Defensive Army AI

[potatoskunk]

...
'Traz is also much less of an option for early game players, especially in the IA - LMA eras where it just eats up far too much space in general.
Again, *I* would rather use that space for more atk/def% for my attacking army, and/or take that same space to plonk down a better military AW like TA or CdM, etc... What good is having a 'Traz if you can only manage say 15-20 attrition due to limited space for atk% buffs vs. using that same space to push your attack bonuses high enough to at least double that? (...or push even further?!)

I disagree.

For me, in EMA, Traz is a massive space-saver. It let me get rid of all my barracks buildings, keeping only a single rogue hideout, plus temporarily placing one of whatever unit I'm short on (currently nothing). That saved me a lot of population, which let me delete all my houses. The net effect was gaining space, despite the massive footprint of the Traz.

The constant supply of rogues also lets me use them as cannon fodder, fighting with 7 rogues and one other unit in almost every battle. In EMA, where melee is still an important part of the game and the rogue melee attack can one-shot many units, this is highly effective. This plus my attack % (about 170) lets me push GbG attrition to 30-35, although I do have to avoid certain defensive armies and/or manual battle at the higher attrition levels. Without the Traz and it's constant supply of rogues, I'd struggle to push GbG attrition past 25-30 and casualties would be higher.

 

[Groovy Prof]

In the words of an old English teacher of mine...
"What a miasmic pall of effuse!"
I was not annihilated because I failed to put up a defensive army, I was not annihilated because my defence % is low...or even because of lower era troops.
I was annihilated because of the way the AI chose to play it. I returned the favour and annihilated the person who attacked me.
Please read the premise properly. Don't make assumptions.
The 'poor' AI as a valuable aspect of the game...what complete and utter nonsense...unless of course that's the only level you can cope with.
" simply raising the level of your own Game " that's the point of this thread/ conversation....apologies if you missed it.
' became unnecessarily irked ' ....you must be all kinds of fun to be around!

p.s. Nice bike though...

Sorry to venture "Off-Topic" earlier, I became unnecessarily irked.
GP, perhaps you might care to consider the "poor" AI as a stimulus to ensure a valuable aspect to our Game is not neglected and ignored. You complain of being annihilated, yet look beyond yourself for redress instead of simply raising the level of your own Game. You had your naughty botty spanked because you left your defensive pants down!
Optimise and succeed, specialize and fail. Try to get the very best from yourself and your City at all times and overlook nothing whatsoever.

 

[Groovy Prof]

The phrase to became unnecessarily irked is best used as an understatement.
As in: "I became unnecessarily irked when the cloth eared bint, driving a station wagon, pulled out across me intent on doing a U turn, causing me to lay the bike down and flatten myself against the side of the car....resulting in a fractured spine."
(Which incidentally has happened to me in the past...)
By using 'unnecessarily' suggests you were thwarted from progressing in your normal day to day manner. By definition something that is 'unnecessarily' is not normal and could have been avoided. The fact that you took time to write about it suggests otherwise. I'd cut out the unnecessarily bit and just say it irked me.
As in: "The way he picked his nose and wiped the residue on my nice clean wall, irked me ...your honour!"

 

[Groovy Prof]

This works both ways you know... It's stupidly easy to defend against plunderers in this game:
1. COLLECT. ON. TIME.
2. Build only non-plunderable buildings. (ie: most event buildings that require a polivate to produce their goods + fps)
3. Set a decent defensive army. (ie: *always* use current age troops at the very least, and don't just throw down 7-8x the same troops type)

The first two things alone basically remove the ability for other players to plunder.
Adding in at least a competent defensive army will also deter all but the very top 1% of potential plunderers, since no one in their right mind is going to sacrifice Rogues for at best, maybe 5-10 goods.

This game already *IS* dead easy to avoid the plundering aspect. Why must this always become so one-sided where only the filthy, evil, puppy-stomping, baby-eating plunderers must change their game play?

We're not the ones who need to "up our game".

Tell this to a player who quit because he has better use of his time, tell it to the devs who are losing income because players quit.
All well and good if you've been playing for awhile and have all the GB's levelled to the max, to dissuade this kind of behaviour. But to new players, and inexperienced players it can be the difference between continuing to play and quitting.
But to be honest cyber bullying is a whole different conversation and kettle of fish.

 

[Groovy Prof]

The only reason to attack & plunder the same person everyday is if they demand/want it to happen:

1) A profile stating unspeakable horrors for plundering them is an invite to be plundered.
2) a profile stating that they have made pacts with all hood members to plunder "The Plunderer" is an invite to be plundered.
3) Nastygrams from a player for attacking and/or plundering are a Forever-Plunder Invite.
4) there are more reasons to plunder a hoodie.

Now your just asking to be plundered if you do any of these lol
No sympathy for those type of players, but lets face it. A player that does this, does not completely grasp the situation that they put themselves in.

 

[Powe]

So having a pathetic AI that cant defend it's self v a weak cup of coffee is not in the game's interest. In fact you just lost money!

Yes. It will be devastating to their business to have lost one player who was bad at the game.

 

[Powe]

The 'poor' AI as a valuable aspect of the game...what complete and utter nonsense

What do you lose from having your defensive army defeated unless you are plundered, which is already tough enough?

 

[Groovy Prof]

WOW! Lateral thinking at it's best.

Yes. It will be devastating to their business to have lost one player who was bad at the game.

