Battle surrender

[DeletedUser103494]

There may be a Thread SOMEWHERE in here but the Search Function certainly didn't find it:

It seems to me that there needs to be SOME penalty for Surrendering. It's just dumb that you go to attack in GvG, PvP or on the Map and if you don't like what you see in front of you or if you commence a battle and realise that you're probably going to lose you can Surrender and NOTHING happens. It also allows new people in your Neighborhood to Scout you without any penalty.

Personally, I believe there should be some penalty for Surrendering. I would suggest loss of one point off all the Troops sent into battle or, in the case of an already commenced battle where you've taken some damage already, a further one point should be deducted off your army members.

It's only a small imposte but it would slow down battle trolls a little and make people think twice before committing to new enemies.

Thoughts? Inno?

 

[DeletedUser100562]

I agree that there should be *some* downside to attacking and retreating.

For PvP, I think it should be something like this:
1) if the attacker retreats without any casualties, situation stays as it is now (essentially a scouting mission -- no harm, no foul)
2) if the attacker retreats after receiving casualties while attacking a city, either he should be penalized through the loss of PvP points OR the defender should be rewarded with PvP points for the casualties inflicted.
3) if the attacker is wiped out while attacking a city, he should be penalized through the loss of PvP points AND the defender should be rewarded with PvP points for the casualties inflicted.

If the attacker retreats or is wiped out while attacking a sector on the Map, he should be penalized by the loss of PvP points for his casualties. Perhaps there should be a further penalty for being wiped out (this would be a humiliating, reputation-destroying defeat for the general-in-charge).

I do not participate in GvG and so cannot comment on what might be appropriate there.

 

[DeletedUser2989]

I dare say there was a thread on this but most of the time when this issue comes up it's only in reference to PvP. It's a tricky topic because while it's not a great penalty the fact that you are locked out from attacking the same player for 24hrs is still one. Everyone has 24 hours to log in after a "scouting" attempt and can change up their defense. Sure if you have limited troops you can't change it up much but it's a "defense against scouting". It'd be cool if a retreat mid battle meant that the AI had to physically run your troops off your edge of the map (or into a "withdrawal zone") and you could still suffer damage if the enemy units can reach and hit your fleeing units, that wouldn't really impact the whole "scouting" thing though.

In reference to the continent map, we can see the defenders already so any surrendering there is because we stuffed up something and need to try again. If someone is surrendering at the start of the match they either started with the wrong troops by accident or don't like where their "paratrooper units" landed (not like it matters they often die everywhere...). So on the continent map this function would be fine as it is, no real abuse happening.

It's use in GvG is different again, with more than 1 defending army an attacker could prepare for 1 set up (assuming all the defending armies are not the same composition) and randomly be given another to fight. The penalty for surrendering over and over till you get the 1 you prepared for is the loss of time, this can make all the difference in a siege. Always inflicting damage on these armies each time they surrender would make attacking in GvG a lot harder, not sure that it'd be a good change for GvG.

All that being said if they did change the surrender feature it'd probably have to be across the board and I just can't see a change that would be positive in all 3 areas that would be affected.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

Surrendering without troop loss still imposes a negative on the attacker.

The penalty for surrendering in PvP is that you cannot return for 24hrs and have lost a vital opportunity to gain points for the tower. This is significant when you have a competitive tower.

Surrendering in GvG costs you time which is precious and the longer you take the greater the chance of being spotted and siege broken.

If you surrender and have lost troops then the above still stands plus you have the additional troop losses to boot.

As for further penalties should an attacker lose I think the loss of troops is already enough and no further penalty is required.

Had this been in ideas section it would have received a -1 from me.

 

[DeletedUser106459]

I quite like the idea in p v p that if you surrender then the opposition has the option to plunder you. Or maybe you lose a random army member?

I don't play GvG anyway so couldn't comment on that.

 

[DeletedUser100562]

...

All that being said if they did change the surrender feature it'd probably have to be across the board and I just can't see a change that would be positive in all 3 areas that would be affected.

There is no reason that it would have to apply to all areas. All it takes is a test-and-branch in the code to apply the change to PvP and not to GvG. The developers could do that easily.

...
As for further penalties should an attacker lose I think the loss of troops is already enough and no further penalty is required.
...

If you don't like the idea of penalizing an attacker more because you think he is penalized enough, why not reward the defender for causing the retreat or wiping the attacker out? Rewarding the defender with PvP points would encourage players to keep stronger defenses.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

If you don't like the idea of penalizing an attacker more because you think he is penalized enough, why not reward the defender for causing the retreat or wiping the attacker out? Rewarding the defender with PvP points would encourage players to keep stronger defenses.

I think that has been suggested in the past and may have been rejected as it is open to abuse (not 100% certain just have a faint recollection of reading it but might be confusing it with something else). I have an open mind regarding whether the defender should receive points for every pip of damage their defence causes if anyone wishes to put forward arguments for and against it. At the moment the defenders reward is that they can sleep easy for 24hrs knowing the failed attacker cannot harm them and their defence did their job.

If you play the game long enough you will have ample opportunity to improve your chances of deterring attackers but the surest way of protecting yourself from being plundered is to collect on time and get your houses motivated.

 

[DeletedUser100562]

If you play the game long enough you will have ample opportunity to improve your chances of deterring attackers but the surest way of protecting yourself from being plundered is to collect on time and get your houses motivated.

