Player gains points of power and GE gets harder + GB's

[DeletedUser110745]

I started off getting to iron age and doing GE, the battles went pretty well, my player power points were probably 3000. By the time I had unlocked Ballista and completed iron age research I found the GE was much easier for having variety of units to use.

My starting strategy each week was to use bronze age troops for the first few battles - points gained using BA troops were enough to dominate the PvP tower. Completing all 48 battles to last in GE3 meant winning IA PvP tower. I was maybe 6k power at this point or maybe less.

I long sought GB especially Zeus with the thinking attack boost would be a good thing and should make GE easier - right.....

I built LoA and Zeus last week. I noticed last week that parts of the GE seemed harder. I said to myself - this bonus is tiny - maybe once building is levelled more it will even out with eventually my units having an edge? - Wrong! This week I now have level3 Loa, more land and more buildings and a Zeus that went from 9% bonus @ start of GE to 12% today.

So this week I note a whole new ball game! The very second fight of GE was composed of entirely different units to previous weeks. Units that could no longer be fought with BA slingers. The more I now fight into GE3 the harder it is getting - infact if I keep playing the game it would seem that eventually GE will only be viable by negotiation.

A couple of interesting observations: I don't expect miracles - a 600% boost on nothing is still nothing. An archer with 10att 4def with 3% boost = 0, at 6% I was surprised to see the archer gain +1. Now at 12% my archer is 11att 4def. But what is really interesting about this is the scale of difficulty the AI is progressing with - it actually feel like the more effort I put into getting stronger for every 0.0001% I gain the AI ups the difficulty by making harder unit quantities and ups the strength of its AI units seemingly. The displayed AI unit stats show no bonus - it just feels like the Def stat has been ramped a small percentage than the attack boost I gained.

I know my recent findings of increased difficulty are not just down to 'poor choices of attacking army' based on the fact last week I was winning these battles.

Another observation - just by playing the game I am gaining massive amounts of power. Where i started at 3-6000 I now have 23000+!!! This power feels crazy because: I have not gained any actual strength - I am still iron age, I have gained no research. I have gained a very tiny attack bonus (lol). Most of this power comes from just being alive - having buildings - having land - this power adds 0 strength. Building great buildings loa and Zeus pretty low level has increased my power massively. At least 50% of my power point gain seems to come from nothing but having won GE fights previously. I win the fight with 120% happiness bonus and when I next log in I note after a few GE fights my power has moved dramatically higher despite doing nothing else. So if it's my 23000+ player power which is now responsible for my GE getting harder - isn't this madness as just winning battles in the past doesn't actually make me stronger.

Really it is feeling like with this scenario there are a few factors/solutions at play - no1 have as few buildings as necessary, research as little as necessary, do not build great buildings. Even to play as a minimalist just playing GE each week would seem to add a ton of power to the point you will get scaled up in difficulty without being any stronger.
The next possible solution is: just don't bother with Zeus just fight a few battles and negotiate the rest, all the effort in Zeus so far feels like a massive red herring.

I also note that from 3 years ago this same point was made by someone with 90% bonus and to them it felt like AI was scaled up to 110% to counter it.

Another interesting thing I saw tonight: I am battling Mounted warrior - 2 of my archers on the plains kill the horse. Next horse takes 3 hits even though the first archer i attacked with was standing on the rocks. I appreciate that the expected damage can give a randomised effect on actual damage received but mmmm rocks bonus and still takes 3 hits 0.o

Another thing I appreciate is it may well be the case that later in the game Great buildings and building them up is very vital in order to make way through the battles. I am aware that people who have aged their city and worked hard on GBs say that they can blast through GE - so maybe this scaling of difficulty in IA so that the longer you stay in IA the harder it gets and the more necessary it is to age up. A bonus of 90% on a unit with 100attack is perhaps going to give you an edge you can actually feel as perhaps at this point the increased difficulty of the expedition is not 50% harder (note not actual figures just hypothesising).

I also appreciate that the GE should be challenging and that to get the rewards you shouldn't be able to come out of it with no deaths. So what is surprising me is that for every % strength I gain it appears that I am gaining +1 and the AI has gained 12% strength - it's just illogical that gaining strength/power equates to a negative gain lol

None of this is the end of the world - I see IA neighbours with tons of power and tons of wishing wells etc and have to wonder if innogames basically sees this as an exploit and is driving the game to encourage people to progress. Repetitive game play gets boring also. 2 weeks ago I had a neighbour with 85k power tons of wishing wells etc, a high level Zeus and Loa and Babel - but what really struck me was they only did 15 battles compared to my 48 which was mostly fighting, negotiating last battle on level2 and negotiating a few battles in level 3 - though mostly still fighting.

