Mangler APC +5% ground defense not working?

[Ascent]

CJ et al,

My defense is overwhelmingly ground based, so according to my math I should see a 5,000 point increase in my defensive stats due to the Mangler APC. If I account for the stats for the prize units I just won, I see a 500 point unaccounted increase in my defense stats, but that is 1/10th of the supposed increase I should get based on my ground defenses.

Is this yet another invisible boost?

[Poopenshire]

Neither is my casualty reduction. By my estimates i have >100% reductions. That means 0 casualties. Guess what i lose units.

75% from greenland 25% from infirmary 2% blackshark and 14% team.

116% reduction. I guess i should be paid the extra units?

[BigD@wg]

CJ et al,

My defense is overwhelmingly ground based, so according to my math I should see a 5,000 point increase in my defensive stats due to the Mangler APC. If I account for the stats for the prize units I just won, I see a 500 point unaccounted increase in my defense stats, but that is 1/10th of the supposed increase I should get based on my ground defenses.

Is this yet another invisible boost?

I'm sure it is....They are all invisible. And by invisible, i dont mean they dont show in profile. I mean they dont exist in the game. I'm still waiting on my guerrilla striker that I won months ago in collect 10 event to work. I don't think any unit (even WD units) that have + A or + D or casualty reduction work. It all goes back to the assault bear that was proven not to work. The only ones that work are increase cash output on missions and upgrade times, cost reduction, or multi-building.

[Ericinico]

Neither is my casualty reduction. By my estimates i have >100% reductions. That means 0 casualties. Guess what i lose units.75% from greenland 25% from infirmary 2% blackshark and 14% team. 116% reduction. I guess i should be paid the extra units?

lol, nice 😀

[King little fruit fly]

Neither is my casualty reduction. By my estimates i have >100% reductions. That means 0 casualties. Guess what i lose units.

75% from greenland 25% from infirmary 2% blackshark and 14% team.

116% reduction. I guess i should be paid the extra units?

Poop, you should multiply them together, not add.

[JMC]

Neither is my casualty reduction. By my estimates i have >100% reductions. That means 0 casualties. Guess what i lose units.

75% from greenland 25% from infirmary 2% blackshark and 14% team.

116% reduction. I guess i should be paid the extra units?

Reduction boosts are multiplicative.

What were the separate boosts from top 3?

40% 25% 10%? Can't remember, but let's just assume that is what they were. 20% from infirmary isn't it? Black shark and 3 5% reductions from the team.

That would mean 0.6*0.75*0.9*0.8*0.98*0.95*0.95*0.95
Adds up to a total casualty 27.2% of what someone with no boosts would have. Or a 72.8% reduction. They don't wanna give someone zero casualties without gold so it's gotta work this way.

Though in my experience the reductions never helped me. I have a nearly 50% reduction myself and i notice no difference.

[Ascent]

Adds up to a total casualty 27.2% of what someone with no boosts would have.

One important thing to add, as it was a huge revelation for me (or should I say disappointment) when CCM responded to a question posed by McDoc at their meet in San Francisco.

If I understood correctly, the reduction is not applied to your actual casualties suffered in a battle, but to the casualty rates of the units. So, based on how CCM explained it, you should not expect a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of units lost, but a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of the "casualty rate" (or is it called consumption rate) parameter of the units themselves. I.E.: if the B52 Bomber has a consumption rate of 0.0064, then you apply the casualty rate reduction to that number.

You will still lose units, just these consumption rate numbers will be somewhat smaller. However, these numbers make up only part of a formula determining your unit losses and it seems that whatever other factors determine your casualties play a much bigger role than the consumption rate than these, even if they are reduced by 70%.

I think that the wording "casualty reduction" is very misleading in this sense...

[asdfasdfasdf]

One important thing to add, as it was a huge revelation for me (or should I say disappointment) when CCM responded to a question posed by McDoc at their meet in San Francisco.

If I understood correctly, the reduction is not applied to your actual casualties suffered in a battle, but to the casualty rates of the units. So, based on how CCM explained it, you should not expect a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of units lost, but a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of the "casualty rate" (or is it called consumption rate) parameter of the units themselves. I.E.: if the B52 Bomber has a consumption rate of 0.0064, then you apply the casualty rate reduction to that number.

