Is the War Engine BROKEN ?

I'm aware there have been multiple discussions on last +2 years regarding the war engine being broken.
This is a continuation of those talks and on the recent discussion on threads Navy Armys costs and Offensive Air Wings costs


Recently there was a war in Fearless Blue:
Main defender country `Intramuros`
Attacker countries:

• FB La Locarna
• FB La Perlamo
• FB La Clockwork Orange

Overall numbers



All waves



Few things to keep on mind:
* The attacked was an experienced player
* Attacker unit (weapon/ammo) was most of the times 30-50 points higher than defender target.


DEFENDER setup per country

Federation countries

• There were 4 countries within interceptor range
• All four countries had the same defense setup
• Total defenders costs were 40T aprox

DEFENSE UNIT	weapons	ammo	TOTAL COSTS
helicopters	8.450	845.000
interceptors	8.000	800.000
Stealth Bombers	2.550	306.000
Anti aircraft missile batteries	37.770	1.550.800
Defensive missile batteries	38.750	1.550.000
Missile interceptor batteries	38.750	1.550.000
Armored Vehicles	9950	298.500
Artillery	5.000	250.000
Tanks	12.000	610.000
			10T aprox

ATTACKER setup

defenses
I had twice their defensive weapons and 8 times their interceptor/helicopters per country. Additionally, to keep my defense units (garrisons, military units, etc) and 100 offensive units I could not relay on 30-40 supply units like they did. I have to stick with 100 large supply units for fast replenishment.
I found important to create 'windows' on their defenses before their units are replenished. I need to make multiple waves of attacks and all my LRD needs fast replenishment.
Regardless of this ! Let's say I had their same defense setup, which would have cost me 10T.
I had 3 countries involved in the war so that makes it 10 * 3 = 30T

Offensive Weapons ... minimum of

OFFENSIVE UNIT	weapons	TOTAL COSTS
OAAMB	564.000	143T
MRMB	659.000	204T
		347T

Offensive Ammo
I considered here the default ammo required to create 200 Long Range Division of 900 OAAMB / 1096 MRMB. Since that is the amount of LRD I used initially. But clearly I used more ammo, therefore the attacker had more costs.

OFFENSIVE UNIT	weapon Ammo	TOTAL COSTS
OAAMB	7.200.000	25.2T
MRMB	8.768.000	33.7T
		58.9T

Total COSTS of Weapons / Ammo

def weapons/ammo	off weapons	off ammo	TOTAL COSTS
30T	347T	58.9T
			435.9T

These were the total costs of the ammo used to create 200 LRD.
And the total costs of the OAAMB/MRMB lost. However, naturally, I had to have more than weapons to reactivate faster. Clockwork Orange still have 800k each actives, but let's keep the conversation within the weapons lost for now.


So, at this moment we have:
Defender: 40T costs
Attacker: 435.9T costs


I would like to share some "fun" moments here



I threw 246/308 oaamb/mrmb within the same game month. 100 large supplies on 2 different countries were replenishing 150-175 LRD as fast as I could.
If I look at the defenders numbers, they tell me I destroyed 37% of the federation defenses, but at the expense of 246/308 oaamb/mrmb.
Should I have had 200 large supplies per country and a total of 1m oaamb/mrmb to take 100% of federation defenses?
Am I the only one getting crazy when saying 1m oaamb/mrmb? Which is not even a guaranteed number cause we are assuming they don't replenish at all.
However the defender can have more weapons/ammo and replenish at the expense of 3.5T to duplicate the ammo needed and 6.5T to duplicated the weapons needed. While 1m oaamb/mrmb would be 565T lol


Another " great" moment

On this month I was able to clean the federation helicopters. And to my surprise (?) I was not able clean the remaining defenses EITHER.

Since I killed the helis, it was not an option to user Air Force to destroy DMB/MIB. Besides, AirForce is completely useless/broken.

So after cleaning federation from Helis I naturally continue with land forces.
oaamb/mrmb, frigates, cruisers were useless. 100k oaamb/mrmb did almost no damage while the federation had 0 helicopters.

