"SUPPORT" says your attack/defense value has NO EFFECT on unit casualties.

[chuck norris]

First technical answer Ive gotten from support ever. btw, the message that prompted this answer was not a kind polite one, it was filled with bad words. interesting eh?


"unit casualty rating has nothing to do with relative attack and defense values. You ((bring)) a lot of units to the fight, so you roll the dice on their casualty rating lots of times."

this would appear to contradict general opinion on the forum. Can we discuss this? I am trying really hard to treat this information as authoritative. I'm so tired of the boatloads of speculation we have, but obviously funzio left us no choice.

So. What does this mean? Any statisticians to give a diagnosis? Again, Im so tired of all our own experiences and hunches.

My first response to this info is this:
There is no difference in unit losses whether attacking little people or big people, if strength is irrelevant.


Lvl 60
missions-2144
fights-3233/721
raids-1198
attack-657
defense-1747
income-105,000

Chuck Norris needs nobody. But everybody needs Chuck Norris!

-638-055-365-

[Economist]

Sad sad game. So what you purport is true, then it's all about reducing the army size, while staying competitive enough to beat opponents or defend yourself.

I suppose the only viable option is to have as few number of units but with huge pool of attack/defense points to stay competitive, and minimize losses?

[Wildfire]

"unit casualty rating has nothing to do with relative attack and defense values. You ((bring)) a lot of units to the fight, so you roll the dice on their casualty rating lots of times."

Well that sort of vindicates what I said a few days ago,think of the random number as a 100 sided dice

Been thinking about the losing units when attacking a bit more, I think it works something like this. On each attack take a random number between 1-100
1-30 loose no unit
31-60 loose high casualty unit
61-80 loose medium casualty unit
81-95 loose low casualty unit
96-100 loose very low casualty unit

So you can loose a unit of any casualty rating regardless of the players relative strengths. It may also be that these numbers are adjusted slightly to reflect the make up of your army so that a huge number of low value, high casualty units squeezes the other numbers up a bit. As you can loose more than one unit this could be repeated multiple times, perhaps factoring in the difference in strengths to decide.

In a way this helps the weaker players as you can lose units against them just as easily as against stronger ones, but it's hardly a realistic was scenario.

[Agent Orange]

Or could it mean that each unit has a shelf life? In other words a hidden counter and after it has been in battle x number of times it dies.

[Dover]

1-30 loose no unit
31-60 loose high casualty unit
61-80 loose medium casualty unit
81-95 loose low casualty unit
96-100 loose very low casualty unit

I picture a guy in the back room rolling a D&D dice to decide our fate.

[Lodi]

I don't get it either. Some nights are fine but most nights (like last night) I sleep a few hours and go from 950 units down to 846??? 106 units lost in 8 or so hours.
I admit, I pay a little to play, nothing retarded, but, not paying anymore until they fix the losses problem.
I realize they want us to spend but let's be realistic about it. $50 for a Yamato??? LOL or I could eat for a week.
Fix the losses or lower the outrageous prices and I think you'll find more people willing to support the game.
Just my humble opinion.

[Dover]

Question-Are all loses from attacks against you while you were sleeping listed on the Summery page of attacks against you? I am at work but think I recall seeing that I lost a troop or two even though I won the fight. I am just thinking it would be nice to have a summery of loses since you mentioned you lost 106 units in one night. I have never even tracked how many I lose in a 24 hour period.

[ankyrin]

On each attack take a random number between 1-100
1-30 loose no unit
31-60 loose high casualty unit
61-80 loose medium casualty unit
81-95 loose low casualty unit
96-100 loose very low casualty unit

I don't think this is how it works. How do you explain that you can lose more than one unit in a single attack?

My guess would be something closer to what Agent Orange is saying:

Or could it mean that each unit has a shelf life? In other words a hidden counter and after it has been in battle x number of times it dies.

But if this were completely true I would think if you bought 50 scouts at one time (which most of us have probably done at some early point in the game), then you would lose all your scouts x battles later (or even if there was randomness built in, within a few battles). I did buy 50 scouts at once and I am losing them very gradually.

