Ridiculous casualties forcing me to quit.

[Warmonger]

I've had enough as this game is unplayable. I have around 50k attack and defence and 330k per hour income but can't survive in the shark pool. I need 79 wins to get 2k respect. If I attack a player with under 10k defence I will get 0 casualties but attacking anyone else and I will lose a lot of valuable units. Anyone over 20k and I will lose 2 high value respect units and at upto 600 respect points each there is no point in the attack. Yet I'm getting hit constantly by players with 55k to 60k attacks if I attacked a player so close to me I'd lose all my units in no time. So for these guys to keep coming back they must have the casualty glitch.

So funzio is it fair to play against players who can attack at will with no losses while any attack of mine wipes out my units? I doubt any funzio person will answer that as they never have in the past. I'm losing over 1k in attack and defence a day now despite having 15k in fights won.

So for all you player building economies and troops before entering the shark zone don't bother as your troops will be destroyed as soon as you enter the danger is not from the sharks but from all the players with the casualty glitch. I'll concentrate solely on crime city and kingdom age now as these games actually work!!!!!

[Poopenshire]

Welcome to the same complaint all of us here in the forums have had for months.

[JohnnyR]

Meatshields. Use them.

They don't give you the greatest stats, aren't pretty, but they will allow you to supplement your income with raid cash to build a kickass economy that will allow the purchase of high power units with ease.

This is my strategy anyway. You are gonna have casualties, make them cheap. Build your foundation for a bigger, better base and attack force.

[Fifth Reich]

This forum is going wild.

[Agent Orange]

Meatshields. Use them.

They don't give you the greatest stats, aren't pretty, but they will allow you to supplement your income with raid cash to build a kickass economy that will allow the purchase of high power units with ease.

This is my strategy anyway. You are gonna have casualties, make them cheap. Build your foundation for a bigger, better base and attack force.

Meat shields don't always work, in my case they don't work at all so I don't bother with them. Loot units if you can get any work better though they are getting harder to find as well and any good one's have been removed or have very minimal drop rates.

But as P mentions this problem has been ongoing for months, I think many players don't really notice it until they get into the higher levels though all my players have pretty ridiculous loss rates now.

[bilbo baggins]

Forget the valor missons. Drop down to 30 allies and you will have no casualties or nearly none. I have dropped to 60 allies. I lose a few units now and again but hardly any, have saved the valor I had and can have loads of fun attacking and raiding against a huge number of players. I am level 140 and have never had an issue with whales.

[Aidan]

OP's frustation is about the unfairness. While he is losing units left and right, there are some (quite a lot actually especially in the higher lvls) glitchers who literally never lose any units and basically run an indestructible army.

Made a mockery to those that spent thousands of real money to buy gold units.

[Baraka]

I do agree with you the casualty rates are just awful. How funzio can't ban these glitchers or sort it out is beyond me. But it isn't going to stop me playing the game. Just make sure I don't go other 100.

[Poopenshire]

OP's frustation is about the unfairness. While he is losing units left and right, there are some (quite a lot actually especially in the higher lvls) glitchers who literally never lose any units and basically run an indestructible army.

Made a mockery to those that spent thousands of real money to buy gold units.

Its a mockery to those of us who are building income and valor the hard way more than gold buyers.

[Dr. Dengus]

What is your unit composition like Warmonger? Ie: if you bring 500 Super Hornets to battle that are consumed at a rate of 0.0015, then on average you will lose at least one SH around 3 out of every 4 battles.

[JohnnyR]

Bingo. Dr. Dengus has it. Many variables to consider here....

[James_mac]

What is your unit composition like Warmonger? Ie: if you bring 500 Super Hornets to battle that are consumed at a rate of 0.0015, then on average you will lose at least one SH around 3 out of every 4 battles.

the term nail and head come to mind

[Agent Orange]

What is your unit composition like Warmonger? Ie: if you bring 500 Super Hornets to battle that are consumed at a rate of 0.0015, then on average you will lose at least one SH around 3 out of every 4 battles.

So you are saying that a low consumption rate = 75% loss rate which hardly seems 'low'. Sorry don't quite follow what you are getting at here.

