In general its important to make units more balanced, so fights seem to be more fair to every player.
I mean, if someone starts this game and plays vs atlanticians against us and we win 70,5% of the fights of lvl 0 soldiers, he will soon quit the game.
well, depends. if the weaker soldiers are cheaper enough that you can afford to lose 2 for every one you kill, then it's fine. see also the concept of zerg rush.
I also think that it's not bad that barbarian rookies are weak but cheap, it increases the strategical depth of the game.
In any case we should not make it more unbalanced and we should not speed up piggeries or little economic changes or detail in economy, as the problem is mainly a military balanced one.
New players can not see all the stats that are behind, they only recognize they are constantly losing and therefore quit playing.
Maybe inside of the game there should be more informations.
it is false that the defenders heal while the attackers are out. in fact, the defenders heal considerably worse. wounded attacking troops retreat to their home, if they can, and start healing immediately, and won't go attack again until the attacker calls for them specifically to go out.
defending troops do not go back in their buildings to heal as long as there is a single attacking soldier still fighting. when the attacker strikes again, all defending troops move out to intercept.
Not if the building is directly at the border
including troops that are barely alive, that should have been left to heal.
True, but I suggested that one could tell them to stay. And one can send wounded defenders simply away by clicking on them, so they don't stay in the building, so they will not fight.
the defender effectively stops healing the moment it is attacked again. and those wounded troops are dead as soon as they meet an attacker, and they barely slow it. on the other hand, the attacker can handpick to only send fresh troops. the attacker could send rookies one at a time just to prevent the defender from healing.
But how should it be guaranteed that this rookie-sending strategy works?
that's why i think it is necessary to buff defender. I assumed it was straightfoward enough that there could be a strong consensus on it, but if somebody wants to argue this point, let's do it before going deeper into the details on how to do it.
Would it be enough for you if "attacker hits first" gets transformed into "defender hits first"?
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.
Well we could always discuss necessity. perhaps we should do this first. But the thread strted by the feeling that we gave the attacker a bonus by being able to select attacking soldiers which we should compensate a bit on the defence site.
What about compensating it by more possible orders for defending troops?
Making the defender strike first is a rather big change in some situation I believe from the numbers.
But smaller than complicated evade bonuses or group bonuses, right?
(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?
Yes 10 % subtracted from current values.
This is in almost all cases a bigger difference than just letting the defender striking first. And much more complicated.
but I checked this only for Level 0 vs Level 0 and Level 10 vs Level 10. I agree this is to much so we should add at max 0 to 4 evade depending on Military strength. Maybe max(4, floor (miltitary presence / 15)) would be a good starting point to find good values.
Why so very complicated?
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.
Necessity see above. For the story behind we could enhance comradship with additional dedication by defending wife and children to explain this.
This could change the game a lot...
Hi these are the actual values of the chances to win as in r20.
These values are calculated with the attacker listed in the first column striking first. So the difference is dependent on the level of soldiers for example for Level 0 this would mean quite a big change.
One of the highest difference would be that some 57% success rate turns into 43% (bar vs bar), which looks like 14% difference. But most other duels look more like 10% difference. And it's very uncomplicated, and don't you want that the defender gets a bonus?
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
Actually only in one case: Fri vs Fri. All other fights are a smaller deal than in the level0-fights.
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
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.
One of the ideas would be that one could do settings even before getting attacked at all.
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.
But who says that the rookies will find the hero?
“It's a threat to our planet to believe that someone else will save it.” - Robert Swan