Ambush

[artist]

Question on ambush, we had following situation:
off_home: 1116| def_home: 8908| ospec_intrain: 19| dspec_intrain: 46
army1: -0.5h| a: 33| bush: 2328
army2: 3.9h| a: 43| bush: 4129
army3: 5.2h| a: 31| bush: 3094
army4: 5.2h| a: 7| bush: 500| nonpeon: 73

The ambush was on the 43a hit.. so 4129 raw def.. Our guy sent 550off specs (550*6=3300)+500horses (500*2)=4300 and failed.
Horses add 2raw offense per unit... so how come the hit failed?

[Chris121]

intel could be wrong, munk could be wrong, user could be wrong... we need the raw numbers from game not from munk to look at it.

[artist]

here are the raw numbers

https://imgur.com/a/NCrNp


so 860*6=5160. For ambush 80% of that is 4129... we've sent 4300 on the attack and failed

[StratOcastle]

What's the return time on the fail? Was it the correct attack on the drop menu?

It happens.

[artist]

yes, we checked that it was 7.71h (no avian, no tact) return times, so ambush was chosen correctly. Horses do count towards offense on ambush? Thats the only thing that might be screwed up.

[Chris121]

Sorry imgur gets blocked here (not sure why, really annoying) so I can't see your picture.

Is the race that is being attacked Dark Elf (+2 off spec)?

Horses count for offence, yes, and they are 2 points for non-dryad so that part should be okay.

[Chris121]

Also do we know for sure that the intel is 100% accurate? (I can't see the picture).

[artist]

here, uploaded it to another site

[Chris121]

Thanks :)

Okay so just to check a few things:

1. Do we know that your intel is 100% accurate? If not could you take it again to ensure 100% accuracy (it will change slightly due to kills but we can deal with that).

2. You said the ambush is against the 43 acres army. So did armies #2, #3, #4 attack someone other than the person doing this ambush, or has your KD-mate already ambushed those armies #2, #3, #4?

3. Have you seen your KD-mate's military advisor page to check that he did actually send 550 off specs and 500 horses?


I agree with your calculation though. If the intel is accurate and your KD mate sent what he said he sent, it should have worked.

[artist]

Hey, thanks for the replies.
1)Intel is 100% accurate, as i took the som again to have a print screen of it. (100% accuracy-10% thieves)
2) The other armies were on other targets. But even if they were on him it shouldnt have failed cause they are even lower on defense :)
3) Will check again and have him do a print screen of his own som to see if he didnt make a mistake when sending army. Though he was sure he did everything correct. (One never knows though :D)

[Chris121]

Thanks. Yes I agree on point 2 too, I just thought it would be useful to know if he had already succeeded ambushes on the same target. But yes, regardless of which army he attacked, he should still have succeeded with what he says he sent.

Look forward to hearing on 3 :)

[artist]

here is his own som: so he sent 550 specs and 550 horses - losses what u see in som. Dont really get it why it failed

[Swagger]

I just did an ambush on a dryad to sort of test this. Sent 80 more offense points than the ambush defense and succeeded. My initial thought was the +2 horse attack points were behaving as defense, but my ambush would have bounced if that were the case.

Is he a bocan? Maybe Munk forgot to update the ospec value from last age if so.

[Swagger]

Wait, that was -1 general not ospec attack points, ignore me. Back to the drawing board.

[Chris121]

Ok I am out of ideas. Even if he only sent 519 specs/horses (just assume) then he should still have succeeded, so there is no issue about what he sent.

My remaining idea is have we definitely checked he ambushed rather than abducted (easy to mix those two up)? Abduct would of course give a shorter attack time than trad march. I see you said above it was 7.71 hours but I don't know what your base time would be (eg rituals, rax etc).

If that's not it then I'm left with saying it's a bug, but I hate saying ambush fails are a bug because I get told that about 50 times an age and it (almost) never is..!