DeletedUser
Guest
Proposal:
INTRODUCTION -
Under the current rule system, all battles are resolved by (more or less) calculating how many casualties are created by the losing side before the losing side is completely destroyed. In other words, there is always a side that is completely destroyed. Sometimes both sides are destroyed or one side is left with an insignificant number of survivors. However, as a General, I might want to withdraw an attack if I am suffering too many casualties rather than take the chance that I could still win. As a potential target city, I know that I would prefer a cautious attack vs. a bold attack in hopes that the attacker would withdraw before finding out if he would win.
IDEA -
To create an input field in the "Battle" system where the attacker enters how many casualties (in terms of percentage) he will accept before he leaves the field. If he leaves the default percentage of 100%, then the battle is resolved as always. But if the attacker enters 50%, then regardless of who is actually stronger, the attacker automatically retreats and his attacking force suffers 50% loss (based on the attacker's TOTAL land force, rather than based on just the attacking land force).
Reasons for Change:
1) It allows for more variations in combat outcome (including outcomes where both sides suffer partial loss).
2) It allows a player to attack with a large land force without risking the entire force, especially if the attacker doesn't know much about the city but still wants to be active with his army.
3) Simulates actual battlefield decision making more realistically by allowing for retreat under heavy casualties.
4) It reduces downtime needed to rebuild forces when both sides suffer mutual destruction.
5) Bold attackers can still attack as always by not changing the default "stop loss" factor.
Details:
1] When the attacker clicks on the ATTACK screen, there would be a new field called "Stop Attack at this % of Casualties". It's default value would be 100%, which is the game's current inherent setting. It would provide for 2 other settings: 50% and 75%.
2] The factor refers only to land units and applies only to the land phase of a given attack.
3] The percentage is based on the Attacker's TOTAL land force.... not merely the land force involved in the attack.
Visual Aids: - na.
Balance:
To provide balance:
[A] Penalty Calculation: If a General sets the factor at 75% and wins, he receives 75% of the loot he would ordinarily take. If a General sets the factor at 50% and wins, he receives 50% of the loot he would ordinarily take.
Defender Casualty Bonus: If a city is attacked by a cautious general using a 75% factor, the final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased due to calculating an attacking force at the 75% level, rather than the 100% level. The final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased even more if the 50% factor has been selected by the attacker.
[C] Additional Penalty: If the attacker withdraws before winning, he receives the same intelligence from the battle as if he lost the battle (i.e. none).
[D] Further "Balance" is achieved since the optional factors become less helpful the larger the total land force the attacker has. To the extent the attacking force is less than 100% of the Attacker's TOTAL land force, the more casualties would have to be experienced before the 75% or 50% thresholds could be triggered.
EXAMPLE: If a General has 100 Archers (8 attack points x 100) and 300 Slingers (23 attack points x 300), his total land attack force is 800 + 6,900 = 7,700. If he sends an attack of just the 300 slingers, a 50% stop loss would be triggered when more than 3,850 slinger attack points are lost, or casualties of 168 slingers (168 x 23 = 3,864).
HOWEVER, if a General has 300 Archers (8 x 300) and 300 slingers, his total land attack force is 2,400 + 6,900 = 9,300. If he sends just the 300 Slingers, a 50% stop loss would only be triggered when more than 4,650 slinger attack points are lost, or casualties of 203 slingers (203 x 23 = 4,669).
So the more land forces are left behind in an attack, the less the stop loss factor can be usefully exploited by more powerful Generals.
Abuse Prevention:
Does your proposal open up possible exploits or make it possible for players to cheat?
It doesn't allow cheating because it is based purely on system math. As discussed immediately above, larger cities or more powerful Generals would be less motivated to use the option frequently because it is more difficult for them to benefit from the 50% and 75% settings. Frivolous use of the more cautious settings is automatically discouraged because of the lack of intelligence derived if the attack is withdrawn and the reduced loot obtained if the cautious attacker actually wins. The defender benefits from reduced casualties when attacked by a cautious General.
Summary:
The default "stop loss" factor of 100% allows a General to attack without experiencing any changes - - as per the current Status Quo. However, a General can choose to attack a relatively unknown city with a large army without putting the entire attacking force at risk if he is willing to accept less intelligence (if he loses) and less loot (if he wins). By mathematical definition, there would be fewer battles where BOTH sides are virtually destroyed in a single attack - - and less downtime by both the defender and the attacker while their armies are being rebuilt.
This optional flexibility allows for a greater range of outcomes and simulates the realism of being able to withdraw from some attacks when casualties become too painful. The new "stop loss" factors of 50% and 75% would also allow for de facto military "wagering" that parallels the risks and rewards experienced in poker tournaments, while becoming less and less relevant, or less available, to more powerful Generals.
The ability to withdraw from a battle in the face of high casualties is FUNDAMENTAL to moving Grepolis from "a fancy SIM game" to a nuanced and sophisticated battle system. As far as I can tell, the primary source for OBJECTING to this proposal are those with large systems of cities that **WANT** people to destroy themselves by attacking their communities - - rather than deal with people being able to avoid 100% destruction with each attack.
Administration:
Yes, this idea meets the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria.
Mathematically speaking, increasing penalties to the attacker or increasing bonus to the defender, or both, can be made if further balancing is recommended. In my view the more important issue is how difficult would the coding become. Since the proposal doesn't affect how screens or buttons or images are managed, I am hoping the coding is relatively easy to process. Aside from the creation of a new data field (to enter 100%, 75% or 50%), coding for this proposal is purely mathematical.
