Casualities

[Lord Moore]

It seems your most expensive units are selected for casualties during attacks/raid, at least when you are the aggressor. Anyone else seeing this?

[CounterSniper]

No, not at all.

[Crime City Mark]

It's based on casualty rate, not cost of unit. If you have really expensive units with a low casualty rate, they won't die much.

[Freekizh]

It's based on casualty rate, not cost of unit. If you have really expensive units with a low casualty rate, they won't die much.

Thanks CCM! Could you pease advise if there's any cap or constraint mechanism on losses in relation to casualty rates - for example, if you use an army of units with 3 times the casualty rate of a higher value unit, does it necessarily mean you will have 3 times the unit losses, or are total unit losses capped in some way.

[Crime City Mark]

Not exactly. Every time you lose a unit in a single fight it becomes progressively harder to lose another unit.

Say you attack a rival and have 1,000 units. Unit 1 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate. Unit 1 dies. Unit 2 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate, but because a unit already died it goes down to 6%. Please note that the percentages presented here are totally made up on the spot and should not reflect your idea of reality.

[Freekizh]

Not exactly. Every time you lose a unit in a single fight it becomes progressively harder to lose another unit.

Say you attack a rival and have 1,000 units. Unit 1 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate. Unit 1 dies. Unit 2 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate, but because a unit already died it goes down to 6%. Please note that the percentages presented here are totally made up on the spot and should not reflect your idea of reality.

Thanks CCM - that's very helpful.

[Vile Lynn]

Say you attack a rival and have 1,000 units. Unit 1 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate. Unit 1 dies. Unit 2 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate, but because a unit already died it goes down to 6%. Please note that the percentages presented here are totally made up on the spot and should not reflect your idea of reality.

Thanks. That explaination helps me make a little more sense of the losses.

[Vile Lynn]

It seems your most expensive units are selected for casualties during attacks/raid, at least when you are the aggressor. Anyone else seeing this?


No, not at all.


I'm not seeing this at all, either.

[Lord Moore]

To clarify my OP, the units I am losing have a Low casuality rating - Flaming Catapult. I also have several dozen Trolls with Low casuality rating. Both groups are going into every battle, but I lose Catapults and not Trolls. As a test, I adjusted my ally count to draw in some High casualty rated units, still the Catapults get selected for a casualty loss.

[Aoxoa]

How many of each type do you have? If the numbers are far apart, that might explain it.

[Lord Moore]

How many of each type do you have? If the numbers are far apart, that might explain it.

Meaning, if the catapults make up the bulk of my army (units wise) it's more likely they will be chosen for a casuality? That would make sense....

[Great_wall2]

Not exactly. Every time you lose a unit in a single fight it becomes progressively harder to lose another unit.

Say you attack a rival and have 1,000 units. Unit 1 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate. Unit 1 dies. Unit 2 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate, but because a unit already died it goes down to 6%. Please note that the percentages presented here are totally made up on the spot and should not reflect your idea of reality.

Casualty % rates aside since they are made up numbers, does this mean that the more units you take into battle the greater chance you have of losing a unit since every unit goes through a casualty check? I make this assumption because someone who brings in 40 units to a battle only will have 40 casualty checks vs a 1000 times for a 1000 unit army (assume they are the same casualty rate). In the end they may end up with the same amount of casualties however even with the law of diminishing returns the larger army should theoretically be more susceptible to losses. (Of course this doesn't take into account how the defense mechanism works with casualties either).

Also is it safe to assume that the units that first get checked for casualties are the higher casualty rate units then progressively to the lower rated ones?

Either way thanks CCM for more information on casualties! This is the first time I have ever seen a more detailed description of how this works.

[Lord Moore]

Something funky is going on in my case. I'm L21 with an attack of 5600. I had 65 flaming catapults as my lead non-indestructible unit, followed by the Trolls with 55units. My opponent had a defense of 2941 with only four L1 defense towers. I did a direct attack as he had a sizable unvaulted cash balance. 3rd attack I lose a catapult, the very next attack I lose a catapult. I quit the direct attack and raid his L7 silo, 2nd hit I lose another catapult. I then attack his other L7 silo, lose another catapult. Not a very net lucrative attack sequence.

[RandomUser]

You're scenario doesn't sound far out of the norm, Lord Moore. I've had similar results in similar situations. Sometimes you're a little lucky, sometimes you're a little unlucky.

If your attack & his defense scores were even closer, you're have even higher losses, making it a losing proposition pretty quickly.

[SirMW]

Thanks CCM.

A reasonable strategy is probably to have a large meat shield that one is willing to lose hoping the subsequence casualty would be lower thus protecting the high value units. CCM, would you be willing to share the actual % of subsequence casualty % layout by your previous post.

[lucita]

Not exactly. Every time you lose a unit in a single fight it becomes progressively harder to lose another unit.

Say you attack a rival and have 1,000 units. Unit 1 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate. Unit 1 dies. Unit 2 gets checked and has an 8% casualty rate, but because a unit already died it goes down to 6%. Please note that the percentages presented here are totally made up on the spot and should not reflect your idea of reality.

Thanks CCM. And what decides the sequence of unit check? Is it by attack value, defense value, casualty rate, a combination of the above, or something else? Thanks

[Hobtuse]

Hi can anyone explain this to me?

I have 100 Death Knights to 30 Clerics. My total number of units in my army is below the maximum number of units I can bring to battle. I have done a sample size of 200 battles (all victories) and not a single Cleric has perished while I had to replace about 5-10 Death Knights. At the same time, Werewolves, Centurions, Manticores, Berserkers, Gryphons and assorted units had fallen in battle. In addition, I was attacked a few times and never lost a single Cleric.

I do not know if these factors affect the conditions. But I do have these information for reference.
1 x Inferno Hydra: -20% unit casualties
1 x Water Temple of Healing Level 1: -3% unit casualties (unsure if they stack
Able to bring 1.2k units into battle but my total number of units in my army has been under the limit for the entirety of the sample size attacks.

Death Knight 22/18 C.Rate: Very Low
Cleric 0/3 C.Rate: Very High

Does the fact that I have more Death Knights affect the random casualty rate to such a warped extent? Or am I mistaken in thinking that the Clerics go into battle?