[Poopenshire]

the term nail and head come to mind

I hate to say it, but I had <200 SH out of a total of 1600 units and was losing almost 1 per battle and sometimes 2. since then i have added more and am up to 330 and they die just as fast. in the mean time i have added the expert attack drone up to 180 and guess what almost every attack now i lose 1. This has nothing to do with numbers as I have other units triple these numbers and they never die. its like some players games are programed to lose valor units.

[CAPT.GIN]

Hopefully in the next update all of this will be fixed! Gree is starting to relize many people are quiting the game over this casualties issue...

[Agent Orange]

Hopefully in the next update all of this will be fixed! Gree is starting to relize many people are quiting the game over this casualties issue...

Considering how long we have been mentioning this problem I have to say I won't hold my breath.....

[Mad]

Maybe we are looking at this all wrong. Maybe it is a casualty glitch that some players have and not a "Non casualty" glitch that others have.

What I am trying to say is the players with abnormally high casualties may have the glitch and the ones who have low are normal. This would explain why -- when Funzio checks out the low casualty guys -- they say things are working normally.

Just throwing this theory out there.

[Agent Orange]

I hate to say it, but I had <200 SH out of a total of 1600 units and was losing almost 1 per battle and sometimes 2. since then i have added more and am up to 330 and they die just as fast. in the mean time i have added the expert attack drone up to 180 and guess what almost every attack now i lose 1. This has nothing to do with numbers as I have other units triple these numbers and they never die. its like some players games are programed to lose valor units.

I can pinpoint when this 'casualty glitch' took place. It goes as far back as last year when Funzio screwed up on the stats of the Stealth Frigate. They had very high stats and very low cost. When they discovered their mistake the suddenly changed the stats which caused a furor in the forum. At that point some players got 'refunds' for their fleets of SF's, I happened to keep mine I had about 600 or so. Then suddenly they boosted the cost and boosted the stats back up. But a few days later I noticed my loss rates went through the roof, as if the devs had readjusted the game so it would kill off all my SF's and you know what it worked I hardly have any left.

Same thing seems to have happened with the Super Hornets, for a long time I had close to 1000 in inventory then suddenly the loss rates got cranked up and I was loosing 1 or 2 every time I attacked someone even when they had very low defence stats.

Now my guess at the time was that my rival(s) were bulking up on anti aircraft units and that was what was taking down my SF's. I have been testing that theory for a while on my main player as well as my brothers and I do get comments on my wall about how many SF's I took down when I was attacked by stronger players, one player lost 20 SF's in one attack and finally said it wasn't worth it.

Not sure where the casualty glitchers fit in as we can't see rivals losses which is a real shame since we could get important information from this in order to fine tune our defences.

[Poopenshire]

I hate to admitt it, but any more if I want valor from missions I only attack people with <800 units TOTAL (I prefer <600). This almost always ensure I don't lose units (when I do they are valor of course or loot, always valor or loot). Anything over this number and am garunteed losses (once again always valor and/or loot).

[Warfiend]

So you are saying that a low consumption rate = 75% loss rate which hardly seems 'low'. Sorry don't quite follow what you are getting at here.

Say you have scratcher lottery tickets with a 1 percent chance of winning and say you bought them 10 at a time. The odds are you would only win once in a while when you buy them. Now say you bought at the same frequency, but 500 tickets at a time instead. The odds are you'll win something several times every time you buy.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the way he's suggesting it works and it makes sense to me. I don't think it accounts for the people who never get casualties though, and there are other interesting things I've observed in my own casualty rate experiments that suggest there is more than just that at work in the calculations, but it would make sense to me that the consumption rate as he's describing it is a part of it.

[War player]

Same thing seems to have happened with the Super Hornets, for a long time I had close to 1000 in inventory then suddenly the loss rates got cranked up and I was loosing 1 or 2 every time I attacked someone even when they had very low defence stats.

Yep. Many times after a 10 or 15 attack round on someone, I hae lost more super hornets than any other item.

When I lose them, I don't replace them. I went from over 1100 to the 134 I have now. I experienced the same thing with the fighter jet that costs 150 valor units. However, I only got to 150 of those before I reallized they were not worth replacing. It took alot of time before the super hornets were being programmed out.

