6/22/2015 - War Formulas Overhaul

[Phiney]

I'm an air specialist, so it's the other way around. Still, even with the ID, I would consider chugging missiles instead of wasting 225 gas/mun to do around 300ish damage. The building destruction of a missile is an added bonus on top, and you can chug them even when you are losing.

300 damage with half the turns. That's 600 damage, guaranteed with the same turns, whilst before it might have been 400 damage one time and 100 the next.

 

Whist with missiles vs iron dome it's 350 damage every 16 turns, vs 1200 inf damage from planes. Pretty obvious choice.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Phiney

[Caecus]

For anyone saying planes have been nerfed hard infra damage wise, you're completely wrong. Sure, you used to be able to do more damage with a single attack if you were lucky, but the average damage is now much higher because the rng has been tightened so much. And spy damage has been reduced so you can't kill 50 days worth of spies in a single attack as that's ridiculous.

 

The only real nerf for AF is against ships as it should be.

 

Punch in the numbers Phiney. Killing spies is now something that you have to throw 2-3 times the money at someone to kill minuscule amount of spies. 

 

 

I don't disagree at all, there needs to be nerfing. Honestly, I have no idea how the nerfing should go. Spies are useful because they are a strategic weapon designed to destroy heavy enemy hardware (missiles/nukes/ships). Make that an economic impossibility, and spies become useless offensively. 

 

That being said, you can't argue that if you have more soldiers than someone else, logic dictates that you would be more likely to win right? With a variation of chance, of course. The same should be logically applied to spies. What you are saying is that people kill too many spies in one attack. The fact is, when someone has more spies and attempts to kill someone with lower spy counts, reason dictates that the person with lower spy counts loses. It doesn't matter how many attacks it takes, that is the eventual inevitable result. Same way if you had 50k soldiers and attacked someone with 10k. The inevitable result, doesn't matter how many battles it takes, is that the person with 10k loses. What you are saying is that Sheepy should nerf the spies so that the person LOSES SLOWER. 

 

What this update entails is not the change that you would want to see (i.e. "losing slower"). This update makes it so that the defender is so well entrenched that the person doesn't lose at all. Only with odds like 5 to 1 would you eventually win, and at a huge financial cost. This logically doesn't make any sense. It's like if you had sent your 1280 aircraft, using up 300t munitions and gas, to only destroy 100 of the 500 enemy aircraft. Not sure if the numbers are true, and don't care. The fact is, you spent a crap load of money and your returns make it so painful that going on the offense is pointless. 

[Phiney]

Punch in the numbers Phiney. Killing spies is now something that you have to throw 2-3 times the money at someone to kill minuscule amount of spies.

 

 

I don't disagree at all, there needs to be nerfing. Honestly, I have no idea how the nerfing should go. Spies are useful because they are a strategic weapon designed to destroy heavy enemy hardware (missiles/nukes/ships). Make that an economic impossibility, and spies become useless offensively.

 

That being said, you can't argue that if you have more soldiers than someone else, logic dictates that you would be more likely to win right? With a variation of chance, of course. The same should be logically applied to spies. What you are saying is that people kill too many spies in one attack. The fact is, when someone has more spies and attempts to kill someone with lower spy counts, reason dictates that the person with lower spy counts loses. It doesn't matter how many attacks it takes, that is the eventual inevitable result. Same way if you had 50k soldiers and attacked someone with 10k. The inevitable result, doesn't matter how many battles it takes, is that the person with 10k loses. What you are saying is that Sheepy should nerf the spies so that the person LOSES SLOWER.

 

What this update entails is not the change that you would want to see (i.e. "losing slower"). This update makes it so that the defender is so well entrenched that the person doesn't lose at all. Only with odds like 5 to 1 would you eventually win, and at a huge financial cost. This logically doesn't make any sense. It's like if you had sent your 1280 aircraft, using up 300t munitions and gas, to only destroy 100 of the 500 enemy aircraft. Not sure if the numbers are true, and don't care. The fact is, you spent a crap load of money and your returns make it so painful that going on the offense is pointless.

I don't use spies anymore so that's one part I didn't input into the new formula assistance and let others take the lead, but I understood it as a positive change, but maybe the odds got nerfed too much.

[Odin]

Awesome changes. People think a moment about it. Its totally ok that Airplanes are nerfed, now you have to consider using other types of weapons too instead just airraids. A real war isnt just some days, bomb the hell out of your enemy, and then its good. Real wars like the Second World Wars lastet 6 years. This update only raised the importance of good preparation and warchests.

[Azaghul]

Wonderful

 

You have nerf planes and spies to basically nothing. Congrats, peace has come to P&W at long last! Yea boredom! 

