Is the War Engine BROKEN ?

I'm aware there have been multiple discussions on last +2 years regarding the war engine being broken.
This is a continuation of those talks and on the recent discussion on threads Navy Armys costs and Offensive Air Wings costs


Recently there was a war in Fearless Blue:
Main defender country `Intramuros`
Attacker countries:

• FB La Locarna
• FB La Perlamo
• FB La Clockwork Orange

Overall numbers



All waves



Few things to keep on mind:
* The attacked was an experienced player
* Attacker unit (weapon/ammo) was most of the times 30-50 points h

That's dedication.

I cleared a lot of wings to hit Wl 14 and it was rather unpleasant.

Did you kill the shells?

They will repop if you don't.

2 real life days have gone since I decided to stop the war and move at first all offensive weapons out from these 3 countries.
My countries are still losing money and I have lost another chunk of +70T.
And I am not even near from moving 50% of the weapons / ammo.

It worth to mention I have 2658 Cargo Shuttles.

@Johanas, what do you mean wirh Shells?

@Andy,

Are you waiting until logs are no longer available?

I always new it was lopsided, but not as bad as your stats indicate. Where I still believe offensive weapons should cost more, The maintenance cost as well the use of live ammunition needs to be greatly reduced. (live ammunition should be rarely used) Develop blanks and dummy war heads. Make the quality matter. Increasing quality is time consuming and expensive. Allow the offensive army to become slightly larger. Their first round attack should have a higher percentage of weapons being fired. Check to make sure the offensive is striking first. Defensive weapons should be responding. Allow the offensive units to counter attack the defensive. Not just to attack the target. Just some thoughts.
Rob

As of today Fearles Blue date, May 11 5043 and as an example Clockwork Orange country is having -3.7T loses per game month (it was higher two days ago).

Total defense cost is 3.394T.
Mid Range Missiles costs 465B
Off Anti Aircraft Missiles costs 561B
Off Weapons Mainteance 2.461T

My space 2658 cargo shuttles are trying to get rid of remaining 737k MRMB and 388k OAAMB.

OAAMB (5.3m) and MRMB (7.8m) ammo are strategically (?) not in the space center as I'm trying to remove the weapons first :shrug:.

In other words, I'm losing more and more and more and more money.

I second your points expressed Rob, and I thank you for participating with your experience on this thread as well.


Maybe, MIB should be firing at the same time as the offensive weapons fires. They aim to intercept missiles but should NOT hit batteries.

Any other defensive weapons should be responding only. Meaning, firing AFTER the attacked country target got hit.

We are looking into wars all the time.

The attacker always had and currently has much higher costs than the defender.
Number of losses is higher and the offensive weapons and ammunition come at a higher cost.

The difference in costs depends on the strategy used, the quality of weapons and ammunition and varies widely.
It could be twice as expensive and it could be 5 times more expensive.

I do not remember a factor of 10 at any time in the past. I could imagine extreme cases where this could happen.

recent changes in the war engine in the past months were aimed at small reductions in the size of air force units in general to reduce the numbers of weapons lost in war. The air defense units were reduced more than the offensive air units.
The changes were small but we intended to continue to reduce the numbers also because of the increasing cost of weapons, all weapons, while the cost of ammunition was reduced ma

Did you care to read what I said by any chance? Cause I'm seeing your copy/paste message again without reading my message at all.


Please, I have decidated a lot of time to provide you good examples for you to check and receiving the copy/paste message is aggravating at minimum.

And I have also reported you other cases by email which you replied (most of them but not all) weeks after I email you. Naturally, the evidence was gone by then.

If you want to assume I don't know how to play the war game and that I'm not an experienced player (which I am), as a reason to not read my message completely and dismiss my post without reading it with a copy/paste message, Then fine. But it is not good ;)
And please remember this have been mentioned by many other experienced players as well and most of them have quit because of this copy/paste message attitude regarding the war engine bugs...


Preconditions:
- Valid credentials
- A country at war
- Have at least 5 Long Range Division military units created with 900 offensive anti aircraft missile batteries and 1096 mid range missile batteries each
- Your offensive military must near your opponent country
Note: Near means either at any of country borders, or you could have airlifted to the country after building a remote depot. Basically, within your weapons range to the target.


Steps t

Andy,

Can you update documentation of land units to include information about ranges/distance they support? I feel that some land units with batteries inside now have super big range. If this is intended we have to make this public for being transperant about it. Also please do it for mobile units.

Thanks

Myers

I don't know what you mean by copy paste.
be careful about what you you write or assume.
I did not see any error in the war engine for years.
you might not like what happens but this is the way the war engine works for a long time and relations between losses of the attacker and defender are:

1. Much higher by design for the attacker. Attacking should be much more expensive. defending players should be able to set up a strong defense for a reasonable cost.

2. exact numbers depend on strategy and quality.
This could make for a very large difference. If the defense is very effective and uses high quality weapons and ammunition than the results could be davastating.

We have always maintained that a very strong defense could deter attackers and make them abandon the war.

3. Players always looked for more effective ways to attack with fewer losses and sometimes they discover better ways and a

Lord Mndz,

The range of units depends on the range of the weapons that are part of the unit.
the unit itself is just a "container" keeping some weapons together.

When attacking, the process is identical to having the collection of the weapons in the unit participate in the attack and each one of them does what it can to contribute. Some do not participate at all, depending on the attacked target.