It is my impression that DMB (Defensive Missile Batteries) are shooting BEFORE the opponent unit attacks. And DMB should fire AFTER the opponent unit shots.
Documentation link
As per documentation :

Defensive Missiles batteries are effective against missile batteries that are used in an attack. If your enemy is using Medium range missiles or cruise missiles against a target that is defended by defensive Missile Batteries, these batteries will fire against the attacking weapons and try to destroy them. The result may be that the target you try to defend is damaged or destroyed by a cruise or other missile. At the same time, the defensive missiles may destroy some of the cruise missile batteries.

Each defensive missile battery will shoot several missiles as a response to each attack round

Conclusions ?

• Attacker needs a minimum 10 TIMES trillions than defender. Minimum cause it ended not breaking the defense.
• The amount of real life in months time and empire size to make twice the Attacker had in most times 30-50 more quality points than defender target
• A wave of 300k OAAMB/MRMB within a very short period of time, while it killed a bunch of units it made literally no effect in the war. Because opponent kept replenishing his units too. Which makes sense, but the killing ratio for the attacker is extremely low with current game engine.
• Having +400k OAAMB/MRMB active along with defense units generates the attacker country a game monthly loss of -2.5T minimum
• War is up for 11 game months already. Even if we avoid the previous months as preparation for war we have 11 * -2.5T = - 27.5T * 3 countries = -82.5T
• attacker costs mentioned ( > 694T ) is A LOT. By losing -7.5T per game month, you want to be sure you have enough cash in reserves for more months. In other words it is -45T per real life day.
• A simple war between "experienced" players is costing more than 500T, for nothing, cause it is stale point. And I said "experienced" between quotes cause that Defense Setup is something completely achievable by any small player too. A war between small players with this achievable small (or even small than this one) will be unaffordable for a small player :grin:.
• I know the defender would need more ammo to avoid ammo depletion. But we are talking about adding 3.5T more to duplicate the ammo needed versus +347T for the attacker. Defender needs weapon reserves too? Alright, 10T versus minimum another around of +347T.
• Air Offense is still completely useless. It is hard for me not to take it personal when you keep saying that it works well. It just takes you 5 minutes for you to validate it.
• Navy weapons not only are useless too. Their costs are extremly high.
• I still can't understand why on a war world, you cannot do PvP wars since they are not affordable at all !!!
• 4 countries with 10T on defense each seems to requires 1000T maybe to have possibilities of succeed if you are the attacker.
• Please don't mention the quality cause as I mentioned my units had higher quality. And I hope we can understand that considering to have 1 million MRMB/OAMMB with their quality upgraded to 450 not only it will takes more hundreds of trillions, it will also takes many real life months. This is having all of them active which will make your country lose trillions per game month making it even more MORE MORE costly. We don't want to have all weapons active, fine, then let's talk about real life years.

I expect a compensation in game money similar to what I lost. It is broken by design.
Please Andy, many experienced and non experienced people have quit the game for the same thing. This issue has been raised many times within last +24 months. We cannot all be so mistaken. Reducing the unit size did not and will not change a single thing. The issue is NOT there.


How is this possible Andy?


Awaiting your feedback, thank you for your time.
Have a nice day
Nicolas


ps: Defender country newspaper which received all the attacks
/* intramuros oct 5041 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50411001
/* intramuros dec 5041 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50411201
/* intramuros jan 5042 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50420101
/* intramuros apr 5042 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50420401
/* intramuros may 5042 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50420501
/* intramuros jun 5042 */
https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50420601

That's dedication.

I cleared a lot of wings to hit Wl 14 and it was rather unpleasant.

Did you kill the shells?

They will repop if you don't.

2 real life days have gone since I decided to stop the war and move at first all offensive weapons out from these 3 countries.
My countries are still losing money and I have lost another chunk of +70T.
And I am not even near from moving 50% of the weapons / ammo.