 

 

But, i mean really? I ran the battle sims for both spies and planes. it is now pointless to even have a spy force, and even more pointless to have a large plane force. Here is the air strike using the battle sim for 810 planes(max planes for a 9 city nation) attacking a defender with 0 planes and hitting a 2000 infra city:

 

You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was an immense triumph. Your forces lost 0 aircraft, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 0 aircraft. You used 202.50 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 282.05 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY.

 

For the amount of gasoline and munitions use it is a complete waste and is honestly pointless. It is disgusting that this keeps happening. Why do you keep bring the damage down lower and lower for everything? The system was fine the way it was, and did not need to be nerf in this way. I am begging you, stop this. Stop trying to fix something that is not broken. Please return the spy back to what they were, and please un-nerf everything. I mean really, what is next? are you just going to remove our military units all together?

Maybe experiment with sending a smaller number of planes to get better infra destroyed vs. gas/munitions used ratio.

 

Missiles/nukes should be the most efficient way to destroy infra action points wise, otherwise there's not that much reason to build missiles and nukes.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Azaghul

[Apeman]

You detonated a nuclear weapon upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack destroyed 1,704.00 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY, and killed approximately 170,178 people, you monster! You also destroyed two improvements: subway and an air force base.

 

 

Nukes, only way to go.

[Alex]

This link is broken

Also missile sim should have an option to factor in iron dome, to get best results for damage and success rates

 

Fixed the link, and the missile sim should already factor in the iron dome.

 

900 uncontested planes do less infra damage than a missile. Seems legit. The ships are no longer air-fodder either.

 

Looks like missile-whoring with zero military will be an even more valid tactic to hurt the enemy.

 

They should do less damage than a missile; it only requires 4 MAPs. You can do 2 airstrikes for everyone missile you lob (and missiles can be blocked if your opponent has an Iron Dome)

 

You detonated a nuclear weapon upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack destroyed 1,704.00 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY, and killed approximately 170,178 people, you monster! You also destroyed two improvements: subway and an air force base.

 

 

Nukes, only way to go.

 

If you can afford them. They're designed to be supreme weapons.

[Phiney]

Fixed the link, and the missile sim should already factor in the iron dome.

 

 

 

Pretty sure the iron dome sim never worked (sorry should have mentioned it earlier)

[Ashland]

I don't use spies anymore so that's one part I didn't input into the new formula assistance and let others take the lead, but I understood it as a positive change, but maybe the odds got nerfed too much.

To be clear, I approve of everything BUT the spies.

[stetonic]

I have been using the sim battle tests and i dont know if it is ment to work this way but the results are totally random.You can get anything from a utter failure to a moderate success from entering the the same details.On 1 attack i destroyed more planes and some infra when attacking with 300 less planes than my enemy.

 

 

You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 98 aircraft, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 118 aircraft. You used 150.25 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 3.17 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY

 

 

This result was with using 299 less planes than my enemy

 

You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was an utter failure. Your forces lost 125 aircraft, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 80 aircraft. You used 150.25 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY

 

Then this was the result when i pressed the attack button again

 

 

You ordered an airstrike upon the nation of SIMULATED NATION led by SIMULATED LEADER. The attack was a Pyrrhic victory. Your forces lost 92 aircraft, while SIMULATED LEADER's defenders lost 66 aircraft. You used 150.25 munitions and gasoline executing the attack. The attack destroyed 20.06 infrastructure in the city of SIMULATED CITY.

 

This was the 3rd time

Edited June 23, 2015 by stetonic

[Phiney]

I have been using the sim battle tests and i dont know if it is ment to work this way but the results are totally random.You can get anything from a utter failure to a moderate success from entering the the same details.On 1 attack i destroyed more planes and some infra when attacking with 300 less planes than my enemy.

There is an element of randomness in victory type, which is influenced by numbers. So it's possible to get a victory even when the tide is against you, just very unlikely. Similarly it's possible to fail when you've got the superior numbers, just less likely than a success.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I guess none of those who replied to my airforce vs missiles post took into account that I used 900 planes for the experiment. That requires 10 cities with 5 AFBs.

 

Against a target without Iron Dome:

 

1 Missile destroys 350ish infra and 1 building for 6 AP -> 58 infra damage per AP + 1/6 building

720 uncontested planes destroy 230ish infra and 0 buildings for 4 AP -> 58 infra damage per AP

 

So against a target without ID, chugging a missile does more infra damage than a build with 8 cities with 5 AFBs. Notice that you also need ground control, and must have destroyed all air defenses of your opponent to pull this trick.

