Hob Dobson Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 I recently bought 5 bunker improvements for my nation, to at least see how they perform in practice. However, based on Nuclear Attack reports from the last two consecutive days, I'm left wondering if there have been recent changes that I haven't caught on to. The first of the two messages: To: Hob Dobson From: Chimaera Date: 12/10/2014 11:22:25 PM Subject: Nuclear Attack Message: Your nation has been attacked with nuclear weapons in a standard nuclear attack by Chimaera. You lost 58927 soldiers, 3527 defending tanks, 0 cruise missiles, 233.822 miles of land, 77.941 technology, 198.748 infrastructure, 75% of your aircraft, and 25% of your nuclear vulnerable navy force. In addition to these losses your nation will experience many days of economic devastation. Per the posted infra damage descriptions in the Information Index, the tech level required for 198.748 infra damage would be: ((((198.78 / 0.85) - 150) / 150) / (0.01% / 100%) ) = 5590.6 tech, which is roughly the amount that Chimaera's nation had on-hand at the time. The second of the two messages is obviously where the confusion arises for me: To: Hob Dobson From: killjoy123 Date: 12/11/2014 7:13:35 PM Subject: Nuclear Attack Message: Your nation has been attacked with nuclear weapons in a standard nuclear attack by killjoy123. You lost 18170 soldiers, 763 defending tanks, 0 cruise missiles, 235.823 miles of land, 78.608 technology, 230.517 infrastructure, 75% of your aircraft, and 25% of your nuclear vulnerable navy force. In this case, the tech level required for 230.517 infra damage would be: ((((230.517 / 0.85) - 150) / 150) / (0.01% / 100%) ) = 8079.8 tech By my best estimate, killjoy123's nation had 3671 tech when he launched the weapon, no Weapons Research Complex, and no EMP Weaponization to increase the infrastructure damage by almost 16% coming from a nation with 3,000 units less of technology. I could easily be missing something in comparing the two damage instances and the two nations. If so, please just point me to the appropriate references. If not, then please consider this a potential bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Munitions Factories 5 on both of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakura Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Munitions factories apply the damage bonus to base damage -- thus, ((150*1.15)+((150*1.15)*(0.0001*3671)))=235.824 infrastructure.It does seem that your bunkers might not be working, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted December 12, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 on both of them. "One of these things is not like the other" :) Thanks! Munitions factories apply the damage bonus to base damage -- thus, ((150*1.15)+((150*1.15)*(0.0001*3671)))=235.824 infrastructure. It does seem that your bunkers might not be working, though. ((((230.517 / 0.85 ) - 172.5 ) / 172.5 ) / (0.01% / 100%) ) = 3363.3 Yes, that works out. Thank you. I wish I'd known that Munitions Factories disable one's opponent's bunkers earlier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 12, 2014 Report Share Posted December 12, 2014 Generally speaking I recommend the more damage over the reduction of damage, someone with better math skills would have to calculate at what point it would be more beneficial to have the damage reduction, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubaQuerida Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 I recently bought 5 bunker improvements for my nation, to at least see how they perform in practice. However, based on Nuclear Attack reports from the last two consecutive days, I'm left wondering if there have been recent changes that I haven't caught on to. The first of the two messages: Per the posted infra damage descriptions in the Information Index, the tech level required for 198.748 infra damage would be: ((((198.78 / 0.85) - 150) / 150) / (0.01% / 100%) ) = 5590.6 tech, which is roughly the amount that Chimaera's nation had on-hand at the time. The second of the two messages is obviously where the confusion arises for me: In this case, the tech level required for 230.517 infra damage would be: ((((230.517 / 0.85) - 150) / 150) / (0.01% / 100%) ) = 8079.8 tech By my best estimate, killjoy123's nation had 3671 tech when he launched the weapon, no Weapons Research Complex, and no EMP Weaponization to increase the infrastructure damage by almost 16% coming from a nation with 3,000 units less of technology. I could easily be missing something in comparing the two damage instances and the two nations. If so, please just point me to the appropriate references. If not, then please consider this a potential bug. Pro Tip: Air Force generals affect nuke damage (CM's too) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 (edited) My targets learned that the hard way this war :) Edited December 13, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted December 13, 2014 Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 Pro Tip: Air Force generals affect nuke damage (CM's too) One of the reasons I enjoy being a low tier nuke turret, I could rebuy air generals several times and still have xp left over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hob Dobson Posted December 13, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 13, 2014 Pro Tip: Air Force generals affect nuke damage (CM's too) Looking at today's results, that brings the final percentages back in line. Thank you. The wide variation among what I've been seeing in incoming and outgoing damage numbers isn't what I'm used to seeing, so I was thrown way off (obviously) in trying to figure out what was contributing and where. Serves me right for looking too closely at the details and not broadly enough at results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.