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?
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.
Maybe we should make one building you cannot attack till 1 hour / till you build Lager /
i don't like that; too arbitrary.
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
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)
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
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.
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