War Engine improvements

Andy,

I am now inclined to say that the war engine appears to have no bugs after all. Assuming it was designed this way though.
It ended being that I was not taking into account that during Stage 2 - Mini Round 1, the attacker units were calculated using about 1 in 16 attack weapons of each type, also.
That said, however, with all due respect I might not be choosing the right words but to my eyes the war engine even by working by design it is still broken cause it is infinitely unbalance.


World: Fearless Blue
Attacker country: FB La Clockwork Orange
Attacked country: Intramuros
Attacked country Federation: Yes, with some countries within range, but it makes no impact on this discussion.


Attacked Target: Town
Attacked target Garrison: Yes, details on screenshot
Other things to keep on mind:

• Fighting Unit quality: Attacker weapons has higher quality than defender ones.
• Offensive land weapons near target: Yes. And it made literally no difference having 50 mobile land defense + 50 Long Range Division units next to the attacked target. I just noticed you said it would affect air offense but I thought it worth mentioning it too, cause while the weapon used was land one, it was land weapon that hits from distance only.

  <!-Quote-!>Quote:

  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.

  source: https://www.simcountry.com/discus/messages/1/29635.html?1680184950 \Tuesday, March 21, 2023 - 11:49 pm<!-/Quote-!>

• This has also been tested against defender land units (supply units, land units) and no garrisoned counties/towns. Result was the same. Which makes sense since these are formulas. If there is no garrison, then another defensive unit within federation and within range will jump in.

Where it says "LBLB" it meant to be "LBCB", Land Based Cruise Batteries.
Attacked country lost 23 missile interceptor batteries.
Attacker country lost 900 land based cruise batteries.

Questions:

• It is my understanding I should have destroyed 32 defensive unit batteries instead of 23. The attacker had higher quality unit so not sure what else is missing on the calculations. It worth understanding what else is or could be missing. Andy?

Now, this is how the war engine works. At this pace it clearly takes forever to get through minimal defenses, making it impossible to engage war and have fun. Literally that. As we could see on my previous post on different thread not even 600T weapons and + 400T in game cash could make significant damage to a small size defensive army.

Opening brainstorming here, while keeping always in mind that building up reasonable defender army should be way cheaper than the attacker. Therefore, building an army costs more.

A) I have tested this by fighting 4, 5 or 6 defensive units instead of 7. Results are the same unless there is no Division / Missile Defense Division assisting defense. Since those units can have up to 1996 units of the same type, it is more likely you will lose everything before even being able to attack. So you in other words, you could end fighting 3 defensive units, but if 2 of those are Division of 1996 MIB / DMB each, then you can assume you lose everything before attacking.
It also understandable why air offense is useless, cause they start with less max unit amount than 900. And it is way smaller if you mix unit types as we should to have some meat shield for instance.

Suggestion here could be to reduced the number of assistance units on defense, but as I explained, upon my calcs it makes no difference. I could always be wrong too


B) Making offensive units size larger. If a defensive unit like Division can be created with 1996 [daamb OR mib OR dmb] weapons, why keeping the offensive weapons such low?
Above attack being made with 2000 LBCB instead of 900 it would have end being:
Attacked country lost 444 missile interceptor batteries.
Attacker country lost 125 land based cruise batteries.

Above attack being made with 1500 LBCB instead of 900 it would have end being:
Attacked country lost 257 missile interceptor batteries.
Attacker country lost 125 land based cruise batteries.

It worth to mention that these numbers can vary if defense is built in a different manner. Also, LBCB are the most effective weapon so far (still useless :D), with 900 max unit type and 100% rate/damage.
2000 oaamb/mrmb each should/might destroy less defensive batteries since their rate/damage is lower.

Suggestion would be to find a reasonable number to increase the max amount of unit type per military unit.

C) Updating what I suppose it is, a simple formula. Round 2 - mini stage 1, attacker first mini round attack.
Instead of using 1/16 available weapons per unit type, divide it for a smaller number.


Above attack being made with 1/12 LBCB instead of 1/16 it would have end being:
Attacked country lost 129 missile interceptor batteries.
Attacker country lost 125 land based cruise batteries.

Above attack being made with 1/8 LBCB instead of 1/16 it would have end being:
Attacked country lost 322 missile interceptor batteries.
Attacker country lost 125 land based cruise batteries.


Again, this is versus a defensive army built up this way. And I like this approach, it might require less coding though, but if the defender has 2 Division units of 1996 mib/dmb each, then before the 1/16 formula is made on the attacker side, all the attacker units are GONE.


I need to go back to work lol. Please I encourage once again everyone willing to enjoy the war side of this beautiful game again, to share your thoughts whether you find current war engine balance for defender/attacker or not, and if you have other suggestions as well too.

