| Tuesday, January 21, 2014 - 05:43 pm |
ok interesting situation regarding raiding c3's:
ive been playing this game for several years off and on. i have done alot of raiding of c3's and have found that if i manage one raid per 2 game months my losses are minimal. Well this morning i started a war with a c3 country on war lvl 3 and i am using air units of 400Quality fighter plane units. i do the standard atk against a town or county and attack the defenses and what happened next is unusual. Each attack against the c3's intercepters were killing about 40-50 of my fighters when at quality 400 it should only be killing about 5-10 if that. anyone else ran into this and can help i would appreciate it.
| Saturday, January 25, 2014 - 04:55 pm |
The number of your fighters lost in each attack also depends on the quality of the weapons of the C3 country.
you should probably start by destroying all these interceptor wings, before you attack other targets.
| Monday, June 23, 2014 - 04:34 am |
What are the best weapons for destroying interceptor wings? And what weapons do interceptors not defend against?
| Monday, June 23, 2014 - 07:28 am |
Interceptors can only respond to air units and coincidentally they do not respond to land units
| Monday, June 23, 2014 - 07:34 am |
Haha let me rephrase that, they do respond to land attacks but they can't hit them *hint
| Monday, June 23, 2014 - 12:53 pm |
If you don't choose to attack the Interceptor wings, they will not "respond" to ground units... meaning you can't attack somewhere with Offensive AA and expect the Interceptors to come to die.
In either case, I'd seriously recommend ignoring Interceptors... if you use all ground units, you won't even need to destroy them. Offensive AA taking out Helicopters, Mid Range Missile Batteries taking out defending Garrisons and Heavy Tanks/Artillery/Jeeps/Armored Vehicles taking out the undefended targets is the way to go. Why? C3s will have fewer Helicopter wings and OAAB v. Heli is a much better matchup for the attacker than FP v. Ints due to the larger size of divisions mainly because of a full size OAAB division's better tank (in the rpg sense). The previously mentioned "Heavies" are significantly more cost efficient at destroying targets than anything that flies, the only drawback being the pitiful low range. MRMB divisions may not be as good as Precision Bombers against garrisons, but keeping ground only allows you to bypass interceptors, which is significantly more efficient than destroying Interceptors with OAAMB.
Haven't fought stealth in a while, but last I did, you could set the OAAB units to "max size - 1", the MRMB units to "max size - 1", and the HT/other-stuff-that-stealth-cant-hit to "max size"... if you don't have any air defense available to respond to defend the units, then the Stealth will target the largest unit which will have stuff that is stealth-immune, making the entire stealth mechanic null. I expect it still works, but pretty sure I'll never be able to see on a free account.
| Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 04:44 pm |
Exact numbers of which eweapon is doing what against other weapons are in the weapons document.
It is precise and up to date, but you should take quality into consideration.
High quality weapons inflict higher damage relative to their quality and lower damage, relative to the quality of the weapons they attack.
| Friday, June 27, 2014 - 01:51 am |
How exactly are high qual weapons implemented? Does a Q200 weapon (100 MRMB's for example) do twice the damage, Aim with twice the accurately, Are twice as hard to for MRMB's and DMB's shoot down, Simulate 200 firing at once or some combo of this?
Am I correct to think the war engine just takes the fighting level, not the weapon Q and ammo Q? If the MRMB is Q200 firing Q100 missiles, will the missiles be shot down as easily as normal but any DMB's responding will be less effective?
| Friday, June 27, 2014 - 12:06 pm |
The war engine is using the quality.
if quality is 200, the damage will be twice higher.
If the target doubles the quality, the damage will be 50% of what it was before.
The war engine does not know about the war level.
| Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 01:11 am |
As far as I can assume and from what I've seen, the game will increase damage until it reaches 100%, at which point it will increase accuracy until it reaches 100%... this would be so that weapons with like 6% accuracy and 100% damage at the start still benefit from quality bonuses. Of course this could be wrong. Anyway, I'm pretty much 99% sure Fighting Level is the number taken into account. So MRMB at 200Q firing 100Q missiles are treated as being 150Q for the calculations.
In either case, you get more than linear benefits from quality since it BOTH increases your damage and decreases enemy damage. This also means that the percent quality difference is what matters and not the raw quality.
150 v. 150 = 300 v. 300 = 450 v. 450
200 v. 150 = 400 v. 300 = 600 v. 450
Also, since the way battle rounds are conducted places such a high priority on massed firepower, the extra tankiness will lead more enemy weapons destroyed since more of your weapons are surviving each round to do damage the next. The 16 rounds of this makes a large difference...
| Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 10:52 am |
I might have mislead you.
The fighting level is what matters. (not war level as I assumed you meant).
The fighting level is an average of the quality of both weapons and ammunition.
and yes, the comparisons you made are correct.
| Saturday, June 28, 2014 - 06:00 pm |
Thank you Brostoevski and Andy for clearing that up for me.