Create a "Stop Attack" feature in Battle Resolution

[DeletedUser]

then i think you should be able to spy on the % an attack is
so lets say you pay 1000 silver for you to spy on that %
this would mean you know if it is a fake or not and help it out
(it will not spy on the troops)

 

[DeletedUser]

I quite like the sound of this idea as well, please to clarify, how would spying on the % help them to know it is a fake? could one not have a real attack but with a low % ?

 

[DeletedUser]

yes but then you would know that you don't need as many troops in that polis still.

 

[DeletedUser]

ohhhhh I see, would the spying work in the same way as spying on cities or not? for instance if they sent a spy on your % but you had more silver in the city the troops came from would the spy fail or would the spy always suceed?

 

[DeletedUser]

this may make the game too different that it is now but here i go.

you could send silver with your attacks if it's blow 100%, the silver comes from your cave(it then becomes like spy is now, if they want to spy on your attack.). the silver thats left (spyed or no spyed) will come back with the troops that get out of the fight.

 

[DeletedUser]

I see, and even if it makes the gaem a little different it sounds like a good idea, it adds a new stratigic level to it. and thank you for clearing my questions up

 

[DeletedUser]

As requested. I have edited/revised the "details" section of the initial post.

But I have to say that I am not convinced this favors larger armies. The one thing no one wants is to wipe themselves out in a suicidal battle..... neither the winner OR the loser. Neither a large army or small army.

So.... if the attacker decides the losses are too steep, he withdraws. Saying this FAVORS LARGER ARMIES is kind of beside the point, don't you think?

The rule favors the prudent.... and BOTH SIDES benefit.

And they benefit in a way that is tactically realistic.

This constant harping on "fake attacks" should be dropped now that we are talking about a higher "minimum percentage". There's nothing fake about risking HALF your army! So can we cut it out?

Lord Sandman

P.S. Are you in some kind of panic or something? I've never imagined objections like this.

While it is true that both sides will benefit, the way it is proposed the attacker benefits more than the defender does.

The battle mechanics used in this game are not linear. The greater the victory, the lower the losses. So sending an attack with a withdraw at 50% losses will do more damage to the defender than sending 50% of your troops. This is where it becomes abusable.

As a larger player, I could send 4 withdrawal attacks at allies of my real target. This will spread any support they could muster greatly increasing the chance of my real attack getting through. I have the advantage of knowing even before I send that I can have 4 attack cities at full strength within 2 days. This is opposed to the current situation where if I lost all 5 nukes, it would take 2 days just to get the troops needed for full scale farming. The single city players that I am attacking will never be able to recover in this time.

There needs to be a penalty for using this type of attack. Something like a 10 - 15% reduction in fighting strength or 25% lower losses for the defender.

 

[DeletedUser]

Priscilla,

I'm really trying to understand this "abuse" issue. You write:

"...the way it is proposed the attacker benefits more than the defender does. The battle mechanics used in this game are not linear. The greater the victory, the lower the losses. So sending an attack with a withdraw at 50% losses will do more damage to the defender than sending 50% of your troops. This is where it becomes abusable."

What? If I have a huge army, that would have ultimately wiped out the defender, but if I set it to automatically withdraw if it loses 50% of my cities total attack points, then I never reap the benefits of a calculation that favors an all out attack by my larger army. And I don't get any loot or intelligence.

On the other side of the coin, the defender doesn't get wiped out because the battle ends before the attacker's "power leverage" due to size is not realized. And he gets the "spy value" of knowing what the army units are for the attacker.

As to your last comments:
"As a larger player, I could send 4 withdrawal attacks at allies of my real target. This will spread any support they could muster greatly increasing the chance of my real attack getting through."

How does this force a "spread" of support? The larger player has sent 4 attacks that is wearing him down just as much as it wears down his opponent. But neither one of them have been stripped down of all their units in one fight..... unless the attacker decides to set his withdrawal at 95% or 100%.

Where exactly is the down side? This is the way real battles are waged. And with just one added field and one modification of the land battle resolution system, we could be fighting like adults.

With warm (& puzzled) regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

+1, seems to be a good idea

As a larger player, I could send 4 withdrawal attacks at allies of my real target. This will spread any support they could muster greatly increasing the chance of my real attack getting through. I have the advantage of knowing even before I send that I can have 4 attack cities at full strength within 2 days. This is opposed to the current situation where if I lost all 5 nukes, it would take 2 days just to get the troops needed for full scale farming. The single city players that I am attacking will never be able to recover in this time.

You can do that anyway. It's called sending fakes

 

[DeletedUser2795]

She is saying that this way she would be able to send far bigger fakes, and therefore make it look more realistic, even through wisdom.

 

[DeletedUser]

I consider a "fake" to be sending 5 units. You expect them to die.

Sending a unit with a 50% "Stop Loss" factor is a gamble. You might win. If you KNOW you are going to lose, it isn't likely that you are going to bother sending a large attacking force with a 50% stop loss.

If you are convinced you are going to win, you set the stop loss at 95% or 100%.