[CAPT.GIN]

What is your unit composition like Warmonger? Ie: if you bring 500 Super Hornets to battle that are consumed at a rate of 0.0015, then on average you will lose at least one SH around 3 out of every 4 battles.


Say you have scratcher lottery tickets with a 1 percent chance of winning and say you bought them 10 at a time. The odds are you would only win once in a while when you buy them. Now say you bought at the same frequency, but 500 tickets at a time instead. The odds are you'll win something several times every time you buy.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the way he's suggesting it works and it makes sense to me. I don't think it accounts for the people who never get casualties though, and there are other interesting things I've observed in my own casualty rate experiments that suggest there is more than just that at work in the calculations, but it would make sense to me that the consumption rate as he's describing it is a part of it.


Both ways really clear it pretty good... But no matter how you look at we all still units over the stupidest things!!! This casualties glitch has forced me to stop doing pvp's even at my lower level... This issue has really took in all the fun out of the game forcing me to play it as a strategy game unlike in the beginning ware I had most of my good times pvping... Those were the days...

[manbeast]

i've had horrible casualties as well. my BDF doesnt do jack squat for casualties. and i too have had quite a few run ins with low cas glitchers.

the most frustrating part of all of it is support ignoring your tickets and not doing anything.

[Mcdoc]

I was losing SH like crazy. I tired to maintain them @ 1150 but kep losing down to 920 in no time. Decided to just maintain @ 920 now and buy cash sea units to somewhat balance my heavy air power and seems to be helping. I also am jacking my AT count back up feverishly. Used to carry over 900 AT's but had let them bleed off to under 100. Trying to keep my AT count between 300-500 now as that seems to be the best meat shield for the Money (free).

Nice discussion and good exchange of ideas & theories :)

Truth is - no one really knows & since each account has so many variables - it truly is a trial and error strategy to find what you're most comfortable with.

[JohnnyR]

Yep. Many times after a 10 or 15 attack round on someone, I hae lost more super hornets than any other item.

1100

Here's your sign.

1100 SH?!

Warfiend has the loss principle down. If there's a 1% chance of loss, roll the dice 100 times-virtually guaranteed a loss. Those aren't the numbers obviously, just illustrating. Funzio also apparently puts a cap on losses, cos I think if one does the math, using current casualty rates the losses we experience should be even higher. Food for thought.

Poop, I know I've asked you before-what's your ally number? The ratio of high valor units to meatshields IMO is something most people ignore. If you don't have many allies and bring a lot of high power units, they will be lost. In over 900 battles I lost 8 SH. I had a 2:8 ratio at the time of meatshields to SH. 800 meatshields. That's my evidence for meatshields and their importance. Bring a big army, expect to take losses. Economy and rival choice become more important when there is more to lose, and higher cost of replacement.

[Warfiend]

Both ways really clear it pretty good... But no matter how you look at we all still units over the stupidest things!!! This casualties glitch has forced me to stop doing pvp's even at my lower level... This issue has really took in all the fun out of the game forcing me to play it as a strategy game unlike in the beginning ware I had most of my good times pvping... Those were the days...

The game is meant for players to have to use strategy or buy gold(which is just an expensive strategy) :D. I don't know where you're at level and allies wise, but I've been crawling through the levels, so I'm still somewhat low level and low allies. This has given me an opportunity to test the casualty rate system somewhat easier than people at higher levels with more allies. Here's what I've found:

The system *seems* to care about force composition. The percentage a single unit type makes up of my entire force brought to battle *seems* to play a big role in over all casualties. The percentage has shrank as I've added allies. At one point I could have 26 stealth frigates with reasonable casualty rates and they represented 18 percent of my force. Now I can have 28 and they represent 15-16 percent of my force. If I go and buy 5 more stealth frigates right now, and assuming I get the same results as the last several times I've tried this, I will begin losing at least one unit every other attack if not more. They won't be just stealth frigates, they'll be different kinds including the Frigates until the frigates settle back to 28, then my casualties will go back to what they are now(I haven't lost a unit in the last 12 battles and I haven't lost anything higher than a commando in over 50).