Do I need for example say 1000 Pikemen as a buffer?

[Lord Moore]

Thanks CCM.

A reasonable strategy is probably to have a large meat shield that one is willing to lose hoping the subsequence casualty would be lower thus protecting the high value units. CCM, would you be willing to share the actual % of subsequence casualty % layout by your previous post.


Yes, I was thinking the same About a meat shield approach. The problem in my case is that I will need to add a substantial amount of allies as the bulk of my army is made up of high priced; i.e., high attack value units, relative to my Level. IMO the game mechanics are a bit messed up regarding casualities. The vault and defense buildings should be your "defense" against raids/attacks.... Don't penalize the attacker (so heavily) with the attacker's A rating higher than the opponents D rating because they found someone asleep at the wheel.

[Lord Moore]

Hobtuse, if you are attacking/raiding I don't think your Clerics, with an A=0, ever go into battle. I could be wrong about that. If you check the battle results and there is no "x#" in the Clerics box then they are sitting it out.

[Hobtuse]

Hobtuse, if you are attacking/raiding I don't think your Clerics, with an A=0, ever go into battle. I could be wrong about that. If you check the battle results and there is no "x#" in the Clerics box then they are sitting it out.

agreed. the ambiguity of what actually goes on makes it hard to decide.

had these clerics for a long time, kinda wanted to purge them haha as I don't like the magic units.

[Freekizh]

Hi can anyone explain this to me?

I have 100 Death Knights to 30 Clerics. My total number of units in my army is below the maximum number of units I can bring to battle. I have done a sample size of 200 battles (all victories) and not a single Cleric has perished while I had to replace about 5-10 Death Knights. At the same time, Werewolves, Centurions, Manticores, Berserkers, Gryphons and assorted units had fallen in battle. In addition, I was attacked a few times and never lost a single Cleric.

I do not know if these factors affect the conditions. But I do have these information for reference.
1 x Inferno Hydra: -20% unit casualties
1 x Water Temple of Healing Level 1: -3% unit casualties (unsure if they stack
Able to bring 1.2k units into battle but my total number of units in my army has been under the limit for the entirety of the sample size attacks.

Death Knight 22/18 C.Rate: Very Low
Cleric 0/3 C.Rate: Very High

Does the fact that I have more Death Knights affect the random casualty rate to such a warped extent? Or am I mistaken in thinking that the Clerics go into battle?

Do I need for example say 1000 Pikemen as a buffer?

I can confirm that Units, weapons or armor with 0A are not included in the "number of units count" and so should not be going into battle if that screen is correct.

[Vedder]

This is a great thread, thanks for the help guys!

Ved

[roghorrorfreak]

I don't think his Clerics go into battle, I get looked at or think of attacking someone and I lose 10 Clerics just for the thought, and Druids, so tired of replacing them, last night I said screw it die for all I care.

[John Snow]

Something funky is going on in my case. I'm L21 with an attack of 5600. I had 65 flaming catapults as my lead non-indestructible unit, followed by the Trolls with 55units. My opponent had a defense of 2941 with only four L1 defense towers. I did a direct attack as he had a sizable unvaulted cash balance. 3rd attack I lose a catapult, the very next attack I lose a catapult. I quit the direct attack and raid his L7 silo, 2nd hit I lose another catapult. I then attack his other L7 silo, lose another catapult. Not a very net lucrative attack sequence.

The other factor you need to consider is the ally count of your victim. CC Mark has posted that the A/D differential is immaterial when it comes to unit casualties. My unit losses have dropped way down after paying closer attention to the ally differential. If someone has >10+ allies than me, I'll start to see some losses when I attack or raid.

[The_Red]

The other factor you need to consider is the ally count of your victim. CC Mark has posted that the A/D differential is immaterial when it comes to unit casualties. My unit losses have dropped way down after paying closer attention to the ally differential. If someone has >10+ allies than me, I'll start to see some losses when I attack or raid.

Do you have a link to that? I just don't think that's right from all of the PvP Ive done in this game. Casualty losses are almost directly proportional to the A/D of your opponent. Of course, D scales with allies count. I've found that if Im 2-2.5x (>10k differential) to who Im attacking I get 1 casualty per 10 attacks.

[John Snow]

Do you have a link to that? I just don't think that's right from all of the PvP Ive done in this game. Casualty losses are almost directly proportional to the A/D of your opponent. Of course, D scales with allies count. I've found that if Im 2-2.5x (>10k differential) to who Im attacking I get 1 casualty per 10 attacks.

Now that you mention it I might have read this on the MW or CC board. I assume the mechanism is the same, though. I'll dig up those links.

[Freekizh]

I clarified CCM statement in this thread in a rare moment of group sharing, and after a period of the usual forum bashing.

http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?30476-Casualty-Rates/page6

[John Snow]

Do you have a link to that? I just don't think that's right from all of the PvP Ive done in this game. Casualty losses are almost directly proportional to the A/D of your opponent. Of course, D scales with allies count. I've found that if Im 2-2.5x (>10k differential) to who Im attacking I get 1 casualty per 10 attacks.

Here's CCM's post on the KA Forum. Direct and to the point. He says much of the same on the MW forum.

http://www.funzio.com/forum/showthread.php?26484-Kingdom-Age&p=200272#post200272

Oh, and just for you, I raided someone who had 1k less in Def than my Att but had 12 more allies than me. I "won" by losing a trebuchet.

[Freekizh]

It's a very technical point...i wouldn't over think it though.

[Great_wall2]

Casualties for me are getting worse! I used to lose one seige towers every couple of attacks /raids and now I'm losing two to three siege towers every attack! Everyone's vaults are large now, very little profit, in fact I'm losing by attacking and raiding. I may have to switch to increasing my catapults now instead of towers because I have so many High pimps...

I usually have 5000 to 10000 more attack than my targets defense and usually less allies and units...

[Timbathia]

I must say this now seems all rather stupid. A/D stats determine the winner of the fight, but relative unit numbers determine casualties? If a thousand dragons go up against a thousand kittens holding sticks, why would any dragons die?

