|
Cortex Posts: 3
9/22/2018
|
A few of us have recently noticed situations where the population lost during battles over cities seems to be different than what is shown in the battle reports.
In my own case, battles 31884-31887 (Turns 70041-70044, over Dufur, Panther X) report 640 population lost each for a total of about 2.5k lost. These battles occured right after the founding of the city, so the population was a bit over 900k. However, after the battles, the actual population was around 860k. I didn't think much of it at the time, but there have been other cases reported.
Green Inc has also reported a similar situation recently after the Safehold Corp attacks on the Terran Federation (battle 32216, turn 70830, over London). The battle report shows 193,700 population lost, but Green Inc believes the real number was more like 1.5million.
If I can guess at a potential cause, the current reports appear to show that population lost is equal to 10% of the attacker's power. I don't have enough data to figure out how the real amount lost is being calculated, but it seems to be on the order of the sum of both the attacker and defender's power (give or take a bit and somewhat dependent on the existing population of the city).
Any chance this can get looked into?
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Steffstoff Posts: 22
9/22/2018
|
Geat thanks @Cortex for picking me up here.
I can confirm that issue again. London's population was over 8 millions before attacks. I could imagine that just simply a zero is missing in the report...
1,937,000 population lost looks much better to me. So we got probably 100% population lost of attackers power. Safehold's fleet has 1,937,000 power.
I'd like to know the calculation on this.
edited by Steffstoff on 9/22/2018
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
LunaMoth Posts: 47
9/22/2018
|
I have collected some data regarding this claim. Here is a summary:
Turn: 70974; Pop: 167,905; diff: N/A; -31 shown
Turn: 70975; Pop: 167,873; diff: -32; -31 shown
Turn: 70976; Pop: 167,841; diff: -32; -32 shown
Turn: 70977; Pop: 166,130; diff: -1711; +449 shown; BattleID 32328 reported 240 population lost
Turn: 70978; Pop: 166,098; diff: -32; -31 shown
Turn: 70979; Pop: 166,067; diff: -31; -31 shown
Turn: 70980; Pop: 166,035; diff: -32; -31 shown
Observations:
- Discrepancy between population shown in Viewscreen and population lost in battle reports.
- Value of -1711 appears to be -2400 (military power) + 240 (population lost?) + 449 (population increase shown on the Viewscreen that turn)
- Game Turn and Credits do not update (shows 70966 until I realized) unless I go outside of Viewscreen tab (such as Assets tab) and come back; Game Turn was determined from BattleID 32328 (Turn 70977).
edited by LunaMoth on 9/22/2018
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Cortex Posts: 3
9/23/2018
|
Great experiment, Luna. If we suppose that the population loss due to demand would have been -31 on turn 70977 --- this seems quite reasonable to me in light of the -32 and -31 during turns around it in time --- then the loss due to combat is -1680 population.
1680 is exactly 70% of 2400. If we also suppose that 70% is always the amount used, then that explains how around 2 million power in Safehold's attack on London yields a loss of about 1.5 million.
The question at this stage is if it's always 70% (many of Earth's smaller cities didn't even have 1.4 million going into the attacks, and they're not exactly at zero now) and if that's supposed to be the intended behavior. And, in either case, if we can get the battle reports to reflect this accurately.
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
LunaMoth Posts: 47
9/23/2018
|
It is difficult to know the relationship for that battle since the population decline before the attack and the population increase during the turn of the attack are not known. London had one attack with 1,937,000 military power. 70% of that is 1,355,900 which statistically could be a bit far off from the supposed 1.5 million.
There is a factor that counteracts attacks with a population increase (in this case +449). I don't know how dynamic that factor is; whether it depends on the current population (seems to make more sense to use this), is just an additional reduction (which seems pointless), is based on the military power, or a combination.
Displaying the population as 10% in reports but actually calculating 70% is a possible error (7 mistaken for a 1). But it doesn't explain that factor that counteracts attacks.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/23/2018
|
|
|
0
link
|
|
Cortex Posts: 3
9/23/2018
|
My thought process around what is displaying as the +449 gain is essential how I ended up with 70%. The +449 makes more sense if you think of it as a +480 that then has the -31 from demand subtracted. +480 being exactly +20% of attack power. Then your calculation of -100% power + 10% power (= reported population lost) + 449 (display increased) boils down to -100% power + 10% power + 20% power - usual demand loss.
I think you're right, though, that the actual formula here is probably something like -100% attacking power then plus some factor to compensate for population level. Short of collecting more empirical data on cities of various sizes (any mayors in the audience care to volunteer? figured not), I'm hoping the illustrious DrDread is able to chime in with the actual formula.
|
|
|
0
link
|