If I had to venture a guess, I would say each type of unit has a casualty probability (say 1 in 500 for a scout and 1 in 2000 for a frigate). During each battle it runs through each unit you bring into battle and draws a random number. So for each scout it picks a # from 1 to 500. If the random # is a 1 then that scout dies, otherwise he lives. etc. This is consistent with:

- how you can lose more than one unit in one battle

- how you can buy 50 scouts at once and lose them gradually

- is independent of you or your opponent's attack/defense

[Wildfire]

Ankyrin, if you read my original post, I explained multiple unit losses by repeating the formula more than once, so repeat 3 times and you can lose 0-3 units for example.
I've also lost units, Avengers in particular for some reason the very first time I've used them so the shelf life theory doesn't quite add up.

[chuck norris]

I lost three units in a battle once or twice.

I just came across a 2 ally guy in my rival list. Naturally I spent all my stamina on him for research sake. Here's my data.
8 attacks with ZERO losses.
18 raids with 9 losses. Almost precisely every other.

I can't imagine the last time I attacked 8 times with no losses. this experience strongly undermines tech support itself. You think they just bull**** their way back and forth for the express purpose of makin sure we do not figure out the mechanics??? The longer nobody knows the poorer we play the more frustrated we get the easier we click "yes you can bleep me...."

As I said, I purposed to treat their answer as authoritative for once, and not be too critical. But Now I'm Well on my way back to being critical.

[Wildfire]

From one who has just been on the receiving end, with a lot of unprotected money (vault increase time over 100 hours, come on) guy 20 levels higher, attack 1 I lose 17295 attack 2 I lose 42182 and an Avenger. So how does that work I lost more money and a unit when I had less money exposed. I wonder does this go with the phenomenon that some of us have noticed where a 1st attack succeeds more often than a second one, with the reward for a second successful attack being more?

[JMC]

Relative strength clearly makes a difference but only if you are over 10 times more powerful than them. If i fight people who are like 5000-13000 defense i will lose like 2-4 units per battle.

If i fight people that are 2000-5000 i lose 1-3 units a battle.

Anyone under 2000 i lose 1 or 2 units tops and quite often do not lose any units.

[JMC]

Sad sad game. So what you purport is true, then it's all about reducing the army size, while staying competitive enough to beat opponents or defend yourself.

I suppose the only viable option is to have as few number of units but with huge pool of attack/defense points to stay competitive, and minimize losses?

Having few units is the opposite of what you want to do. That just insures that you lose valuabke units everytime you do lose one. And your casualty rate will likely not decrease either.

The best strategy is to have a lot of cheap units in your army like light gunners, scouts, rangers, army trucks, jeeps, fighter jets and engineers. At the moment my army is too big to allow me to get all those troops into the batch that i actually use. So ive been losing snipers, drone spy planes, a10 warthogs, frigatea and all the more expensive units.

However when i did have those weak guys at the bottom i almost always only lost those units. Couple thousand dollars lost per battle, thats nothing. So my suggestion would be to try and keep atleast 10-15% of your army, as weak disposable units.

[frenda]

I gotta agree with JMC. I think the more cheap units you have, the higher ratio you have of cheap versus expensive, so the odds are better that you will more than likely lose a cheaper unit. I've seen that in my experiences, where I'm probably losing 5-10 times more scouts or rangers as I am avengers etc.

I think it's a given that we have to accept losses. Even in real war, the underdog often gets lucky and inflicts damage on a superior force. I'd be pissed if I was paying for gold units, but since I'm not, I don't get as worked up over it. There are probably several "rolls of the dice" involved. One is how many units you lose, and probably a second is which units. The third is how much money you lose if it's unprotected. This is conjecture on my part, but my experience seems to support it.

[chuck norris]

So the conclusion of this thread is: Tech support is basically lying, because we all seem to have conclusive evidence that undermines their statement.

Yes or no.