I have really no intention of attacking anyone in this game against unless they personally offend me, as it costs more than it brings. I have lost more werewolves attacking weak players than I can afford to buy with the honor won.

[Freekizh]

I must say this now seems all rather stupid. A/D stats determine the winner of the fight, but relative unit numbers determine casualties? If a thousand dragons go up against a thousand kittens holding sticks, why would any dragons die?

I have really no intention of attacking anyone in this game against unless they personally offend me, as it costs more than it brings. I have lost more werewolves attacking weak players than I can afford to buy with the honor won.

Makes sense to me pal. And you're painting a very simplistic and silly picture of how it works.

[Timbathia]

Makes sense to me pal. And you're painting a very simplistic and silly picture of how it works.

While my picture was painted simplistically, it is based on the logic that if I attack someone with a weak defense I should lose less units than attacking someone with a strong defense. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Freekizh]

While my picture was painted simplistically, it is based on the logic that if I attack someone with a weak defense I should lose less units than attacking someone with a strong defense. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

As I have already said in a previous post, don't overplay this technical point as it only plays a significant role in the very extreme circumstance of relative units, like if you are 2-1 or 3-1, and number of units is correlated to A/D generally. The are many more factors which come into play, including the specific characteristics of the unit, I.e., casualty relativity is maintained.

Like I said u r focusing on very one small technical point.

[CounterSniper]

While my picture was painted simplistically, it is based on the logic that if I attack someone with a weak defense I should lose less units than attacking someone with a strong defense. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

But not totally realistic. Imagine a company of regular infantry going against a dug in and prepared Spec Ops 10 man team. Sure, you may out number them ten to one but even if you win you are gonna lose.

It really is very complicated and I spoke towards this last night in general terms in another thread as well but it just isn't A/D &/or unit numbers. So many other factors come into play.

[Coog]

I’ve run in to a bit of a problem. When building my manors I bulked up on allies, since there was no point staying low when people with over 300 allies saw me. I’m now at 201 allies and send out over 600 units to battle when I attack, and with my sparse offense, the High Priests with an attack value of 11 also get sent out to battle. That is not good, not good at all because as soon as I lose an unit, you bet, it’s a High Priest. I’ve been building siege towers like crazy but have a long way to go before hitting 600.

Now I can’t really decide what to do. I’m reluctant to cut down on allies since all those people has made the effort to send out their requests to me, and it would feel as I slap them right in the face. I could bulk up on catapults (attack value 13) to act as a buffer to spare my priests but even if they aren’t expensive, they aren’t exactly dirt cheap either. A lot of money to pay for disposable junk units.

[roghorrorfreak]

I think you guys put way to much thaught into it. To me it just seems random.One time I can lose Druids and Clarics, I replace them and fight again. The next time I lose Zeplins and monks, replace them. Fight again and I lose Shamans and Vikings. To me there seems to be no rhyme or reason just luck. Even with the hydra and the water temple I have been attacked and lost up to five differant types.

[Coog]

I think you guys put way to much thaught into it. To me it just seems random.One time I can lose Druids and Clarics, I replace them and fight again. The next time I lose Zeplins and monks, replace them. Fight again and I lose Shamans and Vikings. To me there seems to be no rhyme or reason just luck. Even with the hydra and the water temple I have been attacked and lost up to five differant types.

No, since I have divided my army in offence and defence it’s purely mathematical. 600 of my troops are sent out to battle and it’s the 600 with the highest attack strength. That, for now, includes my best defensive units – the High Priests that cost a **** load of money and die like flies when they don’t stay back and guard my rear.

[roghorrorfreak]

Well of all my deaths, I do lose more Druids and clarics more then any other but I do seem to lose more then the person I am attacking. Yesturday for example I lost on average 2 types in every fight, the person I attacked (not the same person over and over I do have a heart) about 50% at one lost unit. def was about 1k to 1.5k difference I am 40 to 41 I say this because I lvld up yesturday. I am not a "superpower" I am mid range there are plenty higher then me and plenty lower then me. I am sitting at about 8700 def 8300 offense. That my be where my diversity is differant not sure just a guess.

[frenda]

While my picture was painted simplistically, it is based on the logic that if I attack someone with a weak defense I should lose less units than attacking someone with a strong defense. That seems entirely reasonable to me.

I'm with you on this too. Infantry versus Special Ops defense aside, which is an extreme example, the loss rates are totally BS and seem very random. I can go up against someone with a defense 1/2 my atk and I still lose units, even low casualty ones, so I'm not buying the explanation at all. I don't mind losing units, but make it more realistic and don't blow sunshine up my skirt. BTW, I do this professionally for a living, so I understand Pk tables and the Monte Carlo effect. If we had results like this, our analysts would laugh their asses off at the sheer absurdity.

[Kiss Of Death]

It's based on casualty rate, not cost of unit. If you have really expensive units with a low casualty rate, they won't die much.

I have Manticores that die by the dozen next to my centurions and paladins... all low... but my high and very high units rarely ever are casulaties.... Then I figured if I'm fielding 900 troops, 70 can't die (gold) then then next 500 are all Manticores, paladins and Centurians... then there sonly a dozen of each of the other types... it's most likely that even being low... if the system is cas rate per unit then I am increasing the chance of my low units being casualties simply by the sheer percentage of them fielded compared to my highs and very highs... I have no idea if this is how it works but it would explain it logically so I'm sitting pretty with it... and well... just sitting pretty Lol :)

[The_Red]

No, since I have divided my army in offence and defence it’s purely mathematical. 600 of my troops are sent out to battle and it’s the 600 with the highest attack strength. That, for now, includes my best defensive units – the High Priests that cost a **** load of money and die like flies when they don’t stay back and guard my rear.

you need to up your attack units > than the attack of the HPs or lower your allies to get your units below the strong ones you have. With an appropriately "staffed" army, you shouldn't lose any defensive oriented high casualty rate units.

You should buy some imps or the like.

[roghorrorfreak]

I have imps, not a huge lot of imps but I have them.

[The_Red]

I have imps, not a huge lot of imps but I have them.

you need to have enough imps and other high power units to fill your attack army so they don't go in.
I usually try to have 100 more units than my army at higher attack/defense than my HPs so that they
never go in for an attack. Imps are pretty cheap.