Ever thought beyond the singular....or has this never occurred before and just a 1 time incident?
Since it has happened in my guild, I wonder how many others from the hundreds of guilds have had similar....or maybe they don't have the politeness of the player who informed us, and just quit....or how about the players who are not in guilds?
Who said he was bad? I certainly didn't!
Not their fault they had only been playing for a few months....and if they do not enjoy the constant attentions of certain players, who can blame them for quitting?

 

[klods hans]

If you play a game, you have to acknowledge the rules and the requirements of the game.
If you play a board game with a few friends, you can make up your own rules. Take away the go-to-prison card from Monopoly or place the game pieces in Backgammon differently than they are supposed to, for instance.
But this is an online multi-player game with thousands of players, who all play by the same set of rules and requirements.
Plundering, as it's been said so many times, is a part of the game. It's the players' challenge to figure out what to do about it.
If some players don't like the challenges or the rules or the requirements of the game, maybe they're better off, if they quit and find a more satisfying game to play.

 

[Powe]

WOW! Lateral thinking at it's best.

Ever thought beyond the singular....or has this never occurred before and just a 1 time incident?
Since it has happened in my guild, I wonder how many others from the hundreds of guilds have had similar....or maybe they don't have the politeness of the player who informed us, and just quit....or how about the players who are not in guilds?
Who said he was bad? I certainly didn't!
Not their fault they had only been playing for a few months....and if they do not enjoy the constant attentions of certain players, who can blame them for quitting?

If anybody is so terrible at the game that a few plunders are stopping their city advancement, then they are bad at the game.

 

[DESYPETE]

Now I believe you have a problem with the size of a person's nose? Sauce for Goose and Gander alike little Troll.

as a long nose owner i find this remark offensive : )

 

[DESYPETE]

If you play a game, you have to acknowledge the rules and the requirements of the game.
If you play a board game with a few friends, you can make up your own rules. Take away the go-to-prison card from Monopoly or place the game pieces in Backgammon differently than they are supposed to, for instance.
But this is an online multi-player game with thousands of players, who all play by the same set of rules and requirements.
Plundering, as it's been said so many times, is a part of the game. It's the players' challenge to figure out what to do about it.
If some players don't like the challenges or the rules or the requirements of the game, maybe they're better off, if they quit and find a more satisfying game to play.

yes they tend to play gbg like a home made version of monopoly, some even do so in gvg, and the 1.9 threads were a home made invention where everyone wants one
funny even guilds make up there own rules, from fair trades, onwards, it seems players do make up or find ways to invent there own rules in this game

 

[potatoskunk]

Of course some guilds like to invent their own rules. "Fair" trades are a classic example - that arbitrary 2:1 ratio does not remotely reflect supply and demand.

But there are a lot of rules that are built into the game.

 

[Groovy Prof]

Of course some guilds like to invent their own rules. "Fair" trades are a classic example - that arbitrary 2:1 ratio does not remotely reflect supply and demand.

But there are a lot of rules that are built into the game.

Again another fine point and example of how the mechanics and rules of the game make no sense!

 

[Groovy Prof]

E=M(cxxc) where E= example (an example is person that demonstrates a knight's code of conduct thereby showing others what they are made of, whom even in the face of adversity doeth take his losses along with his wins and when is knocked down gets back up again) M = man

....and the (CxC) = ?

 

[Groovy Prof]

Contrary to some beliefs I am not whinging about being attacked or about being plundered.
I am stating that not being given a fair or equal right to a decent defensive AI that is in use already in the game, but one that couldn't fight it's way out of a paper bag, is ridiculous.
I'm also saying that giving the attacker all the advantages, including terrain, movement and range advantages, whilst giving defender terrain, movement and range penalties and the sub standard AI is also ridiculous.
So you think easy battles, easier opponents, pathetic defence whilst making use of attacking % bonuses, building attacking % bonuses, GB's attacking % bonuses and opponents that are lower era's to yourselves is not enough? Please let's have some common sense here.

 

[Groovy Prof]

To say it is the same for everyone is not a decent response.
If something is wrong it doesn't matter that it is wrong for everyone, it should be put right.
This is the basis for peoples rights. Just because it is the same for different ages or different power sizes is not an answer.
To stack it so heavily in favour of the attacker is sad.
What your saying is it is fine for a Tyson Fury or an Anthony Joshua to beat up a 12 year old kid, because it's the same rules that apply to both....of course it's not. There would be public outrage if they did. Yet some of you can't see the comparison in the game.
It is the same as having the defender blindfolded and their hands tied behind their back....whilst having to hop on one leg!

 

[Knight of ICE]

I'm also saying that giving the attacker all the advantages, including terrain, movement and range advantages, whilst giving defender terrain, movement and range penalties

Where does the defender get those penalties?

 

[rjs66]

everybody has access to exactly the same attack / defence boosts, everybody starts from exactly the same position when starting a world.
what you do from then on determines every attack / defence / plunder,
the risk of being plundered makes people actually log on and collect stuff, ie play the game.
claiming that the playing field is unfair is rubbish, your actions determine how well you can defend and avoid being plundered, as you all started with exactly the same opportunities, the only difference is how you played.

changing the game because you don't like bits of it just punishes those who have put the effort in to get somewhere

but they have announced that the galata tower will soon be released, so you might want to invest in that.

 

[Groovy Prof]

Where does the defender get those penalties?

Ok... if you are progressive era and you attack a player from industrial era with progressive era troops, the defender is seriously penalised.
A. The terrain is changed to progressive era terrain,
B. the defenders industrial troops have their movement and range decreased,
C. then you have the AI sending the defenders troops into no mans land to be shot and killed....