I will have the same losses assaulting a 20 bill def, no matter if I have 30 billion strike, or 300 billion strike. Only when my strike is smaller than the def, then both sides will suffer less losses.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:53 pm

Keinutnai wrote:
kingkongfan1 wrote:
Spoiler:

about kingkongfan1's last post:

300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

1 assault:
27,465 defender losses with MA
11,983 attacker losses with MLRS

defender has 130%
MLRS is 24% stronger than MA

Formula: 2.25*1.24/1.3=2.14
This means attacker will kill about 2.14 times more than the defender

27,465/11,983=2.3 ratio
pretty close!

This number is different due to PBP of defender and randomness of the attack (95-105% damage dealt).

mission 2:

247% def tech + unknown PBP

78,817
74,474
ratio: 1.06

2/3 tanks and 1/3 MA for defender = 1216 average power per units compared to 1800 of attacker.
2.25*1.48/2.47=1.34

This means defender has a lot of points in defense, most likely the maximum number of possible points.

3rd mission:

defender had a defense action more than 5 times higher than the attacker's strike action.
In such case attacker deals no damage and doesn't kill a single unit.
You dealt 50 billion damage, this means defenders action must be more than 250 billion.

kingkongfan1 wrote:keinutnai/kenzu has stated several times over that when the attacker/defender are at equal techs, the attacker will lose 25% more than the defender. as such it appears to me that when the attacker has substantially larger attack tech verses the defenders relatively weak defense tech,(including the possibility that the attacker has maxed out the attack pbp & the defender has maxed out the defense pbp). the attacker will always lose substantially more than the defender. in the end I think it comes down to army size & the percentages lost from each. the larger the attack force/action, the more losses incurred, (percentage lost) verses the defenders smaller defense force/action, (percentage lost).

In plain English, (as best as I can comprehend) if you have a large attack action, with your attack techs built up, & a large percentage of your pbp in attack, & you go after an acct that is inferior to yours, you will always lose substantially more than the one you are attacking. how else can anyone explain when a hit results in the defender losing 3-5,000 in defenders while the attacker loses 30-35,000 or more in attackers. this imo does not look like 25% more losses for the attacker, but then again I have proven several times over that I am no math head. (no offense intended towards anyone)

I noticed that this pattern which kingkongfan1 describes is to some extent true when doing hunt assassin missions. In hunt assassin missions it's always the most efficient to use a strike that is only slightly higher than the cummulated value of defense and assassin actions.

But when assaulting, a bigger strike will not suffer higher losses than a smaller strike. ie: I will have the same losses assaulting a 20 bill def, no matter if I have 30 billion strike, or 300 billion strike. Only when my strike is smaller than the def, then both sides will suffer less losses.

This is a very informative post & hopefully one day I will understand the information contained within, (it's not you, it's me). Anyway the one thing that I am taking from this is that I have wasted kuwal by the bucketful in building up my Attack tech. I find this statement mind-blowing Shocked

...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

It does however explain quite a bit Imo, but this does not seem to be anywhere near "fair & balanced" to me. I would suggest getting rid of the tech's & pbp's entirely,(gold could be given as a reward for medals gotten) but I know that would go over like a lead balloon...

by navblue Wed Sep 19, 2012 6:49 pm

Nomad wrote:Sorry that everyone seems to be ignoring your actual question and centering on the "random" part of the equation. Maybe you will get a decent answer one day Nav.

lol thanks! someone understands!

kingkongfan1 wrote:

This is a very informative post & hopefully one day I will understand the information contained within, (it's not you, it's me). Anyway the one thing that I am taking from this is that I have wasted kuwal by the bucketful in building up my Attack tech. I find this statement mind-blowing ...

kingkongfan1 wrote:
It does however explain quite a bit Imo, but this does not seem to be anywhere near "fair & balanced" to me. I would suggest getting rid of the tech's & pbp's entirely,(gold could be given as a reward for medals gotten) but I know that would go over like a lead balloon...