[Timbathia]

I have just started buying Basilisks, and quite frankly, am too scared to fight anyone in case they die. We are like family - it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about having to bury one.

[SickDuck]

I have just started buying Basilisks, and quite frankly, am too scared to fight anyone in case they die. We are like family - it brings a tear to my eye just thinking about having to bury one.

I have >200 wyverns, and I know what you mean. If one dies, well that sucks, 2500G down the hole.

[lucita]

oh boy, talking about high cost lost I now have trouble about keeping my flaming trebuchet / 5.4k!
I've a few daily feeds whom I do 2-3 series of 20-strike every day. Since about 2-3 days ago one of my daily feeds started to inflict 1 kill of my flaming trebuchet every 20 attacks. His att/def didn't change and in fact went down, he/she is not even having the highest att or def among my feeds. Nothing more than 1/3 of my att / def.
I've 75 flaming trebuchet, manti as my meat shield, max ally at 500 and 100+berk as low meat shield but no imp. Any suggestion/hypothesis will be greatly appreciated!

[Coog]

you need to up your attack units > than the attack of the HPs or lower your allies to get your units below the strong ones you have. With an appropriately "staffed" army, you shouldn't lose any defensive oriented high casualty rate units.

You should buy some imps or the like.

Yeah I know, just stings to buy a heap of junk units to fill out the gaps. I went for the catapult, since I allready had it unlocked. Bought 200 of them yesterday and has to buy another 200 today before I can roll out on the offense again...

[Lord Moore]

I'd like to see the casuality rates/calcs adjusted. There simply is little incentive to build an economy to afford strong units to only see them chewed up by attacking seemingly weaker players. It seems they try to make it "fair" so no one has any advantage to rely on...which sucks the fun out of it for those that have dedicated a fair amount of time and $$$ to build a "strong" army. Or they have a large random factor in play, which doesn't make sense for a "strategy" game. Make it more obvious what's going on. If someone has a lot of defense buldings and your A is close to their D then expect to lose some units, for example. But I've had large A advantages and the rival had little to no defense units and yet I lose high cost, low casuality units....despite having a meat shield. Very frustrating.

[Sir Mixalot]

Yesterday I was randomly spammed by a lvl 10 with only a castle and a barracks. A total def of 25, while I was lvl 26 with attack of around 3k. I made 6 attacks and lost about 8 units, ranging from zepplin, catapults, rangers, druids and sorcerors. He has an army of 20 pikemen, 2 foot soldiers, 1 skirmisher and 1 air mage. Yes I am confused by these results, it was definitely a WTF moment. I don't care about the losses, but I'm wondering how broken the game mechanics are.

[Dexter Morgan]

It is frustrating. At one point in a span of 20 attacks I would lose 8 wyverns. I would lose the occasional imp as well but nothing like the wyverns. And when you are attacking someone with1/3 the defense of your offense it's more frustrating

[frenda]

I'll say it again, the attack model is broke! Funzio please fix it. It takes away from an otherwise fun game.

[Great_wall2]

From what I understand about casualties, each unit you attack with goes through a casualty check. If one unit is deemed a casualty then the rate of the remaining units goes down which helps to limit a lot of casualties. However the flaw I see here is that if you attack a smaller army with a larger army then the possibility of the larger army unit losing units increases if every one of your units goes through a casualty check. That would explain why if you attack a crappy army you could still lose a lot of units especially if you have a lot of the same units with the same casualty rate.

My suggestion would be that if you attack an army with 20 units then only 20 units of the attacking army should go through a casualty check rather then the whole army. Not sure if this is happening already but I would assume not given the high casualty rates everyone is seeing, especially with large armies.

[frenda]

If you attack a small enough army with a big enough army, you shouldn't have any casualties, yet I still lose valuable units (not just crappy ones) to opponents with defense 1/4 or 1/3 of my attack numbers. Let's quit candy-coating it and call it what it is, it's a way for Funzio to make more money when you have to replace your expensive units. It's getting lame, to the point where I'm ready to quit the game unless they change the combat dynamics to something more realistic. What's the point of getting quality units when they are lost just as easily, and usually to a crappy opponent?

[asdfg12345]

If you attack a small enough army with a big enough army, you shouldn't have any casualties, yet I still lose valuable units (not just crappy ones) to opponents with defense 1/4 or 1/3 of my attack numbers. Let's quit candy-coating it and call it what it is, it's a way for Funzio to make more money when you have to replace your expensive units. It's getting lame, to the point where I'm ready to quit the game unless they change the combat dynamics to something more realistic. What's the point of getting quality units when they are lost just as easily, and usually to a crappy opponent?
Encourage you to buy gem units which are indestructible.

[The_Legend_Shall_Live_On]

Anyone notice that when you attack, there is a little phrase and number:

"Strongest Units and Items: [number]"

...in both attacker and defender column. I just attacked someone who has 10.k defense against my 17.9k attack, yet that number above is almost the same number: mine being 2250, his being 2214.

I've also noticed there is often times little difference between those numbers when I attack someone with 7k defense, even though I have 17k attack.

I don't remember this ever being addressed in the forum threads, but it could be the overall impact against your casualties happening. The closer those numbers, the more it seems likely you will lose a unit.

[Everson25]

It's not long ago since we have this subject around here. I heard all kind of explanations already to justify why it happens. I will never agree with ccMark or any other player that everything is ok. It's not ok! I can't go to a battle with a player much weaker and still manage to lose 5 flaming catapults when I have plenty meat shield. I even started making notes about what I was bring to the field to put the point but at the end I gave up. It's not worthy! I just stopped the pvp and switched to pve. It's a pity because that's the fun part when you go attack other players.

[rareay84]

If you attack a small enough army with a big enough army, you shouldn't have any casualties,(psst - hey frenda! Go take a look at what happened at the battle of Thermopylae. King Xerxes agreed with you...)

[pompoko]

I agree with you, the casualties issue needs to be fixed !
The only way to do pvp right now is to find very weak kingdoms and attack them again and again, it's not really funny. Moreover it would have been great to limit the increasing of the vault with the level.
Indeed right now people don't have to take risks to build or develop (exept for the manor) and so it's hard to find interesting targets.