The threshold is higher for my very low consumption units. When I could only have 26 SFs for a good csualty rate, I could maintain 30 hovercrafts and cruisers. I'm not sure how high I can go now as I've been building up destroyers lately, but I won't go above 30 destroyers for the time being as I'm on a unit build up schedule and that's not in the schedule. :D

This is what I've observed so far. I started experimenting back when I suspected that what I thought was funzio changing the casualty rates, might be occuring after I topped up my units. I don't know if it's helpful to anyone, and it doesn't explain the high level glitchers that have been descibed here on the forum, but it's what I've observed so I'm putting it out there. Someone at a higher level and/or more allies having probs with casualties could try letting their largest concentration of units die and replace them with something else they have little to none of and see if they can find a point that the rate drops as I have. Or not. My observations could all be coincidence.

[JohnnyR]

Your observations are not coincidence. I've observed the same, and reported the same, time and again, repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum...lol.

WF, I'm one of those ADD types you spoke about regarding PVP, but noting the same and putting observatins to practice has given me heaps of reward. This game is not about good stats. It's about balance. Making your entire game run in a way that is sustainable and able to grow. Imagine if we all burned through our energy supplies fast as we can cos we could-in real life we'd be effed. We can't sustain past a certain level of growth in real life, nature, or this game. Best is to find the path that leads to most long term growth.

This casualty thing people complain about makes this game a cut above the rest. The game would get pretty boring if all one needed was 2000 Stealth Bombers to whomper stomp on the entire rivals list.

[Poopenshire]

Here's your sign.

1100 SH?!

Warfiend has the loss principle down. If there's a 1% chance of loss, roll the dice 100 times-virtually guaranteed a loss. Those aren't the numbers obviously, just illustrating. Funzio also apparently puts a cap on losses, cos I think if one does the math, using current casualty rates the losses we experience should be even higher. Food for thought.

Poop, I know I've asked you before-what's your ally number? The ratio of high valor units to meatshields IMO is something most people ignore. If you don't have many allies and bring a lot of high power units, they will be lost. In over 900 battles I lost 8 SH. I had a 2:8 ratio at the time of meatshields to SH. 800 meatshields. That's my evidence for meatshields and their importance. Bring a big army, expect to take losses. Economy and rival choice become more important when there is more to lose, and higher cost of replacement.

I am always over 400 allies. The last month was between 412 and 426 allies.

[Dr. Dengus]

So you are saying that a low consumption rate = 75% loss rate which hardly seems 'low'. Sorry don't quite follow what you are getting at here.

From what I understand about battles, each unit gets checked one by one. If you have 500 Super Hornets being checked with each one having a 0.0015 chance of dying , then [ (0.0015) * (500) ] = 0.75. It's each individual SH that has a 0.0015 chance of dying, not the entire lot of 500. This is just my speculation though...

[Corsair]

... My observations could all be coincidence.


Your observations are not coincidence. I've observed the same, and reported the same, time and again, repeatedly, over and over, ad nauseum...lol.

[...]This casualty thing people complain about makes this game a cut above the rest. The game would get pretty boring if all one needed was 2000 Stealth Bombers to whomper stomp on the entire rivals list.
Good observations guys. I have seen the same. But it's easier to complain about "low cas glitchers" - and actually report them to support! :D What's really funny is when someone who had higher casualties starts to get better...they must've "caught the glitch". :rolleyes:

Maybe Gree will eventually shed some light for those with high casualties. Yeah it's always possible there are some bugs out there too, but it sounds to me like a balance of forces goes a long way to keeping loss rates down.

[Warfiend]

WF, I'm one of those ADD types you spoke about regarding PVP, but noting the same and putting observatins to practice has given me heaps of reward.

I made that comment after being annoyed by some negative comments about people who aren't constantly attacking people. I regret posting that, and I apologize for posting it.


This game is not about good stats. It's about balance. Making your entire game run in a way that is sustainable and able to grow. Imagine if we all burned through our energy supplies fast as we can cos we could-in real life we'd be effed. We can't sustain past a certain level of growth in real life, nature, or this game. Best is to find the path that leads to most long term growth.