Have a nice day,
Nicolas

Thank you Nicolas for the time and effort you have put into this. Where I am no math wizard I can say with a high level of confidence that your equations and their outcome appear to be accurate. My opinion is based on the many wars I have experienced. I have placed multiple land units on / near targets and could see no noticeable effect. (not saying there wasn't just not noticeable) The defense with the combined help from a federation, along with mobile units air defense units and garrisons overwhelms a single offensive unit.
Not sure what the fix would be. As the game stands now an offensive war is cost prohibited.
I believe someone defending their home /country will fight much more ferociously than someone attacking another's home /country. This too should be considered. I guess the question is. How do we make the offense more effective while keeping a strong defense a major deterrent.
There are some highly intelligent players here. (I'm not one of them) I hope they will take this opportunity to address this topic and give their assessment and recommendations.
Rob
The Brain
Fearless Blue

Now, this new test has left me completely shocked.

I realized that we currently potentially have a way to test suggestion #B. It is not the same though, but it is similar.... The suggestion was to have offensive military unit bigger means that when divided by 16, the result amount will be higher that today. Hence, it is suppose to make more damage by using more missiles, etc.

Below test works with today's limit, which is a maximum of 900 units per land base weapon, but unlike common LRD of 900 oaamb/mrmb each, on this case I was able to use 4 and 5 different weapons with 900 units each. Why do I thought it would have been a valid scenario? Cause the defender weapons has a maximum amount of missiles available per mini-round, and by using more offensive weapons in the attack I thought it would have forced the defender to spread the missiles, reducing the impact on the attacker and opening a window to inflict more damage on the defender. It did not work :D


How to test it?

1. Build an offensive military base
2. Manually move it to one of your country borders
3. Declare war to the country adyancent to that border from step 2.
4. Make sure you have a couple thousands of land weapons like: oaamb, mrmb, lcbcb, lsmb
5. DO NOT create military units. Just keep them Active.

oaamb = offensive anti aircraft missile batteries
mrmb = mid range missile batteries
lcbcb = land based cruise batteries
lsmb = land to sea missile batteries
cmb = conventional missile batteries

World: Fearless Blue
Attacked country: The Independent State of Pekardi
Attacker country: aa34

The attacked country is in the same federation, almost adyancent to Intramuros.


WAVE 1: Attacker weapons used with "land based arms":

weapon	units
oaamb	900
mrmb	900
lbcb	900
lsmb	900

Defender weapons involved

Target: undefended county

assisted by	weapon	unit
Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1	helicopters	292
Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 2 H	helicopters	292
Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 10 H	helicopters	292

results

• attacked country lost 194 helicopters
• attacker country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 900 mid range missile batteries, 900 land based cruise batteries and 456 land to sea missile batteries.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Nov 17 5049. Ground- or Airforce attacks the county of 'Bokarra'.
The Independent State of Pekardi (the attacked country) reports:
The country lost 194 helicopters.
88 soldiers were killed and 214 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1, Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 2 H and Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 10 H.
The allies lost 97 soldiers and 226 soldiers were wounded.
The War Index remains 53.28
aa34 (the attacker) reports:
The country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 900 mid range missile batteries, 900 land based cruise batteries and 456 land to sea missile batteries.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
23014 soldiers were killed and 49557 were wounded.
The War Index remains 52.98<!-/Quote-!>

WAVE 2: Attacker weapons used with "land based arms":

weapon	units
oaamb	900
mrmb	900
lsmb	900

results

• attacked country lost 27 helicopters
• attacker country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 900 mid range missile batteries and 900 land to sea missile batteries.
• batteries.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Nov 17 5049. Ground- or Airforce attacks the county of 'Bokarra'.
The Independent State of Pekardi (the attacked country) reports:
The country lost 27 helicopters.
10 soldiers were killed and 19 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1, Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 1 H and Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 10 H.
The allies lost 15 soldiers and 28 soldiers were wounded.
The War Index remains 53.28
aa34 (the attacker) reports:
The country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 900 mid range missile batteries and 900 land to sea missile batteries.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
5394 soldiers were killed and 17369 were wounded.
The War Index remains 52.98<!-/Quote-!>

WAVE 3: Attacker weapons used with "land based arms":

weapon	units
oaamb	900
mrmb	900
cmb	900
lbcb	900
lsmb	900

results

• attacked country lost 201 helicopters
• The country lost 850 conventional missile batteries.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Nov 17 5049. Ground- or Airforce attacks Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1.
The Independent State of Pekardi (the attacked country) reports:
Lula 1 lost 201 helicopters.
Lula 1 lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
122 soldiers were killed and 366 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1, Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 3 H and Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 10 H.
The allies lost 64 soldiers and 157 soldiers were wounded.
The War Index remains 53.28
aa34 (the attacker) reports:
The country lost 850 conventional missile batteries.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
15132 soldiers were killed and 41934 were wounded.
The War Index remains 52.98<!-/Quote-!>

