Larger stacks: smaller losses?

Here's something that always happens. Someone has a huge stack, it's crossing the atlantic to land on Madrid for a, you know, spanish holiday and such. So you start sending bombers their way to start chipping away units.

And what I've observed is that often when you send 10 bombers, and the enemy has a huge stack (for example 200) he loses way less units per bomber that you sent.

I was in a game the other day and the dude sent 200 bombers my way. I sent stealth to chip away, and even though the Stealth bombers had 9 attack and the bombers 6 defense, my 27 stealths managed to destroy only 15 bombers (it was a stack made solely of bombers). But when I sent a larger stack, I got a bigger return for my investment.

And often 5 bombers defeat 8 militia (4 with luck), but when I send around 15, I usually only lose three or four bombers. And even larger stacks means I lose like a bomber or two.

My theory is this:

The game randomly picks a unit amongst the highest attacking ones to attack, runs the attack algorithm, but instead of sticking to that unit (that is already damaged), it randomly picks another unit of the same type to attack.

td;dr: do larger stacks often incur in smaller losses for you guys too? (or overstacking saves units?)

Yes, but i always blamed hp and luck

The battle calculation algorithm is in no way influenced by the size of the stack. The one thing that depends on the stack sizes is TB. Each pair of units is picked once and processed until one unit of the pair is killed.

Geschrieben von Amok, 11.08.2013 at 04:04

The battle calculation algorithm is in no way influenced by the size of the stack. The one thing that depends on the stack sizes is TB. Each pair of units is picked once and processed until one unit of the pair is killed.

the great Amok has spoken.

I wonder why loads of people (myself included) still notice a notable difference when comparing it.

Geschrieben von notserral, 10.08.2013 at 17:33

Here's something that always happens. Someone has a huge stack, it's crossing the atlantic to land on Madrid for a, you know, spanish holiday and such. So you start sending bombers their way to start chipping away units.

And what I've observed is that often when you send 10 bombers, and the enemy has a huge stack (for example 200) he loses way less units per bomber that you sent.

I was in a game the other day and the dude sent 200 bombers my way. I sent stealth to chip away, and even though the Stealth bombers had 9 attack and the bombers 6 defense, my 27 stealths managed to destroy only 15 bombers (it was a stack made solely of bombers). But when I sent a larger stack, I got a bigger return for my investment.

And often 5 bombers defeat 8 militia (4 with luck), but when I send around 15, I usually only lose three or four bombers. And even larger stacks means I lose like a bomber or two.

My theory is this:

The game randomly picks a unit amongst the highest attacking ones to attack, runs the attack algorithm, but instead of sticking to that unit (that is already damaged), it randomly picks another unit of the same type to attack.

td;dr: do larger stacks often incur in smaller losses for you guys too? (or overstacking saves units?)

thats true. i have an casual worldgame and asia sent over 100 sm bombers to me (5 def) i sent 18 mos stealth (9attack) and he lost only 20 bombers (instead of 33). this happend a few times .... i hate this

Geschrieben von Amok, 11.08.2013 at 04:04

The battle calculation algorithm is in no way influenced by the size of the stack. The one thing that depends on the stack sizes is TB. Each pair of units is picked once and processed until one unit of the pair is killed.

When one unit of the pair is killed, if another pair is picked, then that's why the stack sizes influence the losses in a battle. If however, the surviving unit is kept, then I don't know.

It's simple enough. More units = more luck; or critical hit if you may.