Topic: give some bonus to the defender?
king_of_nowhere
Topic Opener
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668  One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 16:36
In order to reach a stable equilibrium, it must be easier to defend than to attack. otherwise, as soon as contact is made, the two players are going to rush each other and the game ends immediately, and I think most people don't want that kind of game. And yet the defender has very little benefits in this game. the situation is made worst by the new trunk, where the attacker can handpick the attacking soldiers - meaning he can choose to let woounded soldiers stay to heal, while the defender won't be able to do that. with that change, I think attacker has full advantage, and there simply is no sound strategic reason for at least one player to not attack as soon as possible. So I think, to promote stability we should give some help to the defender. Not really sure about what, though. One possible way is to give a slight power bonus to soldiers ffighting in their borders. I don't really like that much, though. I propose letting soldiers heal inside their borders even when outside military buildings. THe major problem for defender is that most soldiers will rush out to face an attack, and will not heal while they are there. So by attacking with one soldier at a time it is possible to stop a player from healing most of its soldiers. If those soldiers could heal at a slow rate even while outside a military building, that would help compensate this disadvantage. Another problem related to defence is that you have no control over the soldiers that come out. Sometimes the rookies go out, leaving your hero inside to gather dust. Sometimes your heroes come out leaving the rookie behind, and you lose a castle to the lone enemy soldier that manage to walk to it. To fix that, we could give the player the chance to select which soldier will always stay inside until the enemy knocks at the door. it could be selected for any military building. regardless of what you think of those proposals, I think we need to find some small advantage to give the defender so that the game will revolve in an economical challlenge instead of a rush. Edited: 2019-07-06, 16:37
Top
Quote
|
|
the-x
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 967 One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 18:13
Very good Idea
Top
Quote
|
kaputtnik
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 2519 OS: Archlinux Version: current master One Elder of Players Location: Germany |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 18:53
From my point of view it is very strange that a fully promoted soldier will win a fight against an none promoted soldier with a few hits.
Absolutely!
Top
Quote
|
|
king_of_nowhere
Topic Opener
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 19:39
I have refined my idea. I was considering how clunky it is that military buildings only heal one soldier at a time, but i would usggest all soldiers are healed simultaneously outside of them. So I got the idea: make it that military buildings can heal soldiers outside of them withing a certain radius and within frinedly borders (possibly including soldiers inside a different building), provided the building is garrisoned. the same soldier can't be healed by more than one building at the same time. soldiers actively fighting are exempted (would be too strong otherwise). this would also justiy building a lot of military stuff on your border even when you don't have soldiers to fully man them.
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 424  Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 21:09
Fully agree.
I think that the building under attack should not send out any soldiers. In addition, the algorithm that picks the soldier that chooses the next defender could be more intelligent, and could have a knowledge of the attacking soldier, and tune the decision based on that.
I find that a straightforward way to reach the goal.
Top
Quote
|
|
king_of_nowhere
Topic Opener
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1668 One Elder of Players |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 22:32
that's a nice idea. nearby buildings would still send out soldiers to intercept, but the building directly attacked would keep everything in to avoid getting outflanked. on the down side, imagine attacking a fortress with 12 soldiers inside and having to kill them all one by one...
Top
Quote
|
|
hessenfarmer
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 2724 One Elder of Players Location: Bavaria |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 22:55
+1 for giving the defender a bonus.
Top
Quote
|
|
einstein13
Joined: 2013-07-29, 00:01
Posts: 1116 One Elder of Players Location: Poland |
Posted at: 2019-07-06, 23:24
How can you differ attacker and defender? In equal situation (f.e. all players have lvl2 soldiers only), the players will try to fight each other equally. So you're defender and attacker at once. einstein13
Top
Quote
|
|
hessenfarmer
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 2724 One Elder of Players Location: Bavaria |
Posted at: 2019-07-07, 00:23
I can't but defenders have shorter way home to their buildings and this should make for a slight advantage
Top
Quote
|
|
teppo
Joined: 2012-01-30, 09:42
Posts: 424 Tribe Member |
Posted at: 2019-07-07, 08:51
.. thinking .. Nowadays, I only build a castle if I need its range. When preparing to fight, I prefer many small to medium military buildings next to each other, as those are more difficult to conquer (logic: Castle sends out most soliers, remaining rookie gets killed --> terrible loss. Same happens with small tower -> the tower burns down (because of adjancent military buildings) and no real harm is done) in addition to being cheaper and faster to build. The only drawback is that less soldiers are available for attack. Well defended castle should be difficult to conquer. Would it become too difficult? If yes, then there could be a middle ground between "send most to all to field" and "send none if under attack"? Okay, I was unable to think. Where is the down side? === Another solution would be that soldier that is stationed in a military site prevents takeover, even if outside building. I do not like that, though.
Top
Quote
|