Damage assessments

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • Damage assessments

    So I just got attacked by 4 level 2 gunships. I had 5 level 1 elite attack aircraft sitting on the ground, along with one Air Superiority aircraft that just landed after attacking the gunships. Those four gunships did 40+ points of damage to the elite aircraft, killing two and leaving the remaining three badly damaged.

    What the actual F***! And yes, I have put a bug notice in, but lets see now, I've never heard a damned thing back from the last 3 bug notices that I've put in over the past couple of months, so ... yeah.

    Heads up people - I spend actual money playing this game. Me and my money are gonna walk if this keeps up. I really like this game, but nothing will drive me away faster than putting out something broken like this.
  • I don't think this is a bug. When aircrafts are landed they are considered soft targets like infantry. When landed their hp is also reduced to 15 from the regular 25. 15x5 = total of 75.
    4 gunships would do a total of 32 damage. 32/75 = roughly 42%. When you patrol your aircrafts their total hp would have been 125. 42% of 125 is 53. So the gunships should have done a total of around 53 hp damage to your elite aircrafts. Someone confirm this math and logic?

    if your elite aircrafts were already somewhat damaged, it explains the 2 missing elite aircrafts plus badly damaging the rest. All aircrafts work this way as far as I know

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Admira G1 ().

  • Admira G1 wrote:

    I don't think this is a bug. When aircrafts are landed they are considered soft targets like infantry. When landed their hp is also reduced to 15 from the regular 25. 15x5 = total of 75.
    4 gunships would do a total of 32 damage. 32/75 = roughly 42%. When you patrol your aircrafts their total hp would have been 125. 42% of 125 is 53. So the gunships should have done a total of around 53 hp damage to your elite aircrafts. Someone confirm this math and logic?

    if your elite aircrafts were already somewhat damaged, it explains the 2 missing elite aircrafts plus badly damaging the rest. All aircrafts work this way as far as I know
    I'm fully aware of the difference between hp on the ground and in the air. That was taken into account.

    1) The elite aircraft were undamaged.
    2) I had a marine unit nearby that also got hit. It survived. A single marine infantry unit. It had 0.1 hp left, but it survived.
    3) I also had an air superiority aircraft on the ground. It survived. I no longer recall how many hp it had left, but it was very low.
    4) The 4 helicopters *were* damaged, and therefore should not have done max damage, never mind max damage plus 25%. That is why my marine and other air unit survived. In other words, damage was calculated properly on them.
    5) All the aircraft were also sitting in a city, thereby getting the entrenchment bonus. At least, that is what the game shows as being active on the units that are sitting there right now.
    6) Finally, my elites had been attacking grounded aircraft both before and after that attack. At no time did the attacks result in more than a single aircraft getting destroyed (as per CON News reports). So that means, 4 damaged level 2 gunships did 2-4 times more damage to my elite aircraft than my elites did to either grounded helicopters or grounded aircraft. Does that sound even remotely reasonable?

    The post was edited 1 time, last by DOA70 ().

  • Having to rehash the events of the battle made me realize another point. It is now almost a week since the report was logged. The battle is looong past. The consequences of the event have already played out. I ended up winning the war, despite that very significant setback, but either way, any "resolution" now will not impact that game whatsoever. This is another very significant problem with the way the game is being run.

    I understand that these kinds of issues take time. I would not expect it to get addressed in a matter of a few hours. However, if the time taken is being measured in WEEKS, then there really isn't any point to it and it becomes another area of failure of management.

    Finally, it is the fact that I enjoyed the game and cared, wanting to continue to see a quality product, that I post all of this. I am angry, and that anger stems from the disappointment I feel at seeing something I liked get run down and mismanaged.
  • So I got a response, 8 days after putting in the report. The response was in two parts. The first part assured me that combat is played out irrespective of the money spent. The second part was a wall of words outlining all the different things that *might* be a factor in determining the outcome of combat, complete with links to various resources.

    The first part response was insulting because it had nothing to do with anything I said. I have to assume the person at the other end doesn't use English as their native language and was victim of a bad translation. Either that, or their reading comprehension skills are on par with the skills of the programmers. In any event, insulting me in that way, as if I were saying "I spend money, so combat results should favor me", was a *really* bad way to start off the response.

    The second part likewise failed to actually address anything I said. It didn't look at the specifics of my situation. It didn't look at anything. It was a copy/paste of an FAQ answer to "why were combat results not what I expected".

    End result: this response was worse than no response. And it will be the last words I give to Dorado. Happy trails!
  • DOA70 wrote:

    So I got a response, 8 days after putting in the report. The response was in two parts. The first part assured me that combat is played out irrespective of the money spent. The second part was a wall of words outlining all the different things that *might* be a factor in determining the outcome of combat, complete with links to various resources.

    The first part response was insulting because it had nothing to do with anything I said. I have to assume the person at the other end doesn't use English as their native language and was victim of a bad translation. Either that, or their reading comprehension skills are on par with the skills of the programmers. In any event, insulting me in that way, as if I were saying "I spend money, so combat results should favor me", was a *really* bad way to start off the response.

    The second part likewise failed to actually address anything I said. It didn't look at the specifics of my situation. It didn't look at anything. It was a copy/paste of an FAQ answer to "why were combat results not what I expected".

    End result: this response was worse than no response. And it will be the last words I give to Dorado. Happy trails!
    Tho that is kinda what your whole post seems to boil down to?
    >Results of combat were not what I expected
    >Gets answer outlining possible factors

    Really all I see in your issue is RNG deciding it's time to be whack and yeet you with 40 DMG.
    e.g.: The Marine barely surviving just means that it got lucky with RNG.
    I am The Baseline for opinions