Yeah, I'm having that second bug with the stats, which is weird.
You are aware that AT units are terrible to attack with, right? But did they actually do any damage at all before being destroyed, because it may have done damage, but a combination of using the unit incorrectly combined with bad luck would easily mean that your unit is wiped out without doing anything useful

Catalin,

- did you already find out how to check if you did any damage or really none at all? Do you know where to look and what to look for, to check if you did any damage?
- do you know an attacking AT does about half the damage a defending AT does?
- are you aware of moral influences in combat?

If these are all things you know about, then there still is the X-factor = luck or bad luck, rain or shunshine on the day of battle...

And lastly, but definitely not to be disregarded: statistics do not apply well on small numbers. A 1:1 fight can go either way. David beat Goliath.

So, to base a bug report on a single fight of 1 AT vs 1 AT is ... a waste of time. It only shows how the risk is you take a.k.a. how badly you execute your attacks (sorry to say so, but that is all I can derive from it).
Would it have been 10 AT vs 10 AT, yes, it would have been worth a look into, but now? Definitely not. Nothing special happened. 1 infantery lvl1 can beat 1 LT lvl2. Shit happens...

[edit1: btw, if AT vs AT is classified as an infantry battle, the level of the AT makes no difference at all...check it yourself, because I think that is the case, but I couldn't be bothered less than to make your homework => concluding: FFS!!! Learn the game before complaining!]

Edit2: b4 you accuse me of being rude => FFS = For Frida's Sake or Fast ForwardS ... take your pick ]

Catalin92 wrote:
Can you explain to me why the richest player is such important information?

Because the richest player is your prime target (a quick capital grab gets you the most money)
The strongest player is the one you have to be most wary of, he's the one with the greatest potential to damage you.

Level 1 and level 3 AT have the same combat stats vs soft/infantry armour class (of which ATs are a member) higher level ATs have more combat effectiveness against tanks (about 50% more effective).
So in a fight between the two, the loser is always the attacker.

Does that help clarify things?

Not really .... 90% chance he is somewhere where you are not even close to. So, the money itself is the least important info.

However, it is useful info as the opposite of army and economic strength: it serves perfectly for finding out the dumbest, laziest and most clueless players on the map.

Besides, Kalantigos, I was asking Catalin why he thought it the most important info...

So, why on earth are you asking why there are upgrade possibilities for AT?
Are you not understanding anything of what I said?
1. 1 vs 1 is no reference
2. In an AT vs AT, it is classified as Infantry battle. Then the upgrade doesnt do a thing... HOWEVER:
The upgrades are OF COURSE improving your capabilities in battle vs TANKS.

BTW, in case you missed that too: AT stands for Anti-Tank-gun... as in good against TANKS.
It does not stand for: Anti-Anti-Tank-gun-gun; that would be an AATGG, and would be specifically good against AT, but doesnt exist in the game ....yet .... Maybe you should ask the devs to add th AATGG unit to the game....?

Everyone needs to first find out with which units one can play best with which country. This depends on available time (reactivity), available resources (no use building tanks if you are short on steel), personal preferences etc.

To be able to find this out, a player must make an effort to understand the game: resource management, moral management, unit capabilities AND handicaps etc.

Finding the (lots of) stuff out, which makes this game so thrilling, takes TIME.
"I want it here and I want it NOW!" cannot and will not happen in this game. Then go to a Chinese money-pit-game where only the biggest wallet can win.

So... Why am I so unpleasant in my reactions to many players? Well, I see a lot of complaining because of a lack of knowledge, laziness, "I want here and I want it NOW!"-mentality etc., combined with NO EFFORT to find out the right stuff.

Any player that is open to new or other peoples' ideas and is willing to learn or at least accept the facts, can count on my support and positive feed-back.

Silly complaints? Request to have the overly-busy devs work over a non-issue? And all that based on laziness or unwillingness to learn? -> Count on my harsh replies then.

@Kalantigos

Thanks for the confirmation of the soft-armor class class mechanics. I assumed so, but it is good to know for sure.

Besides, that, I am giving Catalin a hard time with also questions to be answered by him. This in the vague hope he may really delve into a subject and learn stuff and some day become a worthy opponent (or ally).

@ Catalin: I want YOUR answers; not Kalantigos' answers. I know he knows about 99% of the worth to know stuff.

Correct
Until those others learn to do the right things too. Everyday there are more.