Hello guys,


    I've been playing with the battle simulator and some things doesn't make sense at all to me.
    Suppose both attacker and defender have everything build to max (3x20, etc) and both have their surrender setting at 25%:
    The attacker attacks with 100 mil. cavalry and the defender has 100 mil. heavy cavalry -> it's a draw and both lose 25% of their troops. that's logic in my opinion.


    But now, the attacker attacks with the same amount, but the defender now has 100 mil of light infantry, axemen, archers, knights templars, armored cavalry and paladin. -> The battle still ends in a draw eventhough the defender outnumbers the enemy 6:1, and both sides lose 25% of their troops. which means the defender loses a lot more. In fact, it even loses so much, that 1 cavalry unit could kill 1.25 units while the cavalry was actually outnumbered 6vs1. This is not realistic at all and really schouldn't be possible in my opinion.


    If the defender puts it's surrender setting on 50% it suddenly wins the battle and loses almost nothing compared to the 25% setting. But when the attacker puts it at 50% as well, the attackers still loses the battle and only being able to kill 0.822 units with 1 cavalry unit. Where is the logic in this again?


    A battle is just a gamble at the moment on how you have to set your surrender setting in stead of actually fighting with the troops you have.


    So, is it possible this can be changed? If not, I want a detailed report on how the battle simulator works so we can calculate it properly ourselves, if necessary, just give me the coding and I'm fine with it. But now it's way too complicated and not even realistic at all.

    We have been warning for several days that something has changed in the battle results, although the administrator insists on saying no, there are many totally illogical battle reports, and even battle reports where the attacker who wins the battle has sent many more troops that the defender, and even winning the battle loses many more troops than the defender.

    "Illogical battle reports" are not something from the past few days. They are part of the game for a long time. I do not know if they are more frequent now, but they are not new.



    Quote from Urotsukidoji

    and even battle reports where the attacker who wins the battle has sent many more troops that the defender, and even winning the battle loses many more troops than the defender.

    A Pyrrhic victory. This expression alludes to Kind Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans at Asculum in a.d. 279, but lost his best officers and many of his troops. Pyrrhus then said: "Another such victory and we are lost."

    • Official Post
    Quote from Urotsukidoji

    We have been warning for several days that something has changed in the battle results, although the administrator insists on saying no, there are many totally illogical battle reports, and even battle reports where the attacker who wins the battle has sent many more troops that the defender, and even winning the battle loses many more troops than the defender.

    why you think that im lying ? I already wrote that the only think we changed is the wall stuff.
    And it seems like @Juflo writes, that this happend before the update.


    Did you have a report before the update and can simulate this code (after update) now ?
    Its easy to call someone liar and didn't can proof something here.

    • Official Post

    this is logical.... There are rounds in an defined amount strikes against an defined amount. If you run all to one door ... one side with 10 ppl, other with 100 ppl... there are still fighting 10/10 in the door.


    So you call it so, but a 10 years old game where many players had fun, play battles and like that, you can call it illogical but it works.
    So maybe there are illogical things here, but many players blame us last past weeks for fixing things we thnking that this isn't logical at all like:
    - senate building has NO function after recruting senators
    - wall level 0/1 was stronger as level 100
    - player who had 200+ castles can hold them; new players can't get this amount without using bugs.
    - that a 4billion player can fight against a 2000billion player
    - some more?


    So im not sure if your example is rly showing somthing not logical.

    All the things you just summed up isn't about this subject at all, pls anwer on the question.
    If you're 100% sure the simulator works as it schould, good! Yet I don't agree on some things with it. For example, a battle is way too fast a draw when both forces have their surrender setting at 25%.
    Do you wanna look into that? if the answer is yes, good! Then we can discuss further how we can change it.
    If the answer is no, at least give us all te information on how the simulator works so we know what we're doing.


    I'm not offending you buddy, I just wanna make the game better as you do. You never know if there is a bug in the simulator that has been there for 10 years. I just ask you to look into it and come with a solution I wrote above.

    Quote from Dschibait

    this is logical.... There are rounds in an defined amount strikes against an defined amount. If you run all to one door ... one side with 10 ppl, other with 100 ppl... there are still fighting 10/10 in the door.

    Nice example on how it is in real life, is this how the simulator works as well?

