• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Battle A.I. - Rogue exploit

DeletedUser110195

If the AI of the map would be used everywhere (that is the smart AI, ignoring rougue first) there would be many complains, because almost no one would be able to fight in GE
I absolutely agree, and the AI controlling GE encounters should not be changed, however I see no reason the city defense AI couldn't be the map AI.
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
I absolutely agree, and the AI controlling GE encounters should not be changed, however I see no reason the city defense AI couldn't be the map AI.

Hm, could be, but then u give the defenders a 50-80% more chance to defend the city from plunder like now, and who has nice defense (in my age is that 200+) cannot be defeated. It will bi impossible, because u not know the defender units, and he can even rotate. Will be this ok? :)
 

DeletedUser110195

Hm, could be, but then u give the defenders a 50-80% more chance to defend the city from plunder like now, and who has nice defense (in my age is that 200+) cannot be defeated. It will bi impossible, because u not know the defender units, and he can even rotate. Will be this ok? :)
I don't think the chances will go up that much for the defender, but attackers will have to put a little more thought into it than just roflstomp on through with 7 rogues from a pool that's probably in the hundreds or thousands. I always go in with units that can cover a wide variety of units, and can deal with things that they're not perfectly suited to as well.
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
I don't think the chances will go up that much for the defender, but attackers will have to put a little more thought into it than just roflstomp on through with 7 rogues from a pool that's probably in the hundreds or thousands. I always go in with units that can cover a wide variety of units, and can deal with things that they're not perfectly suited to as well.

Now i can win all players in my hood with 7 rogues + 1 unit, and the lose of rogues or 1 unit not hurt. Its preety easy to win in most cases.

If the AI will change (to not attack rogue first) i will lose more units, so i need more large barrack, population, happiness and i cann delete rogue barracks. For defenders it will be heaven, but for attackers night mare. This is a problem. I understand the defenders, but with that change, the attackers will cannot attack so many players in the hood and they will play less FOE. If that is good thing, i not know.
 

DeletedUser108379

I don't think the chances will go up that much for the defender, but attackers will have to put a little more thought into it than just roflstomp on through with 7 rogues from a pool that's probably in the hundreds or thousands. I always go in with units that can cover a wide variety of units, and can deal with things that they're not perfectly suited to as well.

It is much more than just a little more thought.
Just make an experiment, take an army of 8 units of the current age with you and try to conquer a sector on the campaing map in your age, but without looking at the units in the sector first. And than remember that in most cases the players in the neighbourhood have higher values of defence boost.

And than try to do so for at least 25 fights in a row.

FOE is a play that includes war and should not consist only of "who is the quickest to level the next GB".
 

DeletedUser110195

A dedicated fighter is going to have the three offensive GBs as a priority and can counter a high defense. Just because someone can create a strong defense is not a good reason to leave it irrelevant by making the AI target rogues first.
 

DeletedUser111351

@MasTTerror , @Cardena The fix I want is for city defense. Whether or not the AI is changed elsewhere could certainly be up for debate, but to allow players to stripmine a person through plundering by making city defense intentionally bad ruins the city building aspect.

Also, it was mentioned that right now an attacker can attack and generally escape nearly unscathed. That is exactly my point. This should not be the case.

This game is built with a number of different aspects to playing. Some people want to play a peaceful route while others an attacking route. Even those playing the attacking route have quite a few options of places to attack without directly attacking others cities. When the game is so overbalanced towards an attacker it basically makes it the only way that the game can be played successfully.

Luckily, even with the game being highly slanted toward the plunderers, most people don't have the time or inclination to do so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
@MasTTerror , @Cardena The fix I want is for city defense. Whether or not the AI is changed elsewhere could certainly be up for debate, but to allow players to stripmine a person through plundering by making city defense intentionally bad ruins the city building aspect.