[Lord Moore]

Encourage you to buy gem units which are indestructible.

Sell a gem based casuality loss building to supplement the healing temple.

[tcapi]

It's not long ago since we have this subject around here. I heard all kind of explanations already to justify why it happens. I will never agree with ccMark or any other player that everything is ok. It's not ok! I can't go to a battle with a player much weaker and still manage to lose 5 flaming catapults when I have plenty meat shield.

I figure it has much to do with where your opponents sink their skill points, and whether they have built and upgraded lots of defence buildings. I note that there are arguments in this forum on insignificance of these defence buildings when your A/D stats are of certain values, I believe the effect is not added to your Defence in A/D directly however. After an attack, on your analysis page, you will see a sword with number on your side, and a shield on the rival's side with"???" . Observe that these have nothing to do with the A on your side and your rival's D, and that the Defence Buildings, when you tap on them, come with the same "shield".

I don't know the mathematical formula, but these numbers probably would affect the outcome of the battle, and definitely the casualty rate.

Simply put, in PvP, if your rival has put in lots of skill points in "Army Defense", built and upgraded lots of defence buildings, you would suffer higher casualty rate though you might still win the battle.

That is my observation. Would like to know your thoughts for or against, or any insight on these observations.

[Lord Moore]

I do believe defense buildings come into play with casualty. However, I have attacked much, much weaker rivals with no defense buildings, lower total units and yet I still lose high value units. As I posted earlier, if there is a random component to casualities it should be removed and be based on strictly observable traits. For example, A vs D and number and level of defense buildings; likewise Skill points should not come into play for casualties. That is, if your A is close to their D and/or they have many defense buildings, expect a high chance of a casualty loss.

[tcapi]

I do believe defense buildings come into play with casualty. However, I have attacked much, much weaker rivals with no defense buildings, lower total units and yet I still lose high value units. As I posted earlier, if there is a random component to casualities it should be removed and be based on strictly observable traits. For example, A vs D and number and level of defense buildings; likewise Skill points should not come into play for casualties. That is, if your A is close to their D and/or they have many defense buildings, expect a high chance of a loss.

Have you observed these weaker rivals Stats? Did they do lots of P2E?

[Lord Moore]

I couldn't say one way or the other as it relates to a PvP vs PvE preference. But I always check their A/D, unit numbers, and defense buildings before attacking/raiding.

[Everson25]

I always check stats to see how aggressive the player is and the gap between my stats and theirs but i need to agree with you that we don't know how much hidden factors are included when a battle is taken place. I fought two big stats today on my level. The first one I hit 15 times, lost 12 flaming c, 3 siege towers and just 3 catapults. It's almost 40k on flaming c, nowonder some players are not doing pvp! I just attack if I can see something worthy.

[frenda]

I do believe defense buildings come into play with casualty. However, I have attacked much, much weaker rivals with no defense buildings, lower total units and yet I still lose high value units. As I posted earlier, if there is a random component to casualities it should be removed and be based on strictly observable traits. For example, A vs D and number and level of defense buildings; likewise Skill points should not come into play for casualties. That is, if your A is close to their D and/or they have many defense buildings, expect a high chance of a casualty loss.

I always check their stats, that's why losing valuable units to opponents with terrible stats and weak defense numbers totally ticks me off. There's no explanation for it and every one I've read here trying to justify the outcomes just makes it worse since they're speculation and trying to explain a system which is flawed. Why not go with the CC attack mechanics? That's why CC is the most popular game from Funzio, IMHO.

[Hapl0]

How is the CC attack mechanic frenda?

[frenda]

There are no losses of equipment in CC except for explosives. You can build a good atk and def without them until you get to level 100 plus or higher though. And you can be pretty sure you're going to win when attacking someone of lower defense stats, even to within 20% or so of your atk numbers. It's pretty linear, with some bonus added for atk or def skill points, so it's not just totally straight up numbers. After playing CC, it's hard to put up with KA or Modern War losses. I recommend CC over the other two anyday.

[Hapl0]

Ok, i take note on this, thanks frenda!

[Lord Moore]

There are no losses of equipment in CC except for explosives. You can build a good atk and def without them until you get to level 100 plus or higher though. And you can be pretty sure you're going to win when attacking someone of lower defense stats, even to within 20% or so of your atk numbers. It's pretty linear, with some bonus added for atk or def skill points, so it's not just totally straight up numbers. After playing CC, it's hard to put up with KA or Modern War losses. I recommend CC over the other two anyday.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Well, I've reached my frustration point today over casualty losses. I much prefer playing PvP over PvE but not with these type of unit losses, so I'm quitting. They are losing a paying customer over this. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if they have addressed it...I've downgraded my rating on the apple app store and described this problem there. I really hope Funzio fixes this.

L35
A: 12k
D: 11k
2,400 raids, 2 losses.

[MaverickMunkey]

Thanks for pointing this out.

Well, I've reached my frustration point today over casualty losses. I much prefer playing PvP over PvE but not with these type of unit losses, so I'm quitting. They are losing a paying customer over this. I'll check back in a few weeks to see if they have addressed it...I've downgraded my rating on the apple app store and described this problem there. I really hope Funzio fixes this.

Don't forget though, the unit losses may be some sort of business plan as by having the losses quite high, people are going to be more willing to purchase gems to try to get the event items that lower these losses.

[-->FISH<--]

I agree MM, I think that the push is always toward the player to become a payer. I haven't done a lot of pvp because of this issue. I have the glitch in MW and have gotten spoiled. CCM said the next unit you lose should be harder to lose.
I'm not seeing it.

[Lord Moore]

Don't forget though, the unit losses may be some sort of business plan as by having the losses quite high, people are going to be more willing to purchase gems to try to get the event items that lower these losses.

Entirely possible. Though it seems the market to spend hundreds of dollars to get it would be pretty small. Anyway, I'm not chasing that rabbit any further down the hole.

[-->FISH<--]

Entirely possible. Though it seems the market to spend hundreds of dollars to get it would be pretty small. Anyway, I'm not chasing that rabbit any further down the hole.

