I find that, despite reading all the Help, and even all of the wiki, there are still a few too many unknowns to make the game truly enjoyable.  I think it would be nice if the algorithms, forumulas and calculations for attack, defense and damage were publicized.  I honestly just don't know how a higher defense compares to a lower defense.  All the numbers are just relative; I'd prefer to know what they mean on an absolute level. 

 Take for example a Raider vs. a Heavy Trooper.  The raider has high attack vs. infantry, but the heavy trooper has high attack vs. vehicles.  Both have equal defense.  I don't get any sense of "Raiders are good to use against Infantry" or "Heavy Troopers are good to use against vehicles".  I get the impression that the authors intended the game to have this sort of "specialization", though?  But it doesn't seem to be panning out in practice.

I thought that was the chance aspect.... trial and error

That reminds me.  I personally think there is too much variation in damage... it seems to be like +/- 3 or something.  I think it should be +/- 1, or at least a game option.

The randomness of the damage can really bite you in the ass - like failing to damage a trooper (probably heavy.. don't remember) when I blasted it one with a heavy tank, or having something die whilst attacking from 6 health

Yes, as I said, I think the variance is too much.  It reduces the value of good strategy.  You are often punished by "bad dice".

I also think there should be some advantage to attacking vs. being attacked.  This may already be in the game, but as I said, there is no documentation, and the gameplay does not indicate clearly one way or another.  I'm finding now that it is more beneficial to BE attacked than to take initiative and attack.  I think this waters down gameplay.  Attackers should be rewarded for their initiative by being given the first strike.  Again, maybe this is already happening, but without docs, we can only guess about the mystery.

I think you have a point here - and we have identified predictability of battles as an issue. We are working towards improving this! Also documentation is high on our list and we hope that the wiki will carry a long way in that regard. Expect more contributions from our side to the wiki. Ultimately I would hope for the best and community approved data from the wiki to make it back into the (admittedly) now bare bones help section.

I'm pretty willing to contribute to the wiki, but at present, everything that I know is already in there.   But thanks for contributing to this thread, plasticshore.  I appreciate it.

we are trying.. loads to do. But working with you guys is the most important task I'd say.... 

Until now I didn't actually realised what "variations" are you talking about. I have alredy played a few games but haven't seen too much  variations in eg. artilery's attack - when 10/10 artilery  took down 8/10 troopers and then another 10/10 artilery took down 4/5 troopers, indeed it b0rks strategy a little.

Got one question btw. On the wiki page units/trooper; heavy trooper it is stated that when an unit stays in the mountains it gets +2 to attack and +1 to defense value while for the base it is +2/+2 despite of the same defense/attack bonuses they both give. Just a mistake or I don't get sth?

I very much second making the algorithms public. 

+1 for this, again.

I just realized today that I have been reading the Terrain mouseover help in the left sidebar completely wrong.  For example, hover over a forest hex.  It says:

Effect on attack: infantry 7, vehicles 5.  Effect on defense: infantry 6, vehicles 2.  I was interpreting this to mean:

If you decide to attack the enemy unit standing on this forest hex using one of your infantry, it will be able to defend against you with a +1 bonus.  But if you attack with your vehicle, it will defend against you with a -3 penalty.  Since I was misinterpreting the data like this, I was doing stupid things like moving my vehicles onto forest hexes, thinking that I would be able to better defend against enemy infantry, in the absence of nearby enemy vehicles.

I only *today* realized that, instead, it means: infantry standing in forests have a +1 defense bonus against any other unit type, whereas vehicles situated on forest hexes have a -3 penalty when defending against any other unit type.

I suppose that not everyone will have the misinterpretation that I had, but I think it's worth curbing the possibilities for newbies.  Perhaps a rewording, with more text, such as:

----- 

Terrain bonus:

Infantry get: +2 attack, +1 defense 

Vehicles get: +0 attack, -3 defense 

----- 

That seems much clearer to me. 

I always read it as "units standing here get these bonuses/penalties to their attack/defense"

I'm still struggling to bend my head around how your interpretation works.. but if you misread it then other people probably did too, so maybe some extra clarification would be useful 

Super-King: Yes, your quoted clarification is exactly right, if I'm not mistaken.

Basically, I was interpreting it as: If you stand in this hex, you defend against infantry "this much", and you defend against vehicles "this much".  Get it?  

In other words, I thought you could put vehicles in forests, and they would defend better against enemy infantry that attacked them.

Instead, it is the exact opposite. 

ahhh, I see

yeah, that would end up biting you in the ass 

I don't know if this was addressed but a battle always seems to favor the unit in defense... It's so skewed in that direction that I find this to be the case 80% of the time. Shouldn't it be more equal?

In other threads, we've been trying to generate ideas to favour attackers more.  I do note that plasticshore and bert have been rather silent the last few days in the forums here.   We just don't know whether they agree or disagree with much of what's been discussed over the last week.  Maybe they're busy getting reading for a major release? 

I think that's it. They're probably busy beta testing and finishing that new release. I think I'll hold of on what I have to say about the damage formula until the next release because they might've changed things significantly already. 

I sure hope so. 

Pistos, I can see where you misread. I didn't get it at first either. I interpreted the dual meanings and then just guessed which one they meant, and luckily guessed correctly.

drchunk: Thanks, drchunk, I don't feel as dense now. 

Hi guys - we are trying to follow everything. But there is so much going on and it is hard catching up while still moving to better (and much faster hardware), ensure the next release is getting tested properly and evaluating and implementing new features (which we are doing all the time). We used to roll out updates much quicker but with the increased player numbers we need to get out infra structure up to the new speed so we are once more able to respond quickly. We are on the case and far from ignoring any of your really valuable suggestions! They are much appreciated!

plasticshore: Thanks for the update.  It's all that's needed to help us feel informed and in-touch. 

Yeah. I appreciate that