 

Missiles on the other hand can be chugged even when you have zero army and losing the war. So winning or losing the conventional war becomes pointless: The side with the missiles inflicts more damage per AP with less material cost.

 

Against a target with Iron Dome:

 

1 Missile destroys an expected 175 infra and half a building for 6 AP -> 29 infra damage per AP + 1/12 building

360 uncontested planes destroy 130 infra and 0 buildings for 4 AP -> 32 infra damage per AP

 

Against a target with ID, chugging a missile does more infra damage than a build with 4 cities with 5 AFBs. Which seems more reasonable, but still recall that you also need ground control, and must have destroyed all air defenses of your opponent to pull this trick.

 

---------------

 

What does this tell? In the very high end where people have 8-10 cities with full AFBs, since everyone is expected to have an ID as well, planes might still be better for destroying infra.

 

However at the middle tiers where people don't have maximum AFBs per city and no ID, MLPs do more infra damage than actually winning the conventional war.

 

This is consistent with my experience in the last war. I won all my conventional wars except the last two, but received much more infra damage from my "defeated" (zero army) opponents than I dealt against them. This simply makes the game too dependent on MLPs and their counter IDs.

 

If there were an option to destroy the opponent's missile launching capacity by military strikes, I wouldn't point this out. But there isn't one.

[Phiney]

I tell you what it really tells you, missiles actually take 8 maps not 6 so all your maths is wrong.

 

I'll also point out that the issue you're describing was only more so before this update, this update actually reduced that problem as it greatly lessened the rng for naval and AF attacks. If you want to do even more damage, use the navy instead of the airforce.

 

The most expensive unit (ships) should do the most damage. Airforce's primary job is destroying units, be it tanks, other AF or ships. Ships can do more inf damage if you've maxed both ships and airforce.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Phiney

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I tell you what it really tells you, missiles actually take 8 maps not 6 so all your maths is wrong.

 

I'll also point out that the issue you're describing was only more so before this update, this update actually reduced that problem as it greatly lessened the rng for naval and AF attacks. If you want to do even more damage, use the navy instead of the airforce.

 

The most expensive unit (ships) should do the most damage. Airforce's primary job is destroying units, be it tanks, other AF or ships. Ships can do more inf damage if you've maxed both ships and airforce.

 

It means I need to change the numbers and arrive at a quantitatively different but qualitatively similar conclusion. Which we math-people call changing the value of a variable. Math is never wrong.

 

As I shared my experience before the change, I am aware that this was an issue before the current change. It does not change the fact that it IS an issue. Given that air is now weaker against ships, the lack of bite in damaging infra vis-a-vis missiles in a situation where ID is not present is now even more obvious.

 

I have no subjective statements whether ships *should* do this or that. They got a lot more durability now. Previously they were air-fodder. So I predict they will be more useful from now on.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Kemal Ergenekon

[Phiney]

It means I need to change the numbers and arrive at a quantitatively different but qualitatively similar conclusion. Which we math-people call changing the value of a variable. Math is never wrong.

 

As I shared my experience before the change, I am aware that this was an issue before the current change. It does not change the fact that it IS an issue. Given that air is now weaker against ships, the lack of bite in damaging infra vis-a-vis missiles in a situation where ID is not present is now even more obvious.

 

I have no subjective statements whether ships *should* do this or that. They got a lot more durability now. Previously they were air-fodder. So I predict they will be more useful from now on.

When your entire argument is based on missiles having a better infra damage per map yet since you used incorrect figures this isn't actually true at all, maybe it's time to reevaluate the qualitative conclusion.

[LordRahl2]

I do not really know why brother Kemal got into action points at all tbh.

 

The optimal strategy is now to sit behind your Soldiers and Spies (maybe tanks - I have not optimized that yet) with zero planes and zero ships then churn out missiles before going into a war. 

 

Bottom line: Action points are irrelevant because of the cost of conducting airstrikes.  The cost of a MLP and ID are required, fixed, and sunk costs.  They must be built.  You can save your shekels by not building airports but I ignored this.

 

The relevant number is the cost in gas and munitions per airstrike.  I calculated somewhere around 1700$ required per 1 point of infra destroyed for planes.  This was uncontested.  I also used current peacetime gas and munitions costs.

 

Realizing that planes are more expensive to build and then more expensive to upkeep compared to missiles the logic favors building a large reserve of missiles and basically ignoring planes.  When you go to war you simply sit back with your spies and missiles and chuck them at everyone you are at war with while absorbing conventional attacks.  Your enemy is fighting sub optimally because he is eating up his gas and munitions to do a bit more infra damage relative to you.

