Help

i think people do it without even thining about it, but i think its a good idea to build on diffrent sectors

That's true, separate bases will take more missiles to destroy.  There are three reasons why I don't do it usually.

1) Building multiple bases on a square will safe a bit of time.

2) Building multiple bases makes the enemy have to send more missiles to destroy the land base.  The land base is most important to keep alive, because it can build a CT which can then build other types of bases if needed.  Likewise, it will help keep an airbase alive longer, which may contain expensive jets.

3) One turret can defend all three.  Saves money.

But yes, there are other good advantages of spreading them out too.

That's what I'm  trying to say... It doesn't cost more to take out 3 bases on the same sector, so why build them all on one sector?  It only costs 6 missiles to take out an airbase, seabase, and landbase if they're all on the same sector... plus 4 for a defense turret.  It's not cumulative for each base on the same sector. 

Even if you don't build a turret on each base sector, spreading out the individual bases seems like the better option considering it takes 6 missiles to destroy one, or two, or three.... If they're all on dif. sectors it's at least 18 missiles..... plus an additional 4 per turret.

Idk... I've been building all bases on the same sector, but I don't think I will be from now on...
I would think it would cost 6 missiles per base per sector... you know what I mean?  not 6 missiles to destroy all bases + 4 for a turret.

Issue with separate bases is increased cost and number of turrets required to build. Unprotected bases can be attacked by jets. It takes about 50~80 jets to destroy a full strength base without a turret AND NO JETS ARE DESTROYED IN THE PROCESS.

The con to that, of course, is either risking an air base by buying that many jets to destroy one single unprotected base a day or consuming a lot of your time spreading out jets in many air bases.

Either way, there's a pro and con to it all.

I kind of wish you didn't bring this up to the public, as it's a great idea which I use when I'm building a large base area/beachhead. In terms of economic efficiency it hugely benefits the defender.

...the thing is, ALOT of attacks are either infantry, jeeps, or tanks.......just look at the jet count compared to land units 7600+ vs 550+? Just saying you're more likely to be attacked by a wave of level 9 tanks than jets.  Additionally, you can't conquer more territory with jets as far as I know.  Having all 3 base types in one spot means that if a large wave of enemies is attacking one of your bases, you can spawn a ton of land units around it to push back.  On a different note....why destroy a base if you are able to capture it and use it yourself?  Unless of course they are defending it as stated above.

It costs three missiles or three waves of 9 jets to destroy an undefended land base by itself.

I kinda thought that before I posted it.... but if figured I'd a faster/broader response than if I posted in my alliance boards.

Maybe I'll edit/delete the post later if I can.

Nevermind. I just saw that I can't edit my earlier posts :/
oh well

Wait, as far as I understood, each base (Land, Air, Sea) has its own 1000 strength and armor.  Since each missile is 300 strength it takes 3.5X missiles to take out each.  So if a base has 3 bases, it takes 10.5 missiles to take out.  Sending any less could make it so that some of the bases are destroyed while others are damaged.

....right?

Makes sense... I was just going off of the values table and it shows that a full strength base requires 5.26 missiles to destroy and a full DT takes 3.09... so 10 all together.
But if each bases only takes 4.... then hell yeah!

Yeah.  I'm not sure how the numbers work exactly on this game.  Even though the numbers don't say so, I've been able to take lone bases out with three missiles each.  I think it has something to do with the "Group attack" bonus.  Example: a Lv 9 troop can kill more than 9 Lv 1 troops.

Really?  I thought it took more than Lvl 9 inf to destroy another lvl 9 inf.... so the attacker can destroy 9+ lvl 1 defense infantry in one attack?  I figured the attacker was at the disadvantage.

The attacker is at a disadvantage, but if troops are all spread out in Lv 1's, then they are easier for a Lv 9 to kill.  At least that's what I've observed.

The levels are equal but there are 3 factors that affect the outcome.

#1 Who attacks first first?
We all know the order is random.  All this affects is who's plan goes into motion first. (ie did my tanks storm your base or did your troops attack my tanks to keep them from attacking your base)

#2 Who goes first in the unit to unit engagement (mini-engagement)?
I'm not sure about this one.  As far as I know, engagement between ground units is also random (can someone correct me if I'm wrong?).

When it comes to Air units though, all land units including DT's take a crack at the Air units before and after damage payload.  Hence missles can be weakened and jet numbers get be reduced before delivering their damage.

#3 How much variance is there in the attack strength of each mini-engagement?
Johnny has openly discussed that the is a randomizing factor that affects final attack strength.  Its some small percentage but a factor non the less.  Hence if a line of ten L9 Tanks from Country-A can attacked an equal amount of L9 Tanks from Country-B you would have mixed results: Some of A's tanks may survive and some of B's tanks may survive AND of those survivors, there could have different levels of strength remaining in the unit.

So, I was just thinking...if you had built each base on a single sector and it was attacked by only a few missiles, does each base suffer equal damage, or is it targeted to a single base?  AND regardless, can you "repair" damage to a base?

Missiles do have splash damage of 2 sectors, but it's very weak. You would have to target each base with 4-5 missiles (assuming no turret) to take them all out. You can repair a damaged base if there is a construction truck on that sector.

Let me try that again...if you build all the bases on one sector, how is the damage figured to the bases?

Each base type is 1000 strength, so Land + Air + Navy = 3000.  Since each missile hits at 300 it requires at least 10 to clear it all out from one square (assuming no turret).

So....there is no direct advantage to putting them together other than that you can protect them all with one turret (As Manaco mentioned above).

I'm getting confused. I thought I saw Johnny say that the base's strength is also it's attack strength. If that's true it seems some of those jets WOULD be destroyed in the process.
Is it possible to capture a base? If a base's strength is 1,000 and you attack it with 2 tanks (900 ea) will
A. the base be destroyed and one of the tanks occupy that sector?
B. the base be captured at full strength?
or
C. the base be weakened and captured?

All of this assumes no units or turrets defending.

Strength is just the health of the unit. Bases have no attack, so they will neither shoot down jets nor damage tanks provided there is no turret or unit occupying the same square. If any land unit of any strength moves over any undefended base of any strength, that base will transfer ownership to the owner of the land unit, with no damage being done to the unit or base.

Make sense?

So a base's armor just supplements any unit's and/or turret's armor in the same sector?

I believe the armor only weakens air/sea attacks directly against the base (ie. not a tank attacking the co-located turret), but someone else will have to confirm that.

bases armor doesnt help a tank vs tank battle, base health really only matters when air units are involved, otherwise its pretty much pointless