Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution

[DeletedUser]

Priscilla,

You say that I have not introduced any new thoughts since my first post. I consider the lack of a need for lots of modifications as an indication that the proposal is a good one. But I guess we differ on this point.

Early on someone suggested that the percentage should be based on the total army of the attacker, rather than just the size of the attacking force. So I modified my original proposal by including that idea.

Since then, however, my writings have been focused on answering new objections which don't seem to have anything to do with the proposal. For example, the proposal is now being criticized because it doesn't address the issue of "farming cities".

For goodness sakes.... the proposal doesn't address the issue of farming cities because that's not the point of the proposal. The point of the proposal was to reduce the number of times both sides obliterate each other simply because the system currently doesn't allow for ANY kind of retreat, even if the defender would prefer it.

Let's try this "mind experiment" to demonstrate what I mean and maybe to wrap up the analysis of this proposal:

Let's imagine an attacker asking a potential target city if the city would prefer the attacker use the default setting of "Stop Loss = 100%" vs. some stop loss factor between 50% and 99%.

ASK JUST ONE QUESTION -

A) On average, how many times would a target city say?: "I want you to retreat when you think your losses become too high"....

B) VERSUS, on average how many times would a target city say?: "I want you to fight to the last man!"

I think, on average, target cities would vote "Early Retreat" more than half the time. This is because most target cities believe an attacker wouldn't attack unless he thought he had more troops anyway - - so a fight to the last man would mean NO MEN left for the city.

If you agree with this particular conclusion for this thought experiment, then you can see that no penalty is needed, because BOTH sides see shared benefits of a "stop loss" more than half the time.

However, if you think an attacked city would more often say: "Attack to the last man!", then the idea of a "compensating penalty" would come into play.

So let's cut to the chase: What kind of penalty would you suggest?

(I re-emphasize that no penalty is necessary if we think the cities being attacked would more-often-than-not approve of "early retreat".)

Warm regards,


Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

I like INVOKER's idea of having only 3 settings: 50%, 75% and 100% - with 100% being the current default setting of the system. I am editing the original proposal accordingly.

Thanks, INVOKER!

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

Once again, a double post.

If you were to ask a defender what they wanted, more often than not, they would choose no attack at all. However, those that do train troops will cry "Bring it on". So the answer to that is all or nothing.

As for a penalty for using this attack, how about a 15% defence bonus and the loot reduced to the percentage you were prepared to lose.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Sandman, Priscilla meant that you were constantly repeating yourself, rather then saying anything different. Farming was introduced because you mentioned it a few posts back and I responded to it. Hmm, I do not know, you should conduct a survey on how often people answer "All or Nothing" and how many answer "maybe I will not hurt the attacker :S". If this were introduced (no real point in my opinion), you would have to send at least 75% of all your forces in the attack and have a retreat of at least 67%. NO retreat option in revolt and C-Ship attacks.

 

[DeletedUser]

Priscilla,

What do you mean a "double post"? Is this a reference to my posts? As far as I can tell from MY computer, I see no double posting. I responded to your comments.

And after I submitted the post, I read INVOKER's post and responded to that. Is this what you mean a "double post"? Let me know. There is a JKP post I would like to comment upon.... but I am hesitant to do that if you call it a DOUBLE POST. He has a theory as to what "double post" means.... but that doesn't seem quite right. Only you can say exactly what you mean. Thanks!

Your proposal for a penalty was:
"As for a penalty for using this attack, how about a 15% defence bonus and the loot reduced to the percentage you were prepared to lose. "

I understand the first part. But what do you mean by the second part? Since we have already covered the idea that an attacker who retreats gets NO loot, do you mean that if the attacker WINS, the loot should be reduced by the 50% or 75% factor you chose in the battle?

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser2795]

A double post is when a person posts twice in a row, the most common reasons being:
-they accidentally submitted two of the same post (it has happened to me). In this case, you delete the second post
-The person chooses to ignore the "Edit" button if they want to add on to their message.
Double posting is in general considered reasonable if:
-All the text is over 10000 characters long and therefore must be in two posts
-To bump a thread a bit.