It worth to mention I have 2658 Cargo Shuttles.

@Johanas, what do you mean wirh Shells?

@Andy,

Are you waiting until logs are no longer available?

I always new it was lopsided, but not as bad as your stats indicate. Where I still believe offensive weapons should cost more, The maintenance cost as well the use of live ammunition needs to be greatly reduced. (live ammunition should be rarely used) Develop blanks and dummy war heads. Make the quality matter. Increasing quality is time consuming and expensive. Allow the offensive army to become slightly larger. Their first round attack should have a higher percentage of weapons being fired. Check to make sure the offensive is striking first. Defensive weapons should be responding. Allow the offensive units to counter attack the defensive. Not just to attack the target. Just some thoughts.
Rob

As of today Fearles Blue date, May 11 5043 and as an example Clockwork Orange country is having -3.7T loses per game month (it was higher two days ago).

Total defense cost is 3.394T.
Mid Range Missiles costs 465B
Off Anti Aircraft Missiles costs 561B
Off Weapons Mainteance 2.461T

My space 2658 cargo shuttles are trying to get rid of remaining 737k MRMB and 388k OAAMB.

OAAMB (5.3m) and MRMB (7.8m) ammo are strategically (?) not in the space center as I'm trying to remove the weapons first :shrug:.

In other words, I'm losing more and more and more and more money.

I second your points expressed Rob, and I thank you for participating with your experience on this thread as well.


Maybe, MIB should be firing at the same time as the offensive weapons fires. They aim to intercept missiles but should NOT hit batteries.

Any other defensive weapons should be responding only. Meaning, firing AFTER the attacked country target got hit.

We are looking into wars all the time.

The attacker always had and currently has much higher costs than the defender.
Number of losses is higher and the offensive weapons and ammunition come at a higher cost.

The difference in costs depends on the strategy used, the quality of weapons and ammunition and varies widely.
It could be twice as expensive and it could be 5 times more expensive.

I do not remember a factor of 10 at any time in the past. I could imagine extreme cases where this could happen.

recent changes in the war engine in the past months were aimed at small reductions in the size of air force units in general to reduce the numbers of weapons lost in war. The air defense units were reduced more than the offensive air units.
The changes were small but we intended to continue to reduce the numbers also because of the increasing cost of weapons, all weapons, while the cost of ammunition was reduced many times and ended up at less than 40% of what it was before.

Other changes were aimed at an increase in the capabilities of land forces (both defensive and offensive) and at a reduction in the range of weapons as was requested on the forum many times.

we have reported all changes in the game news and the the war document was always updated to reflect the new capabilities of weapons and ammunition.

changes were always small but there were multiple changes that cumulated to more substantial differences.

The data you show is general and does not show specific cases.
It does no show the strategy used in the war.

Large wars produce multiple megabytes of log data, sometime 100 MB.
we use them to look into specific attacks. for example an attack wing that tries to destroy a defense wing.
This is taking place all the time as the destruction of defense wings is in many wars essential if you want to destroy an army.

we did not observe anything unusual, no huge numbers and the same patern as before except for small changes resulting from the tuning as described above.

when we do see extreme numbers, they are usually caused by extreme differences in quality. This is not frequent at all. extreme upgrading does not take place very often.

we also see that land forces are more powerful than before, both in the offense and the difense.

Not strong enough and we will apply more small updates.

Did you care to read what I said by any chance? Cause I'm seeing your copy/paste message again without reading my message at all.


Please, I have decidated a lot of time to provide you good examples for you to check and receiving the copy/paste message is aggravating at minimum.

And I have also reported you other cases by email which you replied (most of them but not all) weeks after I email you. Naturally, the evidence was gone by then.

If you want to assume I don't know how to play the war game and that I'm not an experienced player (which I am), as a reason to not read my message completely and dismiss my post without reading it with a copy/paste message, Then fine. But it is not good ;)
And please remember this have been mentioned by many other experienced players as well and most of them have quit because of this copy/paste message attitude regarding the war engine bugs...