Sorry for the long post if you get this far!! This is not so much intended to be a rant as a curiosity.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Your score is not 'power' it is progress in the game and activity. To address why it may seem harder, is you have a damage range, not a fixed amount on any attack, unless the attacking unit is so powerful or so weak that it instantly does 10 damage or just 1. Sometimes you get a high damage roll, sometimes not, it doesn't mean the AI is getting stronger, it just means your units had not-so-good rolls that battle.

And fast units, which mounted warriors are, have defense bonuses against ranged units, which archers are. The high defense of mounted warriors vs archers can easily mean they do lousy damage, even on rocks, or you can get a good attack and wipe them in 2.

I am relatively sure, considering I haven't thought about it or tested it, that your score has no effect on the strength of defending units in GE, only age and difficulty level, and I'm not even sure about age, since I find I'm able to do higher difficulties the further along I go and so far, the percentages defenders are boosted by is the same in industrial as it was in colonial.

 

[DeletedUser110745]

Please let me explain a little better. The fight I struggled with was 4 mounted warrior and 4 archers. If I had chosen soldier and legionnaire those archers would have picked me off. The best choices for mounted warriors was archers. I won the fight with all 8 archers alive, 3-4 had taken one hit so were half dead. The second wave was 3 ballista, 2 legionnaires, 2 or 3 mounted warrior I don't remember exactly how many horses but the big problem was getting to the ballista. I tried it previously with ballista and archers but it was worse.

One battle in level 3 is not demonstrating though the changes I have noticed. There were remarkable changes in unit type level 1 first battles. As I said every week I could win first battles with slingers. If you search you tube for Sam hall 1970 he did some good videos on GE to help new players see how the battles could be won. In every fight I got the exact same units - example fight no2 was 3-4 horsemen - easily killed by slingers or spearmen. Not this week, this week fight no2 was 8 stone thrower's BA seige units. This is a battle whilst easy to win you are not using slingers. Easy to win but this really demonstrates that the combination I am now facing has changed and the difficulty has been increased.

I can't tell you why the difficulty has increased so I am just theorying it has something to do with the presence of a low level Zeus + other minor city changes which don't make me stronger + being very active.

At the start of the GE I would guess that the difficulty is locked in. I only finished Conan Doyle quests recently which involved progress on continent map namely taking the land that has EMA PvP tower.

With the fight I struggled with I said to myself "I am not sure how I can beat this combination without having EMA units".

 

[DeletedUser110131]

The more I now fight into GE3 the harder it is getting

Well, yes, that's how it's supposed to be. Each encounter is harder than the previous encounter, each quarter level is harder than the previous quarter level, and each level is harder than the previous level. The last quarter of level IV is where it gets really hard, and actually impossible without GBs and/or next level reward troops (you get those from quests).

From the wikis that I use (including the official one), and confirmed by my experience, this is clear:
In the GE as a whole, what unit types you meet, and their boost, depend only on your era and advancement on the tech tree at the start of the GE. The unit types and boost of each individual encounter depend entirely on the level (I, II, III, or IV), and which quarter of that level. Your score ("power", as you call it) is entirely irrelevant. The difficulty does not increase as a result of building or levelling GBs. Inno will vary the compositions, but those variations will be general, and their effect for you will follow these rules.

I can assure you that I have never experienced an adverse effect from levelling Zeus.

As a general rule, you can assume that Inno doesn't deceive you about specifications; it has never been demonstrated, that I know of, and they obviously have nothing to gain by frustrating the players. Often in spite of appearances, Inno is a rational entity, as businesses tend to be. They make their best effort to act in their own best interest.

If you had not researched any technologies, it's hard to say exactly what caused your experience of increased difficulty. In my own experience, my fighting style evolved rapidly in the beginning, changing even when I was unaware of it. Sometimes, it changed for the worse, especially when I was unaware, and then for the better, once I became aware. Then there are the random factors, such as the actual damage caused; probability is a funny thing, and often seems to form patterns, leading to false assumptions. You won't be the first on this forum to voice suspicion or discontent based on this. There's also the fact that the effect of GBs at low levels is often disappointing; you'll expect and hope for greater effect than you actually get, naturally leading to disappointment; we've all been there. Then there's simple human psychology, a thing even funnier than probability. Finally, there are all the things I can't think of, which are multitude.