I think the longer you hang out the more you will realize how many players fit that demo. Between the 3 games the number of spenders is overwhelming.

[EthanQ]

To clarify my OP, the units I am losing have a Low casuality rating - Flaming Catapult. I also have several dozen Trolls with Low casuality rating. Both groups are going into every battle, but I lose Catapults and not Trolls. As a test, I adjusted my ally count to draw in some High casualty rated units, still the Catapults get selected for a casualty loss.

That's what happened to my units too. I have units with Low and High casualty rate, but those with Low casualty rate tends to die much more compared to High casualty rate units. Anyone have this problem too?

[Timbathia]

I lost two werewolves within 10 attacks yesterday. Both against players with defense less than half my attack, and both with less units. While I won all the attacks, I lost the werewolves amd 3 manticores while they lost 3 clerics and a foot soldier between them.

This game is like the cold war in pvp. You invest heavily in your army so that you dont have to attack anyone, because if you do the consequences are just as bad for you and them.

This game is fundamentally broken in pvp, and if it is set up as intended, then the developers are just plain stupid.

[Krug]

I find the only reason to PVP is to get the few extra XP to get to the next level.

[The_Red]

This game is fundamentally broken in pvp, and if it is set up as intended, then the developers are just plain stupid.

Completely agree. I've got like 30k attack, and I only attack the 4-5 characters who are woefully low on their stats to limit casualties. I don't see how one should lose anything if they attack someone 1/2-1/3 of their strength. It just makes 0 sense.

[ChaosRules]

I lost two werewolves within 10 attacks yesterday. Both against players with defense less than half my attack, and both with less units. While I won all the attacks, I lost the werewolves amd 3 manticores while they lost 3 clerics and a foot soldier between them.

This game is like the cold war in pvp. You invest heavily in your army so that you dont have to attack anyone, because if you do the consequences are just as bad for you and them.

This game is fundamentally broken in pvp, and if it is set up as intended, then the developers are just plain stupid.

I agree completely. I spend lots of time looking for players substantially weaker than me. I find that if they a VERY weak, I will hardly lose any units, but when I do use units, it is the more expensive ones (siege towers, gryphons or ornithopters). I have 22k A/D, and I have to find players with a defense of around 8,000 to avoid most casualties. Ihave lots of weaker units with higher casualty rates, but they never die much compared to my expensive units. Perhaps it is because of the greater number of expensive units that I have, but shouldn't the higher cas rate units be checked first? I only do pvp for the honor points so I can get cannons, but it's time consuming and annoying.

[The_Red]

"Originally Posted by The_Red
How are unit casualties handled in KA? Why does one still see unit damages when attacking someone with 2x the A as their D?"


CCM:
Every unit has a casualty rate. When you fight, consider it a die-roll. If the roll fails, you lose the unit that the roll was for, and it becomes progressively harder for your other units to die.


My reading into that is that your amount of die-rolls has to do with the units the person you're attacking brings into battle (vs their strength) - which aligns with his prior comments about units being a primary determiner. The algorithm probably then does a 2-5x on the 2nd and then the 3rd potential unit loss.

[Gutmaw]

WTF?!

I'm lvl 101 with A=48K. Just raided 2 manors form a player with A=31K. In 6 attacks I lost 5 Basilisks, 2 Trolls, and a few misc?!

This is the worst I've seen. Chalk it up to amazingly horrible "dice rolling", or is there something going on/something I'm doing wrong?

[Njwmrb]

WTF?!

I'm lvl 101 with A=48K. Just raided 2 manors form a player with A=31K. In 6 attacks I lost 5 Basilisks, 2 Trolls, and a few misc?!

This is the worst I've seen. Chalk it up to amazingly horrible "dice rolling", or is there something going on/something I'm doing wrong?

The other players attack wouldn't matter, you would need to check his defense.

[Gutmaw]

The other players attack wouldn't matter, you would need to check his defense.

Sorry, I meant to say his D=31K

[The_Red]

Sorry, I meant to say his D=31K

unless you are >3-4x their D you're going to see losses like that. I'm guesisng a high
amount of your attacking army is Basilisks. PvP has gotten expensive. I assume
Im going to lose 1-2 units per attack even when my A is 2-3x their D.

[Gutmaw]

unless you are >3-4x their D you're going to see losses like that. I'm guesisng a high
amount of your attacking army is Basilisks. PvP has gotten expensive. I assume
Im going to lose 1-2 units per attack even when my A is 2-3x their D.

Thanks. Guess i focus on buying equipment vs units...

[echus14]

I'm thinking the commercial rationale behind this increasing casualty rates is to "encourage" gem armies. Used to be able to largely escape casualties if your A was 3-4x the opponent's D. Like Red said, this doesn't seem to hold true any longer.

[tcapi]

Use relative inexpensive IMP G340 A12/D5, or Catapult G450 A14/D5, or Manticore G750 A16/D9 as meat shield for attack purpose for PvP.

The same would apply to High Priest for defense. It is easy to build up an army of pimpy but whether it is sustainable if you are under constant attack in long term is the key.

[echus14]

Should add that the meatshield doesn't always work. Although I have cats and siege towers, I do still lose a flaming cat as the first loss from time to time.

[tcapi]

As long as your units are deployed in attack or defence, there is a chance that you will loose them, no matter how few unit you have.

As my IPH is relatively low (just 5.5k), I get fewer heavy guns compare to the meat shield. I have combination of meat shield because I need the Attack stats but I am sure there will be casualty, so that is why the high casualty rate Imp and Cat are there.

BTW, all these meat shields have attack higher than HP to make sure I won't use HP in attack.

[tcapi]

For defence, Illusionist is inexpensive and yet good D stat. IMHO, Paladin will be fairly good second layer. For most of the attacks that I took recently, these two would normally be scarified instead of HP. At the same time, if I do not have resources to replenish HP, I will still have relatively good defence armies.

[dthfrmabv]

WTF?!

I'm lvl 101 with A=48K. Just raided 2 manors form a player with A=31K. In 6 attacks I lost 5 Basilisks, 2 Trolls, and a few misc?!

This is the worst I've seen. Chalk it up to amazingly horrible "dice rolling", or is there something going on/something I'm doing wrong?

