• 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.

Enemy army surrenders and you capture troops

DeletedUser109439

Hi guys and gals. I know I said I wouldn't come back on here with any ideas due to all the mightier that you attitudes that I encountered last time. But I'm not here for that (but I'm sure I'll get it again).
Right my idea. When you fight and you are winning and the enemy army is down to the last few troops it has the option to show a white flag. If it does you have the option to carry on the fight and wipe them out for more points or accept the surrender for less points but the remaining enemy troops are added to your ranks.

Right guys get your -1's out because I know you will
 

DeletedUser107476

-1 and nothing to do with mightier then thou attitude
Defending armies already don't get points on towers when they win, which I personally believe they should but this would stop those troops still attacking and wounding the remaining attacking troops. When I am hit I enjoy seeing my defending army damaging those attacking, even if I don't win.
The only way this would work is if the AI could decide if the attacking army had taken too much damage too and force them to retreat.
 

DeletedUser109439

That's what I meant. It was down to the computer to decide.
 

DeletedUser96901

+1
and if the attacker surrenders all remaining units go to the defender 8-)

and obviously the attacker would only get the units if the defender is in the same age or higher


but do you really want that all fights will become against 2 spearfighters ?
because if the defender has lost his units there won't be any left for the next attacker

and no defensive units = default defense of 2 spearfighters
 

DeletedUser107476

Ok thought about it and definite -1.
As with the messed up hoods you would have FE players taking troops off of IA players for use in GvG and those IA players never getting off the ground and test is right would end up with everyone using 2 spearmen as defence rather than keep losing troops.
 

DeletedUser100065

Stronger armys win fights and get extra units in order to win more fight,. Is the basic idea?

This isn't being all mighty or whatever it's just a terrible idea.

-1
 

DeletedUser

Absolutely -1 to capturing enemy troops. Could be a huge potential abuse to farm units.
Would this apply to ANY battle? PvP, GE, GvG, continent map?
How often would the AI have the option to do this? What percentage chance would there be?
Too many unthought out perimeters here to start with.
 

DeletedUser108047

-1 on the idea for the reasons expressed above particularly @lady-lexis

However - the core idea of being able to obtain some of your enemies troops warrants further thought. In real life soldiers go AWOL or change allegiance. In history troops often swapped sides (particularly mercenaries) or were press-ganged. Maybe making barracks plunderable or sabotaging a barracks by making a troop be unreliable for 24 hours would be worthy of discussion.

Regarding @markp27 point that succesful defenders should get points.... would such a system be open to abuse? You already don't lose the troops even if you are defeated... isn't that enough 'reward'?
 

DeletedUser109439

Yet again you make a suggestion and instead of constructive criticism you get abuse (and off a SIGM too). Instead of saying I don't think this idea is very good or that it won't work..to come out with "It's a terrible idea" I think just goes to show that the mightier than thou that I spoke about is confirmed.
 

DeletedUser

Sir Pud of Shields said:
Yet again you make a suggestion and instead of constructive criticism you get abuse (and off a SIGM too). Instead of saying I don't think this idea is very good or that it won't work..to come out with "It's a terrible idea" I think just goes to show that the mightier than thou that I spoke about is confirmed.
Click to expand...
You seem to have deliberately ignored the constructive criticism and questions about your idea and focused on one particular opinion.
"Terrible idea" is not abuse, it is an opinion, which Mega is entitled to. "I don't think this idea is very good" is not constructive criticism either. I don't think you know what you want.
 

DeletedUser107476

Dane thorson said:
Regarding @markp27 point that succesful defenders should get points.... would such a system be open to abuse? You already don't lose the troops even if you are defeated... isn't that enough 'reward'?
Click to expand...

You mean more abuse than the current system surely?

Yes there is the possibility that a current tactic could be altered so that defences could be tailored to win. Though this is already abused by several players I know of who have guild members and friends put in easy but high scoring armies just before they attack when in same hood.

There is also the current abuse of take and release,which inno tried getting rid of by bringing back you have to use troops to place a siege.

There is also the gang of plunderers tactics where one hits lets others know the defence and they have easy ride. GvP (gang vs player) is now quite common.

All help the attacker at moment but none the defender.
 

DeletedUser109385

Saying it's a terrible idea is not really polite or a respectful way to say what you think about the idea,it just shows a little bit of ignorance. People should simply vote an idea and give a reasonable opinion or reason of why you don't like the idea not just say the idea is "terrible". I really like this idea don't get me wrong but for all the reasons above I am not sure if I can support this idea although I could suggest an improvement, if the enemy decides to surrender the remaining units of the surrendering army can join the winning army but you will have to pay a HEAVY price for it and by heavy I mean a really heavy price, if my improvement is taken into consideration then I will support the idea:)
lady-lexis said:
"Terrible idea" is not abuse, it is an opinion
Click to expand...
An ignorant opinion unless if there is a reason that makes sense to back it up
 

DeletedUser653

lady-lexis said:
Absolutely -1 to capturing enemy troops. Could be a huge potential abuse to farm units.
Would this apply to ANY battle? PvP, GE, GvG, continent map?
How often would the AI have the option to do this? What percentage chance would there be?
Too many unthought out perimeters here to start with.
Click to expand...

-1 and agree, too many unthought out perimeters and so a bad suggestion
 

DeletedUser

Soldatos said:
An ignorant opinion unless if there is a reason that makes sense to back it up
Click to expand...
Mega gave his reasoning for saying it was a terrible idea. Above where he said it was a terrible idea.
The OP decided to focus on this one piece of negative feedback instead of reviewing all the constructive criticism or acknowledging suggestions made. All this says is that they are not actually open to criticism and throw their toys out of the pram when they do not receive positive feedback.
Let me remind you that no one is actually required to give a reason for their vote; their reasons are their own and their opinions as valid as yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top