The fight I struggled with was

Technically, the best unit against a fast unit, will be a light unit. Against ranged units, it will be a fast unit. The worst unit against a fast unit will, technically, be a ranged unit. Ranged units against ranged units will normally lead to losses, unless you have greater range and/or Rogues.

For your battle, Mounted Warriors would probably have been the best choice, depending somewhat on your fighting style. It's hard to say without actually seeing the field, but my tactic would probably have been to hold still, let the Mounted Warriors advance, then retreat into a corner (out of their reach), then let them advance (possibly sacrificing a unit to draw them as close as possible), then rush them. Finally, you would rush the Archers, who should just be coming within reach. For the second wave, I would probably take the Horsemen first, allowing the Legionnaires to advance away from the Ballistas, then rush the Ballistas, and finally finish the Legionnaires. I may or may not have attempted to stay out of range of the Ballistas while dealing with the Horsemen, depending on the terrain.

"Technically" isn't always the same as "actually", though. You're right that ranged units are very powerful when handled correctly, especially in combination with Rogues. If you use them well, they'll be the best choice in the majority of encounters. With Rogues available, I would probably have chosen a ranged unit for a battle similar to yours.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Technically, the best unit against a fast unit, will be a light unit.

At least until progressive era when things get all twisted around, and arguably industrial since howitzers(InA heavy unit)are pretty much the go-to thing against anything, near InA ranged damage with twice the defense and 6 range.

 

[DeletedUser110745]

Although I appreciate what you are saying I have found mounted warrior don't fair too well against other mounted warrior - mainly because of the turn order. Regardless as the second battle was mostly infantry and seige - what was left of mounted warriors would have been easier crushed in the second wave.

But the real point I am making which has been ignored is that aside from a tiny +1 attack to my units I have not gained anything that makes me stronger. It was the case in each week that the units in each battle were the same bronze age units - however this week it's been pretty much all iron age troops, more troops in each wave and more difficult combinations. The point is I have gained +1 attack but the AI seems to have gained a LOT more than +1 Def. It's not just been in one battle but a subtle difference I have noticed with each level I put on Zeus. The fact that someone noticed this 3 years ago speaks volumes to be. The battles I had before building Zeus were much easier. My technology has not moved because all FPS have gone into great buildings. The major power packer has been levelling great buildings you can tell me this is irrelevant but it's the only logical reasoning I can see for why now the battles are composed of entirely different units with pretty much all starting battles replacing bronze age troops for Iron age. It is almost as if the game thinks I am in EMA....

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I have found, up to late middle anyway, that a combination of ranged and light work best, they cover each others weaknesses, but you'll want rogues as soon as you can get them, they make it possible to win anything without taking damage.

As for the effects of GBs on low age units, you won't see a significant increase until high middle, then things really start cranking up. Getting them leveled now just lets you hit the ground running when you do reach that age.

 

[Vesiger]

The only reason in my experience why you'd get same-age troops rather than previous-age troops in the first battle of a GE is that you've just advanced an age (but haven't yet researched any of the troop techs of the new Age).
Are you positive that you didn't go up to the Early Middle Ages as a result of doing the Conan Doyle quests? Because that's what it sounds as if you're describing.
And yes, the GE does feel incrementally more difficult when you've only just started a new Age...

 

[DeletedUser110131]

now the battles are composed of entirely different units with pretty much all starting battles replacing bronze age troops for Iron age.

At level 3 you're supposed to be up against only same era troops in the first wave. It's like that for everyone, with or without Zeus. If you were ever up against mostly previous age troops in the first wave on level 3, you were enjoying the effect of a bug. The fact that "someone noticed" something three years ago isn't very telling, at all. Every conceivable non-existing thing has been "noticed" at least once before.

Mounted Warriors will take damage from Mounted Warriors and Legionnaires, and towards the end of the second wave you'll either have to do a very good job of pulling them away just in time, or loose several. As long as there aren't any Soldiers, though, they can handle it by dividing and bypassing the enemy troops. Archers, which are a threat, have a sufficiently short range that they can be evaded until you're ready for them. The trouble with using Archers in your battle, is that they are very vulnerable to artillery, which will target them immediately, unless you have Rogues to draw fire. In wooded terrain, Soldiers would be good, but they'd need the favorable terrain, especially with Legionnaires around. Legionnaires have a significant bonus against Soldiers. Of course, all of this has a lot to do with individual style and preferred tactics. Still, it's obvious that Archers only didn't work for you.

