mage attack -not- fixed

[Devari]

Well, first off, your "passive" ratio needs to be 50. Essentially, this means Spies/Dens = 50. If your "passive" ratio is less than this, you'll get a "Mission Failed. *X* Spies killed." message.

After that, the code checks your "attack" ratio vs the opponent's "defence" ratio.

The defence ratio is quite simple:

code: Select all

$eratio = $ewiz / $enemy[land] * 1.05 * $erace[magic];

Their number of spies, divided by their land, multiplied by 1.05, and multiplied by their racial bonus/penalty to magic.

The attack ratio is a bit different:

code: Select all

$uratio = $uwiz / (($users[land] + $enemy[land]) / 2) * $urace[magic];

Your number of spies, divided by the average of your land and theirs, multiplied by your racial bonus/penalty to magic.

Interestingly enough, somebody removed the 175-Spies-Per-Acre-Of-Land cap...

Anyway, to make a "successful" mage attack, $uratio (your attack ratio) must be more than 2.2 times $eratio (your enemy's defence ratio).

[Shadow I]

Ok thanks, that's identical to RWL's mage attack code. Arty, you probably failed because when I have a lot more land than you, your attack ratio becomes lousy since the average of our lands is higher than your land.

Freen, I know all that, but I am very math minded and prefer to work in formulas and code than educated guesses if I have the option. Plus it's very useful info if you are planning an attack on someone who you can't espy.

[Freenhult]

If you can't espy them then what does it matter? Espy takes the least amount of anything and is the first spell you can do. So I don't follow your logic.

[Shadow I]

If you are planning an attack on someone you can't espy, you assume worst case (ei, they have hte most mages they could have based on their land) and calculate the requirements to break on your end from the formulas.

[Freenhult]

Ah. I figure at that point, there's no need to calculate, just break with an army.

[Devari]

I actually think that RWL is very slightly different, as Leaders/Land has a maximum of 175. For some reason, we removed that here.

[Freenhult]

We what? I'm pretty sure we have a max of 175 ratio. You lose hawks after that.

[Devari]

You lose Spies when your Spies/Dens is over a certain number... I can't remember exactly what it is, but it's probably around 175.

However, it's possible to have Spies/Land be wayyy over 175 if you're attacked a lot and haven't used any turns. In most Promi games, your defensive ratio has a maximum cap of 175, regardless of how many "extra" Wizards you have. In this code, somebody commented out that line.

[Shadow I]

No, RWL doesn't have that cap either. Your defense ratio can be anything at all. Which means there is a certain point where you are essentially incincible to missions.

[Devari]

Hm. Indeed. I just checked the code...

... however, there still is a fairly noticeable difference. At RWL, towers give a significant boost to your defensive ratio. Here... not so much.

[Shadow I]

If you play it out, using towers actually lowers your defense ratio there because it limits the amount of leaders you can have, and the tradeoff is not a favorable one for all-mage strats. With theland farm catching dropped land, it is actually better to demo to 175 ratio and drop the extra.

[Devari]

Ah, right. Honestly, I was just looking at the code.

[Arthus]

Well. This time I was a pure mage, with all my land as mage towers, almost twice as many mages as shadow had (I had 560k mages, he had 310k mages), and for some reason, still lost. I highly doubt a indiers mage ratio was greater than a pure mage, even after 26 mage battles where my mages suffered such terrible losses I have to think my magers were drunk while battling.

[Shadow I]

560k mages / ((myland + yourland) / 2) * your hawk bonus = 23.52267303102625298329

(310k mages / myland) * myhawk bonus = 11.13469387755102040817

your attack ratio / my defense ratio = 2.11255677881284163523

you need 2.2 to succeed

nothing wrong with that, you just have too few hawks

[Freenhult]

Very good Shadow.