Preconditions:
- Valid credentials
- A country at war
- Have at least 5 Long Range Division military units created with 900 offensive anti aircraft missile batteries and 1096 mid range missile batteries each
- Your offensive military must near your opponent country
Note: Near means either at any of country borders, or you could have airlifted to the country after building a remote depot. Basically, within your weapons range to the target.


Steps to reproduce:
1. Load https://simcountry.com/
2. Login with your credentials
3. Click on your country name hyperlink
4. Click on War Page button (green button at top of your page. You have assigned to that element a class name , named "deskbutton warbutton")
5. Under Wars in Progress section. Click on Fight this war hyperlink for your active war.
6. In the War Console page which was automatically opened. Click on any target from your opponent country
7. Click on attack hyperlink for any of you offensive military units
8. Make sure you offensive anti aircraft missile batteries and mid range missile batteries have 900 units selected arms (which is the current maximum amount for these two weapons)
9. Click on ATTACK DEFENSES button


As you can see, I can find and I am very aware of the basic functioning too.


Now, if you would have cared to read my message you would have also noticed that I shared the attacked country newspapers in the months on which I attacked, for you to check and have a direct access. This, along with the information shared should have been enough for you to check. But all good, my mistake, I will follow your game.

I have attacked " ATTACK DEFENSES " first against a county and towns which were undefended, but which were also the most distant from other countries in the federation which were providing federation defense support. And these undefended towns and counties were also at one of attacked country borders.

I have decided to attack with land forces cause the air offense, guess what ... IT-IS-BROKEN too!! Worst than landing forces.
So, I decided to stick with Long Range Division military units with oaamb and mrmb (*1).
Another part of the strategy was to kill helicopters first which is a very old well known strategy.

Naturally, after killing all the helicopters (which I eventually did and I mentioned it on the post I made which you did not read). Oh, just in case. Remember I dragged the helicopters by shooting to an isolated distant and undefended county/town and by attacking DEFENSES only.

By the way, killing 62k helicopters costs me 500k oaamb/mrmb. Almost 10 times... TEN TI-MES. I can't believe these numbers are not broughting your attention. And I'm not sure whether Ikanoba run out of ammo or it was just absurd killing ratio (my military unit was higher than them).

So after killing the helicopters I tried to drained some DMB (*2) too (because they are super powerfule nowadays) from military units but there is a moment after attacking the same target (undefended county/town) with ATTACK DEFENSES that your attack makes no damage:

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Thu Apr 22, 5042 Long Range Division 'Ashdod' attacks the county of 'Marla'
Intramuros (the attacked country) reports:
No weapon losses were reported.
The defense was assisted by the Garrison TG4362.
The War Index remains 58.11
FB La Clockwork Orange (the attacker) reports:
The weapons chosen were not effective in this attack.
The War Index remains 97.89<!-/Quote-!>

It is because of this you are forced to move forward onto another target.
So I choosed a new county/town undefended and I ended with results like. Same LRD with 900/900 oaamb/mrmb. And remember, federation helis were GONE.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Thu May 2, 5042 Long Range Division 'Saza' attacks Small Supply Unit Arden
Intramuros (the attacked country) reports:
Arden lost 16 missile interceptor batteries and 30 armored vehicles.
Arden lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
The country used 2400 missile interceptors in the defense.
37 soldiers were killed and 72 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by the Long Range Division Danville 8 AD.
The War Index remains 58.11
FB La Clockwork Orange (the attacker) reports:
Long Range Division 'Saza' lost 900 offensive aa batteries and 900 mid range missile batteries.
Long Range Division 'Saza' lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
5247 soldiers were killed and 10815 were wounded.
The War Index remains 97.89<!-/Quote-!>