 

[DeletedUser]

I thought Priscilla was talking about posting the SAME post twice. Posting two DIFFERENT posts doesn't seem like an offense of any kind... if it responds to two different earlier posts.

Priscilla, I'm looking forward to your clarification regarding the loot penalty.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

I support it...

One thing, lets say you suffered the amount you placed in the % section.. would you recive they're Troop numbers?
You shouldn't in Game.. but in Real life, you would...

EDIT:
I do not see why people are so ignarant..
They are fighting against it, even though their Agument has been proved wrong..
Yes, i agree, few tweaks, and this will be perfecto!

 

[DeletedUser]

it has been said before if you look at the first page

 

[DeletedUser]

Banana...,

I think your sentence got chopped in half.

It looks like you would like to see something specific in the first page. Once I have Priscilla's understanding about the penalties, I will continue to modify the first page. I already made some substantial changes in the last 24 hours.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

As P3nt explained, the double posting referred to 2 consecutive posts. You have an edit button if you wish to add more.

The loot penalty I suggested was for the case where the attacker won. If they were only prepared to risk 50% of their troops, they should have their carry capacity reduced to 50%. This is to cover the event that the defender dodges or is even inactive and has no troops.

I'm going to have to raise concerns about the new conditions you added. Making it proportionate to the total number of troops a person owns is a little discriminatory. You cannot stack attack troops, so a person with more than one city cannot (normally) send more than 50% of their total troops. The penalties I suggested are enough to discourage the use of this proposal by bigger players. A person with two cities might want to use it because only one of them holds attack troops. The defensive troops in the second city still count as land troops.

 

[DeletedUser]

@ Lord sandman

If this was implemented it would make the 10 minute cancel attack rule useless as you coulld change your mind on something and then cancel an attack and loose one troop

 

[DeletedUser2795]

I thought Priscilla was talking about posting the SAME post twice. Posting two DIFFERENT posts doesn't seem like an offense of any kind... if it responds to two different earlier posts.

It is considered an offense.

I support it...

One thing, lets say you suffered the amount you placed in the % section.. would you recive they're Troop numbers?
You shouldn't in Game.. but in Real life, you would...

EDIT:
I do not see why people are so ignarant..
They are fighting against it, even though their Agument has been proved wrong..
Yes, i agree, few tweaks, and this will be perfecto!

When were my arguments proven wrong?

 

[DeletedUser]

Good concept here.. but there are some major questions... the most important being... can the battle system support it?

For this to work, combat would have to take place in 'rounds' of some sort, where each side deals damage, casualties happen, then the fight continues.

Is that how it works? My impression by the stats and reports is that most battle resolve all at once... if that's so, then this suggestion would require a complete overhaul of the battle system, which probably isn't going to happen (nor should it).

If there are rounds (and I've simply not had any fights big enough to reveal that) then I think it would be good... but rather than a %, there should be more flavorful settings, like 'conservative', 'aggressive', and 'all-out' The results would be the fight ends after the round where casualties go about 50 (or 75, or whatever).

As far as information goes, the withdrawing attacker should get some info, but not all. That info should be commisserate with how long the fight lasted.. the longer the fight, the more accurate the assessment.

 

[DeletedUser]

The mechanics of how the battle is resolved in the system is important. If there are no "rounds", the system would have to create iterations. Here is an example:

1) Attacker selects some setting other than the default "100%" (or "Bold"). Let's say 50%.

2) If the system resolves the battle and the attacker wins, nothing changes.

3) If the system resolves the battle and the attacker LOSES, the system could re-run the battle *as though* the attackers forces were only the percentage he was willing to lose (i.e. if 50%, then the system re-calculates the battle with the attackers losing forces set at 50%).

4) This might automatically introduce a penalty to the attacker or bonus to the defender in terms of reducing his losses.