I feel the same way kong and I dont know if I want to put the effort into trying to understand it anymore. I just know is it doesn't make sense, doesn't feel balanced in anyway and I'm getting tired of it.

by Keinutnai Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:55 pm

why should we get rid of techs and PBP? If we got rid of them, then all losses in all attack would be the same (or simply the attacker would always have 25% more losses)

It is clearly not fair that attacker loses 25% more than defender, but in the recent survey most people voted that attacker will lose the same when techs are the same, which means that admin will change the code and assaults will be always fair, and assaulting someone with better techs will lead less losses for the attacker.

by kingkongfan1 Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:48 pm

Keinutnai wrote:why should we get rid of techs and PBP? If we got rid of them, then all losses in all attack would be the same (or simply the attacker would always have 25% more losses)

It is clearly not fair that attacker loses 25% more than defender, but in the recent survey most people voted that attacker will lose the same when techs are the same, which means that admin will change the code and assaults will be always fair, and assaulting someone with better techs will lead less losses for the attacker.

no offense intended here, but I have to disagree with you on this. If I have to do math to do an efficient attack, then I want it to be as simple as possible, & the simple fact that I know that I will lose 25% more than the player I attack (+/- 5% randomness) goes a long way towards getting rid of the headache this game has become. pardon this expression, but "I do not get my rocks off doing math". if you did not understand what I said in my previous post, I will clarify. "tho you gave plenty of info, I have no clue as to what any of it means nor where you got any of your numbers."... So getting rid of the pbp's & the tech's is something I would back if it were seriously considered.

question,

why do you think the attacker always losing more is unfair? as it is now, 9 out of 10 hits I have come across the attacker has lost more (during war) ask anyone. if I had any logs left from the war I would show you what I mean.

2nd question,

if it is unfair, why cannot it be changed? (the 25% more that an attacker loses than a defender)

by Keinutnai Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:05 am

You dont need any math for assaults.

You make assaults and if your think your losses are too high, increase your technology. The game rules work the same for everyone.

Simple rules: Better tech, better results.

Well if you mass properly, then defender will lose more than attacker. But this implies that you also kill assassins and preferably also spies. Attacker usually only loses more if he does a couple assaults and stops there, but if the attacker kills assassins and spies as well, then usually attacker kills much more than defender.

In all wars that I have participated it was common that defenders lost around 2 times more than attackers. The war with TMI was an exception though. But all wars with Mujengan or Imperium, when an account got massed he lost more than the attackers.

Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

by navblue Thu Sep 20, 2012 12:29 am

Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

by kingkongfan1 Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:15 am

navblue wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

agreed.

@keinutnai/ kenzu- first you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

then you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
Simple rules: Better tech, better results.

first I would like to point out that you failed (again) to answer my questions in my previous post, but I have gotten used to that so nevermind about it now.

second I want to point out your first statement above. the cost difference between what 225% defense tech is, & what 300% attack tech is, nullifies your second statement. think about it for a second,,, seriously.

by Keinutnai Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:04 am

navblue wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

And I was ALWAYS against having to make calculations. Look at red apocalypse, there sabotage and assassinations is as easy as assault. All you need to do is click the sabotage/assassination button.

Fortunately there was a survey where people voted on new sabotage and assassination missions. This will make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
navblue wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:
Assaults are usually inefficient, but it's the other missions that make up for it such as hunt assassin missions, assassinations, and invasion missions.

Right... and theres the maths again with 'other missions'. And a slight mis-calculation here can lead to a MASSIVE mistake. This is not fun for anyone. It sucks

agreed.

@keinutnai/ kenzu- first you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

then you say...

Keinutnai wrote:
Simple rules: Better tech, better results.

first I would like to point out that you failed (again) to answer my questions in my previous post, but I have gotten used to that so nevermind about it now.

second I want to point out your first statement above. the cost difference between what 225% defense tech is, & what 300% attack tech is, nullifies your second statement. think about it for a second,,, seriously.

I don't see a contradiction.

1st statement:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech

2nd statement:
higher tech will yield better results

Put these statements together and you will get:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech
but if I increase my tech by 1% to 301%, then I will kill more than 225% defense tech
OR
whatever I lost in a mission against someone, if I increase my tech by 1%, my losses will be smaller compared to his.
OR
any tech will become more efficient if increased by 1%

by Manleva Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:39 am

Keinutnai wrote:
300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech.

Keinutnai wrote:
1st statement:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech

2nd statement:
higher tech will yield better results

Put these statements together and you will get:
300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech
but if I increase my tech by 1% to 301%, then I will kill more than 225% defense tech
OR
whatever I lost in a mission against someone, if I increase my tech by 1%, my losses will be smaller compared to his.
OR
any tech will become more efficient if increased by 1%

This is where we all become confused because I read the two quotes above very differently. To me the 300% attack tech will have same kills and losses as a 225% defense tech. means that 300% attack equals 225% Defense even though there is a 75% difference between the Tech levels.

You then state 300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech and I have to ask equally strong to What?

