• 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.

Proposal for a New Way to Defend Cities Against Massive Rogue Attacks

Do you support this Idea

  • Yes

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

DeletedUser110621

Hi. It seems clear to me that FoE does not intend to change the algorithm used to control the automatic defence of one's city against the onslaught of seven rogues plus one unit. Too bad -- but I do have an alternative suggestion that would help some of us some of the time -- while leaving the algorithm as it is.

Give us a new screen icon called "CITY UNDER ATTACK".

When an opponent chooses to attack our city, the icon will flash red and issue a siren sound (as in the Great Wars when a bombing attack occurred). If we happen to be at our device at the time, we can click on the icon -- and three things will happen:

1. The automatic defence algorithm will be stopped.
2. The defending player will be taken from the city view to the battle ground.
3. The defending player will be given control of the defensive army units.

If the player is not present or logged in at the time, everything will occur under robotic control as before.

Thanks.
 

DeletedUser111589

That indeed would be interesting. Like a game of chess :)

However, possible abuse is that defender, although logged in and controlling army, could decide not to make a move thus hindering/slowing down attacker. After a while, with defender not moving his troops, attacker could decide to surrender attack in order to not waste time.

Also, what do you purpose to be done if attacker clicked auto battle?
 

DeletedUser110621

That indeed would be interesting. Like a game of chess :)

However, possible abuse is that defender, although logged in and controlling army, could decide not to make a move thus hindering/slowing down attacker. After a while, with defender not moving his troops, attacker could decide to surrender attack in order to not waste time.

Also, what do you purpose to be done if attacker clicked auto battle?
If the attacker decided to surrender because the battle was taking so long, that's OK for the defender, isn't it!
I haven't used "auto battle" yet, but I assume it turns over control of the attacking army to an algorithm. Fine -- but if I have chosen to defend my city myself by clicking on the new icon then it will be a human defender (me) against a robotic attacker (which, I am happy to say, is the 180 degree flip from having the robotic algorithm inanely try to defend my city against a human attacker). What's wrong with that?
 

Agent327

Overlord
I haven't used "auto battle" yet, but I assume it turns over control of the attacking army to an algorithm. Fine -- but if I have chosen to defend my city myself by clicking on the new icon then it will be a human defender (me) against a robotic attacker (which, I am happy to say, is the 180 degree flip from having the robotic algorithm inanely try to defend my city against a human attacker). What's wrong with that?

The moment you press the auto battle button the result stands. Do you think you can react faster than that? :rolleyes:
 

DeletedUser110621

The moment you press the auto battle button the result stands. Do you think you can react faster than that? :rolleyes:
If that's how it operates, then a minor change would have to be made to the coding of "auto battle". Rather than giving an instantaneous result, time would be given to alert the defender to the impending attack (via the new CITY UNDER ATTACK icon) -- say something between 5 and 10 seconds). If the human defender hasn't reacted by then, the auto battle result will be given. Otherwise, it'll be human defender vs robot attacker. This would occasionally frustrate the attacker who would now have to wait for the battle to end, but as it isnow ALL the frustration is with the defender who just sees his city's defence decimated by such rogue onslaught. Now the attacker may have to consider whether a city is worth attacking if such frustration has greeted him before....
 

DeletedUser110195

The problem is going to be, can you juggle multiple battles at the same time? Sitting there and annoying an attacker by not moving is the least of it, unless you propose that while you're manually defending, anyone else that attacks during this time faces the AI, like it is now. Also you can get around rogue armies....it just means setting 8 champions as your defense, this works spectacularly well in progressive era through to postmodern, when champions have good range and are either fast units or move like them.
 

DeletedUser111589

Good for defender but that is not the point. Let's say that I, with 100% attack boost, attacked player with 0% defense boost and 2 spearmen. (The numbers are made up).

There isn't a troop that goes first and has range from one side to another (trebuchets and similar can shoot the next side but they go last).

My victory is certain but defender is deliberately not making a move, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, half an hour. I shouldn't be forced to surrender. Defender should be forced to move, in 2 minutes of inactivity, auto takes over and defender can't lead his army anymore (for that battle at least).

The autobattle instantaneous result should be kept instantaneous and not wait 5-10 minutes, but as this is your idea you should figure that out
 

DeletedUser110621

Good for defender but that is not the point. Let's say that I, with 100% attack boost, attacked player with 0% defense boost and 2 spearmen. (The numbers are made up).

There isn't a troop that goes first and has range from one side to another (trebuchets and similar can shoot the next side but they go last).

My victory is certain but defender is deliberately not making a move, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, half an hour. I shouldn't be forced to surrender. Defender should be forced to move, in 2 minutes of inactivity, auto takes over and defender can't lead his army anymore (for that battle at least).