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Thu May 2, 5042 Long Range Division 'Branson' attacks Small Supply Unit Arden
Intramuros (the attacked country) reports:
Arden lost 65 defensive missile batteries.
Arden lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
45 soldiers were killed and 100 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by the Long Range Division Belisso 6 LAD.
The War Index remains 58.11
FB La Clockwork Orange (the attacker) reports:
Long Range Division 'Branson' lost 900 offensive aa batteries and 900 mid range missile batteries.
Long Range Division 'Branson' lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
3449 soldiers were killed and 12142 were wounded.
The War Index remains 97.89<!-/Quote-!>

So, despite having to use 500k oaamb/mrmb to kill 62k helis. I thought it was a good moment to move onto the next stage of good practices. Which was after draining your opponent helis or ints, proceed to attack their main targets (defense first, target afterwards).
I focused on attacking cities/capital ... First ATTACK DEFENSES until cleaning garrison units. And right after that, attacking the target (ATTACK TARGET) to destroy it 100%.
Again, without federation helicopters I followed this good practice strategy and my attack results with ATTACK DEFENSES were same as above. You used to lose some weapons when attacking DEFENSES to a country target without federation helicopters but a garrison. But you were able to kill all garrison units.
On this case, it was completely pointless. Why? I don't know with certainty but my guess is that DMB are shooting FIRST instead of SECOND (after receiving an attack).

After making more 29 ATTACK DEFENSES attacks on a city with LRD (900 oaamb/mrmb each), I was still not able to kill the garrison unit (which was 200/200/200 daamb/dmb/mib). Federation helicopters were GONE before these 29 attacks.
29000 (twenty nine thousands!!!) of oaamb/mrmb each.

Link: https://sim02.simcountry.com/cgi-bin/cgi2nova?SN_ADDRESS=wwwCountry&SN_METHOD=localnews&miCountryName=INTRAMUROS&miNewsDate=50420101
Search for "attacks the city of 'Benono'"


There wans't much left to do. I went nuts after noticing these BUGS and tried Attack Defenses onto small supply/large supply/military units and of course I lost it all. But the funny thing is that the attack result was literally ratio as when I was doing the good practices that I explained before.


Lastly, and as I mentioned on my original post. It was MYSELF who had in most cases a military unit 30-50 points higher than my opponent.
I hope did you dismiss my post after the first line and you are reading this one. It will be a huge progress.
Please take this post seriously and read my messages in detail and debug your code. Many people are willing to help with testing if needed.

Regards,
Nicolas


Ps: I am still waiting to receive a compensation from these bugs.

*1=
oaamb stands for offensive anti aircraft missile batteries
mrmb stands for mid range missile batteries

*2=
DMB stands for Defensive Missile Battery

Andy,

Can you update documentation of land units to include information about ranges/distance they support? I feel that some land units with batteries inside now have super big range. If this is intended we have to make this public for being transperant about it. Also please do it for mobile units.

Thanks

Myers

I don't know what you mean by copy paste.
be careful about what you you write or assume.
I did not see any error in the war engine for years.
you might not like what happens but this is the way the war engine works for a long time and relations between losses of the attacker and defender are:

1. Much higher by design for the attacker. Attacking should be much more expensive. defending players should be able to set up a strong defense for a reasonable cost.

2. exact numbers depend on strategy and quality.
This could make for a very large difference. If the defense is very effective and uses high quality weapons and ammunition than the results could be davastating.

We have always maintained that a very strong defense could deter attackers and make them abandon the war.

3. Players always looked for more effective ways to attack with fewer losses and sometimes they discover better ways and are more successful.

I am not sure what the aim is of this discussions.
if you claim that the cost of the offense is far high then i agree.
How much higher exactly, we do not know and have now way to find out except for looking at results from many attacks.

What you in fact describe is a war that caused you extreme high costs.
I do not see why you went through with this when your army suffered this amount of losses.

However, and it is good to know|:

when the defense has this many weapons that result in huge losses for the attacker, the conclusion is that the defender is too powerful to defeat or you will get into huge costs.

wars are won in Simcountry evfery day.
some are large and won anyway but there is obvuiously a point where the defense is too strong to destroy.