Of course this is all really of interest only to those who have to do everything based on the maths which Kenzu should know by now that in my case the maths is totally irrelevant because in war situations I won't pay any attention to the maths but rather I work on the basis that irrespective of my losses I attain the result against my opponent that I am after. Of course it also helps if you can locate other easy targets to offset your losses.

I do have to agree that there is far to much maths involved in the game and that the arguments put forward so far to justify the mechanics stretch the bounds of reality far to much and believe that a much simpler and clearer approach needs to be considered

by Keinutnai Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:56 am

You should try to achieve your result with the minimum number of losses. And that's what efficiency is about.

We all want to achieve results, but it's not a bad idea to try to achieve it with as little losses as possible.

Manleva wrote:You then state 300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech and I have to ask equally strong to What?

What I meant is that if you have 300% attack tech and assaults someone with 225% defense tech, then both of you will have same losses.

Because 225 is 25% smaller than 300.
Or you could says 225 is 75% of 300.
300*0.75=225

by kingkongfan1 Thu Sep 20, 2012 11:52 am

Keinutnai wrote:You should try to achieve your result with the minimum number of losses. And that's what efficiency is about.

We all want to achieve results, but it's not a bad idea to try to achieve it with as little losses as possible.

Manleva wrote:You then state 300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech and I have to ask equally strong to What?

What I meant is that if you have 300% attack tech and assaults someone with 225% defense tech, then both of you will have same losses.

Because 225 is 25% smaller than 300.
Or you could says 225 is 75% of 300.
300*0.75=225

& this is considered "fair & balanced"? I think that 300% defense tech should have the same losses as 300% attack tech. you are just messing with me in your above post right... Wink

by Keinutnai Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:46 pm

Actually I noticed a mistake.

The attacker has 25% more losses than defender, BUT the defender has 20% less losses than the attacker.

Because 4 * 1.25 = 5
the 4% and 5% as specified by assaults

and 5 * (1-0.2) = 4

300 * (1-0.2) = 240
Therefore 300% attack tech is the same as 240% defense tech.

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:You should try to achieve your result with the minimum number of losses. And that's what efficiency is about.

We all want to achieve results, but it's not a bad idea to try to achieve it with as little losses as possible.

Manleva wrote:You then state 300% attack tech will be equally strong against a 225% defense tech and I have to ask equally strong to What?

What I meant is that if you have 300% attack tech and assaults someone with 225% defense tech, then both of you will have same losses.

Because 225 is 25% smaller than 300.
Or you could says 225 is 75% of 300.
300*0.75=225

& this is considered "fair & balanced"? I think that 300% defense tech should have the same losses as 300% attack tech. you are just messing with me in your above post right...

I never said that 300% being equally strong as 225% defense tech is fair or balanced. But neither sabotage or assassinations are balanced. If sabotage and assassinations were balanced, then if you sabotaged or assassinated a player who has same tech as you, you would lose same value as him, which is not the case.

But I understand why it has been done that way:
While massing you would lose more when crushing the defense, but you would lose much less with following missions.

I do prefer a system where I don't need bother making any calculations, just telling my units where to attack with a single button and simply knowing that better tech will always yield better results.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:19 am

Keinutnai wrote:Actually I noticed a mistake.

The attacker has 25% more losses than defender, BUT the defender has 20% less losses than the attacker.

Because 4 * 1.25 = 5
the 4% and 5% as specified by assaults

and 5 * (1-0.2) = 4

300 * (1-0.2) = 240
Therefore 300% attack tech is the same as 240% defense tech.

here is a hit I would like for you to figure for me, I asked you to do it once before, but for whatever reason you didn't. so I present it here because I want you to show me where I lost 25% more than you, cause I am still not getting it...

kingkongfan1 wrote:here's one for you to work on, I made this hit before the war was ended.

Battle Report

KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
800,000 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
315306 Soldiers were armed with MLRS
31181 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
453513 Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank

Keinutnai awaited the invaders with the following:
615,029 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
615029 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 33,437,756,704 damage on the enemy!
This results in 25,893 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 30,186,001,562 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 38,006 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense
KingKongFan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Keinutnai's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
____________________

When this hit was made I had 300% in attack tech + 40/68 or 40% pbp in attack. spy ops showed keinutnai's defense tech to be 290%, his pbp's in defense are unknown.
____________________

if my math is correct then I lost ~50% more than you instead of 25%, but with this new info you have come out with about the techs, added to the +/- randomness thrown in, then this hit is starting to make sense

by Steveanaya Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:13 am

You also used normal attacks. Using other strategies would cause more damage/less damage to you.

by Keinutnai Fri Sep 21, 2012 8:46 am

kingkongfan1 wrote:
Keinutnai wrote:Actually I noticed a mistake.