Yes, that is true. But if a player has no building to plunder, and you have a strong defense, you will not be plundered. And if you are a real player then you buy all expanse slots and can do that. Otherwise not...so if you spend the money you win ;)

And the attackers will have a huge problem, where to get their attack points if the City defense will be that hard to play without rogues? The GE and the continent map is limited, then only left the GVG map, but that need a guild resources...and its a problem.

If the players not accept my proposal to only fairly calculating the attack points, then definitely not accept the end of hood attacks and rogues.
 

rjs66

Lieutenant
deal castle, st basils, watchfires , ritual flames , defender boost pack, tavern defender boost, city shield, collect when productions become ready, decent defence army

it requires a lot less city space to massively boost defence percentage than it does to boost attack percentage
there is nothing the attacker can do about a city shield, there is no nuke option

if you plan carefully what to build in your city to achieve what you want to achieve you can massively reduce the attacks

without the threat of being plundered people wouldn't bother with any defence at all

just trying yo make it harder and harder for the fighters to achieve anything without providing some sort of balance in the game will kill it
 

DeletedUser110195

deal castle, st basils, watchfires , ritual flames , defender boost pack, tavern defender boost, city shield, collect when productions become ready, decent defence army

it requires a lot less city space to massively boost defence percentage than it does to boost attack percentage
there is nothing the attacker can do about a city shield, there is no nuke option

if you plan carefully what to build in your city to achieve what you want to achieve you can massively reduce the attacks

without the threat of being plundered people wouldn't bother with any defence at all

just trying yo make it harder and harder for the fighters to achieve anything without providing some sort of balance in the game will kill it
So it's perfectly fine to allow a thief to come and rob you blind because your guards are drooling retards and you can't do anything about that, but try to make your guards a little smarter so you don't get robbed blind is too much of an imposition? Why the hell should I have to suffer while my defenses are absurdly strong and STILL fail, because the AI is completely worthless?! How about instead you plunderers...no you people are not ALL the fighters so stop saying this hurts FIGHTERS, it hurts PLUNDERERS...stop whining about having your guaranteed 7 rogue 1 regular win taken away from you and start putting some thought into your attacking army. If I lose to someone who used 8 regular units, then that's on me.
 

DeletedUser111351

And the attackers will have a huge problem, where to get their attack points if the City defense will be that hard to play without rogues?
If the ONLY way to plunder is to attack with 7 rogues, then that speaks of other problems. That isn't the only way to win a fight. That's just the only way to attack 8 vs. 8 all nearly equal level troops and come out of the fight winning while maybe losing zero or only 1 unit.

Your claim seems to be that you try to win the weekly tower competition. You currently do so by taking advantage of this terrible flaw in the AI. Either you are competing against others also using this flaw, in which case taking it away will lower their scores just as it does yours and you can still win, or they are not using this flaw which proves that it isn't necessary.

Improving city defense AI may lower the winning score in a tower competition, and lower the total plunders performed in a week, but it certainly won't stop them from happening. If anything it increases the need for thinking ahead and strategy. It makes the stronger, smarter player win instead of whomever can find the biggest loophole.
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
So it's perfectly fine to allow a thief to come and rob you blind because your guards are drooling retards and you can't do anything about that, but try to make your guards a little smarter so you don't get robbed blind is too much of an imposition? Why the hell should I have to suffer while my defenses are absurdly strong and STILL fail, because the AI is completely worthless?! How about instead you plunderers...no you people are not ALL the fighters so stop saying this hurts FIGHTERS, it hurts PLUNDERERS...stop whining about having your guaranteed 7 rogue 1 regular win taken away from you and start putting some thought into your attacking army. If I lose to someone who used 8 regular units, then that's on me.

Hehe....you want, that rogue be useless. How will you convince all that players, who has Rogue hideouts? You know that this is impossible, right? Then you can use rogues only in GVG and only if you attack... :)

I have a real strong city defense, but cannot repeal the strongest attackers, its not possible. And what can you do about it....the best thing is to collect the goods always in the same time. 100% works! This is strategy.