    • Official Post

    you didn't read my answer; my example with the door and 10/100 is based on your example.


    The simulator is the same code base like the battle "main" script. So there are only definitions which are handled an other way.
    I didn't calculate your example at all, there are different atk / deff strange; and losing something based on the sum of incoming damage and not on pure values (like you did) ...


    So basicly on your example:
    case 1: same size => ok its logical
    case 2: defense increase
    Attacker first strices against the defender,
    - you got the damage dealed but its capped at 25%. So you can't get more damage => logic
    - your defense units deal damage and can also don't kill more than 25% => logic
    Based on the battle settings; the attacker deals more damage, because he could do more damage BEFORE your battle settings are triggered


    case 3: 50% deff battle settings
    Attacker first strices against the defender,


    - you got the damage dealed but its capped at 50%. So you can't get more damage; the damage from attacker isn't much higher as 25% of your => logic
    - defender deal the same, still lose only 25% (attacker settings)


    case 4: 50% both sides
    Attacker first strices against the defender,
    - you got the damage dealed but its capped at 50%. So you can't get more damage; => logic (see above)
    - you deal now much more damage because you could also deal more damage before, but now the battle settings form attacker is on 50 => logic
    So thats why you can deal more damage.


    So and now, tell me why this isn't logic at all.

    Ok now we're getting somewhere:
    I'm just going to answer inside the quote :)

    So...


    Illogical things:


    When you attack a castle, you lose more troops when the defender has 25% combat settings then at 100%. When he has 100% the defender should be attacking longer?

    • Official Post

    Ok, now some numbers.


    An even fight:
    Attacker 1000 Units vs 1000 Units Defender
    Attacker could destroy 1000 Units, but battle settings are only 25%, so defnder loses only 25%, attacker also can lose 25% => logic and even fight (see your #1 case)


    No i didn't say that 1 unit could deal that damage. But if your Attacker Units can kill 25% of there units (based on attack value compared with defense value);


    In numbers:
    Attacker 1000 Units
    Defender: 1000 Units, 1000 Units, 1000 Units


    Attacker Units are so strong to destroy 250 of each Unit.
    Still attacker settings are only 25% ... so attacker can only lose 250


    End result: 250 losts on attacker; 250 of each unit on defender
    (like your example)
    Because: the attacker is so strong to destroy more as this 250 of one unit; so they can destroy much more (and in your example it seems that they can kill any 25% of each unit)


    BUT:
    if you havn't enough damage, you will not destroy the 25% of each.



    Why? Why he cant deal more damage?
    I didn't understand that question. If 100mil of cavalery can't destroy more than 25% in first round; why you tink this issn't logical ?
    I didn't calculate this at all, but if they can destroy 26% ... case #2 means destroy 25%... in this case the settings are on 50% so they destroy the fully 26% ...
    After destroying these the defender is atacking and destroys the 25%; attacker flees (battle settings)
    So why this isn't logic? The damage is in case #2 capped to 25% ... if this is 26%, you still kill 25% in case #2; but now yeah its logic that you could kill up to 50% .. but with not such a big amount damage you will still only get 25% (or 26%, or 27%, or 28% ....)




    i didn't tell that he deals 50% damage... he still deals the damage from case #2 or case #3; but its not capped like in case #3 (same basic setup here; 50% on defender side)
    So he wills till get the (for example) 26%


    So now there are 2 possible ways here, which i didn't calculate:
    On the defender strike, he could destroy 50% of there troops => finish, with 50% lost on attacker and 26% lost on defender


    or


    He can't get the fully 50% done, so that the attacker gets a 2nd strike; that means, that the reduced (left) units can may deal some more damage to the defender.

    • Official Post

    so i will show this agian in only numbers... i think that your examples are also my english wasnt the best.



    100 units vs 100 units
    100 Units each can attack with 1
    100 units each can defende with 1


    25% settings on both sides means:


    Attacker deals 100*1 damage but can only kill 25% => 25 damage is taken on defender side
    defender deals 100*1 damage but can also only kill 25% => 25 damage is taken on attacker side


    so now we put some more units there:


    attacker still 100 units with 1 attack per unit
    defender has 100, 100, 100 units with also 1 attack per unit


    attacker deals 100 damage, 25% per unit means 75 damage, defender lose 25% of each unit
    Defender deals 300 damage, but attacker settings are 25%, so only 25 damage is taken on attacker side.



