Princess Bubblegum

I have experience.

It'd be nice to have an option to pay for a public flag that anyone can use. That is all.

I'd also like to ask, my post count actually went down a couple days ago. Is that because a post of mine was deleted somewhere?

Nation ID: 2661 Post Count: 101 Link to Nation: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=2661

Yes, as I'm coming to understand the system more, it seems like it's the case-- as far as soldiers doing damage to tanks... in which case my initial assumption was incorrect. However, I am still arguing that damage should be proportional to deployment and not an "even" split. I'd like sheepy to confirm that my last summation was correct though. As I was trying to get clarification of the system, my understanding of it was evolving. I was thinking at one point that there was no "bonus" for tanks, but that defending soldiers were just targeting attacking soldiers disproportionately to attacking tanks. Technically that scenario doesn't make tanks stronger or give them a bonus; it's just shifting the damage proportion. The same total damage would still be dealt to the attacker. The attacker might as well not even use tanks if he or she doesn't need to, since the attacker would get roughly the same damage to their army with or without tanks. But now I'm gathering that's not how it operates, so I put forth a new formula in my previous post and am asking if that is the correct one. And I was completely unaware at the beginning that soldiers do significantly less damage to tanks compared to the damage that tanks do to tanks. But I feel it should also be mentioned that under the current system, one could have reversed the scenario of my last battle, that being a much more sizable soldier force compared to a smaller tank force. If 99% of the strength is in soldiers and 1% in tanks, the tanks now, rather than the soldiers, will be targeted disproportionately. So if the system is meant to "save" expensive tanks relative to soldiers, you still have that damage/casualty ratio being applied of (something like) 50% to tanks and 50% to soldiers. So now tanks, even if they do have a bonus, are going to be destroyed early. To illustrate, here are the two systems: My proposal (based on proportion deployed): Current system (bottom up, casualty ratio): The greater the damage done to the army, the more that "Killed in Battle" line moves upward. Again, these images are assuming more soldier strength than tank strength. In my previous battle, the categories (tanks and soldiers) would be reversed in the images.

Just because the distribution in damage was even doesn't mean that soldiers aren't being targeted preferentially. By definition that's exactly the case when they're receiving equal damage as tanks but are only 0.22% of the strength. To take a real world example, if a minority group of people are being sent to prison in the same total numbers as a larger majority, it's not equal if that minority comprises only 1% of the population and the majority represents 99%. We would say that the minority has a preferential inclination towards being sent to prison. (I feel like should make this edit: Not a personal preference, just a statistical trend). Rather than a dichotomous split in damage dealing towards tanks and soldiers in a fixed ratio, the ratio of damage should be moved to the deployment ratio and based on the percentage each group (soldiers and tanks) composes. If 99% of the strength is in tanks, 99% of the damage should go to tanks (again this can be modified to make tanks more hardy) and 1% should go to soldiers. Not 50% to tanks and 50% to soldiers. Doing so allows people to micromanage their casualties in favor of one unit or another. So summing it, I think the current system we have is one where: a) The RNG spits out a number for the defender based on his or her units b ) Defending tanks kill in a ratio of 40 soldiers to every tank (40:1), and 50% of the damage dealt is allotted to tanks and 50% is allotted to soldiers c ) Defending soldiers kill in a ratio of roughly 100 soldiers to every tank (100:1), and 50% of the damage dealt is allotted to tanks and 50% is allotted to soldiers. d ) I'm assuming once a group, be it tanks or soldiers, runs out of units, the remaining proportion of undealt damage is then transferred to the other remaining group. I suppose since tanks are worth 40 soldiers but are only killed when 100 damage is done, tanks are getting a "bonus" of 60 damage points when fighting soldiers? Like this: I mean the system works I suppose, but it'd be really nice if I were able to adjust the casualties I get based on deployment percentage, rather than casualties be a disproportionate, bottom up, dichotomous system. At the moment, the only way to even attempt to do that is to send 50 soldiers and max tanks, and doing so the attacker is going to lose all 50 soldiers before they lose a single tank.

That's not what I'm proposing at all. Let's take my last battle as an example. That damage done to kill 40 soldiers should have gone 99.78% to tanks. If that still wasn't enough to kill a tank, my total casualties should have been 0 soldiers and 0 tanks. So FEWER casualties, not more. That's not the point. You have this system where soldiers and tanks are killed in a casualty ratio regardless of deployment ratio. Ok maybe 1 tank would have been killed and 20 soldiers would be killed if I attacked a nation with tanks (I'm guessing here). But 20 is still absurdly and disproportionately high to the amount deployed and the total strength ratio.