This casualty thing people complain about makes this game a cut above the rest. The game would get pretty boring if all one needed was 2000 Stealth Bombers to whomper stomp on the entire rivals list.

I agree completely. I honestly wish there was a version of this game that didn't let anyone buy power or have indestructible units. I think the game would be even better than it is now. After reading the complaints by the guys at the top with indestructible armies, I realize it would just be boring and repetitive if I didn't have to manage my resources and be careful about who I hit. They certainly don't sound too thrilled with where they're at.

Not knocking the game as it is though, I like it plenty as it is.

[Agent Orange]

Say you have scratcher lottery tickets with a 1 percent chance of winning and say you bought them 10 at a time. The odds are you would only win once in a while when you buy them. Now say you bought at the same frequency, but 500 tickets at a time instead. The odds are you'll win something several times every time you buy.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that's the way he's suggesting it works and it makes sense to me. I don't think it accounts for the people who never get casualties though, and there are other interesting things I've observed in my own casualty rate experiments that suggest there is more than just that at work in the calculations, but it would make sense to me that the consumption rate as he's describing it is a part of it.

I get what you are saying, the more units that are the same the greater the probability of a loss. The spanner that would go into your works is that if you take into battle units with a higher probability of loss then you should see a greater number of those units lost.

Problem is that by the numbers I don't see this, in fact I see the opposite. I can loose more SH's in battle than my lower value units that have a higher degree of potential for loss even though I take more of them than SH's into battle. Granted to be sure I will start tracking my loss rates vs unit quantity. Same problem that I see for high value loot units, their 'shelf' life is much shorter than other units with higher probability of loss so there is obviously some other factors that are coming into play such as the program being rigged to target some types of units over others. Actually come to think of it I lost most of those fairly high value loot subs a while ago and I only had maybe 10 of them vs several hundred Scouts. But oddly those high value units got killed off a lot quicker than the Scouts so no I don't think I agree that the law of averages is actually a factor here.

It is funny that someone mentioned a certain number of units and I was wondering if there was a threshold or magic number that you hit that suddenly dropped your loss rate(s) on a particular unit. So far can't say I have found any evidence of such a thing though.

[Agent Orange]

I agree completely. I honestly wish there was a version of this game that didn't let anyone buy power or have indestructible units. I think the game would be even better than it is now. After reading the complaints by the guys at the top with indestructible armies, I realize it would just be boring and repetitive if I didn't have to manage my resources and be careful about who I hit. They certainly don't sound too thrilled with where they're at.

Not knocking the game as it is though, I like it plenty as it is.

I too would have liked to see a game where strategy was more of a factor than having the deepest pockets. Yes I understand that someone has to pay the fright but at the same time I really like a good puzzle/challenge and though this game does offer that in spades in the lower levels once you get to certain point it goes off the rails.

If Funzio came out with a version that was pay up front and was pure strategy as opposed to buying your way to the top I'd be all over it.

I finally caved in and downloaded CC onto one of our test android devices and well I thought it really lacked (Kevin's polite way of not saying how badly he thought the game sucked) a lot of what I like in MW and from playing KA I can now see how Funzio has progressed with the development of their games from CC through KA. Seems like instead of doing a major overhaul to fix things they just come out with a new game based on what they have learned from their previous attempts which is fine because I am really starting to like KA vs everything else I've tried so far.

[Maverick50727]

Balance vs. quantity. Strong against vs. none. Low consumption vs. high consumption (go by number values). I think this tri combination is key. And this means not just buying the 2000 strongest attack and defense IMO. I adopted the model in March and have been on a tear since. Call it a glitch or call it good strategy. Could be either. My verdict on meat shields is still out. I killed mine off (seals and minisubs) on purpose in march replacing them then with low loss cruisers, mine launchers and hovercraft.

[Q Raider]

Agree Maverick there is a balancing act to generate the best outcome for you.

As for the meatshields I didn't do too badly with them for quite a while but have hit the point where I need to tailor them again, mainly cause I am trying to see if I can fit SSD's into my defence without worrying about them going into attack as well. Trying to clean out the section between Flamethrower Soldiers and Snipers of all the loot items in to the bargain. If I decide to use SSD's as defence units then will either have subs and seals as shields or continue with the buildup of the low lossers such as cruisers and hovercraft, unsure on that as yet. Have to say that they are superb in defence, might lose the fight but not units.

