I am patrolling 10 fighters against 8 patrolling fighters both at 90%. I understand I have a lower state based damage efficiency but how can he take one of my fighters and not even lose one percent from his?
What I have heard here on the forums is that there is a randomizing factor buried in the combat equations. The degree to which it effects combat is not immediately obvious but it's presence is why I normally work for a 3:1 (or better) ratio in my attacks.
I would consider doing two stacks of 5 versus his stack of 8.
A stack of 5 has to take 20% damage before it loses a unit.
A stack of 8 loses a unit at 12.5% damage.
A stack of 10 loses a unit at 10% damage.
IOW, a smaller stack will take more damage before it loses a unit.
The logical extreme of this is to make 10 one unit attacks rather than 1 ten unit attack.
Paramunac does an excellent job of examining this:
Good explanation by F. Marion (and Paramunac at the linked discussion). As suggested, you will do better against the enemy stack if you split your stack of 10 patrolling fighter squadrons into two stacks of 5 patrolling fighter squadrons; they will be inflicting damage on the enemy stack at maximum efficient rate (per SBDE), and they will be inflicting damage at twice the rate (twice every 15 minutes, not once every 15 minutes).
3 Mar 2017, 13:21
The observed behaviour by the OP (that one side took no damage at all) has nothing to do with stack sizes or x-factor, it is the behaviour of the patrol function when 2 patroling areas intersect eachother. The damages applied are applied with a delay, so when you see that the enemy took no damage, he actually took damage, but the damage is applied later (when his timer runs out). We are currently testing this system again since it is a bit nebulous for users.
For more direct results I suggest ordering direct attacks on the enemy planes.
3 Mar 2017, 16:56
freezy wrote:
For more direct results I suggest ordering direct attacks on the enemy planes.
direct results = suiciding your planes?
4 Mar 2017, 20:49
Actually direct attacks work in certain situations. Against patrolling aircraft, you know where they are and can take the time to calculate the odds. On numerous occasions I have seen a player send out 1 or 2 interceptors on patrol. By sending a stack of 4 to 5 interceptors you take him out quickly. The same happens when a player sends out a small stack of TAC without interceptor escort.
"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr. "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
4 Mar 2017, 22:18
I am not sure that is fair to the math challenged members of our community. You must stop immediately. From now on you must inform your opponent of their stupidity before you use it against them.
4 Mar 2017, 23:48
Oh I did not realize we had to write these on a first grade level....
If the opponent (Jack) sends out interceptors that can be counted on 1 hand, and you (Jill) have enough interceptors to fill 2 hands or a count that uses additional toes, you should attack. If the number of fingers for Jack and Jill are equal or you have fewer fingers worth, than do not attack.
There is that better?
"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr. "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
5 Mar 2017, 00:19
Peter Mat wrote:
There is that better?
i prefer Bob
5 Mar 2017, 20:07
What if you are missing a finger or two on your hand?
I think you may be discriminating against the nine-fingered among us.
6 Mar 2017, 13:32
Sorry to hear that. No discrimination intended.
"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr. "Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
6 Mar 2017, 20:48
You probably go swimming with a quadriplegic nick-named "Bob" too.
