To Retreat or Not To Retreat

[DeletedUser]

Well I kind of like the original idea, except that it gives people who heal with diamonds an even bigger advantage than they already have when it comes to PvP towers. As it is now a non-diamond player can keep up by attacking his whole neighborhood everyday, but without the surrender option that could quickly be cut short. Either by losing their whole army or a bunch of happiness (which could decrease their battle points per fight by 20% or more). A diamond player wouldn't need to surrender, they can just heal all their troops instantly right after the battle. Allow people to heal their troops with gold/supplies and I'd agree with a retreat penalty involving happiness, otherwise it should just cost the gold/supplies to retreat. And even then it seems like a bit of a gift to diamond users.

As for the scouting system I agree that last one there is way too complicated, and doesn't really add a lot to the game. What's wrong with just looking at someones town? It's like scouting with a telescope from a hillside far away. Sure you can't tell exactly what their army is or how long their supplies have been producing but that would be giving too much away I think. It's already pretty easy to take someones most valuable stuff, making it easier for plunderers is a step backwards in my opinion.

Hate to be such a downer, but I like these systems the way they are.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Yea, you are going to turn the game into "Forge of Stalkers" :p
One idea at a time would be way more comfortable.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well then. I guess I should answer a few of the indirect questions thrown at me here. :p

First of all, the “Scouting & Courier System” I proposed is only exemplary, which means that it only shows what such a system could allow. As for its complexity, yes that was fully intentional.

FoE is a game that focuses on building a city with a touch of PvP. That's not new to any of us, so why should the devs integrate any system at all that just focuses on PvP?

Two things I'd like to comment on:

Whole numbers - absolutely not, that's too valuable to be acquired just by scouting and to be implemented would require a separate military building that would produce spies (just to be fair) and a system for spy countermeasures.

Honestly, finding this out is just about one of the easiest things in FoE. Currently, it's just a little time consuming.

To find out what defenses someone has, before attacking that player... Now that's something that can be considered “too valuable”. That's just my opinion though.

- Diplomatic treaty - yes but only as a passive option (i.e. as a bribe, other way around would be extortion), also a "friend" expansion

Something like this needs to be implemented sooner or later. It's no secret that many players get plundered on a daily basis and have (huge) trouble to compensate the losses. The biggest issue here is that many of the victims are the types of players FoE actually tries to address... ( = the possibly lesser active and not PvP oriented players)​

Like I've mentioned in my proposals, I'm trying to give room for all playing styles. That means to be filling the needs of (hard-core) PvPers, but not neglecting those of the more peaceful type.

Regards,
Bloodwyn

 

[DeletedUser1094]

I have no objections to some kind of punishment, for retreating/surrendering armies... and I do like the idea of subtraction of Happiness-points but not coins.

10% Happiness reduction (lasting for 12 hours) for each retreat/surrender within the 1. round of unit movements. (Now, who said Polished buildings was a waste of support?)

+1 for the essence of the idea. But it still needs some tweaking...

Edit : I have only commented the original OP, not the additional ideas given. Some are too far from the OP and needs a thread of their own.

 

[DeletedUser]

I want to see this running in-game! I love it and i sincerely hope Blacksmith will give it one last 'shot' for making the idea perfect.

Sorry for not being able to comment much, i have allot of work recently.

 

[DeletedUser7137]

Any idea on what could the defender do to avoid being spied upon? If you're a big and strong player, have lots of troops that you can rotate for different defenses everyday or even every hour, then scouting won't really affect you much. But for the lower and mid advanced players, being scouted would be like giving away free battle points to the attacker.

Scouting would lead the attackers to able to choose the best army to face the defenders, thus will have a greater chance in winning the battle and at the same time receiving minimal damage to their units. Defenders won't get any benefit other than the suggested penalty given to them. One of the main reason for lower and mid advanced players putting up defenses against a more advanced adversaries is not just to hope that the "mainly-agreed stupid AI' would win the fight for them, but if they lose, they would inflict as much damage as they can on their attackers. So basically, scouting would take away those "dream/hope" away from them.