But balance goes out the window when it comes to the players who run with the high Valor strength and stuff all strategy. I currently have half a dozen of them dropping by for reguar visits, they are all running over 80% Valor, several with pure Valor apart from high end loots and event items.

I am so tempted to drop 70k to 100k of stored Valor into some EAD's (30% attack boost supposedly?) and SH's then return the favour, however I feel it would currently be a pyrric victory.....though if the one who left some crass comments on Mickymacirl's feed elects to do the same then I will give him a bit of a surprise for his troubles.....

[Q Raider]

Double Post deleted

[JMC]

Every single unit i bring to battle has an indestructible, low or very low casualty rating. I still lose tons of units if i attack anyone with more than 600 units or more than 8000 defence. There is no strategy that will give you the low casualty ratings that are seen in the glitchers. You guys can stop trying to turn the glitch into a strategy. Many of the glitchers don't know jack sh!t about how the game works and are using horrible strategies.

As for meatshields, in the top level, you cannot sacrifice strength for meatshields. First off, in order to get some crappy units into your army, you first have to lose all of the better units in their way. Either that or buy very expensive meatshields. Either way, having lots of meatshields will mean a very weak army. Very weak army will be attacked constantly. Casualties overall will go up.

I don't have any real meatshields right now, but i dont attack anyone that gives casualties, and continually strengthening my army has put me past the casualty glitchers in strength. You guys have to find a way to quickly get passed them, so they don't destroy your army as you slowly try to build up.

[Cocktail]

IMHO, the real issue is not how many units I lose and when... We'll never really know the mechanics, and a lot of good theories have been posted here as to why and how to manage. Even an overwhelming force can lose units in a battle, seems reasonable to me.

The issue is some players don't seem to lose even a single unit, ever, despite being heavily outgunned and after repeated attack. That's the casualty glitch. To me, that's where the imbalance really comes in, because that player can do whatever they want and just grow stronger. Gives a huge strategy advantage.

[procsyzarc]

I am going to drop back to 100 allies to avoid this hopefully or quit. I have not lost a fight or raid in months yet in the last 4 days alone I have lot over 100 of the 600 valour units plus 100's of cash units so about 60,000 valour and 40-50m in cash items there is no way to earn this kind of valour or cash and this is before hitting the shark pool and I still currently have stats at least 10k above the next highest I have ever seen.

[Agent Orange]

Thanks JMC for verifying what I'm seeing.

[rareay84]

I have the low cas glitch, and I have a question:

For all you 'normal' people, when you attack/raid someone, do you see their casualties in your battle report? I haven't seen a target of mine lose a unit in months. I'm wondering if what's good for the goose is good for the gander in this situation.

[Poopenshire]

Yes I can see the casualties of the people I attack and raid. its at the bottom of the top 45 page if you scroll down.

[rareay84]

Yep - I know that. I don't seem to be killing any units when I attack or raid.

[JohnnyR]

Most times when I check, they don't lose units. Seems weird as 9 times out of 10 my sit rep shows me losing units, and sometimes a whole lot. Maybe I'm getting tagged 20 times, I can't really tell, but still a bit disconserting....

[JohnnyR]

Yep - I know that. I don't seem to be killing any units when I attack or raid.

Out of 100 battles, what do your losses look like? What's your level, allies, number of units brought to battle? Unit composition? How often do you lose one oc your top valor units (talking Super Hornet, Stealth Frigate, etc....). Apologies for the many questions, just curious. If you already answered you can link me to them, on my phone so it's hard to search.

[rareay84]

Out of 100 battles, what do your losses look like?
Maybe 1 loss per 20 battles or so. Raids or straight PvP makes no difference.

What's your level, allies, number of units brought to battle?
Level 74, 244 allies (so 976 brought to battle).

