Answered Wiki wall def. bonuses inaccurate?

Shuri2060

Strategos
If I'm not mistaken, the wall def. bonuses given on https://wiki.en.grepolis.com/wiki/City_Wall are inaccurate or outdated? Testing in the simulator suggets so. Eg -
lv 0 wall:
jAmyPld.png

lv 25 wall:
Xdu0TWW.png

The difference in losses are too big to be attributed to rounding or due to omission of the +250 base def. a city gets at wall lv 25.

Normally with bonuses other than wall:

QJO3NMP.png
7i7MO2t.png


and

ReePHjw.png
5tyMf2a.png
 

DeletedUser31385

Guest
More testing would have to be done with actual attacks in order to figure that out. I am not going to jump to conclusions and make changes without knowing for certain the values are wrong.
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
More testing would have to be done with actual attacks in order to figure that out. I am not going to jump to conclusions and make changes without knowing for certain the values are wrong.

I was once told by support that the simulator exactly matches the game system as long as the exact buffs are given (I thought I'd found a discrepancy but it turned out I'd forgotten a boost at the time). Other than that mistake, I haven't found any differences so far and I use it quite often.

The above is just an example. You can try with other units/numbers and will get the same result. If 100 attacking units get a multiplier of 1.1, (assuming they all die), 110 units with a multiplier of 1 will do the same amount of damage to the defence. Doesn't seem to be the case with the wall values - and the differences are too big to be due to rounding or the unaccounted base defence boost either.
 
Last edited:

Shuri2060

Strategos
this doesn't account for luck, morale, heroes, advisors, buffs, and tower

Well yes - I'm assuming no buffs and 0% luck. I'm not sure if the wall boost is an additive or multiplicative effect with those taken into account (I can only see luck/morale being multiplicative with the rest additive so far), but ignoring those modifiers the wiki values still seem to be off.

plus you can run the same sim 10 times, same everything, and it won't come out with the exact same kills, close but not same
Can you give an example? The simulator is deterministic as far as I've seen. It always gives the same results with the same inputs.
 
Last edited:

Shuri2060

Strategos
i use the sim all the time
i gives an ESTIMATE
i can run it using troops i know are in the a city vs mine and sometimes 10.5% are killed, sometimes 10.4%
I'm surprised. I use it whenever I need to test the researches/advisors of an enemy and it's never failed to give the exact numbers shown in the attack with the correct parameters. Are you sure that's not because of some missing info? I also don't know if luck is actually a float (displayed rounded) or integer. If so, that would explain any differences perhaps. I've yet to encounter this though so I think it's the latter.
the differences in real battles are a few slings or swords here or there, not 90k vs 10k
Actually, if you test the numbers out, you'll see multiplying both total attack and defence by any constant results in the same proportion of troops being killed. In fact, large numbers gives more 'accurate' results since numbers are rounded up/down with small numbers. See below example with constant 10:

4oVYiYX.png
_
xU0lh5M.png
_
xDbbVQ6.png
_
LkXKMV8.png
_
eSsn2YH.png


A city with no wall has base defence 10 - ie. 10 is added to the total for each defence stat. To 'multiply' this base stat by 10 each time I add in the corresponding number of horses which have sharp def 1. (Note the last image is out by 1 hop on both sides, but it doesn't make much of a difference - ignore it if you wish)

Not sure with mixed attackers - it doesn't quite seem to work out there. But with pure attackers like the example in the first post I think this holds true.

---

Either way - even if you put 'realistic' numbers, the wall def boosts given seem to be off. I used the largest numbers possible in the first post to leave no doubt that it may be due to rounding or omission of base defence.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser55180

Guest
I'm over-analytical myself, so I can relate expressing frustrations with wall boost, what I've find to be assuring is; USING EQ, HELPS BECAUSE YOU LOSE ABSOLUTELY ZERO TROOPS.

Take it from a newb, I just got my alliance RedruM Marauders Inc. Sabotaged by my own mentors Timothy Dewey, Kummerspek, "nothing in life we will be fair, so it's up to you to think outside the box, and take it easy on yourself, nobody else will.."
Wise words from the finest mentor/backstabbers I've ever encountered CHEERS.

P.S. FAVOR FARMING FARMING HELPS, replenish EQ for rapid demolition.

Kind regards,
Me
 

Shuri2060

Strategos
@WARtLORDt I... know that. But that's not the point I'm making... as far as I can see, there's no reason to overlook errors in the wiki (if that is the case). They should be corrected.

@Rachel.L I think you're missing my point. Yes - it's impossible to have 10k hops attack from one city. The point I'm making is it does not matter. The simulator calculates losses using a set formula. The formula doesn't suddenly break down and give completely incorrect results once you go over 4k (or whatever the max is) population in attacking units. The SS' I've shown above suggest it's alright to linearly extrapolate results when multiplying by some constant. Notice that in each battle all grepo calculates is the proportion of units that are destroyed on either the attacking or defending side. So magnitude of units doesn't matter. Since this is the case, it'd make more sense to go with larger numbers (even if impossible in grepolis itself) to test how modifiers like the wall work. This gives more significant figures to work with and makes the base defence negligible as I've said.

Lastly - you'll see exactly the same results as the first image I've shown even with 'reasonable numbers'. Like I've said, that's just an example and the same problem of seemingly wrong values occurs with other choices of numbers. I'm not saying the wiki values are wrong because of one particular case with 90k slings/10k swords not working out. I'm saying I've tried many choices of numbers including actual possible ones and the results are the same. If you choose small numbers, though, you can't be sure if this is due to rounding/omission of base defence. But it's not - as shown with the bigger numbers.

