Remove replay PLEASE!

[DeletedUser653]

Lodroth, judging from the size of that town he started a new world to do that, I think your find hes still playing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Hmm no.. i didnt start on a new world in Late Middle Age. LOL

 

[DeletedUser4800]

i quit
View attachment 1512

LOL. You are being way over dramatic. You "big strategy" of getting 8 long range catapults is widely known. The 4 heavy armored and 4 archers is also well known.

I don't think you give away your strategies as there are no real strategies, plus the AI is so stupid that even if you counter with the best units its still going to loose.

I think the bigger problem with the game is that attacking is really hard, as in units build too slow, heal too slow and take way too much population for people to be able to pillage successfully.

As far as I can tell even the most ardent attackers have 1 or 2 goods buildings as its just impossible to be full raider.

But with the AI being so stupid I don't think giving more power to attackers is good, as 8 long range units can pretty much defeat any units, except maybe 8 fast units which no one really has.

 

[DeletedUser653]

SlickR: I have 8 heavy knights and split them with 8 trabec or a mix of longbow and trebec for defense. Very very painful for an attacker, they might win but at a very large cost and hence I get almost zero attacks (a few which are surrendered straight away). They come in very handy when I find a player with 8 trabecs as defending units.

But your logic is sound and I tend to agree with your points. In colonial the balance has changed a little and attacking Colonial troops with LMA is painful as they have very high defense, but by the time players have enough colonial troops to defend with most attacking players will have all the Colonial troops they need to attack and we are back to the illogical AI again. I found I needed 6 longbow buildings and 4 long range to fight 80 players daily, due to the slow healing times, but thats part of the game and does slow the aggressive player down a bit.


spade, yes i can see the town hall, your right in which case the thread is pretty much dead now then!

 

[DeletedUser]

I think the bigger problem with the game is that attacking is really hard, as in units build too slow, heal too slow and take way too much population for people to be able to pillage successfully.

In our eyes that's not a problem but intentional. FoE is not a game where you should "destroy" other people - we all know that there are more than enough games of that kind to satisfy everyone's craving.

Regards,

Anwar

 

[DeletedUser]

As far as I can tell even the most ardent attackers have 1 or 2 goods buildings as its just impossible to be full raider.

Not really. I havent had a goods building for months. I think it was a honey one in EMA. I also have no intention of building a CA one either. I get plenty of goods from plundering which then I trade for what I need. I already have half of some of the resources I need for CA upgrades as well from either trade or conquering provinces.
Of course I do produce gold and supplies. My 45 neighbours arent that rich I wish I didnt need to fill my village with so many houses but I need a lot of population for all the military buildings. If there was a way to really go "full raider" and not need to produce gold and supplies that would`ve been awesome. But its probably impossible if you dont have like 200 rich neighbours around.

 

[DeletedUser3157]

You could even have 1000 rich nabers, population reqs to get those military buildings will still force you to build houses

Btw I'm soo tired of this whole replay discussion(I actually was already sick of it after 24h), but I hope by now people have calmed down about it and see they may have intially overreacted a bit. Hardly a game-breaking feature, just making the game slightly more interesting for the vast majority.

 

[DeletedUser]

Btw I'm soo tired of this whole replay discussion(I actually was already sick of it after 24h), but I hope by now people have calmed down about it and see they may have intially overreacted a bit. Hardly a game-breaking feature, just making the game slightly more interesting for the vast majority.

I admit I was one of those who over-reacted. There were a few cases where some of my farms changed their defences according to my attacking troops, but still I have a 99% victories percetage with very few casualties. In the end those who are good will adapt and remain on top while the others will remain to be farmed and occasionally cry over it on the forum.
I still think this change creates an unbalance because now the attackers - those who enjoy the PvP module - who were already prone to casualties and defeats - have an even smaller chance to win a battle now, while the defender still doesnt lose anything. I hope the game staff will try to recreate the balance somehow, for instance give a certain percentage of the points won so far by the attacker even if he was defeated but fought until the end. After all in such case the attacker loses his entire army while the defender loses nothing.
Anyway I bet the game stuff are intelligent enough to come with some good ideas.

 

[DeletedUser5846]

i quit
View attachment 1512

Gone and will be sadly missed :p

Roflmao !

 

[DeletedUser276]

I just sit here chuckling over the end of the world screams that people can now actually see the fights that happen. I like Anwars response where he basically says suck it up and play the game I wonder when people will realize in my last post I said that the replay button wont be going away.

 

[DeletedUser]

the end of the world

Maybe they didn't listen to enough R.E.M., otherwise they would feel fine.

 

[DeletedUser]

Heck...

This thread is STILL rumbling on!

It is good to see people so passionate about the game though.

<Edit> Oh and one other thing - as a result of this thread I think the devs have really got the message now that the AI is really stupid and some basic problems are now well highlighted. I wouldn't be surprised to see some tightening up of the AI in the next weeks/months. That pleases me. It won't please everyone.

 

[DeletedUser]

imo nothing wrong with replay - it adds another layer of strategy, as players will work out the common attack tactics if they keep getting hit and that just levels the playing field. It makes it more of a challenge for the attacker - complaining about it is like saying you won't fight anyone unless they can't see how you do it!

 

[DeletedUser276]

lol we always knew the AI was pretty lame and needs updating. But would you rather it be uber hard now and barely crawl? More people would complain about harder AI than any complaint so far

Just give it time. When the game comes more complete I am sure the AI will be increased or altered in "some" way

 

[DeletedUser]

Improving the AI is definitely on my to-do list. However, it's not as easy as it sounds: Remember that thousands of players are online and fighting at the same time on each server, so we are not at complete freedom to make complex analyses for each turn.

I do agree though, not having ranged units attack at melee distance would be a good and easy start.

Regards,

Anwar

 

[DeletedUser3157]

I do agree though, not having ranged units attack at melee distance would be a good and easy start.

Your ranged units want to stay on rocks little too hard at times

 

[DeletedUser]

Unlike the Long Ranged units.. you place them on Hills and you engage Auto-Battle.. and for some reason they just move around for no specific purpose, off of the Hills -.-

But this thread is spiralling from it's topic, which has pretty much settled I think..

- L