    So now, we put 50% battle settings on defender:


    attacker still 100 units with 1 attack per unit
    defender has 100, 100, 100 units with also 1 attack per unit


    attacker deals 100 damage, 100 damage dealed; any unit gets 33 damage, 33% lost of each unit.
    Defender deals 300 damage, but attacker settings are 25%, so only 25 damage is taken on attacker side.


    and last case #4
    both had 50% battle settings


    attacker still 100 units with 1 attack per unit
    defender has 100, 100, 100 units with also 1 attack per unit


    attacker deals 100 damage, 100 damage dealed; any unit gets 33 damage, 33% lost of each unit.
    Defender deals 300 damage, now attacker settings are 50%, so only 50 damage is taken on attacker side.

    Ok good, it's clear now and I understand how it works! Thanks!


    So the attacker can do his damage which is good. In case of the cavalry, it can do (for example) 1000 units * (130 (base attack strength) + 3*26 (extra laboratory strenght)) = attack strength of 208.000


    but now the defender which was light infantry, axemen, archers, knights templars, armored cavalry and paladin: 1000*(15+3*2) + 1000*(40+3*2) + 1000*(50+3*10) + 1000*(80+3*16) + 1000*(200+3*40) + 1000*(100+3*20)= 755.000


    208.000 is more than 25% of 755.000 so the defender flees. Now I understand.
    Still it doesn't feel logic in my opinion, can't we work something out that the attacker and defender start fighting at the same time in stead of first the attacker and then the defender? At the moment the attacker has an insane advantage over the defender, eventhough the defender spend way more troops defending his castle. I'm not a fan of the idea that 800 defending units have the same effect as 6000 defending units on the attacker.

    • Official Post

    a insane advantage ? I dont think so ... you could get more support, could get back some troops and everything is not visible for the attacker. So you could surprise them as a defender with more troops as he spied


    general; the attacker has the first strike bonus and the defender the wall.
    Btw: the wall and bow units will have a strike before attacker.

    Ok, so the archers attacks first, and they managed to deal the 25% of the damage to the attacker, why is it that the attacker is not running away but still attacking the other defense forces?


    Suppose the attacker attacks with 100mil cavalry and the defender has 200mil archers and 100mil armored cavalry:
    The archers attack first and can deal the 25% damage, yet the attacker is not running away but keeps attacking those 100mil armored cavalry. What's the use of the archers then if the attacker keeps attacking anyway?

    This type of information has been collected by fighters over the years. This is called experience. Now someone comes to the forum who has never had a fight with an active player. And now that he does, he realizes there is more to fighting than sending as many troops as possible to a castle. And that player now demands to get the information on forum ; the information that fighters have collected in many fights and simulations.
    And he also gets an answer too.


    Spend your hours simulating fights to see how things work. Like so many have done before you. This information given is not fair on all those players that had to find it out for themselves.

    Edited once, last by Juflo ().

    Like 5

    Ah nice to hear you again Juflo, I think we even were in the same alliance if I remember correctly. You're Dutch right?


    I'm playing this game for 10 years now, got completely destroyed in GE2, started again after some years, then played, stopped again and now I'm back again for a year or so. I knew the rules on how the battle stuff was working, yet it seemed they were changed, but apparently not. So yes I ask here how it works, and apparently I'm not the only one that could use this information.

    Yes We have been in the same alliance. And you know we tried to find out information there and shared it on the alliance forum. That you could not find this information in your current alliance is a major loss. But I don't think it's the job of the owner of the game to explain this lack to you. If he wants it to be known, he must communicate it to everyone, for example in an explanation of the game. Not in an answer to one person in this forum.

    -araluen-:
    may i do an offer to you:
    maybe the admins shall plan and coordinate your attacks!? :D
    it seems it is too much work and time for you to try some strategies in simulator? :thumbdown:


    i understand your general questions for the changes but if you ask again and again and again to find a way for your strategy by "penetrating" Dschibait with questions instead of using the tool "simulator" to find out i think that is too much.


    USE THE SIMULATOR! IT IS A TOOL IN THIS GAME TO PROVE OWN STRATEGIES BEFORE START ATTACKS. THANK YOU *bow* :D :D :D