Your forces return from * (#*) unable to penetrate their defenses!
You lost 192,000 Troops, 160,000 Jets and 50,960 Tanks, but killed 83 Troops, 29,782 Turrets and 5329 Tanks.

I do understand that this country was gs'd a lot, and i could have expected a bit less land if i had broken, but that shouldn't have meant that i lost nearly 9 times more military than him and still not break. Even if he maxed medical tech.

If this is how its supposed to work, should consider revising it,

Also, i thought GS was no longer going to affect land grab dim returns.

Anyway. Annoyed that i failed, but even more Annoyed at how epic a fail it was.

gs affects DR as far as i know....i remember reading someone mention that it should not do as such, but i don't think a game admin actually said it was in effect.

the only explanation i can think of is that there is a DR on the victim country's military losses so their entirely military does not get depleted.......like where if he had been in 0 DR then he would have lost more than you, but due to DR lets say in 10 DR then you as the attacker only would gain maybe 10%(i don't know what the real % is, just hypothetical) of 0DR land gains.....and also only destroy 10% of normal military destroyed? could it possibly be working like that?


edit: makes sense in the sense of discouraging farming, like an untagged with 1m turrets getting pounded......the attacker is punished for farming by losing so much, and the victim untagged is helped out by not being down 100k turrets after each hit where it would just make it easier and easier to be farmed.

mehulled hit aren't gone; there is a chance of failure like before;

otherwise what do you do when you send 100 troops vs 100 troops?

heh

i know there's the gaussian(whatever) thingmagigger which basically means send 10% mroe and you have a better chance of breaking..

what i'm on about is the very small amount of military that the defender lost... in terms of power, i lost 8.8 times more jet power than the defender lost in turret power, yet i still failed.

oh

err

there's a distribution of possible losses... and attackers always lose 8% or something like that

so if you send 100 million troops against 1 troop

that 1 troop will kill 8 million troops

and i bet that 1 troop won't even die right?

you'd deserve 8mil troops to die if that were the case, llaar.

what i'm on about is that i sent roughly 11% more than was needed to break on a PS. Not only did I fail, but the defender had the stupidest lossess ever. can't say what military he did have, as it would break the rules

i would deserve? it was a hypothetical example, comparing to RL

8 million troops wouldnt die just by sending 100 million of them to kill 1 guy

unless you were trying to kill rambo i suppose ;)

errr sorry i meant on a failed attack

oh, so what is it on a success attack then?

If he has strong defensive allies then his defence can effectively be doubled. As for failing a hit that should break, I made roughly 40 landgrabs this set in FFA on pretty much every non-allied clan, and I never failed once after calculating my break then adding 10%.

As for DR. That works with GS as well, a certain % of all hits will give almost no losses like that hit. Starting at close to 0% for someone with no diminishing returns, and ending at probably about 90% reduced losses for someone with max. Even had you broke you would only have gotten about 10% of the land with no returns (just guessing).

... That post has no bearing on the issue i brought up. I'm not a noob, have played this game for 11 years now.

I'm querying why a defender could lose so little military. Seems a very pro-netting policy.

The reason is that there is a chance that your hit will pretty much do nothing if target was hit a lot. It is a random chance that increases with the amount of hits the defender has received recently. This was always a part of earth.

The first reply is correct as far as addressing the original issue.

On another note, can we please stop with the "very pro-netting policy" stuff? This was the way it worked in the old game. This type of mechanic hurts netters more than it slows down warring, considering that landkills take so many turns that the decreased losses only make a difference theoretically in most cases.

Of course, the above explanation assumes that I correctly guessed at what you meant by "pro-netting policy", since I'm not even sure how that term is supposed to be defined.