Does anyone know if the ratio of casualties for the defender is lower if the attacker's forces are smaller? Or is the ratio of casualties the same? If the casualty ratio IMPROVES for the defender in the second re-calculation, then this can be the bonus that Priscilla wants for the defender.

Comments?

Warm regards,


Lord Sandman

PS to Priscilla: I moderate a few internet lists outside of Grepolis. Why would making 2 posts answering 2 different questions by 2 different people be an "offense"? I have found that different posts for different questions can help reduce confusion. If the 2 posts are the same total length as 1 combined post, where is the offense? I will follow the rules. But I would love to understand the rules as well.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't think that the actual coding would be overly difficult. The program would need to check if the conditions have been met and recalculate the losses. I'd imagine this could be done in three lines of code. It is up to the developers to decide if this add too much to server load.

There is a big difference in the number of casualties suffered in relation to the sizes of the armies. The curve is hyperbolic in favor of the winner as you move away from an even match. This is precisely the reason I insisted that there must be a penalty for using this type of attack. If there wasn't such a curve, there would be no reason to send more troops than you were prepared to lose.

I've re-read the forum rules. I didn't find anything that outlaws double posting. I'll put that down to an oversight. If someone was to post dozens of messages just to show off their new avatar or signature, they'd still get a ban for it. We also will continue to merge double posts when there is no reason to post again rather than editing the existing post. You can used bbcode to highlight the change in whos questions you are answering such as bold or even [size=+1]size[/size].

 

[DeletedUser]

an idea i made to make all of you happy
the % you use is how fast your troops will go
so if it is 75% your troop speed is 75% of their speed
happy with that

 

[DeletedUser]

btw Sigi, congratulations on building your first special building. I'm hoping it was baths, but suspect it was the tower.

OFF TOPIC @ Priscilla: Thank you, as far as the speculation regarding the hygiene of my citizens or the defensive posture of my polis I shall make no comment.

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate.

I still like the idea that Lord Sandman has come up with, I do believe it has merit.

 

[DeletedUser]

I personally could support this idea as well. It has a nice ring to it.

There is ONE thing though.

This is basically saying.
"If I send 100 horses and 50 die, retreat."

Simple solution. Don't send 100 Horses, send 50.
For that reason alone (simple logic) I can't favor this idea. So the "could" support it, turns into "wont" support it. Sorry.

The only counter argument I can see is: "If there was no luck factor I would win, with -30 luck I would lose. So I send knowing that at least 30% would survive, which is the same as not receiving negative luck"
- To that I would simply say the same. You send the extra to make up for the bad luck. Just in case kind of deal. If you aren't willing to lose the extra to bad luck, don't send them in the first place.

This percentage tactic means you would not lose everything on negative luck, but would have extra troops survive if you had zero luck or better. It removes the luck factor somewhat. And for THAT reason... I am against the idea.


Bucky.

 

[DeletedUser]

To my fellow generals:

I find it almost bizarre that some players are so determined to forbid allowing for battles OTHER than those where one side has to be eliminated completely.

The problem with ALL OUT BATTLES:
1) It is not consistent with a more realistic range of battles, where the outcomes sometimes allow for only moderate losses on both sides.

2) It creates more frequent periods where Generals have to re-build their armies.

3) It discourages more frequent battles where losses are smaller and thus less devastating if luck goes wrong.

4) The ability to withdraw from some battles when things are going poorly is an ancient one. Deliberately making this impossible is silly and petty.

5) There is nothing less realistic or demoralizing to both players than to have a battle where both sides are wiped out and one side survives by just a few men.

I actually know of a case where a player became inactive after he was wiped in just such a battle.

When does this proposal get voted? Or when does it get voted on getting voted on?

Respectfully submitted,

Lord Sandman

PS!: Imagine playing poker and NOT being allowed to fold your cards after you ante-up. You could say to the players: "Hey, you should have folded at the beginning. You can't now." But that would be wrong-headed. I think you can see the comparison here.