If your question is why did you lose against player whose D is 17K lower than you I think you should consider certain factors - 1) Skill boost on Defense 2) Army boost from buildings 3) gem units or event units that has special abilities... I think these are random stuff you can't simply peg on a players stats.

Can someone clarify if building boost show on your stats MW. I know for MW it does not. I have a level 8 composite and my D is only 30K. I have been attacked by players 10 to 15K higher than me and would not lose a unit.

[steve_r]

Your losses were probably due to defense buildings near the manors.

To compensate for high casualties I'd like to be able to steal more than half a building's contents!
Right now it's barely worth attacking anything.

[Kiss Of Death]

If your question is why did you lose against player whose D is 17K lower than you I think you should consider certain factors - 1) Skill boost on Defense 2) Army boost from buildings 3) gem units or event units that has special abilities... I think these are random stuff you can't simply peg on a players stats.

Can someone clarify if building boost show on your stats MW. I know for MW it does not. I have a level 8 composite and my D is only 30K. I have been attacked by players 10 to 15K higher than me and would not lose a unit.

I find on both my MW accounts all my boosts show up in my own profiles. It's players you attack that don't have the right stats showing in MW.

In KA my boosts also show up in my own stats. Don't know about others... be interested to have an ally look at my profile and post my stats on my wall so I an compare it.

You are right about losses, there are event items some give a attack skill increase, some modify your att/def army scores and so on. Also.. I bet 100% those manors have a crap load of defense buildings in range...


Are you aware every building has a defense value and it goes up as each upgrade is done. (there are spreadsheets here to see the numbers... PM Hello Kitty if you can't locate one) and every defense building in range adds it's def score (stacks) to the buildings own def score... so for example if a L2 Manor has say 100 Defence, and there are 200 points of defence buildings in range of it... your going to get some serious hurt when you hit that manor.

[Zathurus]

[QUOTE=dthfrmabv;385115]If your question is why did you lose against player whose D is 17K lower than you I think you should consider certain factors - 1) Skill boost on Defense 2) Army boost from buildings 3) gem units or event units that has special abilities... I think these are random stuff you can't simply peg on a players stats.
...[QUOTE]

Hi all - first-time poster here, long-time lurker over the past month since I've started playing.

The following theory is based on testing different strategies from this forum and learning as I advanced playing PvE, PvP, events etc, as well as camping while waiting for my economy and army to build up. By avoiding ally requests, I stayed below the radar in the rival list and only had a few strong campers to deal with. During the scarab event and now the Eastern Warlord boss event, I sweated thru the anticipation of daring completion of both manors suffering only one attack for my unprotected gold. I'm managed to build a small army of HP as defense with manticores, and flaming catapults for attack. And now moving onto to the den upgrades...

I was puzzled, like all the prior posters, regarding unit casualties despite superior A/D and scanning this forum for numerous strategies and tips - many thanks to Ghost, Free?, Red, Kitty, et al for the wonderful information.

So here is my theory based on carefully analyzing each opponent's stats, and army/equipment setup.

Wins
The overall factors seem to be A/D stats, hidden attack/defense stats, defense buildings, special unit abilities, etc. I theorize that outcome is then modified by pairing up each of your unit types in order of attack strength against of of the opponent's unit types in order of defense strength. Either the number of wins vs losses or the +/- point values of the attack stat vs the defense stat of the units involved in that pair, are then cumulatively applied. The number of pairings is controlled by ally count x 3.

The second point accounts for winning against opponents where your Attack may be lower than their Defense. I've noticed that it's possible to win within 500 at lower levels and even as high as 1000 lower at my current level - it does not seem to be the hidden stats only that account for this range. Perhaps that is due to the higher attack stats for each of my unit types and maybe some random number modifier(?). Of course, if your Attack is much greater, then you obviously win. But A/D stats, etc has nothing to do with unit losses.

Casualties
It is important to observe, that this had nothing to do with the battle wins. Otherwise, every time you win, the opponent would suffer massive unit losses. By doing a separate casualty calculation, this allows for the blast effect or deflection in this imaginary battle field. And perhaps this is an attempt to promote game play longer and not allow superiority in numbers, etc.

As CCM commented earlier, the casualties are determined by casuality rate - So this is another calculation or dice roll for each unit type pairing or the overall battle... or call it what you will. Each subsequent battle or raid, is then modified if you suffered an earlier loss.

For each destructible unit, the outcome is determined based on casuality rate and may be applied or could be a modifier of the attack/defense (or +/-) outcome of that pair.

For my army, my flaming catapults are now further down the battle list thanks to recent acquisition of non-destructible units. Even further down, then next non-destructible unit are the seige towers followed by more non-destructible units then air elementals (yeah I realize now that these do not have any A/D difference.)

As more non-destructible units were added to my army, I observed less unit loss and become more daring, experimenting against stronger opponents, even eventually adding gem units from the chest (gasp - yes, I'm now no longer a free-player, but instead a minor gem player lol). Even less unit loss occurred. Any lost unit is one of the three noted above in that order - mostly the 1st unit in the list followed by the 2nd ie flaming catapults then seige then air elementals. In battling stronger or near-strength opponents, the number of lost units increased.

This seems to result more when those destructible units are paired against non-destructible units or even armour!!! Destructible units have a casuality rate whereas non-destrucible units don't BUT the calculation still applies!!!! Hence the potential for unit loss.... Oddly enough, one would expect more unit losses for the opponent's defensive army but is this is made up of mostly armour ... which is non-destructible....your attack army is the only group that can suffer losses.

The calculation for casualty loss could be based purely on your attack army's destructible units.

Regardless, the more non-destructible units, the lower unit loss whether attacking or defending irrespective of A/D stats etc.

I also theorize that if your ally count exceeds the opponent, the casuality rate calculation still applies. However your unit is the only one in the equation since there is no unit on the other side. If this is the case, this may be considered a logic bug?! I wish we could see the battle log to confirm if this is the case...

This would account for the losses despite superior Attack stats or even unit types. I've experienced unit loss despite having every unit type superior to the opponent irregardless of A/D stats or level or ally count - I've analyzed the opponent's army at each loss especially this weekend, when I joined the dark side (?! lol) and added some gem units. Even got some from the boss event. Then went PvPing to test each time. I even added allies, carefully monitoring stats and keeping my army numbers exactly the same.