WAVE 4: Attacker weapons used with "land based arms":

weapon	units
oaamb	900
mrmb	868
cmb	149
lbcb	900
lsmb	609

results

• attacked country lost 187 helicopters
• The country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 868 mid range missile batteries, 149 conventional missile batteries, 900 land based cruise batteries and 609 land to sea missile batteries.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The Independent State of Pekardi (the attacked country) reports:
Lula 1 lost 187 helicopters.
Lula 1 lost trucks, gasoline and military supplies.
96 soldiers were killed and 334 were wounded.
The defense was assisted by Defense helicopter Wing Lula 1, Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 4 H and Defense helicopter Wing Batangas 10 H.
The allies lost 63 soldiers and 181 soldiers were wounded.
The War Index remains 53.28
aa34 (the attacker) reports:
The country lost 900 offensive aa batteries, 868 mid range missile batteries, 149 conventional missile batteries, 900 land based cruise batteries and 609 land to sea missile batteries.
The attack may have been reduced or eliminated by Anti Missile Missiles.
27844 soldiers were killed and 88705 were wounded.
The War Index remains 52.98<!-/Quote-!>

########################################################################
########################################################################

Some things I'm noticing:
1. For some reason I can't explain, CMB seems to be the new meatshield. Refer to Wave 3.
On Wave 3, 900 CMB completely shield every other unit used. Report says on the attacked country side, that no missile interceptor were used. It worth to mention at this point that losing 850 cmb required many mini-rounds.
So if no missile interceptor were used, my 900 oaamb should have destroyed 337 helicopters just on the mini-round 1 only (900/16*6 = 337.5). Yet, the attack destroyed 201 helis only instead of A LOT, taking into account I did not lose a single oaamb and I have always had more than enough ammo. It is odd to me.


Andy, What's your opinion on below three statements/questions? Am I missing something?

#1 Wave 3: Shouldn't have I destroyed way more helicopters taking into account I lost 0 oaamb, I had enough ammo and many mini-rounds were run?


#2 Defensive weapons used were helicopters only. 3 wings of 292 each for a total of 876 helicopters.

876 divided by 16 = 54.75 multiply by 9 missiles = 492.75 per mini round.

492.75 multiply by (hypothetically) 16 mini-rounds = 7884 missiles (assuming no helis were destroyed).
If we consider Wave 3 my highest one of 4500 weapon units, then we could conclude it would have been right to lose all of it cause twice missiles were used... However, we are not considering yet, the helicopter hit rate percentage.

def unit	off unit	hit rate	damage
helicopter	oaamb	30%	90%

helicopter, mrmb, 25%, 60%
helicopter, lcbc, 15%, 30%
helicopter, lsmb, 25%, 60%
helicopter, cmb, 20%, 10%}


An average between of all those hit rates returns 23%.
7884 missiles of hypothetically 16 mini-rounds multiply by 23% = 1813 missiles should have hit offensive weapons.
And the number should be even below 1813 cause the damage % on this case is always less than 100%, and it is actually very low for lcbc and cmb. But let's keep damage percentage out of this equation and stick with 1813 missiles + assuming no helicopters were destroyed either (some actually were destroyed).

Focus on Wave #4. Even though I did not have another 900 cmb for meatshield, just 149. The total number of offensive units used was 3426.
How can 1813 missiles destroy 3426 offensive units? And how can less than 1813 missiles (if we add the damage percentage to equation) destroy 3426 units?


#3 Why would CMB be the meat shield if out of these five weapons used, CMB has the lowest percentage ? ---> 10%


Thank you

Ps: In all situations I have always had more than enough ammo and attacker fighting unit quality unit was higher than the defender one.

When attacking from base weapons are treated at base 120 quality, this is an old bug.

Andy ?

Thank you for the efforts to document and find out exactly how it works.

However, as I said before, not all the weapons you have involved in the attack produce results.
some are ineffective against the weapons in the location or the units you attack.

I will look into more details but we have recently looked into some more attacks and never found anything that seemed wrong.

The atacks take place weapon by weapon.
each encounter has its own details.
if the weapon is ineffective against the defenders, it does nothing.

if it is effective, it will either hit or not.

it is not a computation of so many against so many with some results.

it is one by one.

it is hard to imagine how this one by one attack can go wrong within the percentages as set for these weapons to function.