Polls

Default Game Speed

Log in to vote!

Latest Posts

Topic: give some bonus to the defender?

hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 821
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2019-07-09, 18:23

GunChleoc wrote:

This would be similar in effect to a territory bonus.

I don't think so, cause not the territory is the input for the bonus but the soldiers stationed in the territory. So if there are no soldiers (or maybe Military Buildings) in a radius of perhaps 17 no bonus is given.

How about we start with leaving the soldiers inside the attacked building and get this into trunk, then see from playing experience if more needs to be done?

This is not always desirable as pointed out by Worldsavior


Top Quote
hessenfarmer
Avatar
Joined: 2014-12-11, 23:16
Posts: 821
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Bavaria
Posted at: 2019-07-09, 21:44

did some calcualtions. Defence value can't be used as results are to tribe specific. But evade could be used (5% evade bonus reduces chance for the attacker by around 10%)

Edited: 2019-07-09, 21:44

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1443
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-07-09, 22:57

hessenfarmer wrote:

did some calcualtions. Defence value can't be used as results are to tribe specific. But evade could be used (5% evade bonus reduces chance for the attacker by around 10%)

Isn't evade also specific to the training level? give 5% more evade to a barbarian rookie, he'll be hit 7% less times (chances to hit drop from 75% to 70%). Give that to an atlantean hero, going from 36% chance to be hit to 31% is a 14% net reduction in chance to be hit.

Unless the defender bonus was calculated separately


Top Quote
WorldSavior
Avatar
Joined: 2016-10-15, 04:10
Posts: 1308
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: GER
Posted at: 2019-07-09, 23:54

hessenfarmer wrote:

did some calcualtions. Defence value can't be used as results are to tribe specific. But evade could be used

Yes, but why? One could also change "attacker hits first" into "defender hits first" - but is this really necessary? (If two attackers intercept each other the first hit could be randomly chosen.) Defenders already have the advantage that they are healed in the buildings, and attackers often have to walk long distances until they can be healed again. Furthermore the attackers usually don't exactly know who they will be facing, so players should often think twice or more if they really should attack.

(5% evade bonus reduces chance for the attacker by around 10%)

No matter how good the soldiers already evade? No matter how many hits they survive? I don't think so. By the way 10% seem to be too much... 10% substracted?

hessenfarmer wrote:

One different solution might be to increase the original defence capability of defending soldiers by a value dependent of the military presence (Military strength of soldiers) in the vicinity of the fight.
- This does not need micromanagement - It encourages having better trained soldiers and bigger military buildings
- The story behind is that the braveness/morale of a soldier is dependent on comradship
- With the formula we would have a clear measure to control the effect

Well... Why shouldn't attackers have the same effect if it's based on comradship? I think that we don't need this system.

king_of_nowhere wrote:

the-x wrote:

Maybe we should make one building you cannot attack till 1 hour / till you build Lager /

i don't like that; too arbitrary.

Me neither

or the best way i think: make recruiting in the first steps much cheaper and faster and the latest steps much more expensive

how would that help the defender? if nothing else, it would actually encourage early rush with cheap soldiers rather than developing the economy.

Exactly, sounds just like a big boost for the-x's favorite strategy face-wink.png

Nordfriese wrote:

I think options to select how the building decides on the defenders would be too complicated since you´ll have to set this for every single building, possibly multiple times.

But maybe better than having no choice

IMHO an additional "weakest/strongest soldier always remains inside" button should be enough.

That would be a good button

Maybe the soldiers could regenerate simultaneously inside the military building at a very slow rate (they help each other or just sleep a bit) and one soldier is healed by the healer (faster)

+1

-1

The player might have the option to send the healer out, so he/she heals one defender near this military building (maybe use some medicine or healing herbs for that)

That would be overkill IMHO

Oh yes

teppo wrote:

WorldSavior wrote:

Defenders on field do not go home to heal, after losing many HPs.

I think you mix up something, because this is not correct...

Surprising. I did not have suitable savegames, could not verify. I guess you play more and are right.

Possibly... But there are similar problems. Defenders go in the beginning out of their building, no matter how wounded they are. And if not their building is attacked but the neighbour building, they also do the same. And if they retread then because of injury, they will very quickly go back to battle.

Conclusion: A good bonus for defenders would be the possibility to tell soldiers individually if they should stay or not. Or if one could control defenders even better it could also be an improvement for the game.

I think that the building under attack should not send out any soldiers.

I'm against that. It can also be an advantage. For example, look at a single building full of heroes which gets attacked by a giant number of much weaker soldiers. Then it's very useful that the heroes swarm out. If not, the only defender at the doorstep will be swarmed and often hold back when he tries to retreat, so he might die.

Should the defender have higher odds of retreating (if there are still other soldiers inside)?

