View Full Version : My new assumption of the Casualty mechanism 😲

01-19-2012, 12:18 PM
First of all, let's assume we are talking about a player who has 100 allies here.

Originally, I thought how it works is like this: randomly pick 400 units from your troop and randomly pick death unit amount and type dependent on the atk/def stats difference. * * * *That's why I would suggest players to buy massive light gunners to decrease the chance for losing high quality units.

However lately, due to the lost complain and discussion in our forum. I realized that I'm being stupid for insisting my mechanism I said above☝
So here I'm sorry for cursing some of you guys' playing

Now let's go to the new thought with me.
The casualty statement for every unit might be a default underlying number.*
For example, a new bought Light Gunner has an endurance number of 2 while a new bought Super Hornet has an endurance number of 50.*
Scout and ranger are 4, sniper 8
Truck 10, Jeep 14 ,Humvee 18, Bradley 20, Stryker 25
GIGN 30, Chinook 35, APC 40
Patrol boat 60, Frigate 70, Cruiser 80
High<10<Medium<30<Low<50<Very Low
Something like this, it's just an imaginary guess.

Then every battle, you lose a certain amount of endurance points randomly(or maybe not random, like those units that are strong against infantry, do double endurance cost on enemy's infantry) spread within your 400 fighting units.*
And that particular amount dependent on the difference of your atk and your opponent's def. the more stronger the less endurance points cost. There maybe a equation calculating this, but I don't know.

So it can explain everything that happened.*
When you attacking a weak player, he makes you lose 10 endurance points. And unfortunately, u have a 5 points left long time used super hornet and a 1 point left Humvee, also two 2 points GIGN. So that you lost them and saying unbelievable!
Therefore, you lose unit at someday dramatically is because your long time played 3000stats army reached in a low endurance situation for most of the units. That's why every time you seems lose a lot of units recently.

Here is my opinion, discussions are very welcome. *
Whispering: what do you think, agent orange?


Agent Orange
01-19-2012, 12:26 PM
That was something I considered a few weeks ago. Didn't explain someone loosing a brand new Anti Aircraft vehicle on their very first attack.

01-19-2012, 12:27 PM
There are no endurance points.

Your stats versus your opponents stats determines whether you will lose units or not and how many you will lose.

Then everythig has its casualty rate, usually weaker units have higher casualty. Then, common sense, the more of a certain unit you have the more likely it is to lose it.

The problem right now is that the amount of units you lose has magnified by 2-3 times and regardless of how powerful you are compared to your opponent you will lose units. Then theres the fact that the casualty rate seems to mean next to nothing at the moment. The few select units you lose are completely random and thats why so many good units are dying.

An endurance system wouldnt work. How would it choose where to distribute to points taken away?

01-19-2012, 12:45 PM
Thanks for the post. I enjoy this kind of thought process. I do see some holes in your guessed theory that don’t seem to line up with what I’ve experienced, but I like the rational behind it and have done my best to figure it out as well. I'm not trying to shut down discussion on this at all, so please, everyone that reads this after me, share your thoughts as well. For me though, there are too many variables at play, too much (seemingly) randomness in battle outcomes, and 0 information provided from Funzio to help us figure it out.

My vote is this:

Funzio share your battle/raid equations with us!!! Or at least give us more info so that we can form sound strategies based on reality and not some "guess" that ends up being totally wrong.

Tell us:

- What impact does Attack/Defense skill points have?
- What is the affect of unit specialties like "strong against sea"?
- What is the affect of the unit's Casualty Rating of very low, low, medium, high, etc.?
- What is the impact of Defensive buildings?
- How do National bonuses factor in?
- Is there a difference in the battle equation from the first attack to the 5th attack on someone?
- What are the battle equations?!?!

Personally, I find it hard to believe that all this information is not openly shared. Maybe I'm used to playing "higher end" PvP games where all this info is out in the open for people to analyze and form strategies.

I know they are in the process of (and will always be in the process--which is fine) of tweaking things to bring balance and better game play. All they have to do is have a forum thread locked down so only they can post on it where they announce revision changes. Other games have been doing this for years, it is not complicated.

01-19-2012, 12:51 PM
I am a little shocked at how many I lose when I attack vs. how many the person I attack loses. I understand that if I have 3000A and they have 1200D I will still lose 0-4 units (seems to be the going rate). What I do not understand is how the person I attack 1) rarely loses a troop 2) rarely ever loses more than one. In the Civil War the south was on Def before Gettysburg and they ended up winning a bunch of battles against a larger though mislead northern foe. Now the north in most cases lost more than the south but the south still took a beating in casualties. I am just trying to understand how being a defender to a more powerful foe causes such minimal casualties. If attacking and defending is based on #'s and my numbers are 66% higher than his/hers I may still lose my 0-5 troops but I would think they lose 2-7 troops.

Or is their a saturation point where we lose equal amounts until I start to overpower my opponent by say 50% and then my casualties go up while theirs go down telling us there is a penalty for attacking weaker foes.


01-19-2012, 01:02 PM

While I agree that common sense would say that the loser of a battle should lose more units than the victor, if that were the case in this game, it would totally ruin it. People would be beaten to death and not want to play in a very short amount of time. When someone loses a battle (keep in mind that they did not initiate it or ever be asked to be attacked), they are already losing income, money, or units. Unless they are lucky enough to have everything vaulted, and not lose any units, they are always on the losing side of a battle that they lose even the way things are right now. If I attack someone 6 times and they lose a single unit every other attack, they just lost 3 units + whatever amount of money/income I took. Someone else can come along and do the same thing to them a minute later. If losses outweigh what they are able to bring in, they will quit. It is a challenging balancing act for Funzio.

01-19-2012, 01:09 PM
"It is a challenging balancing act for Funzio." You said it. Based on your post if someone loses too many they will not want to play but those who put in the time and effort to be the best at the game are then penalized and if they lose too many they will not want to invest time, effort, money.

When is the user group convention getting together somewhere warm and sand so we can work these things out. Let's not forget we can not make everyone happy, we must at least make the majority happy and anyone over 51% who is onboard it just the cherry on the sundae. (now I want ice cream...)

01-19-2012, 01:10 PM
Admirable behavior, but negated assumption

I have twice lost two super hornets at once in one battle against weak players
(I have about 950 super hornet back then)

I'm the fan of "rolling dice" theory , which is by far the most plausible one

01-19-2012, 01:15 PM
Just because I believe that losses should be minimal for the person being attacked, that doesn't have any bearing on what I believe the attacker should lose. I firmly believe that the current loss ratio for attacking/raiding is way too high. It is currently so high, that there is almost no point in ever attacking or raiding. There have been very few occasions where I come out on top, and the amount of real time I have to spend to find those occasions is not worth it.