The only reason you would send a large army with a stop loss of 40% or 50% is because you DON'T KNOW if you are going to win. And you don't want to lose your whole army, even if you technically beat him by having 5 units left out of 800 dead.

So people are going to have to understand the fact that if you use this feature (if it were established), it would **NOT** be to send fake attacks. You don't spend half your army and then withdraw if you are just "faking someone".
You withdraw to preserve the core of your army, pure and simple.

If you want to send FAKE battles, you send minimum units.... period.


Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Sandman, most people on these forums can not send 5 units in an attack due to high farm levels and large armies

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay... many can't go as low as 5. But whatever their minimum is, I'm guessing it isn't ANYWHERE near 50%.

Deliberately sending units that you know will lose can be called a "fake attack".

But deliberately sending a large force that you hope will win, but you don't want to lose all of it, is hardly a "fake attack". It's a *jab*. You are either going to knock the enemy on its butt, or he's not going to go down easy.... and if so, then you want to step back and re-think the situation.

A person who sends lots of fake attacks is doing so (presumably) according to a plan.

A person who sends, say, THREE "attacks with drawal at 50%" is just burning up his men in slow motion. After the first withdrawal, the attacker is either going to dramatically increase the size of the next sortie (if he can), or he's going to send a minimum force as a fake attack.

I can imagine very few scenarios where a person would send a same size army more than once as a "stop loss" style attack.

In conclusion: this is not a technique that can be abused very easily.

It can only be used...rather than abused. And the city being ATTACKED will be delighted to find out that he was attacked by someone who had a weak stomach. It may just trigger a very strong COUNTER-ATTACK!, if not an uneasy truce.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

What I think is that it would be changing the strategy in the game. This is the second thread I have posted this on but it is true. The outbreak would be the same as morale and revolt. Also how long would the battle take place? 5 minutes? 1 hour?

Also because it is a naval battle first if all your transports are destroyed and you stop the attack how on earth do those troops get back home which could be possible 200 hours away?

 

[DeletedUser]

What I am saying is the troops will do half the damage that the full army will do. Sending half as many will do a quarter to a third. By using the withdrawal, the attacker does not have to build up farming troops before they can begin collecting full resources. This means they can retrain the troops in a third of the time that it would take to retrain from scratch. A direct result of this is they can attack 3 times doing half the damage each time. That is a 50% advantage. Hence the need for a penalty.

This is on top of the possibility that the attacker might win. In which case they collect full spoils for a reduced risk. Once again, there is a need for penalties.

This is not a game that is limited to one small city attacking another small city. As the game progresses, battles involving hundreds of cities become more common. It is in this stage that any advantage like this will be abused. What's more, it is those that have the larger number of cities that can best take advantage of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think what you are overlooking is that the defender will also take fewer loses if the attacker retreats before being annihilated. This makes it possible for him rebuild that much more quickly as well.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

yes, but losing 50/100 troops is different then losing 75/100 troops. And personally, I think that this idea if it were ever implemented (I hope it isn't) should not be usable on a revolt or C-Ship attack the reasoning being that a C-Ship is too slow and cumbersome to escape and if your loyal troops are trying to incite rebellion, they can not follow that order if they retreat.

 

[DeletedUser]

JKP and TYRONICS,

I don't believe you have read the proposal closely enough.

The proposal does NOT involve using such a feature on the Ocean phase of a battle. It only applies to ground troops.

I do not know what this sentence means: "The outbreak would be the same as morale and revolt." Is there anyone out there who knows what is meant by this?

How long is the battle? No longer than a battle set at 100% "loss stop" (which is the default setting of the game now). Why does length of battle worry you?

Priscilla writes:
"By using the withdrawal, the attacker does not have to build up farming troops before they can begin collecting full resources." What? By withdrawing, the attacker LOSES. The attacker cannot farm cities if he loses. He cannot get intelligence information if/when he loses.

I have no problem with the "stop loss factor" not being available on revolts.

The fact that someone attacking a city with a stop loss factor at 50% means he might withdraw before the city's troops are too substantially damaged is part of the intent. That's the GOOD part.

The attacker may withdraw and the city actually had only 10 more men left. Or the attacker may withdraw and the city may have huge amounts of troops left.

The point is that an attacker can set the factor to reflect his degree of boldness.

This is very realistic.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman

 

[DeletedUser]

Priscilla writes:
"By using the withdrawal, the attacker does not have to build up farming troops before they can begin collecting full resources." What? By withdrawing, the attacker LOSES. The attacker cannot farm cities if he loses. He cannot get intelligence information if/when he loses.

this is about troops toy use to farm for resources that you farmed before you attacked. so lets say you use 300 horsemen to farm you would have 150 left to farm with still.

 

[DeletedUser]

You write:
"...this is about troops toy use to farm for resources that you farmed before you attacked. so lets say you use 300 horsemen to farm you would have 150 left to farm with still. "

Naturally. But it also means that a city that might have been wiped out, is NOT wiped out, and ALSO has troops left to farm.

Warm regards,

Lord Sandman