Oh, and why you want NO plunder in your city and be fair for defenders, but voted -1 to my Idea to fairly calculate the attack points and not want to be fair for all players? You see...double standards... :)

If the ONLY way to plunder is to attack with 7 rogues, then that speaks of other problems. That isn't the only way to win a fight. That's just the only way to attack 8 vs. 8 all nearly equal level troops and come out of the fight winning while maybe losing zero or only 1 unit.

Your claim seems to be that you try to win the weekly tower competition. You currently do so by taking advantage of this terrible flaw in the AI. Either you are competing against others also using this flaw, in which case taking it away will lower their scores just as it does yours and you can still win, or they are not using this flaw which proves that it isn't necessary.

Improving city defense AI may lower the winning score in a tower competition, and lower the total plunders performed in a week, but it certainly won't stop them from happening. If anything it increases the need for thinking ahead and strategy. It makes the stronger, smarter player win instead of whomever can find the biggest loophole.

Thats the only way to win the best defenses in the hood. You have definitely right, but you forget to one important thing there. This isnt an AI flaw, because the AI in continental map not work like this, but if they put that AI to city defense, THEN will be problem in GVG, because there will be staying the stupid AI, and players who play GVG will be in huge advantage in attack points. And if change in GVG the AI, then will be 100x harder to play GVG and FOE will be finished.
So this is not a solution, find another one.

And the last important thing. If the game will be real hard, then people not want play it. Maybe if you try that in some beta servers that developers can simulate this Idea, you will se that this will be the end of attacking and the game itself.
 

DeletedUser111351

Thats the only way to win the best defenses in the hood. You have definitely right, but you forget to one important thing there. This isnt an AI flaw, because the AI in continental map not work like this, but if they put that AI to city defense, THEN will be problem in GVG, because there will be staying the stupid AI, and players who play GVG will be in huge advantage in attack points. And if change in GVG the AI, then will be 100x harder to play GVG and FOE will be finished.
So this is not a solution, find another one.

And the last important thing. If the game will be real hard, then people not want play it. Maybe if you try that in some beta servers that developers can simulate this Idea, you will se that this will be the end of attacking and the game itself.
You seem to be claiming that any and every person playing this game is using the 7-rogue plunder attack. Only a few people have plundered me this way to date. I'll grant that I'm not anywhere close to the highest level players in this game. I haven't been playing for that long. But at the levels I have reached it is quite clear that many people are NOT using this technique. Stating that changing it will make all players quit the game is an extreme alarmist overstatement.

Also, just because it works differently in two different places within the game does not mean it is not a flaw. Whether city defense was intentionally sabotaged in this way is for the game designers to say. Neither of us know one way or the other. If it is intentional, I say that it was poorly done. There are plenty of reasonable ways the designers can influence who wins in a city attack without needing to resort to [sorry, your city defender forgot to bring bullets today, you lose].

I am not arguing whether or not to keep plundering. Nor whether pay players should have an advantage over non-pay players. But when my team fights a nearly equal team, I do expect to kill quite a few people as I go down fighting. Why not just make a purchasable god-strike unit with infinite range and guaranteed 1-shot kill who also moves first every round, but can only attack and never defend?
 

Kwisatz Haderach

Chief Warrant Officer
That unit is Rogue (premium FOE unit), and all players who have good strategy AND Rogue Hideouts will attack you this way. But you need to purchase or get this barrack like a prize. Took me a while to get the first one. Only the real FOE players has this barracks. Thats the reason, and thats the advantage from other players. And this cannot change in one day.

In another treat one player was written what happened on beta server, whit trying to change AI...the attacking was so hard that no ones like it. This is a problem if you are an attacker, but if you are a trader (easy sim city player...), that was a heaven to you :)

Ok i will not post anymore, not to spam to much... :)
 

DeletedUser111351

That unit is Rogue (premium FOE unit), and all players who have good strategy AND Rogue Hideouts will attack you this way. But you need to purchase or get this barrack like a prize. Took me a while to get the first one. Only the real FOE players has this barracks. Thats the reason, and thats the advantage from other players. And this cannot change in one day.