And see what you're describing to me is a remainder. There was a fraction left over that wasn't enough to destroy a tank, so it went to killing off soldiers instead. That does not make tanks more hardy. That just means soldiers are being preferentially attacked over tanks. And if so, that doesn't mean tanks have an advantage over soldiers, it just means they're being spared from the damage that is instead being allotted to soldiers. I'd say a much more reasonable system would be one where the proportion you deploy is the proportion of damage you take. When you have soldiers doing the same proportion of damage to 100 soldiers as to 1 tank (meaning for every 100 soldiers they kill, the damage ledge they do to tanks is reached and a tank gets destroyed), you have this situation where 0.22% of the strength is being disproportionately targeted. Why might this be a problem? Because when people begin to run out of soldiers, those fewer remaining soldiers are still being targeted at the same rate. They will continue to die off faster. And it means that an attacker can't modify what he wants to sacrifice. I might actually want tanks to be the ones targeted first, and not my soldiers if my soldiers are the more precious commodity.

So you're telling me that the RNG just happened to favor 0.22% over 99.78%? Why did 80% of my soldiers die when they comprised only 0.22% of the attacking force? That seems to tell me the defensive soldier strength is just targeting soldiers preferentially over tanks, regardless of how many there are.

https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=26405 As I suspected. 50/22690 = 0.22% of the power, yet 100% of the casualties, and the same number as the others. Did you set it up like this?: Tanks kill in a ratio of: 40 soldiers:1 tank Soldiers kill in a ratio of: 100 soldiers:1 tank If so, that doesn't seem to make tanks more hardy or stronger. It seemingly only means soldiers are preferentially targeting other soldiers.

Which makes one wonder if it's considered an exploit to hop onto an AA as an applicant then purposefully be defeated by a friend to gain bank loot.

So why is it that soldiers are the first to die when their strength ratio is 1/12th that of tanks (I used 1000 soldiers and 500+ tanks... only soldiers died)? Why are soldiers dying at the same amount in each of those battles I posted? My next test is to use the bare minimum of soldiers, which I think is 50, and use 500 tanks. The score difference should be 50 (or 87.5?) for soldiers and 20,000 for tanks. In a truly proportional system, I should have nearly 0 soldier deaths since the proportion of damage that should be allotted to soldiers should be 50/20050 or 0.25%. Shouldn't 99.75% of the defensive strength be targeting the tanks in that case? Or are soldiers not only doing more damage to other soldiers than they do to tanks, but are preferentially doing damage to soldiers over damaging tanks? But you're saying that it's not based on strength, but on numbers deployed? Perhaps you could clear that up? If I deploy 50 soldiers and 500 tanks against 1000 soldiers, what kind of casualty ratio am I to expect and why? Would I still lose 30-45 soldiers and 0 tanks?

Increasing deployment doesn't decrease casualties. I'm fairly certain based upon sheepy's explanation of how the battle system works***, damage is calculated based on opponent's strength, not your own. But an example of what I was talking about: 756 dead soldiers, and 7 destroyed tanks for me as an attacker would simply become 756 dead soldiers and 0 destroyed tanks if I didn't deploy tanks. The defender's damage upon the attacker's soldiers is based on the defender's own strengths, both tanks and soldiers. So that defensive strength would inflict 756 worth of damage. The 7 tanks are simple tacked on if the attacker deploys them. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain I don't get double soldier casualties when I decide to not deploy tanks. I'm suspicious that tanks destroyed are based on soldier death and not deployment ratio because I've widely varied my tank deployment as a ratio and the numbers seem to come back at roughly 100 dead soldiers to 1 destroyed tank. Examples: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=25959 Nation Infrastructure Soldiers Tanks Aircraft Ships Money Ottoman Empire 117.66 8,668 0 0 0 $260,049.61 Candy Kingdom 0.00 1,154 10 0 0 $0.00 1154:10 = 115:1 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=24909 Nation Infrastructure Soldiers Tanks Aircraft Ships Money PRSA 109.74 7,581 0 0 0 $17,983.34 Candy Kingdom 37.59 1,732 16 0 0 $0.00 1732:16 = 80.25:1 https://politicsandwar.com/nation/war/timeline/war=24909 12/15/2014 09:17 pm CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation ofCase led by Best Detective. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 346 soldiers and 3 tanks, while Best Detective's defenders lost 2,756 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 23.73 infrastructure in the city of Room One and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $9,781.49 in the attack. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation ofPRSA led by Chairman Michael Watsky. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 405 soldiers and 4 tanks, while Chairman Michael Watsky's defenders lost 810 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 18.00 infrastructure in the city of Pretoria and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $3,439.03 in the attack. 12/15/2014 09:18 pm CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation ofCase led by Best Detective. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 213 soldiers and 2 tanks, while Best Detective's defenders lost 2,675 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 22.08 infrastructure in the city of Room One and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $4,765.48 in the attack. 12/16/2014 03:03 am CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation ofCase led by Best Detective. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 120 soldiers and 1 tanks, while Best Detective's defenders lost 2,973 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 22.80 infrastructure in the city of Room One and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $9,530.15 in the attack. ***Sheepy's video: And I just tested it again. I have attacked multiple targets with 1000 defending soldiers. The casualties have been relatively uniform when using full tanks and soldiers, half tanks and soldiers, 1/4 tanks and soldiers, or even 1/10 soldiers and full tanks. You ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Imperium Europa led by WorldConqueror. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 36 soldiers and 0 tanks, while WorldConqueror's defenders lost 1,000 soldiers and 0 tanks. You used 5.20 tons of munitions and 5.00 tons of gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 16.11 infrastructure in the city of The Centre. You stole $873.08 in the attack and destroyed 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Liberty Land led by King JPP. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 42 soldiers and 0 tanks, while King JPP's defenders lost 1,000 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 24.09 infrastructure in the city of Freedom and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $13,050.14 in the attack. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum of Candy Kingdom ordered a ground attack upon the nation ofNathsera led by King Dazen Ryvan. The attack was an immense triumph. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum's forces lost 36 soldiers and 0 tanks, while King Dazen Ryvan's defenders lost 1,000 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 18.39 infrastructure in the city of Malish and 0 improvements. CandyKin Princess Bubblegum stole $16,090.30 in the attack. I can post more, but they're all about the same. Roughly 30-45 soldiers dead regardless of tank or soldier deployment ratio.