For your sake, though, maybe my argument would be more convincing if I included these?

P44pXwZ.png
Od3whHO.png

rMBVxQ6.png
Ff5XTvi.png


If you haven't grasped it already, I'm not complaining that the wiki values are wrong because of analysis from some attack report. It'd be hard to tell from that - because of all modifiers involved. Like I said though, the simulator gives the correct results with correct inputs, and I can't see how the wiki values can be right when no modifiers other than wall are taken into account.

Even assuming the wall multiplies it's own base defence and adding on that value with extra slings doesn't quite kill as many offensive units. That's (260*2.419-10)/2 = 309.47 extra slings so:

0kNFI2a.png
Od3whHO.png
 
Last edited:

Shuri2060

Strategos
shuri, there is a big difference in both what and how you stated your first post and your last
Where? I give two different examples with different kinds of units which only strengthens my point. There's a discrepancy no matter what you choose.
third, while i get your point that fake numbers shouldn't matter in a formula, they do matter in consistency of testing in realistic scenarios
if you put in something that can't possibly happen, it doesn't matter what values you calculate and the devs won't care
Fair enough - so from now on, I'll strive to keep the population below 4k with examples. I can assure you it makes absolutely no difference though.
fourth, i don't believe the formula is linear and this may be part of your extrapolation issue
fifth, "Notice that in each battle all grepo calculates is the proportion of units that are destroyed on either the attacking or defending side. So magnitude of units doesn't matter." - i believe this may be false
The examples I've given so far show it's probably true or at least close to true. If it's false, then a counterexample would be nice to see. In addition, what issue - I see none with what I've said?
second, there is also a difference in what you posted: slings vs arch, slings vs swords; losses can not be compared as they have different defensive strengths/ weaknesses
...
if you kill olu, it matters if it's slings/ hops (1 pop) vs horses (3) vs char (4)
It doesn't make a difference what particular def. units are being concerned if they're all killed. All that matters is the def. total. If I'm attacking only ranged units, I only need to check the ranged def. total. This is true no matter what multipliers are applied (including wall).

gK7ZopL.png
_
ivpPuZ7.png
_
SFiKqCJ.png
_
EFg401V.png


Same applies for mixed attack, but it's harder to create examples (below, sharp/ranged def totals only matter):

RAyO9iK.png
zt4gCbJ.png
_
u05e4a9.png
zt4gCbJ.png


Similarly, it doesn't make a difference what off. units are concerned if they're all killed. Only the totals for each stat matter.

fjTFyWq.png
QsF20zx.png
_
r5STHEs.png
QsF20zx.png


I can assure you similar examples can be constructed and I have yet to find something which counters this. Population/types of troops (except catapults if there is a wall) do not matter in calculation. Only atk/def totals matter. First the simulator determines which side wins. If it's the attacking side, then it calculates the proportion of troops killed for each of blunt, sharp, ranged. If it's the defending side, it just calculates the proportion of troops killed and distributes it evenly. How it deals with rounding - I'm not sure, but that's how it works as far as I can see. I've tried out many different numbers, and they all point to this conclusion.
sixth, if the example you gave with "real numbers", you changed both the wall and the defense so that tells me nothing
to compare, there have to be 4 sets for you to show me the calculations are off: low wall with high and low defense, high wall with high and low defense

I see you don't understand what the first example shows. The wall at lv 25 gives a buff of 141.9% to defensive troops (according to wiki). Supposing this was true, then 10000 swords would have the same strength behind a lv 25 wall as 21419 swords (ignoring extra base defence). However, the values are off by quite a margin which cannot be accounted for by base def/rounding.
i believe i've added enough to this project as i don't see it going anywhere
I don't see how you've added anything. If you believe what I've said isn't true - then fair enough if you can give a counterexample. However, all you've made is a bunch of unjustified claims which are contradicted by the examples i've shown.

I'm not saying the wiki values are definitely wrong, but I'm saying they are likely to be, given what I've shown. This is a request for the devs to check if they are wrong, and the wiki to be corrected if so. Of course this 'project' can't go anywhere without that happening since this is all just observation/speculation.
 
Last edited:

Shuri2060

Strategos
I'm not asking anyone to help me - I'm pointing out a possible mistake on the wiki. Nor am I being as condescending/rude as you are by pretending to know 'everything' about how the simulator works and repeatedly accusing someone else of not knowing enough/missing out details without evidence. Unless you're saying you've seen the code yourself/similar, then I'm going to assume you know as much as any outsider can know about the simulator just like me. Telling me I've got this and that wrong/mixed up without providing any evidence on your own part is something I find pretty obnoxious myself.

If I'm wrong - then fine, show me why. None of your comments have been helpful - you fail to counter any of the actual evidence/screenshots I show from the simulator while those counter what you've said.

Sure, I'm trying to make guesses about how it works from testing numbers out here and there, so I can't say I've got it down right 100%, but I can't see how you can be any more 'right' than me without any of your own evidence to back it up.

None of us completely understand how the sim works other than the devs ofc just like how a bunch of physicists can't claim the same about the world. But I think what I've suggested above is reasonable while your attempt to dismiss it with no backup is not.

---

And finally - like I said, none of your points make sense when you plug in the numbers from the simulator to test them out. I've shown you examples already, but if you're just going to ignore them, then fine. I just srsly can't see why you're seem so desperate to defend the wiki values when there is a possibility that they're incorrect/outdated.
 
Last edited:
Top