 

By the way I gave every advantage I could to planes.  I used peacetime cost of planes and wartime for missiles when looking at upkeep.  I used current peacetime costs for munitions and gas.  I used the highest result out of 10 tests for plane infra damage.  The bottom line is that, unless sheepy fiddles with the economy, attacking with planes is now ALWAYS a worse option relative to missiles.

 

Lastly, this analysis was also run with ships.  I desire my opponents to be retarded so please build lots of ships.  The are so cost effective it isn't even funny, I promise.  Please build tons of ships if you are not allied with me.

 

There was another way of approaching the 'planes are OP' problem.  Making the other two branches MORE damaging.  Because, you know, the name of the game is politics and war.  You should prob now change it to politics and missile chucking.

[Phiney]

I do not really know why brother Kemal got into action points at all tbh.

 

The optimal strategy is now to sit behind your Soldiers and Spies (maybe tanks - I have not optimized that yet) with zero planes and zero ships then churn out missiles before going into a war. 

 

Bottom line: Action points are irrelevant because of the cost of conducting airstrikes.  The cost of a MLP and ID are required, fixed, and sunk costs.  They must be built.  You can save your shekels by not building airports but I ignored this.

 

The relevant number is the cost in gas and munitions per airstrike.  I calculated somewhere around 1700$ required per 1 point of infra destroyed for planes.  This was uncontested.  I also used current peacetime gas and munitions costs.

 

Realizing that planes are more expensive to build and then more expensive to upkeep compared to missiles the logic favors building a large reserve of missiles and basically ignoring planes.  When you go to war you simply sit back with your spies and missiles and chuck them at everyone you are at war with while absorbing conventional attacks.  Your enemy is fighting sub optimally because he is eating up his gas and munitions to do a bit more infra damage relative to you.

 

By the way I gave every advantage I could to planes.  I used peacetime cost of planes and wartime for missiles when looking at upkeep.  I used current peacetime costs for munitions and gas.  I used the highest result out of 10 tests for plane infra damage.  The bottom line is that, unless sheepy fiddles with the economy, attacking with planes is now ALWAYS a worse option relative to missiles.

 

Lastly, this analysis was also run with ships.  I desire my opponents to be retarded so please build lots of ships.  The are so cost effective it isn't even funny, I promise.  Please build tons of ships if you are not allied with me.

 

There was another way of approaching the 'planes are OP' problem.  Making the other two branches MORE damaging.  Because, you know, the name of the game is politics and war.  You should prob now change it to politics and missile chucking.

 

There is only a small window (where you guys currently sit) where this is true. As soon as you go up against someone with an iron dome and you get above the 1500-1800 infra per city threshold missiles are only good when you are on the back foot. Yeah, maybe its still more cost effective, but being cost effective isn't the aim in a war, doing more damage is. If you only do 1200 inf damage to your opponent in a war and they are doing 3k+, they are being more destructive than you and are therefore gaining the advantage regardless of costs. The aim isnt to save as much money as possible in war, otherwise war wouldn't happen at all, as the optimum strategy for being cost effective is to not war.

 

So, lets get to the real issue. At the certain point in the game, missile throwing is still the optimum strategy (even after all the nerfing we did a while ago). ideas to fix this -

 

• Have the boundary for missile damage decreasing change from around 600/700 inf to 1200/1400 inf. Then below that missiles are doing under 300 damage and become gradually less and less effective.
• Increase missile cost
• Have a cost to fire missiles

Any other ideas?

[LordRahl2]

If you are spending 100m to nerf me and it costs 50m to repair then I am winning the long war.  It is about numbers and costs.

 

Your assumption that my results do not scale is incorrect.  For low score players (who grow rapidly - a few weeks max) my analysis does not apply.  It becomes more valid, not less, at higher scores.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

There is only a small window (where you guys currently sit) where this is true. As soon as you go up against someone with an iron dome and you get above the 1500-1800 infra per city threshold missiles are only good when you are on the back foot. Yeah, maybe its still more cost effective, but being cost effective isn't the aim in a war, doing more damage is. If you only do 1200 inf damage to your opponent in a war and they are doing 3k+, they are being more destructive than you and are therefore gaining the advantage regardless of costs. The aim isnt to save as much money as possible in war, otherwise war wouldn't happen at all, as the optimum strategy for being cost effective is to not war.

 

So, lets get to the real issue. At the certain point in the game, missile throwing is still the optimum strategy (even after all the nerfing we did a while ago). ideas to fix this -

 

• Have the boundary for missile damage decreasing change from around 600/700 inf to 1200/1400 inf. Then below that missiles are doing under 300 damage and become gradually less and less effective.
• Increase missile cost
• Have a cost to fire missiles

Any other ideas?