Well, for one it shouldn't be a factor because as far as I know tanks aren't supposed to operate like that. But the real reason I don't think it's a factor is because destroyed tanks are not proportional to how many are deployed, but to how many soldiers die. Maybe that ratio changes if what you say is true, but destroyed tanks are still not destroyed based upon the amount deployed as far as I can tell, nor are they particularly hardy. If what you're saying is true, then that should be made more clear in the description of tanks (unless it was purposefully meant to be obfuscated, in which case you get threads like these).

That's an entirely separate issue if that's the case. Tanks are supposed to have a fixed battle strength value (40 soldiers w/out munitions). You should be able to calculate the relative damage output. If tanks do more damage to other tanks than soldiers do to tanks beyond the stated battle value, that has been up to this point an unstated part of the battle mechanics.

More tanks means more damage output, yes. If the defender has tanks, those tanks will harm you as the attacker. That's not what is being discussed though. We're talking about tanks as casualties, not as damage outputs. Edit: and yeah, the 100 soldiers to 1 tank might be off, but the pattern still holds even if that isn't the exact number.

http://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/2883-understanding-military-units/ So I'm wondering if the bolded section is actually true. Every battle I've seen that has tanks in it, a tank dies whenever 100 soldiers die. So it seems like Sheepy just tacks on a dead tank for every 100 dead soldiers. If 99 soldiers die, no tanks die. If 199 soldiers die, only 1 tank dies. If this is the case, this seems like an extremely lazy calculation, and makes the bolded part false. Here is why: We know that 1 tank is equal to 40 soldiers (22.8 if the soldiers use munitions). If we simply look at those numbers, we might think that 100 dead soldiers for every tank seems consistent. But the problem is that the dead tank is a completely additional part of the equation. Had the attacker not sent tanks at all, he'd still have the same amount of dead soldiers. The tank is just added on as an additional casualty because 100 dead soldiers were reached, and not because the enemy did 22.8% - 40% additional damage to the attacker. Under the current formula, the attacker who deploys tanks is accepting that additional 22.8% - 40% damage. The presumed benefits for using tanks are twofold: 1) Higher roll score 2) Additional damage output So an attacker is essentially accepting 22.8% - 40% additional damage on his part just for those two things. But, for example, if an attacker wipes out the entirety of the enemy forces, deploying all his troops and tanks does that additional 22.8% - 40% damage to himself. An attacker who knows they will get an immense triumph due to overwhelming superiority, if he or she wants to minimize damage, now should actually NOT send tanks if they want to avoid that extra 22.8% - 40% damage. That might be acceptable as a game mechanic, but the claim that tanks are less prone to dying is a falsehood. An attacker is taking a disproportionate amount of damage just by using tanks in exchange for a higher roll and higher damage output. Using tanks when not necessary for an immense triumph is actually more harmful than helpful. A possible alternative would be coding the damage based upon how much is deployed. If 20% of the roll strength is in tanks, 20% of the damage should go to tanks. If you want to make tanks more hardy, then the tank deaths can be modified to be 50% (for example) of whatever the tank casualties are. So 50% of 20% would be 10%. 10% of the damage would go to tanks, and the player would take a total of 90% damage they would have otherwise if it weren't for the tanks' extra hardiness bonus.

The Midlands shall resist D'Haran tyranny.

Nation Name: Candy Kingdom Nation Link: https://politicsandwar.com/nation/id=2661

The Roses will be painted red... with the blood of our enemies.

And again at 10pm server time.

MAPs failed to increment at 4am server time. This is while at normal speed.

Is recruitment not supposed to update on a new game day? For some reason it has reset and midnight has not occurred yet (it's 7:45 PM server time now).

MAPs have not incremented for the past two turns, at 1:40pm and at 1:50pm.