At the very least, a warning system or a defensive system to counter the scouting feature would be a little balance for both sides. I hope I'm making some sense here, but the basic idea is to have a "counter scouting" feature implemented in addition to the scouting itself.

 

[DeletedUser]

I suppose a pop-up should appear at the defending player at the moment they are being spied on, if they are online.
This pop-up would notify that spies have been spotted in town and they can either do nothing, or pay X amount of coins to find and eliminate the spies.

If the defending player is not online, then realistically the spies would just be able to do their job.

- L

 

[DeletedUser]

I suppose a pop-up should appear at the defending player at the moment they are being spied on, if they are online.
This pop-up would notify that spies have been spotted in town and they can either do nothing, or pay X amount of coins to find and eliminate the spies.

If the defending player is not online, then realistically the spies would just be able to do their job.

- L

Awesome addition L, and probably you didn't think of several great things your proposal brings along:
It would take time to respond, therefore it would take time to 'retreat' so the user will also be penalized indirectly with "time lost".

What i suspect will happen:
1.) The amount of attacks will gradually decrease, therefore having an army will become probably totally inefficient for plundering, most of people will use it for conquering territories.

Why this will happen:
1.) The costs involving an attack are passively becoming significantly higher because a retreat will also cost money/time & happiness
2.) The current amount of possible resources to be plunder is too small to motivate the costs of fighting one battle.

How to correct this:
1.) Increase the number of buildings that can be plundered at a time depending on how many units survived after battle. (This will increase the motivation of players to attempt to win the battle without pressing the "Result" button which makes the game monotonous if you have allot of money.)
2.) Introduce the possibility of decreasing the enemy's happiness. (You can not penalize the attacker by withdrawing happiness if he retreats and at the same time restrict him from stealing or hindering the happiness of his target, a stick should have two ends.)

Was happy to find some time for feedback.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

How to correct this:
1.) Increase the number of buildings that can be plundered at a time depending on how many units survived after battle. (This will increase the motivation of players to attempt to win the battle without pressing the "Result" button which makes the game monotonous if you have allot of money.)
2.) Introduce the possibility of decreasing the enemy's happiness. (You can not penalize the attacker by withdrawing happiness if he retreats and at the same time restrict him from stealing or hindering the happiness of his target, a stick should have two ends.).

Yay! more noobs quitting!

 

[DeletedUser]

hmmm true, i will think this over

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree that there should be a retreat penalty but think that it tie in to how it would be applied in a real life scenario. I would suggest that the penalty be applied to a reduction in the strength of the attacker based on the ratio of the total defender defense strength relative to the total attacker attack strength. Ideally, there should be modifiers for the unit type with mounted units dealing out more damage to a retreating army than less mobile units. Less mobile units of the attacker would be more vulnerable, and take more damage, in a retreat than the more mobile units.

One way to imagine this is to see the battlefield as roughly twice the size that is displayed with the unseen portion lying on the attacker side but out of display. The attacking army would need to retreat across this "other half" of the battlefield before reaching safety while the pursuing defending army takes free shots at the retreating army. I am suggesting this "second half of the battlefield" only in conceptual terms for thinking of what units would have the ability to attack the retreating army and what kind of damage would be applied (I think there would need to be a modifier to the attack rating of the pursuers as allowing free shots with full attack values would probably be excessive).

I have a few other suggestions in mind that I first need to research whether they have been suggested before (city walls with defense units after defeating the field army, plundering town hall gold/supplies/goods instead of a specific building with the amount of plunder relative to carry capacity of attacking army)

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I agree that there should be a retreat penalty but think that it tie in to how it would be applied in a real life scenario. I would suggest that the penalty be applied to a reduction in the strength of the attacker based on the ratio of the total defender defense strength relative to the total attacker attack strength. Ideally, there should be modifiers for the unit type with mounted units dealing out more damage to a retreating army than less mobile units. Less mobile units of the attacker would be more vulnerable, and take more damage, in a retreat than the more mobile units.