In another treat one player was written what happened on beta server, whit trying to change AI...the attacking was so hard that no ones like it. This is a problem if you are an attacker, but if you are a trader (easy sim city player...), that was a heaven to you :)

Ok i will not post anymore, not to spam to much... :)
Just so you know, yes I do have Rogue Hideout of my own. I still have no intention of ever attacking other people's cities with this technique.
deal castle, st basils, watchfires , ritual flames , defender boost pack, tavern defender boost, city shield, collect when productions become ready, decent defence army

it requires a lot less city space to massively boost defence percentage than it does to boost attack percentage
there is nothing the attacker can do about a city shield, there is no nuke option

if you plan carefully what to build in your city to achieve what you want to achieve you can massively reduce the attacks

without the threat of being plundered people wouldn't bother with any defence at all

just trying yo make it harder and harder for the fighters to achieve anything without providing some sort of balance in the game will kill it
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't earn enough tavern silver in a day to keep city shield active at all times. And while watchfires and flames do provide a nice boost to defense, increasing a soldier's defense without increasing his attack is of limited value (especially with a poor AI doing the controlling). As for the great buildings themselves, the attack buildings actually take up much less space than their defensive counter-parts, can be obtained earlier in the game, and cost less forge points per level to upgrade. As for the tavern boosts, 10% attack boost is bigger gain towards battle victory than is 10% boost to defense.

Even if I didn't disagree with your claim that it is easier to improve your defensive team's battle strength than it is to increase that of your offensive team, there's a serious problem with any plan to concentrate heavily on defense. There is no active gameplay involved with defense. I can't control my defenders in a battle. I don't have regular production collection from my defensive buildings. There aren't trades to be made to improve my defense. I can't earn goods, hammers, coin through my defense. The more space I devote to improving my defense, the less I have any need of a defense at all, because I have no space left to build buildings that need protection.

In short, you can devote every space in your city toward attack related construction, and through this build gain access and participate in everything the game has to offer. This can not be done by devoting everything to defense. Defense will always remain a secondary player at best.

All that said, my proposal never asked for the removal of plundering. I've been plundered by regular units. It isn't like it can't be done. But with this rogue attack I've been attacked by units 2 technology levels below me and they won with me killing off 0-1 units. Did they have the more powerful boosts from great buildings? Certainly. But even with their after-multiplier and boosts added on, their troops still had lower attack and defense values than my higher tech troops. And I can at best kill 1 of their 8 men? (and no, they did not have 8 units that were my units opposite)
 

DeletedUser110179

Defense will always remain a secondary player at best.
Well said ... Defensive play has negative connotations .

Back in the Middle Ages it may have been the wise man who built castles and city walls to defend and enhance their kingdom but these days it's more synonymous with "stay at home losers who fail to participate in world affairs". Defensive players canote the type of RL person who has high walls around their home and barely waves at the neighbours ... perhaps they even prefer single-player games.
FoE has created an opportunty for players to interact "almost physically" with other players through attack systems ... similar to wrestling (nobody suffers serious harm or injury). Everybody can attack ... there is no need for defense-only play .

Quite frankly, GvG should be available to mobile users .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
(Somewhat off topic.)

Back in the Middle Ages it may have been the wise man who built castles and city walls to defend and enhance their kingdom...
Actually, castles were generally built as places to sally forth from, on attack, rather than intended purely as a defensive measure. The fortification of a castle is necessary so that the handful of retainers who stay behind looking after supplies, family, etc. can do so well enough until the fighting force returns. A major reason why castles were ever captured is because they were being used purely defensively and all the enemy had to do was camp around the outside and wait for hunger and thirst to do its job.

There are some exceptions, particularly with castles at the entrance to ports and the very rare examples (mostly Roman and wooden, so lost to time now) where it was known that the locals were fools who would attack a fortified position held by an invader. In general, though, a castle was built to house troops who would fight away from the castle - offensively - and then be able to return to a safe bed, woman and food.
 
Top