Unit composition?
One 10-item-unit (armored transport 257,187)
Nine 9 or 7-item-units
97 expert attack drone (valor)
106 SH (valor)
46 SF (valor)
8 ballistic subs (cash)
78 hardened marines (valor)
19 aircraft carriers (cash)
[smaller 3- or 5-item-units, 23 hovercrafts, 266 bio warfare, everything else smaller than that]

How often do you lose one oc your top valor units (talking Super Hornet, Stealth Frigate, etc....).

[rareay84]

Out of 100 battles, what do your losses look like?
Maybe 1 loss per 20 battles or so. Raids or straight PvP makes no difference.

What's your level, allies, number of units brought to battle?
Level 74, 244 allies (so 976 brought to battle).

Unit composition?
My attack unit composition is:
One 10-item-unit (armored transport 257,187)
Nine 9 or 7-item-units
97 expert attack drone (valor)
106 SH (valor)
46 SF (valor)
8 ballistic subs (cash)
78 hardened marines (valor)
19 aircraft carriers (cash)
[smaller 3- or 5-item-units, 23 hovercrafts, 266 bio warfare, everything else smaller than that]

How often do you lose one oc your top valor units (talking Super Hornet, Stealth Frigate, etc....).
I lost a SH last week I think. Maybe about 1 out of every 10 or 20 losses is a valor unit.

[Lordsloss]

I have the glitch, level 125, and I lose maybe 1 out of ever 50, but when I lose it happens twice then stops and damn its a tough one. I lost a B-52 last time, and before that an Expert Attack Drone.

[Baraka]

Level 82. Have 600 allies so take max amount In. My attack is 28000 n defence 38000. Have 350 sea scouts. 200 cruisers. 100 SH. 100 Hard marine. 100 attack drones. 50 milli amb. 50 global hawk 50 strakonisers. More sea than owt else as that's my boost. I loose bout 2 units every battle. So like 40 every 20 attacks or raids. Usually good units. Loose. Valor unit every 3 battles I'd say.

[manbeast]

Out of 100 battles, what do your losses look like?
Maybe 1 loss per 20 battles or so. Raids or straight PvP makes no difference.

What's your level, allies, number of units brought to battle?
Level 74, 244 allies (so 976 brought to battle).

Unit composition?
My attack unit composition is:
One 10-item-unit (armored transport 257,187)
Nine 9 or 7-item-units
97 expert attack drone (valor)
106 SH (valor)
46 SF (valor)
8 ballistic subs (cash)
78 hardened marines (valor)
19 aircraft carriers (cash)
[smaller 3- or 5-item-units, 23 hovercrafts, 266 bio warfare, everything else smaller than that]

How often do you lose one oc your top valor units (talking Super Hornet, Stealth Frigate, etc....).
I lost a SH last week I think. Maybe about 1 out of every 10 or 20 losses is a valor unit.

if you didnt have the glitch you'd be losing 2 bio warfares every single fight or raid. no joke.

[Q Raider]

Out of 100 battles, what do your losses look like?
Maybe 1 loss per 20 battles or so. Raids or straight PvP makes no difference.

What's your level, allies, number of units brought to battle?
Level 74, 244 allies (so 976 brought to battle).

Unit composition?
My attack unit composition is:
One 10-item-unit (armored transport 257,187)
Nine 9 or 7-item-units
97 expert attack drone (valor)
106 SH (valor)
46 SF (valor)
8 ballistic subs (cash)
78 hardened marines (valor)
19 aircraft carriers (cash)
[smaller 3- or 5-item-units, 23 hovercrafts, 266 bio warfare, everything else smaller than that]

How often do you lose one oc your top valor units (talking Super Hornet, Stealth Frigate, etc....).
I lost a SH last week I think. Maybe about 1 out of every 10 or 20 losses is a valor unit.

Todays tally for me (just the Valor units)
167 Attacks
24 Losses (Got a twenty tap from another one with over 90% Valor units)
52 Raids

Just the VALOR Losses
3 Super Hornets
2 Stealth Frigates
3 Expert Attack Drones
1 Hardened Marine
6 Elite Ops Helicopters
3 Strike Eagles
1 GIGN
6 LRMS

That is an average cost of just under 40 Valor for each event.....and I am using less than half the percentages of those who have the low loss advantage.