One way to imagine this is to see the battlefield as roughly twice the size that is displayed with the unseen portion lying on the attacker side but out of display. The attacking army would need to retreat across this "other half" of the battlefield before reaching safety while the pursuing defending army takes free shots at the retreating army. I am suggesting this "second half of the battlefield" only in conceptual terms for thinking of what units would have the ability to attack the retreating army and what kind of damage would be applied (I think there would need to be a modifier to the attack rating of the pursuers as allowing free shots with full attack values would probably be excessive).

I have a few other suggestions in mind that I first need to research whether they have been suggested before (city walls with defense units after defeating the field army, plundering town hall gold/supplies/goods instead of a specific building with the amount of plunder relative to carry capacity of attacking army)

It's not a bad suggestion, but the only ones that could actually attack the retreating troops would only be the fast units because I think it would be outta range for siege units once you are back a few spaces

 

[DeletedUser]

Awesome addition L, and probably you didn't think of several great things your proposal brings along:
It would take time to respond, therefore it would take time to 'retreat' so the user will also be penalized indirectly with "time lost".

What i suspect will happen:
1.) The amount of attacks will gradually decrease, therefore having an army will become probably totally inefficient for plundering, most of people will use it for conquering territories.

Why this will happen:
1.) The costs involving an attack are passively becoming significantly higher because a retreat will also cost money/time & happiness
2.) The current amount of possible resources to be plunder is too small to motivate the costs of fighting one battle.

How to correct this:
1.) Increase the number of buildings that can be plundered at a time depending on how many units survived after battle. (This will increase the motivation of players to attempt to win the battle without pressing the "Result" button which makes the game monotonous if you have allot of money.)
2.) Introduce the possibility of decreasing the enemy's happiness. (You can not penalize the attacker by withdrawing happiness if he retreats and at the same time restrict him from stealing or hindering the happiness of his target, a stick should have two ends.)

Was happy to find some time for feedback.

Yay! more noobs quitting!

3.) Make plundering players that are x ages below the attacker penalize the attacker with a reduction in happiness by ((2x)^2)*.5 = (value will represent decreased ammount in %) (the morale of people drop because you are such a lousy leader and spend time on conquering villages when you should be building an empire.

2x = 2*x
^2 = 2nd power
.5=0.5

Result when attacking ((2x)^2)*.5 =
1 age diff: (2^2)*.5= 2%
2 age diff: (4^2)*.5= 8%
3 age diff: (6^2)*.5= 18%
4 age diff: (8^2)*.5= 32%
5 age diff: (10^2)*.5= 50%
6 age diff: (12^2)*.5= 72%
(6th is when industrial age will be implemented)

There could also be a penalty ammount cap:

E.G: after every 5 consecutive attacks on players that are of (x=2) the penalty is doubled. (this could be avoided, however it will protect new comers)

Why this is realistic?

Because people have evolved, and it is important for them to know that their leader is not a wuss who only attacks week villages instead of winning over mighty kingdoms.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

3.) Make plundering players that are x ages below the attacker penalize the attacker with a reduction in happiness by (2x)^2 = (value will represent decreased ammount in %) (the morale of people drop because you are such a lousy leader and spend time on conquering villages when you should be building an empire.

2x = 2*x
^2 = 2nd power

That's more fairer , but I think it should be x^3 because if I just joined the LMA, I can't vs any LMA army without recieving very little (if any) survival.

 

[DeletedUser]

Too much penalty will not be realistic, you are correct. Check my calculus again i edited it.

