Protection after battle working as intended?

[Falka]

Last night we, United Democratic National Workers Salvation Front for Liberation of Calradia, had a battle against Bushido from UIF.

They have gained victory over us, they have gained our 100+ crates, survived 56 of their soldiers. Right behind their backs we had 2 armies with 350+ pretty well equipped troops. But we couldn't have attack them. Someone told us that after battle there is 2 hours cooldown which prevents next attack (in previous battle we didn't attack them, they attacked us, but nvm). Ok, we didn't know it, but so be it. Since attack button didn't work properly - our armies were faster so every time when we reached Bushido attack was cancelled - we followed them. One hour after the battle Bushido was attacked by Wataga (UIF) guy with 62 soldiers.

Bushido is one hour and a half from Derchios Castle so we could attack him one hour after his battle with Wataga by the time he'll sell goods, but in the area there are a few others unarmed UIF armies and we don't have enough members to attack them all 

Going to the point, is cooldown after battle working as inteded? 


PS Yeah, I know, for you big guys from big clans 100 crates isn't worth a spit but for me it's a huge pile of gold 

PS2 This thread isnt't supposed to be QQ thread. I didn't know game mechanics (since Strat 1 till the end of Strat 3 I have participated in one strat battle), they did. I've made a mistake, should have attack this Wataga guy with one of ours army, my fault. I won't cry, I'm a big girl and big girls don't cry The thing is in my opinion this game mechanism is broken. 

I suspect devs didn't implement this mechanism, so allies can move few kilometers closer to city and attack themselves all over again, in same second protection dissapears. This makes no sense at all to me, because this way makes you completely immune from enemies. You just need few allies nearby (...) and you can attack each other all the time.

[LordBerenger]

I'm sure it depends. Who was the ATTACKER?

[Falka]

I'm sure it depends. Who was the ATTACKER?

(in previous battle we didn't attack them, they attacked us, but nvm).

One hour after the battle Bushido was attacked by Wataga (UIF) guy with 62 soldiers.

 

[LordBerenger]

Yeah i'm pretty sure attacker gets slightly protection after attacking so you can't surround him with like 20 stacks of blobs around him. If say it was someone defending i believe you can attack him afterwards which i find weird and stupid.

However i could be wrong but when i tried to myself attack an attacker once it took a damn long time till i could actually engage him and had to attack several times and had quick march on and was basically right by him.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

IMO peace time should be removed, allows for really retarded shit.

[Beauchamp]

dunno how it works now (i thought it works both ways), but imo  peace time is good and should work for both sides no matter attacking or defending. if not you can never rob anybody from a bigger clan.

because if not, then after you successfully manage to rob him by surprise, other clan armies will arrive in meantime before the battle takes place, surround you and kill you right after the battle not giving you any chance to escape.

[PhantomZero]

Ya this basically happened to me, both the attacker and defender should have a 2-3 hour grace period to allow them to quickmarch into the nearest fief!

[Falka]

Ya this basically happened to me, both the attacker and defender should have a 2-3 hour grace period to allow them to quickmarch into the nearest fief!

Firstly attack button should work properly. I'm right behind guy, 100 metres from him, maybe less. I press attack, I reach him in no time because I'm twice as fast as he is. Attack is cancelled, I don't move any more. I need to repeat whole process. In the meantime another guy attacks my target, exactly when cooldown expires. I'm crying in the corner It's not ok. QQ 

[Cicero]

Wataga UIF ?

Even my dog is UIF nowadayz

[Olwen]

Sorry, didn't read what you wrote Falka, attention focused on Alizee dancing in your sig.

[XyNox]

I think the point is that you can get infinite protection when allies "attack" you without the intention of causing harm BUT with just the intention of reseting your "peace timer". You can then run infinite distances while being invulnurable and sell goods you looted without anyone being able to stop you from doing so. Clearly abooze.

[Keshian]

I think the point is that you can get infinite protection when allies "attack" you without the intention of causing harm BUT with just the intention of reseting your "peace timer". You can then run infinite distances while being invulnurable and sell goods you looted without anyone being able to stop you from doing so. Clearly abooze.

Yup, once again UIF using glitches in the system to cheat with "ally" attacks allowing peace time extensions.

One trick is to move ahead of them slightly and just keep track of time so that you are between them and a fief when peace time ends (was 1 hr. on someone I attacked the other day before we could attack him again).  It was originally a good idea and still is as long as chadz would ban people from strategus who glitch abuse it, which destroys a useful tool and makes it a cheat.

[Lordark]

Remove it and force big armies to have smaller armies around it for escorts to prevent wasteful sabotoge/ambush attacks.

[Jarlek]

I think the point is that you can get infinite protection when allies "attack" you without the intention of causing harm BUT with just the intention of reseting your "peace timer". You can then run infinite distances while being invulnurable and sell goods you looted without anyone being able to stop you from doing so. Clearly abooze.

Soooo, you lose 24 hours for 1 hour of "peace time"? That sounds really bad to me.

Yup, once again UIF using glitches in the system to cheat with "ally" attacks allowing peace time extensions.

One trick is to move ahead of them slightly and just keep track of time so that you are between them and a fief when peace time ends (was 1 hr. on someone I attacked the other day before we could attack him again).  It was originally a good idea and still is as long as chadz would ban people from strategus who glitch abuse it, which destroys a useful tool and makes it a cheat.

When have anyone done this? In the OP it was Black Tea (neutral merchant clan, IIRC, that have lots of different Mercing agreements) who attacked Sir Ironlake of UDNWSFLC (neutral player gathering). After Black Tea won, they tried to run away, but got jumped by Wataga (Random Bandit clan with no faction agreements).

I've yet to see anyone do this on purpose and it really seems like a very bad plan to me. Losing 100 (even if they are unarmed) troops once a day (also think of the logistics to always have a new army nearby), to get stopped for 24h, only to get 1 hour of measly "peace time"?

The Peace Time is one of the few things that gives neutrals, small timers and bandits a chance to get away with anything in strat. There's really no need to remove it.

Remove it and force big armies to have smaller armies around it for escorts to prevent wasteful sabotoge/ambush attacks.

Big armies already got protection from sabotage/ambushes by the "one third of the defenders troops needed" rule. I agree that there should be some more incentives for big armies to have smaller armies flanking them (logistical nightmare now, btw), but the 1 hour peacetime isn't one thing the big armies are taking advantage of, nor will remove it make big armies need smaller armies around them.

[Falka]

When have anyone done this? In the OP it was Black Tea (neutral merchant clan, IIRC, that have lots of different Mercing agreements) who attacked Sir Ironlake of UDNWSFLC (neutral player gathering). After Black Tea won, they tried to run away, but got jumped by Wataga (Random Bandit clan with no faction agreements).

I don't know anything about aboozing this mechanism by UIF or anyone else. Black Tea in battle against us had roster full of UIF guys so for me they looks like UIF. About Wataga I thought they are friends with UIF but maybe I'm wrong, dunno. Ok, shit happens