Anti aircraft

I invested (wasted) 17000 SP on anti air upgrades and it is totally useless except in rare occasions such as a stack of airplanes etc. Do not buy, save for infantry upgrades instead.

I agree with Laochra on PD it is not an OP strategy.

They are good at destroying UN eagles along with destroyers

Anti-aircraft can be quite op at times, but usually are worthless.

They are op if they get some boost then they could be used as turkey imp against SM.

Meh if you play a world map 50k they are op.

Stop seriously, just stop, why would we want to boost a unit that would render the 2 air strategies useless? and why would we introduce a strat boosting this unit again fucking up 2 strategies by making a counter. is that what we want to turn this game into? rock paper scissors where whoever picks the counter wins?

and anti air have only 1 use, when youve high funds but a low rein count and you know your enemy is using air units to attack, then they are a better choice than infantry(even pd inf).

Written by EndsOfInvention, 16.11.2013 at 10:36

Written by Guest, 16.11.2013 at 10:32

Nope, not a 8:11 ratio. Attack doesn't mean ratio. Go make tests, it's almost a 1:2 ratio, while AAs (with imp) cost 150, just a little bit more than 130.

Give me mathematical proof why.
If you want to look deeper, the average attack (not max attack) for SM bombers is 4.5, and the average defense for AA is 6. This would give a 3:4 ratio, or even less than previously. I cannot make tests, since not possessing AA, and am merely commenting on the mathematical probabilities. There needs to be a reason besides luck why the difference is so great between the mathematical predictions and the observable results.

to give a brief explanation, you know that the attack value given is simply maximum achievable attack by that unit, with 8 att for example, you can roll 1-8 attack, however the rolls are executed twice to give the average value which is actually used as the attack. so you could roll a 2 and a 4 and 3 would be the damage inflicted that round((2+4)/2 =3).

what this does is lower the probability of low or high rolls(1 or 8), but increases the probability of mid-rolls such as 4 and 5. so the attack ratio you used isnt entirely accurate.

Written by Permamuted, 21.01.2014 at 00:41

Written by EndsOfInvention, 16.11.2013 at 10:36

If you want to look deeper, the average attack (not max attack) for SM bombers is 4.5, and the average defense for AA is 6. This would give a 3:4 ratio, or even less than previously. I cannot make tests, since not possessing AA, and am merely commenting on the mathematical probabilities. There needs to be a reason besides luck why the difference is so great between the mathematical predictions and the observable results.

to give a brief explanation, you know that the attack value given is simply maximum achievable attack by that unit, with 8 att for example, you can roll 1-8 attack, however the rolls are executed twice to give the average value which is actually used as the attack. so you could roll a 2 and a 4 and 3 would be the damage inflicted that round((2+4)/2 =3).

what this does is lower the probability of low or high rolls(1 or 8), but increases the probability of mid-rolls such as 4 and 5. so the attack ratio you used isnt entirely accurate.

Why?
The average for both rolls should still be the average value. Take SM bombers, you take the average attack (mean) by +1 then /2. (8+1)/2=4.5
Rolling twice: (4.5+4.5)/2=4.5
I do know you can't actually get 4.5 attack, it is simply the average you would roughly get if you did 100+ rolls.

Also, why are you complaining about it now, after 2 months?