You will still lose units, just these consumption rate numbers will be somewhat smaller. However, these numbers make up only part of a formula determining your unit losses and it seems that whatever other factors determine your casualties play a much bigger role than the consumption rate than these, even if they are reduced by 70%.

I think that the wording "casualty reduction" is very misleading in this sense...

Seems like explaining bonuses better from someone working on the game is in store. Start like a knowledgebase forum somewhere, sorta like you have announcements and faction recruiting. I assume these questions will never go away, so make the people happy and get this stickied somewhere.

[ZeroCoder]

One important thing to add, as it was a huge revelation for me (or should I say disappointment) when CCM responded to a question posed by McDoc at their meet in San Francisco.

If I understood correctly, the reduction is not applied to your actual casualties suffered in a battle, but to the casualty rates of the units. So, based on how CCM explained it, you should not expect a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of units lost, but a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of the "casualty rate" (or is it called consumption rate) parameter of the units themselves. I.E.: if the B52 Bomber has a consumption rate of 0.0064, then you apply the casualty rate reduction to that number.

You will still lose units, just these consumption rate numbers will be somewhat smaller. However, these numbers make up only part of a formula determining your unit losses and it seems that whatever other factors determine your casualties play a much bigger role than the consumption rate than these, even if they are reduced by 70%.

I think that the wording "casualty reduction" is very misleading in this sense...

@ Ascent & JMC
Thanks for your explanation. Calculation of "casualty reduction" is an old puzzle that I am confused.

[wwwait]

The only ones that work are increase cash output on missions and upgrade times, cost reduction, or multi-building.

I have the Armored Tomact (isn't this supposed to be Tomcat? lol) that gives 20% faster health regen, and that unit also seems to work also. I guess you meant all the attack & defense boosts that units grant may not be working properly?

[Товарищ]

One important thing to add, as it was a huge revelation for me (or should I say disappointment) when CCM responded to a question posed by McDoc at their meet in San Francisco.

If I understood correctly, the reduction is not applied to your actual casualties suffered in a battle, but to the casualty rates of the units. So, based on how CCM explained it, you should not expect a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of units lost, but a 20%, 30% or 70% reduction of the "casualty rate" (or is it called consumption rate) parameter of the units themselves. I.E.: if the B52 Bomber has a consumption rate of 0.0064, then you apply the casualty rate reduction to that number.

You will still lose units, just these consumption rate numbers will be somewhat smaller. However, these numbers make up only part of a formula determining your unit losses and it seems that whatever other factors determine your casualties play a much bigger role than the consumption rate than these, even if they are reduced by 70%.

I think that the wording "casualty reduction" is very misleading in this sense...

If my theory is correct, that consumption rate (CR) is the central number everything is based around!
At it's simplest I believe it's a probability that a unit will die each "use".
0.0064 would be 0.64% chance to die or 1-0.0064=0.9936 or 99.36% to not die each use.
The casualty reductions (R) should all be multiplied onto this number.
Then there's the PvP rank modifier (RM) of casualty rate, which at it's simplest could be just another factor, but one that can be more than 1, say for example 25, when you're rank4 attacking a rank6...
or 1/10 for rank7 vs rank6.

If I were to program it in the simplest way, that's how I'd do it:
(pseudocode)

u=[number of units you bring to the battle]
c=[CR]*[R1]*[R2]*...*[Rn]*[RM(pr,or)]  //c becomes a small number below 1
for j=1:u  //j is an index that goes over your units, one at a time.
   i=rand(0,1)  //i gets a random value between 0 and 1, different for each unit.
   if i<c  //logical operation
      <code for unit j dies>  //if i>c nothing happens i.e. unit j lives on
   end
end

Where RM(pr,or) is the rank modifier as a function of player rank and opponent rank.

Without comments:

u=[number of units you bring to the battle]
c=[CR]*[R1]*[R2]*...*[Rn]*[RM(pr,or)]
for j=1:u
   i=rand(0,1)
   if i<c
      <code for unit j dies> 
   end
end