Well, I don't know the odds. How high are they, where can I see it?

In addition, the algorithm that picks the soldier that chooses the next defender could be more intelligent, and could have a knowledge of the attacking soldier, and tune the decision based on that.

+1

What is a good algorithm?

Don't know it exactly

Always picking the defender that has highest odds of defeating the next attacker can devastate the defending heroes.

Yes. It sounds harsh, but often the weakest soldier has to sacrifice himself for the heroes. Currently this already happens if the heroes are very wounded.

If there is only one attack, the situation is still simple. However, if the aggressor launches many attacks, picking the right guy can be difficult.

I could start with the following: - If there are non-wounded defender, start with weakest one that has higher promotion than attacker. If no such guy, use weakest.

Sounds clever to me

  • If no unwounded defenders, launch the guy that has highest odds of winning.

This should not always happen in my opinion. For example: All defenders very wounded, hero goes out, dies instead of rookies.

So if all defenders are very wounded, we need a better solution. Or even if they are half wounded and so forth.

I disagree. For example, if both players have exactly one supersoldier (and if they are thinking that), they might not risk to lose him by attacking, so it's rather a stalemate situation.

Time flows on, and one of the players gains new military power faster.. Besides, one could launch few rookies first, to wound the hero and only then use the own supersoldier?

Sounds clever, but how to assure that they succeed in wounding the hero?


“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan

Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1443
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 02:00

WorldSavior wrote:

Conclusion: A good bonus for defenders would be the possibility to tell soldiers individually if they should stay or not. Or if one could control defenders even better it could also be an improvement for the game.

that's kinda situational. the attacker can choose to launch the attack and can pick all the soldiers that will go calmly, but the defender will be called on a moment's notice. I agree that having controls in every military building to tell individual soldiers to go out intercepting attackers or staying inside to heal would actually be the boost defence needs, but it is dependent upon the defender's skill at micromanaging fast. And I don't like to make speed an important factor.

I disagree. For example, if both players have exactly one supersoldier (and if they are thinking that), they might not risk to lose him by attacking, so it's rather a stalemate situation.

Time flows on, and one of the players gains new military power faster.. Besides, one could launch few rookies first, to wound the hero and only then use the own supersoldier?

Sounds clever, but how to assure that they succeed in wounding the hero?

there is never any certainty, but the attacker has higher odds of making it work. if the attacker sends out rookie soldiiers first to wound a bit the enemy hero, send out a soldier at a time to keep enemies from retreating to heal, and then sends his hero to attack at the right moment, then the attacker has better than 50% chances, starting from parity.

this in turn means the defender will have more than 50% chance if he attacks, and less if he lets himself be attacked. so it makes for a system where attacking first is always the best move. of course there's still luck on individual fight to matter.


Top Quote
the-x
Avatar
Joined: 2019-01-19, 13:23
Posts: 137
Ranking
At home in WL-forums
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 02:15

I tryd it with many savegames from the last games I played on different maps The best solution would be a techtree, I think which should be not much harder to implememt than the other changes. Tell soldiers individually makes many boring / technical stuff. You can chose military +10% strengh per soldier / economy / a third, etc see in tech tree, important is that the offensive strengh gets stronger the longer the games goes.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1443
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 02:44

the-x wrote:

I tryd it with many savegames from the last games I played on different maps The best solution would be a techtree, I think which should be not much harder to implememt than the other changes. Tell soldiers individually makes many boring / technical stuff. You can chose military +10% strengh per soldier / economy / a third, etc see in tech tree, important is that the offensive strengh gets stronger the longer the games goes.

soldiers fight with the same stats in attack when attacking or defending, so this would really do nothing. except perhaps discourage players from developing expanded economies by making them even more expensive to start, and so encourage rushing even more.

Given that all your suggestions had that as a likely result, I'm thinking you are doing it intentionallly face-tongue.png


Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 506
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 12:56

Defining that the soldier of the player who initiated the attack always strikes second might be an easy way to give the defender a modest bonus


Top Quote
BoeseKaiser
Avatar
Joined: 2019-02-21, 11:03
Posts: 25
Ranking
Pry about Widelands
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 13:10

Nordfriese wrote:

Defining that the soldier of the player who initiated the attack always strikes second might be an easy way to give the defender a modest bonus

might be a big deal for supersoldiers though, no? the less hits -> the more impact this change has


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1443
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2019-07-10, 13:58

BoeseKaiser wrote:

Nordfriese wrote:

Defining that the soldier of the player who initiated the attack always strikes second might be an easy way to give the defender a modest bonus

might be a big deal for supersoldiers though, no? the less hits -> the more impact this change has

we accounted for this when we made the calculations. if i remember correctly, the chances of victory are greater by about 5%. but someone should check. i think einstein keeps the updated stats.


Top Quote