I don't see the above discussion as having much of anything to do with protecting yourself from being plundered. I can see how it could be abused by collusion between players -- almost everything can be if they try hard enough. As to points for every point of damage, that is simply a matter of play-balance. Giving the defender points for a successful defense can be anything at all that makes sense (give medals if it is decided not to affect the PvP tower system) It just seems wrong to reward attacking and not defending.

I would think that the surest way to protect yourself from being plundered would be to have such a strong defense (higher aged than the attacker if possible, with higher bonuses) that you can defeat the attacker. Almost no one in the game can expect to consistently do that, given the way the game works. I am ranked about #400 in one of my worlds, #3 in my neighborhood, and I still get attacked everyday by a player I am too weak to deter. He usually plunders something (he seems to keep revisiting throughout the day several times), but mostly supplies or coins.

 

[mrbeef]

Surrendering is for wimps.....

 

[DeletedUser100562]

Surrendering is for wimps.....

Ah, yes ... one of my fondest battle memories is of defending against an attack on my city back in the Early Middle Ages. The forces were closely matched and in the end we each had only a single Armored Infantry unit, each hacking away at the other turn after turn. Finally we each had a single life-point left -- but it was his turn to strike and my man went down ...
[:^)

 

[DeletedUser103494]

Having read all the posts it's clear this has been a somewhat thorny issue in the past for some. Clearly, people think loss of time is some important issue. Personally, I haven't found that. How long does it take to Surrender and go again? 15 seconds? Some imposte.

Scouting is a legitimate activity. However, the technique should be made more difficult. For example, a Guild Member might go to scout someone in their Neighborhood and advise others in their Guild in that Neighborhood of the situation. That makes sense but it shouldn't hapen without consequence.

Mikeous has some interesting outcomes in his post but these are probably on the harsh side. My purpose was to slow down guys that just race through Neighborhoods and GvG that don't like what's in front of them. That's why I suggested a one point deduction. This means that they need to wait 20 minutes or so to come up to full strength again and that seems pretty reasonable to me. In many war games retreat results in a free extra move by the defenders with the attacker usually taking some sort of damage (but not always). This is also a possibility.

TR has some good points and, certainly, not gaining anything personally for having a strong defense other than protection when someone comes calling should be looked at. I liked the idea of PvP Points or Medals, even small amounts for having players back out. It still doesn't stop the GvG mill however unless there is some reasonable imposte. 15 seconds ain't it.

 

[DeletedUser99588]

Having read all the posts it's clear this has been a somewhat thorny issue in the past for some. Clearly, people think loss of time is some important issue. Personally, I haven't found that. How long does it take to Surrender and go again? 15 seconds? Some imposte.

Not sure what you mean by loss of time. Do you mean the actual time it takes to surrender or that you cannot return to your neighbours city for 24hrs? The real loss is that you cannot return for 24hrs and have lost those points for the day which can be significant in a competitive tower.

Scouting is a legitimate activity. However, the technique should be made more difficult. For example, a Guild Member might go to scout someone in their Neighborhood and advise others in their Guild in that Neighborhood of the situation. That makes sense but it shouldn't hapen without consequence.

Why should there be a consequence? If the defending player is Smart he will change his defence before the next attack if he knows a guild is targeting them. You seem to want punish players for playing the game.

Mikeous has some interesting outcomes in his post but these are probably on the harsh side. My purpose was to slow down guys that just race through Neighborhoods and GvG that don't like what's in front of them. That's why I suggested a one point deduction. This means that they need to wait 20 minutes or so to come up to full strength again and that seems pretty reasonable to me. In many war games retreat results in a free extra move by the defenders with the attacker usually taking some sort of damage (but not always). This is also a possibility.

This leads me to believe you are fairly new to the game. Most seasoned players have an abundance of unattached troops and will just swap them for fresh ones. Again I'm not understanding why you want to punish players for embracing PvP. It is a fundamental part of the game. I think the name of the 'surrender' button is a little misleading as you do not surrender you retreat. If you surrendered then the troops would be at the mercy of the defending army. What actually happens is your army retreats with whatever damage they have incurred.

TR has some good points and, certainly, not gaining anything personally for having a strong defense other than protection when someone comes calling should be looked at. I liked the idea of PvP Points or Medals, even small amounts for having players back out. It still doesn't stop the GvG mill however unless there is some reasonable imposte. 15 seconds ain't it.

This would be open to abuse and although in principle I'm not against the defender receiving something for a successful defence I've yet to see an idea proposed that wouldn't be open to abuse.

 

[DeletedUser100832]

how about this. If you surrender, the opponent gets two free turns (so two moves for each unit), and your units' endstate after that is what you stay with?

 

[Rosletyne]

How about this. If you surrender, the opponent gets two free turns (so two moves for each unit), and your units' endstate after that is what you stay with?

Hell no. You might as well remove the surrender option completely, because this change would turn it into a suicide option.

I have yet to see a single reason why there should be consequences for retreating. The very purpose of retreating is that you preserve your forces when circumstances are against you. Add extra penalties, and it is not retreating any more. I also don't think that punishing players for retreating makes sense from a game balance point of view either. Fighting is already enough difficult and time consuming, and making it even harder would tip the balance too much in the favor of the defender.

I could get behind the idea that the defender gets something for successful defense. Battle points would be the most obvious choice. But I am against the idea that the attacker should be punished for playing the game.