Without Rogues, there just isn't any way of avoiding significant troop losses on level 3. At least, no way that I know of.

I'd say I started to find the GB boosts significant in EMA, at about 15% effect, give or take. Of course, "significant" is a pretty fuzzy term in this context.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

If you were ever up against mostly previous age troops in the first wave on level 3, you were enjoying the effect of a bug.

Not true, if you wait until after the GE week starts to move up an age, the units you get will be set to your previous age for that week, but so will the rewards for winning encounters. I planned it like this when I moved up to industrial and had a week where I had a 1 age advantage over 1st wave armies all the way through lvl 4.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

if you wait until after the GE week starts

Very true. I forgot about that. For a few seconds, I even thought you had solved the puzzle of OP's experience. If OP had been EMA or above, I would still think so. Unfortunately, OP is in IA, and, IA being the minimum for GE, he/she must have advanced to it before starting to play GE. The mystery is still alive.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Very true. I forgot about that. For a few seconds, I even thought you had solved the puzzle of OP's experience. If OP had been EMA or above, I would still think so. Unfortunately, OP is in IA, and, IA being the minimum for GE, he/she must have advanced to it before starting to play GE. The mystery is still alive.

No mystery, kitty says (she?) did the first few fights with BA units, in lvl 1 the defenders would be entirely BA, 1st and 2nd wave, for someone in IA.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

That may be the explanation, even though he/she insists on having fought through level 3 before, and that it was easier then. I'm starting to suspect that there are some, shall we say "inaccuracies" involved. Complaining that things get tougher with every fight into the GE, claiming never to have encountered same age troops before; this seems unlikely to come from someone who has ever before been beyond the first quarter of level 1.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Yes, soon as you hit lvl 2 first waves are always same era as what you started the week as, with second waves being previous era. lvl 3 1st and most of 2nd wave are current era and painfully, lvl 4, everything is current era....and boosted out the ass. My poor 57/48 boost can't keep up with lvl 4's 90/90 -_-

 

[DeletedUser110179]

Sorry for the long post if you get this far!! This is not so much intended to be a rant as a curiosity.

And it certainly is ... most people struggle to string more than 4 words together so your energy, enthusiasm and perplexity is very compelling.

I didn't really join a guild until the middle ages (much join/aid/leave) so I don't have any early age GE experience. I also won 5 RHs in the last winter event before my first GE which helped grease the wheels of success. That said, my first GE ended at 34/48 ... a few more weeks of middletown misery until they released L4 ... and I suddenly finished L3 and L4 at one go (winning a Terrace Farm and Sacred Sky Watch to boot).
Perhaps my point is that success can make you blasé. I expected to sail through GE every week and win a TF and SSW on a regular basis. Level 3 almost crushed me the following week and I needed a couple of days to get through one battle.

It takes awhile to settle down and get your real excitement back on track. ◐◑

 

[DeletedUser110195]

A thing to also take note of, beyond that defending armies change from week to week, is that every time you do an encounter the terrain changes, and terrain can be the difference between an easy win or a crushing loss. Early on, you can overpower the effects of the terrain with enough Zeus/Aachen/CdM bonuses, but later you may find yourself needing to hit something, grab what points you can from having hit something and give up before the AI's turn, because the terrain gave too much of an advantage to them....so far, no age displays this more prominently than Industrial Age, where given enough plains in the right area, InA ranged can hit you at your starting position and the AI is not shy about getting itself destroyed to deal a crippling blow to your attacking army.

 

[Vesiger]

InA ranged can hit you at your starting position and the AI is not shy about getting itself destroyed to deal a crippling blow to your attacking army.

I was wondering about that; I'm in the Postmodern Era, and I keep finding enemy troops in the GE motoring up to shoot me before I've moved.
Of course if I try that in the opposite direction, my attackers just get wiped out in the next move...

 

[DeletedUser110195]

Of course if I try that in the opposite direction, my attackers just get wiped out in the next move...

Yea, when I see that red sword hovering over somethings head in one of my units' first turn, I think to myself "And sacrifice that unit to the other things that have their turn after it? Not a chance" and just move up out of whatever's range...this is why I've come to accept the howitzer as the one true InA god, everything goes before it, it has high damage, high defense and good enough range that it can pulverize anything, especially when it can get closer.