INTRODUCTION -
Under the current rule system, all battles are resolved by (more or less) calculating how many casualties are created by the losing side before the losing side is completely destroyed. In other words, there is always a side that is completely destroyed. Sometimes both sides are destroyed or one side is left with an insignificant number of survivors. However, as a General, I might want to withdraw an attack if I am suffering too many casualties rather than take the chance that I could still win. As a potential target city, I know that I would prefer a cautious attack vs. a bold attack in hopes that the attacker would withdraw before finding out if he would win.
IDEA -
To create an input field in the "Battle" system where the attacker enters how many casualties (in terms of percentage) he will accept before he leaves the field. If he leaves the default percentage of 100%, then the battle is resolved as always. But if the attacker enters 50%, then regardless of who is actually stronger, the attacker automatically retreats and his attacking force suffers 50% loss (based on the attacker's TOTAL land force, rather than based on just the attacking land force).
Reasons for Change:
1) It allows for more variations in combat outcome (including outcomes where both sides suffer partial loss).
2) It allows a player to attack with a large land force without risking the entire force, especially if the attacker doesn't know much about the city but still wants to be active with his army.
3) Simulates actual battlefield decision making more realistically by allowing for retreat under heavy casualties.
4) It reduces downtime needed to rebuild forces when both sides suffer mutual destruction.
5) Bold attackers can still attack as always by not changing the default "stop loss" factor.
Details:
1] When the attacker clicks on the ATTACK screen, there would be a new field called "Stop Attack at this % of Casualties". It's default value would be 100%, which is the game's current inherent setting. It would provide for 2 other settings: 50% and 75%.
2] The factor refers only to land units and applies only to the land phase of a given attack.
3] The percentage is based on the Attacker's TOTAL land force.... not merely the land force involved in the attack.
Visual Aids: - na.
Balance:
To provide balance:
[A] Penalty Calculation: If a General sets the factor at 75% and wins, he receives 75% of the loot he would ordinarily take. If a General sets the factor at 50% and wins, he receives 50% of the loot he would ordinarily take.
Defender Casualty Bonus: If a city is attacked by a cautious general using a 75% factor, the final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased due to calculating an attacking force at the 75% level, rather than the 100% level. The final casualty calculation inflicted on the DEFENDER is decreased even more if the 50% factor has been selected by the attacker.
[C] Additional Penalty: If the attacker withdraws before winning, he receives the same intelligence from the battle as if he lost the battle (i.e. none).
[D] Further "Balance" is achieved since the optional factors become less helpful the larger the total land force the attacker has. To the extent the attacking force is less than 100% of the Attacker's TOTAL land force, the more casualties would have to be experienced before the 75% or 50% thresholds could be triggered.
EXAMPLE: If a General has 100 Archers (8 attack points x 100) and 300 Slingers (23 attack points x 300), his total land attack force is 800 + 6,900 = 7,700. If he sends an attack of just the 300 slingers, a 50% stop loss would be triggered when more than 3,850 slinger attack points are lost, or casualties of 168 slingers (168 x 23 = 3,864).
HOWEVER, if a General has 300 Archers (8 x 300) and 300 slingers, his total land attack force is 2,400 + 6,900 = 9,300. If he sends just the 300 Slingers, a 50% stop loss would only be triggered when more than 4,650 slinger attack points are lost, or casualties of 203 slingers (203 x 23 = 4,669).
So the more land forces are left behind in an attack, the less the stop loss factor can be usefully exploited by more powerful Generals.
Abuse Prevention:
Does your proposal open up possible exploits or make it possible for players to cheat?
It doesn't allow cheating because it is based purely on system math. As discussed immediately above, larger cities or more powerful Generals would be less motivated to use the option frequently because it is more difficult for them to benefit from the 50% and 75% settings. Frivolous use of the more cautious settings is automatically discouraged because of the lack of intelligence derived if the attack is withdrawn and the reduced loot obtained if the cautious attacker actually wins. The defender benefits from reduced casualties when attacked by a cautious General.
Summary:
The default "stop loss" factor of 100% allows a General to attack without experiencing any changes - - as per the current Status Quo. However, a General can choose to attack a relatively unknown city with a large army without putting the entire attacking force at risk if he is willing to accept less intelligence (if he loses) and less loot (if he wins). By mathematical definition, there would be fewer battles where BOTH sides are virtually destroyed in a single attack - - and less downtime by both the defender and the attacker while their armies are being rebuilt.
This optional flexibility allows for a greater range of outcomes and simulates the realism of being able to withdraw from some attacks when casualties become too painful. The new "stop loss" factors of 50% and 75% would also allow for de facto military "wagering" that parallels the risks and rewards experienced in poker tournaments, while becoming less and less relevant, or less available, to more powerful Generals.
The ability to withdraw from a battle in the face of high casualties is FUNDAMENTAL to moving Grepolis from "a fancy SIM game" to a nuanced and sophisticated battle system. As far as I can tell, the primary source for OBJECTING to this proposal are those with large systems of cities that **WANT** people to destroy themselves by attacking their communities - - rather than deal with people being able to avoid 100% destruction with each attack.
Administration:
Yes, this idea meets the Ideas Guidelines & Criteria.
Mathematically speaking, increasing penalties to the attacker or increasing bonus to the defender, or both, can be made if further balancing is recommended. In my view the more important issue is how difficult would the coding become. Since the proposal doesn't affect how screens or buttons or images are managed, I am hoping the coding is relatively easy to process. Aside from the creation of a new data field (to enter 100%, 75% or 50%), coding for this proposal is purely mathematical.
Last edited by a moderator:
