DeletedUser7557
Guest
I like this idea cause when i attack someone i can can my mind anywhere from 1-5min from when i sent the attack and i forget that they have troops there and all my troops die. It would help me tremendusly.
Yeah! Go Beta. I definitely stand for this idea.Its not 50/50 anymore. All the arguments on the cons side have been overturned numerous times yet you guys are still debating over it. As sandman said, your arguments are unrealistic.
I know my arguments on this discussion were lazy and crass but this discussion does seem to be a little stunted and proving no benifit to either side. Therefore to get this back on track I will list my views below.
The following was written by sandman in the initial suggestions.
Sakaturou's words are in bold Mine are italic and underlined.
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).
Variation is already provided by morale, luck, god powers etc
Isn't Lord Sandman meaning that this will create more variation?
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.
This game is based on the fact the player is almost unknowing of possible outcomes hence this would take away from the games feel.
No, actually, it wouldn't take away the game's feel, it would only add to it by making it more realistic.
3) Simulates actual battlefield decision making more realistically by allowing for retreat under heavy casualties. An immediate cut off point of x% would be unrealistic as this does not happen in real life due to influences and in Rl what would stop the defender pursueing causing more casualties?
I thought that there was only three choices, 50%, 75%, 100%.
4) It reduces downtime needed to rebuild forces when both sides suffer mutual destruction.
The benefit is that both cities can start running again, faster, while everything else remains unaffected.As both sides always have the same time to rebuild i do not see the benifit of this and if you would want a faster rebuild time then you would play a faster world.
5) Bold attackers can still attack as always by not changing the default "stop loss" factor.
This would lead to the entire spy system being almost defunt.
@ Sakatorou, I don't realize how that would stop the spy system from working.Also, like Sandman said @ JKP3nt, if you want to spy, go spy. No ones stopping you, except the silver in your opponent's cave.
I also notice that you are completely ignoring the navy in this situation which if your aim with realism, completely contradicts the point in the original suggestion hence this should be re-addressed by yourself
It's realistic, because while ships cost more than army, a general would more likely sacrifice all his ships to bring his troops to land than sacrifice all his troops in a land fight.
IMO.
Uhhhh...
If this would be put in place it would inhibit other aspects of the game from evolving due to time this takes to impliment. I would much rather have other ideas introduced and glitches fixed than this idea be implimented.
That's not a good excuse for things that should be done and have not been done.