The attacker has 25% more losses than defender, BUT the defender has 20% less losses than the attacker.

Because 4 * 1.25 = 5
the 4% and 5% as specified by assaults

and 5 * (1-0.2) = 4

300 * (1-0.2) = 240
Therefore 300% attack tech is the same as 240% defense tech.

here is a hit I would like for you to figure for me, I asked you to do it once before, but for whatever reason you didn't. so I present it here because I want you to show me where I lost 25% more than you, cause I am still not getting it...

kingkongfan1 wrote:here's one for you to work on, I made this hit before the war was ended.

Battle Report

KingKongFan1's soldiers march onto the battlefield.
KingKongFan1's army was composed of:
800,000 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
315306 Soldiers were armed with MLRS
31181 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
453513 Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank

Keinutnai awaited the invaders with the following:
615,029 Soldiers and 0 Mercenaries
615029 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery

Your field scouts report on the status of the enemy: The invaders deal 33,437,756,704 damage on the enemy!
This results in 25,893 casualties amongst the defending troops!

The defending forces return fire and inflict 30,186,001,562 damage on their opponents!
They manage to cause 38,006 casualties in their enemies ranks!

The assaulting armies engaged with normal attacks
The defenders held their ground with a standard defense
KingKongFan1's forces Defeated the enemy!

As Keinutnai's army runs from the battlefield the victors finish their assigned mission and return home:
____________________

When this hit was made I had 300% in attack tech + 40/68 or 40% pbp in attack. spy ops showed keinutnai's defense tech to be 290%, his pbp's in defense are unknown.
____________________

if my math is correct then I lost ~50% more than you instead of 25%, but with this new info you have come out with about the techs, added to the +/- randomness thrown in, then this hit is starting to make sense

I guess I can try. You have a combined tech of 340% I had 290% + unknown PBP
You lost 47% more than me.

Calculation:

Average base power per unit

315306 Soldiers were armed with MLRS
31181 Soldiers were armed with Mobile Artillery
453513 Soldiers were armed with Main Battle Tank
You: 315306*1800+31181*1450+453513*1100

base values:
Average strength of your soldier: 1389.5
Average strenght of my soldier: 1450
my soldiers are 1.044 stronger (4.4% stronger)

Your tech *20% more losses by default / weaker soldiers = My tech / difference in real casualties
340*0.8 /1.044 = My tech / 1.47
260.53 = My tech / 1.47 => this means I need 260.53 def tech for equal losses in number of soldiers
or
260.53 = My tech / 1.33 (for a lucky hit)

383 = My tech
or
347 = My tech

My tech includes def tech + pbp

You say I had 290% def tech. This means that according to my calculationI have 57-93% def bonus in pbp. 43-69 pbp in defense. I have less than 43 pbp in def tech so there must be a flaw in the calculation, although it does give some estimation. You can always figure out pbp by spying on a person and making the appropriate calculation using base values.

I hope this helped.

by kingkongfan1 Fri Sep 21, 2012 11:55 am

Steveanaya wrote:You also used normal attacks. Using other strategies would cause more damage/less damage to you.

to my knowledge I used the best attack against the standard defense he was using at the time. tho I do understand that had he been using another defense, that a different attack would have been better.

by Special Agent 47 Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:24 pm

So I find myself asking if the cost for tech levels is far to low? With techs passing the 400% mark, or making a stat 4 times as strong, could that be one of those issues that can't be seen until it happens?

by Kenzu Sun Oct 07, 2012 1:00 pm

Special Agent 47 wrote:So I find myself asking if the cost for tech levels is far to low? With techs passing the 400% mark, or making a stat 4 times as strong, could that be one of those issues that can't be seen until it happens?

Maybe. I know what you mean. Big players can become very dangerous to small players.
But what can you do about it?

If you dont allow research beyond 400%, then people will get pissed.
But if you make it even more expensive, some people will still do it. A guy has already 370% tech.
However, if you make it prohibitively expensive, say 10 trillion per 1%, then it will be basically the same as not allowing it at all.

So what is your solution?

by Special Agent 47 Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:34 pm

I do not have one.

I do not agree with hard capping it, as you said its destructive

. Making it more expensive to me makes the most sense, and people should still do it.

I see no sense in making it prohibitively expensive.

I honestly think the biggest present issue is everyone waiting on the new updates that will make a massive difference in account set ups once released.

by Sponsored content