So conclusion: add non-destructible units to protect your destructible units pushing them further down the attack list. Someone (Fish?) mentioned that earlier.

Others have recommended creating two army groupings for attack vs defense leveraging high attack ratio and high defense ratio units; however, I suspect you will still suffer unit loss unless insulated by non-destructible units.

Of course there may be some random number generator factor modifier just to make things fun.

Lastly, I can see how this aligns with the business model since gem units are the strongest and that the auction/boss events encourage gem spending in order to acquire the stronger or special ability units.

Anyway, that has been my analysis over the past week based on tinkering with my army, equipment, allies, and gasp - gem unit additions...

PS: Sorry about the long post - I did say 'theory' and .. ducking back into the shadows .. later all - that's my 2C and rambling thoughts ....hopefully not repeating too much...

[echus14]

@Zanthurus
Thanks for the detailed and very long post, and welcome to the forum! :)

Having indestructibles will always help, and like KoD said, even for free players, one way to hopefully is to leverage off the Boss events for uncommons and rares. Buying Gem units is of course easiest and most effective ... but costly.

[ezinap]

Hi all
...
Casualties
... the casualties are determined by casuality rate - So this is another calculation or dice roll for each unit type pairing or the overall battle... or call it what you will.
...
I also theorize that if your ally count exceeds the opponent, the casuality rate calculation still applies. However your unit is the only one in the equation since there is no unit on the other side. If this is the case, this may be considered a logic bug?! ...
Hi Zanthurus,
In my experience, attacking a rival with far more allies (70% more) is resulting in more casualties on my side.
Regardless of A/D, and regardless of win/loss outcome, indeed.
It might be like: all their units roll a dice against all my units.
That would mean in this example: 70% of my units get 2 dice rolls against them.
And then the other way around of course, meaning most of his army cant suffer any casualty.

[echus14]

To put it more graphically, its like a bunch of ants swarming a spider. The spider may have the bigger chops, but the ants still take a bite out of him because of sheer numbers.

Still, something doesn't play out right to my mind. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I have attacked an opponent (PvP, not a raid) with nearly 4x attack compared to his defence stats. His ally count was appreciately lower than mine (more than 10 lower, but I can't remember the exact number) and I don't believe any real issue with defence buildings or special units that I could see. I won, but still lost a flaming cat (and even though I had lots of siege towers and some trebs as a meat shield).

Personally, I've pretty much given up trying how on earth the PvP/raiding casualty calculations work. I just accept that they are either somewhat broke or I (and many other people) are missing some logic here. If you want to play a heavy attacking game, then best way forward is to build a gem-based attack army. I'm sure GREE would be most supportive of your decision to do so :D

[Clay01]

To put it more graphically, its like a bunch of ants swarming a spider. The spider may have the bigger chops, but the ants still take a bite out of him because of sheer numbers.

Still, something doesn't play out right to my mind. As mentioned in one of my earlier posts, I have attacked an opponent (PvP, not a raid) with nearly 4x attack compared to his defence stats. His ally count was appreciately lower than mine (more than 10 lower, but I can't remember the exact number) and I don't believe any real issue with defence buildings or special units that I could see. I won, but still lost a flaming cat (and even though I had lots of siege towers and some trebs as a meat shield).

Personally, I've pretty much given up trying how on earth the PvP/raiding casualty calculations work. I just accept that they are either somewhat broke or I (and many other people) are missing some logic here. If you want to play a heavy attacking game, then best way forward is to build a gem-based attack army. I'm sure GREE would be most supportive of your decision to do so :D

I would guess there are sort of like random rolls to determine winner/loser, with heavy modifiers based on your A/D values, and same thing for units lost, and which type of units.

thus, it's possible for someone with a very significant advantage to lose in PvP (not raid) despite a vast advantage in A/D

think of it as rolling a 1 in D&D, you suffer a loss no matter what the stats. rare due to the modifiers, but it will happen once in a blue moon. and likely piss you off.

I will admit, though, that I get frustrated losing a high value unit when succcessfully attacking someone with much lower stats than me, and i think it's more of a perception thing than anything (i.e. you notice it more when you lose a high value unit). but it also depends on your unit mix... if you have 1000 hydras, and your secret roll to determine if you lose a unit results in a lost unit, then the odds are that it will be a hydra since that's what you have the most of...

[tcapi]

I will admit, though, that I get frustrated losing a high value unit when succcessfully attacking someone with much lower stats than me, and i think it's more of a perception thing than anything (i.e. you notice it more when you lose a high value unit). but it also depends on your unit mix... if you have 1000 hydras, and your secret roll to determine if you lose a unit results in a lost unit, then the odds are that it will be a hydra since that's what you have the most of...

+1. If you are using meat shield tactics, you must have a big enough army size and units with relatively high casualty rate.

[Captian Rex]

I'm a late reader of this forum so would like to ask a few things...

CCM mentioned early on that the chance of you losing a unit following a previous loss diminishes with subsequent attacks. I was wondering if replacing a unit immediately following the loss 'resets' this count?

I'm almost always losing 1-2 units per attack unless the opponent is less than 1/2 my attack strength. Is that the norm?

[tcapi]

I'm almost always losing 1-2 units per attack unless the opponent is less than 1/2 my attack strength. Is that the norm?

About right. If the Rival's defence stat is relatively high, has invested lots of skill points into defense, yup! Worst I have encountered was 4 units.

When conducting raids, the defence buildings' effectiveness need to be included too.

[Talkazar]

CCM's comment was is relation to units lost in the same battle, not multiple battles against the same opponent (thus why you tend (under certain circumstances) to lose 1-2 units an attack instead of 1-4).

@ Captian Rex, well at some point it gets worse. The number of units your opponent brings to battle also has an effect, so at high levels of allies you will tend to lose units even around 1/2 A/D (start looking at a 1/3rd, or get units with lower casualty rates)

[ezinap]

introduce man have sales price for gold and cash, can talk to me ....
It seems like all our talking about gold has triggered some bots.