I understand your disappointment but from the game point of view, players hould be able to build a defense that will cause a huge damage to the attacker and survive.

I think that when you see large losses, one attack after the other, you should have abandoned the war.

Lord Mndz,

The range of units depends on the range of the weapons that are part of the unit.
the unit itself is just a "container" keeping some weapons together.

When attacking, the process is identical to having the collection of the weapons in the unit participate in the attack and each one of them does what it can to contribute. Some do not participate at all, depending on the attacked target.

Some missiles have a very long range.
as you know, we have reduced some ranges several times and in general the resulting ranges are substantially shorter.

we stopped reducing the ranges for now becuase further reductions will result in more substantial differences in the way the war is conducted and more testing is needed to see if it can be continued.

When we change weapon capabilities or their range, the changes are automatically included in a changed weapons document which is generated by the software and includes all the changes.

This was done several years ago.
before, we had to update manually and doing so required a lot of work, checking all details in the documents. It was also always late.

@Andy,

You could have felt offended with my message and the copy/paste sentence, and I sincerely apologize for that.

But you have been replying literally the same general response for some time about this topic (and not only to me). And please take into consideration that I could have felt offended to (and I am), for receiving a new general response without from what I saw, analyzing what I shared with details, debug it and address my concerns. Concerns which are shared by all the experienced war players (including those who quit the game because of this)


Additionally, you have assumed things too which is entirely my point.
You have assumed I'm not a experienced war guy. And you have assumend I'm not aware of the weapon/ammo quality effect nor that I checked and compared attacker/defender weapons quality before pressing ATTACK DEFENSES.
Which is something that I'm aware about and I actually checked and a reason why I included it on my original post. So when you mentioned that quality could have been a reason of such losses on my end, and I did mention that I had 30-50 more points higher in quality than the defender, allow me to believe/feel you did not read my message.
Also, I have emailed you on past months other examples about this topic for which you required precise information and a live war happening. I replied within minutes and 3-5 weeks after (it did not happen only once), you replied saying the evidence was gone, and the war engine works right without debugging my points raised to you.
Replying 3-5 weeks after requiring precise information you asked for to debug a live war happening, or continously receiving a general message, allow me to say that it can be offensive too. With all due respect, there is no need to threat me. Communication goes both ways.


As for this thread, I do not consider my information unsufficient but you do, which is valid.
You hinted the strategy was not shared and it could be a huge factor. I have dedicated more time to shared the strategy, yet you provided me another general response. Why asking for more details if you are not going to use it to debug?


The war engine is working like this for a long time, and again, it is what many experienced players are questioning from a bug perspective.
I'm asking you to debug this together, or you alone, but to debug it please.


Questions,
1.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

It could be twice as expensive and it could be 5 times more expensive.<!-/Quote-!>

I have mentioned multiple times and in different ways, that it is costing me at least 10 times which happens to be way higher than what you said (2-5 times).
I understand this is a strong valid point that should lead you to debug it, but for some reason you are not and you keep saying everything is fine.
So the question is my losses and costs are 10 times higher than my defender with a small defense, when you say it should 2-5 times only?



2. Context:
* Target city with a garrison of (200/200/200 daamb/mib/dmb)
* There is no federation helicopters. All were destroyed.
* All my LRD have a higher quality than my opponent garrison

How is it possible that after 29 Attack Defenses attacks of LRD (900 oaamb/900 mrmb) , I was not able to kill the garrison weapons and I have lost all my weapons used entirely.
How is it possible that the attack results were same as when I was attacking ATTACK DEFENSES to an isolated and undefended county and the federation helicopters were still up?



3. I have mentioned also, that there seems to be an issue with DMB. On my opinion they are hitting first. Or the MIB effectiveness is up to 99.99% clearly by mistake. I think the issue is on the DMB
It does not make sense at all, like on my #2 point scenario, that without federation helicopters I was not able at all to kill that garrison with relative ease.
Again, after 29 Attack Defenses attacks of LRD (900 oaamb/900 mrmb) with a higher quality than the defender. I was able to destroy around 5% of the garrison unit only.
This is NOT working properly.