Result when attacking ((2x)^2)*.5 =
1 age diff: (2^2)*.5= 2%
2 age diff: (4^2)*.5= 8%
3 age diff: (6^2)*.5= 18%
4 age diff: (8^2)*.5= 32%
5 age diff: (10^2)*.5= 50%
6 age diff: (12^2)*.5= 72%
(6th is when industrial age will be implemented)

There could also be a penalty ammount cap:

E.G: after every 5 consecutive attacks on players that are of (x=2) the penalty is doubled. (this could be avoided, however it will protect new comers)

 

[DeletedUser]

I dont think that there should be a tie-in between victory in battle and happiness, but I do believe that there should be a tie between PLUNDERING and happiness. The basis for this is that a society that depends on raiding its neighbors to acquire riches will have a greater and greater lust for more riches that can only be quenched by an ever increasing amount of plundering. At the point where the riches acquired from plundering are no longer increasing, the populace becomes increasingly unhappy. In short, live by the plunder, die by the plunder.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I dont think that there should be a tie-in between victory in battle and happiness, but I do believe that there should be a tie between PLUNDERING and happiness.

The reason why we want it to be victory in battle is because we want our noobs to be able to medal in battle, I could build 50 of each Bronze age military building and kill in the tower when a person in the Iron Age just got their stone throwers to reach their full potential in the (BA) tower.

3.) Make plundering players that are x ages below the attacker penalize the attacker with a reduction in happiness.
Why this is realistic?

Because people have evolved, and it is important for them to know that their leader is not a wuss who only attacks week villages instead of winning over mighty kingdoms.

I think the devs will come up with their own equation; the idea itself is good enough

 

[DeletedUser]

Here are a few more ideas to toss out to address the current lack of consequence to plundering. I also try to explain how these solutions have basis in how European armies and societies have functioned historically. For me, a big part of the fun in gaming is how well the functions and processes of the game can be modeled historically with some degree of accuracy. What I really dont like to see are game implements that serve to balance game play but have no justification based on how the environment that is being sought to simulate actually functions.

1) true soldiers follow a code where plundering is not considered acceptable behavior. Part of this can be attributed (at least between European combatants) to the adoption to a code of chivalry that probably would be applicable beginning in the High Middle Ages. Starting in the HMA, a player would sacrifice some portion of their battle points earned from victory when he elected to plunder. An added benefit with this solution is that it encourages players to put up a strong defense because, even if they lose, if the defender fielded an army strong enough to give the victor significant battle points, it would reduce the likelihood of being plundered if the attacker now had to sacrifice some portion of those points in exchange for plunder of an unknown quantity.

2)The act of plundering has a degrading effect on the level of professionalism of an army - if not immediately, then certainly over time where soldiers come to think of their share of the plunder as the motivation for fighting. A tendency to plunder inevitably would lead to a less disciplined army fighting at a lower level of effectiveness. This effect could be simulated by a negative modifier to the attack and defense values of all units in effect for a period of time following a plunder with the value and length of these effects being tied to the amount of the plunder. This would require some type of unified value assignment for gold-supplies-goods to implement. The drawback here is that the guy who has more difficulty in adjusting the timing of his harvests doesn't benefit that much by this because the stalking raider who knows exactly when those one day harvests become ready would still be a target as the plunderer would schedule this plunder at the end of his daily rounds.

3) More of a broad conceptual idea that I would like to see incorporated into the game is a color coded conduct rating for each player based on his actions over the course of the campaign (volume of trades, neighbor exchanges, production collections, rent collections, battles, plunders, etc.). OK, maybe that is a little beyond the scope here, but I think that maybe a simple black/white spectrum with white being an "honorable warrior" or passive player and black signifying a black-hearted raider would be workable. Flying the "black flag" (as a result of accumulated plunders) would make you an outlaw nation and any non-outlaw nation that attacked you would receive combat bonuses. I think that this concept translates to the history of Europe and the Balance of Power model starting in medieval times all the way through at least WWII, if not to the current day.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

Idk, if this should be in another thread now, but on to my comments, I think these are all good and well thought out ideas, but the problem will be putting it into the game: it definitely does not look easy to implement

 

[DeletedUser]

I think this is getting extremely off topic..