War Inquiry

[naTia]

I am at war with somebody who I may kind of want money from so I have been ground battling instead of just air raiding and the first time I attacked (with munitions and gas), the militaries were:

 

Him: 29k soldiers, 0 tanks

Me: 30k soldiers, 100 tanks

 

I kind of accepted this wouldn't really help me much but I did it anyways to get down his troops. Results: 

 

The Captain Nao of Soomaaliya ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Saxe un Gotha led by Chancellor Pytre von du Gotha. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. The Captain Nao's forces lost 2,155 soldiers and 20 tanks, while Chancellor Pytre von du Gotha's defenders lost 2,371 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 3.30 infrastructure in the city of Haaschweig and 0 improvements. The Captain Nao stole $16,182.22 in the attack.

 

Next day I came back with better odds:

 

Him: 27k soldiers, 0 tanks

Me: 33k soldiers, 80 tanks

 

I fared even worse than I had the day before. Results:

 

The Captain Nao of Soomaaliya ordered a ground attack upon the nation of Saxe un Gotha led by Chancellor Pytre von du Gotha. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. The Captain Nao's forces lost 1,842 soldiers and 17 tanks, while Chancellor Pytre von du Gotha's defenders lost 1,839 soldiers and 0 tanks. The attack destroyed 3.00 infrastructure in the city of Haaschweig and 0 improvements. The Captain Nao stole $8,959.88 in the attack.

 

I get that it is up to chance, but surely it is not in the system for a 6k soldier 80 tank advantage to do even worse than it had with a 1k soldier 100 tank advantage. Not even a moderate success for about a 4:5 troop advantage, not to mention tanks. The tanks alone should have accounted for at least 2k soldiers. This is my first war in a while, and I don't recall the system ever behaving like this.

Edited December 3, 2014 by The Captain Nao

[Grillick]

Defenders get to add 0.5% of their population to their soldier count.

[Kim Jong-Il]

Safe bet is to try to avoid as much war as possible

[naTia]

This would still only account for 1k soldiers. My tanks easily outnumber that and they aren't even in the 4:5 ratio.

[Ayayay]

RNGesus has spoken!

[naTia]

I am confused, what is this now?

[iljohn]

its called good leadership send a general to comand them its clear the defense country is useing one thats why you can beraly win

[Vincent]

This means be a good boy, don't go to war, stay home and build up your nation instead of trying to steal from others

[naTia]

In my own defense this is a retaliatory war against a raider.

[Morgan]

You probably know this but tanks require munitions and gasoline to be able to use. Do you have gasoline munitions so that you can operate your tanks? 

[Mikhail Gorbachev]

I'm thinking that this kind of oddity is probably in the system, and that you just got REALLY unlucky. You have to rememer that both of the armies have lots of soldiers, so it's possible that the slight shift in advantage didn't have quite the complete desired effect. I could be wrong though.

[Kim Jong-Il]

You probably know this but tanks require munitions and gasoline to be able to use. Do you have gasoline munitions so that you can operate your tanks? 

 

he must have the materials needed, otherwise he couldn't even send them into battle. 

[Alex]

80 Tanks have the combat value of 40 soldiers each. 80*40 = 3200. That's unarmed soldiers, of course. Let's assume  you're both using armies fully supplied with munitions:

 

His army value is: 47,250

Your army value is: 60,950

 

Now, as you probably know, you roll three times. Since you got a Pyrrhic victory, you only won 1/3 times, but I'll explain how it works for future reference.

 

You roll a value between 20% of your army value and 100% of it. Your opponent does the same. 

 

Your value: 18285 - 60950

His value: 14175 - 47250

 

Now, statistically speaking, odds are you're going to do well against his army. Maybe not amazingly well (it's not that big of a difference in number to tell you the truth) but more often than not, better. Unfortunately for you, the luck seems to have been with your opponent in this instance.

 

Tl;dr - Randomness of battles caused this

[naTia]

Just a question, why 20%? Why not something like 60%? It seems to be that the chance of winning three times is greatly decreased no matter how many people you throw at your enemy. Technically, I could attack somebody with 1k troops using just under 5k troops and get an utter failure. This seems a bit extreme to me, no matter what the actual odds are.

[Georgi Stomana]

I think having a degree of randomness and chance is good in war, it would get boring if results were always just a straight comparison of stats between both sides.

[Destroyer]

Was seeking answer for the same question.

Thanks for explanation Sheepy