The autobattle instantaneous result should be kept instantaneous and not wait 5-10 minutes, but as this is your idea you should figure that out
 

DeletedUser96901

The autobattle instantaneous result should be kept instantaneous and not wait 5-10 minutes, but as this is your idea you should figure that out
I figured it out
the attacker gets back to his game and continue to the next battle
and after 10 minutes he gets the battle report in the event history
 

DeletedUser110621

I've fought over 2000 battles and I haven't had any last for ten minutes! Two spearmen who don't move will still be dispatched in a short time, even if I have to move all 8 units three times! If you would prefer to have autobattle take over for the defence after two minutes of inactivity, That's seems reasonable.

If I am manually handling my defences when another attack on the city occurs (can that happen?), then that other battle has to occur under algorithmic control since I can't be in two places at the same time -- unless FoE creates MacroWorld or disallows an attack on a city while an existing attack is in progress.
 

DeletedUser110195

Or, have a move timer...just like in chess. Whether the defender moves anything or not, in 30-60 seconds his turn is up and the attacker can go. This would allow players to take manual control of the defending army during an attack, and NOT allow griefers to make you sit there for more than a reasonable amount of time to move their army.
 

Agent327

Overlord
but as it is now ALL the frustration is with the defender who just sees his city's defence decimated by such rogue onslaught.

Why? Nobody is forcing you to look at it. Don't look and you will have no frustration at all. The frustration is in being plundered, not in loosing the fight.

This looks to me like an idea that came up in your head and you decided to post right away. There are a lot of things you did not think about. Auto battle for one. Waiting time as another. What if all my neighbours decide to take their time? Can I a an attacker attack multi neighbours, so they have to sit and wait? What happens to the units in the defence that get killed?
 

joesoap

Major-General
if a player is manually controlling their army & they lose units will they die or still automatically regenerate once the battle is over?
 

DeletedUser110621

Or, have a move timer...just like in chess. Whether the defender moves anything or not, in 30-60 seconds his turn is up and the attacker can go. This would allow players to take manual control of the defending army during an attack, and NOT allow griefers to make you sit there for more than a reasonable amount of time to move their army.
I like that -- 10 seconds would suffice for the move of a defensive unit. With a starting defence of 8 units, that's 80 seconds for the first turn. As defensive units are eliminated, the defensive player has less time (thus, no stalling by dragging out a longer timer if 60 seconds were allowed per turn). When he's down to 2 units, he has maximum of 20 seconds.
 

DeletedUser110195

Why? Nobody is forcing you to look at it. Don't look and you will have no frustration at all. The frustration is in being plundered, not in loosing the fight.

This looks to me like an idea that came up in your head and you decided to post right away. There are a lot of things you did not think about. Auto battle for one. Waiting time as another. What if all my neighbours decide to take their time? Can I a an attacker attack multi neighbours, so they have to sit and wait? What happens to the units in the defence that get killed?
The frustration is in your defense being the way you SHOULD stop plundering from happening to you and it being swept aside regardless of how strong it is because the AI is moronic. Still, you can set champions on defense, they always go for the real units if in range.
 

DeletedUser110621

if a player is manually controlling their army & they lose units will they die or still automatically regenerate once the battle is over?
It's not the defensive player who is initiating the battle, so the onus is on the attacker to make good or surrender. When the battle is over the defensive army is completely regenerated whether the robot or the player had controlled the defence.
 

DeletedUser110621

The frustration is in your defense being the way you SHOULD stop plundering from happening to you and it being swept aside regardless of how strong it is because the AI is moronic. Still, you can set champions on defense, they always go for the real units if in range.
I hope that's true... I finally got a champion and luck has now allowed me to build them up to 4. With that complement my robotic defence (in the Modern Age) has only managed to eliminate 2 of the 8 attackers before being swept aside. Until now it has been many, many, many assaults by the same players, on a daily basis, using the 7 rogue strategy to achieve success. It's not just the plundering that bugs me -- it's the fact that these opponents of mine keep amassing huge leads in the PvP tournaments and winning the bulk of the medals, simply by attacking neighbours with their 7 rogues plus one. I need medals too, and since I've NEVER been able to attain a rogue hideout through many ages of special events I have to suffer to those who did attain one (or more) through LUCK. I'm just hoping to level the field somewhat...
 

Agent327

Overlord
The frustration is in your defense being the way you SHOULD stop plundering from happening to you and it being swept aside regardless of how strong it is because the AI is moronic. Still, you can set champions on defense, they always go for the real units if in range.

True, but you still don't have to look at it and if you do not get plundered who cares? Even with a defense of two spearman you can avoid being plundered.
 

Vesiger

Monarch
The frustration is in your defense being the way you SHOULD stop plundering from happening to you and it being swept aside regardless of how strong it is because the AI is moronic. Still, you can set champions on defense, they always go for the real units if in range.
Do champions really use a different AI from all other units?
 
Top