 

Allow conventional forces to prevent or mess with the launching of missiles.

 

For instance air-superiority or ground-superiority making missiles inoperable or more prone to failure. Say x% each. Then if you crushed your opponent on the air and the ground, depending on whether you want the bonuses to be added multiplicatively or additively, the missile hit chance would be:

 

Additive = 100% - (x% * has_ground_superiority) - (x% * has_air_superiority) - (50% * has_iron_dome)

Multiplicative = 100% * (1- (x% * has_ground_superiority)) * (1 - (x%*has_air_superiority)) * (1-(50% * has_iron_dome))

 

where has_ground_superiority, has_air_superiority, and has_iron_dome are boolean variables that take value 1 if true and 0 otherwise.

[Phiney]

If you are spending 100m to nerf me and it costs 50m to repair then I am winning the long war.  It is about numbers and costs.

 

Your assumption that my results do not scale is incorrect.  For low score players (who grow rapidly - a few weeks max) my analysis does not apply.  It becomes more valid, not less, at higher scores.

 

I would never use missiles at my level, unless I was losing very badly. At high levels of infra it's a lot more costly to repair than it is at lower levels, that's the big difference. If I went up against someone my level who has say 2500 infra per city, and used my 1260 planes vs 0 of theirs, I could do 425 damage per 4 turns, or 16 times a war, which is 6800 inf damage. Say my opponent has 12 cities, that's 560 damage per city, or 18 mil, x12 is 216 mil. That's cost me 5k gas and munitions, or 12mil. I'd say that's the best option rather than doing just 1200 inf damage from missiles.

 

 

Allow conventional forces to prevent or mess with the launching of missiles.

 

For instance air-superiority or ground-superiority making missiles inoperable or more prone to failure. Say x% each. Then if you crushed your opponent on the air and the ground, depending on whether you want the bonuses to be added multiplicatively or additively, the missile hit chance would be:

 

Additive = 100% - (x% * has_ground_superiority) - (x% * has_air_superiority) - (50% * has_iron_dome)

Multiplicative = 100% * (1- (x% * has_ground_superiority)) * (1 - (x%*has_air_superiority)) * (1-(50% * has_iron_dome))

 

where has_ground_superiority, has_air_superiority, and has_iron_dome are boolean variables that take value 1 if true and 0 otherwise.

 

 

This is a fair solution, one that has been proposed before (although not as well as you proposed it, the original suggestion was to just stop missiles being thrown if you have all 3 superiority's). It was actually implemented as well for all of an hour. The reason Sheepy changed it back was because if you do that you completely remove any way to fight back at all when you've been well and truly beaten. Maybe halfing a missile or nukes damage when  they have all 3 superiority's and gradually build up to there per superiority is the way to go?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Phiney

[Kemal Ergenekon]

This is a fair solution, one that has been proposed before (although not as well as you proposed it, the original suggestion was to just stop missiles being thrown if you have all 3 superiority's). It was actually implemented as well for all of an hour. The reason Sheepy changed it back was because if you do that you completely remove any way to fight back at all when you've been well and truly beaten. Maybe halfing a missile or nukes damage when  they have all 3 superiority's and gradually build up to there per superiority is the way to go?

 

Reducing expected value of damage either through lowering the probability of a hit, or lowering the damage of a hit would be fine by me. I went by lowering the probability, because it meshes well with the current functionality of the Iron Dome, and is more realistic fluff-wise (having conquered your enemy on various fronts, you would have an easier time intercepting ballistic missiles; however if you fail to intercept, it still hurts the same).

[LordRahl2]

You are right I did not calculate 14 cities with 2000 infra each.

 

However, realistically past a certain point having max airports in every city would then make sense and you return to the issue that missiles are the only option because you will not break your opponent's AF and it is too costly anyway.

[Phiney]

You are right I did not calculate 14 cities with 2000 infra each.

 

However, realistically past a certain point having max airports in every city would then make sense and you return to the issue that missiles are the only option because you will not break your opponent's AF and it is too costly anyway.

 

meh, lots of people don't field large airforces whilst at peace due to the fairly high upkeep so it wouldn't take long to break through any airforce they do have, plus you're still doing infra damage (be it not as much) whilst you whittle them down. I don't think missile only is ever the correct option 1800 inf plus. but then you get to the issue of nuke only being the only valid action. So really if Kemals suggestion was implemented on both missiles and nukes it'd remove that issue.

[LordRahl2]

I would be ok with that.

[Saruman]

I gotta say Sheepy, you nerfed air strikes and naval battles way to much