4.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

I do not see why you went through with this when your army suffered this amount of losses.<!-/Quote-!>

I kept attacking cause you keep saying this war engine has no bugs without debugging it. And I wanted to provide you an absurd case like this one to help you debugging it but I'm unfortunately failing on this.
It is very difficult for me to know what information you need, if the first thing you ask is World and Country. Afterwards, when you receive it you say the information is general and there is no specific case. Either this, or you reply long weeks after when all evidence is gone.
It can be extremely helpful if you are precise on your end on what you need also cause it seems to be always insufficient.
And most of the times, it shouldn't take long to set up a scenario even on production to check the things that we raise.



5. If you have dedicated 30 minutes, maybe 60, to generate a scenario in QA enviroment or Production directly, to try the air offense you would have noticed that it costs are unaffordablefor everyone. And that they are useless to beat very few interceptors in a federation. Your small military unit changes despite your good intentions, are not fixing the root cause of the issue.
It would be great if you can actually recreate this scenario and debug it. It's been working like this for years (broken).


6. If my questions are not clear enough, or the information provided is still unsufficient then I kindly ask you to precise on your end with everything that you need.
What exact information do you need and what can we do to get a fast response after you debug it?


When I say fast response, I'm talking about not getting a 3-5 weeks response where the evidence is gone, again.


Thank you, have a nice day
Nicolas

Thanks Andy,

The part you have replied about is fine, i am asking about the support range when unit is not attacked directly, but is close on the map of the other unit that is attacked. How close another unit should be to join the fight? If this depends on attack range of weapons, then all units would cover each other which is not ok.

The results of attacks depend on the numbers of weapons on each side.
If the defense has very large numbers of weapons it is hard to destroy.

each attack has 10 shooting rounds.
the defense starts and the firs round could destroy many attack weapons.
This reduces the first attack round and the second defense round, slightly smaller, is again davastating.

if you could attack with 9000 weapons instead of 900, the results would be very different.

What happens during an attack round depends on the weapons that are involved and what each of them is capable of.

the weapons document shows the exact numbers.

if the garrison is using 100 weapons of a certain type and each one of them has a 60% hit rate with 100% damage, than the first round of that weapon alone will destroy 50 of the attacking weapons and there might be larger numbers and more types of weapons that are capable of either destroying attack weapons of destroying the incoming missiles.

A large defense unit is destructive.

we have, at the requeswt of players, increased the destructive power of the lower cost land forces.
we do not think that the entire war should be a missile and airforce dominated.

If there is a problem with a specific weapon it must be in the numbers assigned to that weapon.
you can see exactly what a specific weapon does to every other weapon offensive and defensive.

There are also more cases now where one or more of the weapons involved in an attack is out of range.
I am not saying that this is the case here but we see this more than before.
defense weapons are at the attacked location and are in range.
also these cannot always attack offensive weapons that are at a long distance.

Still need to clarify on assistance part. If my capital is attacked and missile land unit(e.g land defense division) is 200 km away, would it respond? Would that depend on weapons in that unit.

A few questions.
1) It indicates that if an off unit is near the target it will increase unit proficiency in the attack. Is this the case? Why would it not be special forces?
2) If the offensive unit strikes first, why would it not start the first round?
3) Why do countries that are involved in a war continue to use live ammo in training? One would think all the resources would be saved for the war.
I know this has been a tough couple of weeks, Understand we love the game and would like it to succeed, I believe the input from the players is crucial to that success.
Rob

Mndz,

I will get back with answers.
we have recently reacted to requests about the response.

We plan to reduce the fed support from two to one unit.
We also intended to allow more support by units that are within range.
it is not done yet.

more because of a discussion about it than the little work needed to do it.

I will get back with more details.

Rob,

No difficult several weeks.
I was not available all the time.

