Important Dates

Currently Online

Latest Posts

Topic: give some bonus to the defender?

Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 687
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 07:54

how about having the heal rate depending on nearby military buildings? maybe every military building heals within its conquer radius, and multiple buildings are cumulative.

+1
However this might become an extremely strong effect if many (even smaller) buildings are close to each other. So perhaps this should fall off 1/x from total healing rate at 0 distance to the doorstep to 0 at a distance equal to the building's conquer radius.

Another thought: the point of this change is to give defenders more power. So however we do it it should not be applied to soldiers on the way to attacking something.


Top Quote
Solstice_s_Return
Avatar
Joined: 2020-01-28, 13:24
Posts: 57
Ranking
Likes to be here
Location: Finland
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 08:02

There could be an another related bonus effect too: If military building isn't connected to a road network, no healing is possible or the heal rate is halved.


Top Quote
kaputtnik
Avatar
Joined: 2013-02-18, 20:48
Posts: 1802
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: Germany
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 08:41

Didn't read (or understand) all posts related to healing, but some thoughts about it:

  • Didn't know that soldiers get healed if they are outside of a military building. Healing during walking seems illogical to me.
  • AFAIK healing isn't explained in the tutorials. If healing get more complex, it may need to be explained in a tutorial.
  • May i do not fully understand the proposed speedup for healing, anyway i think this applies to defenders and attackers. So where is the benefit in regard to the topic, which asks for a bonus for defenders?

Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 109
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 09:22

The benefit for defenders should result from the fact, that in average, defenders stay in own territory longer than attackers. I guess.


Top Quote
GunChleoc
Avatar
Joined: 2013-10-07, 15:56
Posts: 3157
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: RenderedRect
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 10:46

Exactly, it's only done within the territory.

I like these 2 ideas:

So perhaps this should fall off 1/x from total healing rate at 0 distance to the doorstep to 0 at a distance equal to the building's conquer radius.

There could be an another related bonus effect too: If military building isn't connected to a road network, no healing is possible or the heal rate is halved

I'll remove the simultaneous healing inside the building and only do simultaneous healing outside the building.

I also think we should try to keep the chance as simple as possible. We can always add more effect later if needed.

Didn't know that soldiers get healed if they are outside of a military building. Healing during walking seems illogical to me.

Not yet, I added that in the experimental branch.


Busy indexing nil values

Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 687
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 11:08

There could be an another related bonus effect too: If military building isn't connected to a road network, no healing is possible or the heal rate is halved

This would be counterproductive IMHO because it means that once you succeeded in conquering one building inside the enemy's territory, counter-attacks are made much more effectively. Also it encourages players who conquered one site to try and conquer all other nearby sites as well so they can keep what they got. This would result in attacks being necessarily followed up by more fighting from both sides, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve.


Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 109
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 11:47

I think easier recapturing of captured buildings is totally in favour of making defense stronger face-wink.png


Top Quote
Nordfriese
Avatar
Joined: 2017-01-17, 18:07
Posts: 687
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Location: 0x55555d3a34c0
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 11:54

Perhaps, depending on whether you define defence as "everyone keeps what he built" or "attacking is always bad". But increasing the attacker's need to launch follow-up attacks is certainly not defensive face-wink.png


Top Quote
JanO
Avatar
Joined: 2015-08-02, 11:56
Posts: 109
Ranking
Likes to be here
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 12:05

It means that an attacker has to wait with his/her attacks until he/she is strong enough to capture a bigger piece of territory. Prevents rushing, gives more time to take care of your economy. Sucessfully capturing one single building might be equal to capturing some two or three buildings and giving up all of them except one.

So I'm still convinced that these changes will delay fighting stuff, even if actual conquering territory is maybe not slowed down.


Top Quote
king_of_nowhere
Avatar
Joined: 2014-09-15, 18:35
Posts: 1523
Ranking
One Elder of Players
Posted at: 2020-03-04, 14:59

Nordfriese wrote:

how about having the heal rate depending on nearby military buildings? maybe every military building heals within its conquer radius, and multiple buildings are cumulative.

+1
However this might become an extremely strong effect if many (even smaller) buildings are close to each other. So perhaps this should fall off 1/x from total healing rate at 0 distance to the doorstep to 0 at a distance equal to the building's conquer radius.

or maybe you get full healing from one building and half healing from the others. but the point is to give usefulness to many military buildings.

also don't foget that this healing only applies if the defender has more soldiers than the attacker, and if the defender wins fights. if the attacker has more soldiers, the defender won't have idle soldiers that heal. and if the attacker has stronger soldiers, the defender won't have the chance to heal. so, balance-wise, there shouldn't be a risk of making this too strong. if the attacker is stronger, he will pass regardless.

Nordfriese wrote:

There could be an another related bonus effect too: If military building isn't connected to a road network, no healing is possible or the heal rate is halved

first of all, in high level games buildings are not conquered, they are destroied first. secondly, even if you are playing with the AI, it still means that the attacker needs to have a lot of power to conquer the whole line. which is what we want: that attacking makes sense if you have a clear advantage. we don't want to discourage attacking completely.

This would be counterproductive IMHO because it means that once you succeeded in conquering one building inside the enemy's territory, counter-attacks are made much more effectively. Also it encourages players who conquered one site to try and conquer all other nearby sites as well so they can keep what they got. This would result in attacks being necessarily followed up by more fighting from both sides, which is the opposite of what we want to achieve.

are you telling me that sometimes you conquered a building in enemy territory and then the enemy didn't try to get it back and you didn't try to conquer anything else? seems real strange.

JanO wrote:

I think easier recapturing of captured buildings is totally in favour of making defense stronger face-wink.png

again, in multiplayer (which is where those balance changes really matter) buildings are not captured because the defender burns them down first. even if the defender is distracted and loses the building, the likelyhood that the other player is also distracted and will forget to burn down the building rather than have the enemy capture it back is negligible.

Nordfriese wrote:

But increasing the attacker's need to launch follow-up attacks is certainly not defensive face-wink.png

actually, it is. it forces the attacker to only attack if he has an advantage.

right now, the problem is that the attacker can launch a couple of soldiers (fully healed, the attacker can choose) and force all defender soldiers to move out to intercept. this stops the defender from healing his own soldiers, so he will lose a war of attrition. if the attacker has more power and swarms the enemy, that's not something we want to stop


Top Quote