Some missiles have a very long range.
as you know, we have reduced some ranges several times and in general the resulting ranges are substantially shorter.

we stopped reducing the ranges for now becuase further reductions will result in more substantial differences in the way the war is conducted and more testing is needed to see if it can be continued.

When we change weapon capabilities or their range, the changes are automatically included in a changed weapons document which is generated by the softwar

@Andy,

You could have felt offended with my message and the copy/paste sentence, and I sincerely apologize for that.

But you have been replying literally the same general response for some time about this topic (and not only to me). And please take into consideration that I could have felt offended to (and I am), for receiving a new general response without from what I saw, analyzing what I shared with details, debug it and address my concerns. Concerns which are shared by all the experienced war players (including those who quit the game because of this)


Additionally, you have assumed things too which is entirely my point.
You have assumed I'm not a experienced war guy. And you have assumend I'm not aware of the weapon/ammo quality effect nor that I checked and compared attacker/defender weapons quality before pressing ATTACK DEFENSES.
Which is something that I'm aware about and I

Thanks Andy,

The part you have replied about is fine, i am asking about the support range when unit is not attacked directly, but is close on the map of the other unit that is attacked. How close another unit should be to join the fight? If this depends on attack range of weapons, then all units would cover each other which is not ok.

The results of attacks depend on the numbers of weapons on each side.
If the defense has very large numbers of weapons it is hard to destroy.

each attack has 10 shooting rounds.
the defense starts and the firs round could destroy many attack weapons.
This reduces the first attack round and the second defense round, slightly smaller, is again davastating.

if you could attack with 9000 weapons instead of 900, the results would be very different.

What happens during an attack round depends on the weapons that are involved and what each of them is capable of.

the weapons document shows the exact numbers.

if the garrison is using 100 weapons of a certain type and each one of them has a 60% hit rate with 100% damage, than the first round of that weapon alone will destroy 50 of the attacking weapons and there might be larger numbers and more types of weapons that are capable of either destroying attack weap

Still need to clarify on assistance part. If my capital is attacked and missile land unit(e.g land defense division) is 200 km away, would it respond? Would that depend on weapons in that unit.

A few questions.
1) It indicates that if an off unit is near the target it will increase unit proficiency in the attack. Is this the case? Why would it not be special forces?
2) If the offensive unit strikes first, why would it not start the first round?
3) Why do countries that are involved in a war continue to use live ammo in training? One would think all the resources would be saved for the war.
I know this has been a tough couple of weeks, Understand we love the game and would like it to succeed, I believe the input from the players is crucial to that success.
Rob

Mndz,

I will get back with answers.
we have recently reacted to requests about the response.

We plan to reduce the fed support from two to one unit.
We also intended to allow more support by units that are within range.
it is not done yet.

more because of a discussion about it than the little work needed to do it.

I will get back with more details.

Rob,

No difficult several weeks.
I was not available all the time.

We have no problems with comments and criticism as long as the discussion is constructive.
Many previous serious discussions ended with bug fixing. Players have contributed a lot during the past years to improve the game and helped us find problems.

we take comments seriously. when a player is telling us something is wrong especially an experienced player, we look into it.

to your points:

1. if an offensive land unit is close to a target

@Andy,
I would be kind and polite, if you could answer my questions as well too. I have taken the time, again, to do what you asked (one more time). This time I have listed them under "Questions" and I used numbering instead of bullets.

Thank you for your time,
Regards

Question #7: How easy it can be to public the results of each 16 mini rounds for each attack?

This way we could deeply analyze how the opponent defense is performing and we can identify a country-strategy for it. Just weapons used in both sides for that specific attack (ammo can be hidden).

Question #8: Was your following statement correct?

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

if the garrison is using 100 weapons of a certain type and each one of them has a 60% hit rate with 100% damage, than the first round of that weapon alone will destroy 50 of the attacking weapons and there might be larger numbers and more types of weapons that are capable of either destroying attack weapons of destroying the incoming missiles.<!-/Quote-!>

As per documentation link

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

The defense starts the first mini round. It uses one sixteenth of the available defense weapons (counted and validated in stage one) to attack the offensive forces that are ready for the attack.<!-/Quote-!>

Example

• cou

56.25 * 60% rate (100% damage) = 33.75 fighters destroyed instead of 60

Myers,

question 7:

there are 10 rounds.
tere are megabytes of data for each attack, missile by missile, bomb by bomb.
there is no way to publish it, requires hours of work.

this has been tested for many years.
there is no change in the logic ever, only in the parameters and the participating weapons.

some are effective some are not, depending on the weapons involved from both sides.

question 8:

I am not sure about percentages of participating weapons in each of the 10 rounds.

I will look into it ASAP.

You math sounds around right. This is the way it works.

What I am not sure about is which weapons participate on both sides.
this is of course essential.
and not sure about the percentages.

I now saw the oaamb used.

these are only effective agaist aircraft.

did you check which weapons in the garrison can be hit by these two types of missiles?

I assume that the attacking unit had enough ammo.

Also, the defense was assisted by a land division.....

I do not know how many weapons were involved in the defense.
which attack weapons were effective.
what was the quality on both sides.

any results could be expected here.

I do not think that the attacking force was optimal to destroy a garrison.

I don't think the ofaamb did anything at all.

We have done many years of debugging the war engine and we did not see any meaningful result of any attack that made us distrust the engine.

I understand you want us to spend a week of work to debug your attacks but for now, I did not see any reason to do so.

I think that the attack should have involved lan