We have no problems with comments and criticism as long as the discussion is constructive.
Many previous serious discussions ended with bug fixing. Players have contributed a lot during the past years to improve the game and helped us find problems.

we take comments seriously. when a player is telling us something is wrong especially an experienced player, we look into it.

to your points:

1. if an offensive land unit is close to a target under attack by the airforce, the damage of the airforce attack will be larger.
we think that waging war from a distance with no land force should be more difficult. the type of land unit is not the issue. The fact the land forces are used is.

2. In all types of attacks, the actual fighting rounds start with the defense. This is a choice made from the start to give the defense an advantage. The advantage is not very significant.
In fact, only some of the available weapons are used in each round of fighting.

3. Training is ongoing all the time. Also in war, most units are inactive most of the time and training should continue. Training is an integral part of army activity and the use of ammunition represents part of the cost of maintaining the army.

@Andy,
I would be kind and polite, if you could answer my questions as well too. I have taken the time, again, to do what you asked (one more time). This time I have listed them under "Questions" and I used numbering instead of bullets.

Thank you for your time,
Regards

Question #7: How easy it can be to public the results of each 16 mini rounds for each attack?

This way we could deeply analyze how the opponent defense is performing and we can identify a country-strategy for it. Just weapons used in both sides for that specific attack (ammo can be hidden).

Question #8: Was your following statement correct?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

if the garrison is using 100 weapons of a certain type and each one of them has a 60% hit rate with 100% damage, than the first round of that weapon alone will destroy 50 of the attacking weapons and there might be larger numbers and more types of weapons that are capable of either destroying attack weapons of destroying the incoming missiles.<!-/Quote-!>

As per documentation link

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The defense starts the first mini round. It uses one sixteenth of the available defense weapons (counted and validated in stage one) to attack the offensive forces that are ready for the attack.<!-/Quote-!>

Example

• country without defenses but 100 interceptors only
• Effectiveness against Attack Drones
  • hit rate: 60% damage: 100%
  • 9 missiles per interceptor
• Attacker user 100 Fighters

Stage one: Inventory of the participating weapon systems.

• attacker use 100 fighters
• defender has 100 interceptors

My understanding in the Stage Two - Mini Round 1 is the following:
Stage two: Mini Round 1, defender attack first

• 100 interceptors divided by 16 = 6.25
• 6.25 interceptors * 9 missiles = 56.25 missiles
• 56.25 * 60% rate / 100% damage = 33.75 fighters destroyed instead of 60

I was following the documentation. Did I miss/misunderstood something?

56.25 * 60% rate (100% damage) = 33.75 fighters destroyed instead of 60

Myers,

question 7:

there are 10 rounds.
tere are megabytes of data for each attack, missile by missile, bomb by bomb.
there is no way to publish it, requires hours of work.

this has been tested for many years.
there is no change in the logic ever, only in the parameters and the participating weapons.

some are effective some are not, depending on the weapons involved from both sides.

question 8:

I am not sure about percentages of participating weapons in each of the 10 rounds.

I will look into it ASAP.

You math sounds around right. This is the way it works.

What I am not sure about is which weapons participate on both sides.
this is of course essential.
and not sure about the percentages.

I now saw the oaamb used.

these are only effective agaist aircraft.

did you check which weapons in the garrison can be hit by these two types of missiles?

I assume that the attacking unit had enough ammo.

Also, the defense was assisted by a land division.....

I do not know how many weapons were involved in the defense.
which attack weapons were effective.
what was the quality on both sides.

any results could be expected here.

I do not think that the attacking force was optimal to destroy a garrison.

I don't think the ofaamb did anything at all.

We have done many years of debugging the war engine and we did not see any meaningful result of any attack that made us distrust the engine.

I understand you want us to spend a week of work to debug your attacks but for now, I did not see any reason to do so.

I think that the attack should have involved land units with many tanks and artilery. anti tank missiles in large numbers and medium range missile.

Also the airforce could be used, depending on which weapons remained functioning in the garrison.
destroying the land division before the attack on the garrison could be a good idea too.

Large garrisons are difficult to destroy.