Battle roster limit suggestion

[Macropus]

Im sorry if this suggestion was written in past or already implemented or just stupid.

Suggestion:
Battle: Side A (300 troops) vs Side B (100 troops).
Side B roster limit = 100/300 * Side A roster limit.

This way, if Side A has maximum 30 players in roster, Side B would be able to have only 10 players in roster.
And this will prevent sutiations when in battle 300 vs 100 both sides lose 100 troops which is a bit ridiculous because in real battle these 100 guys would be just ganked most likely.

[chadz]

Or, even better, automatically calculate the results based on the troop number. Who wants fights anyway.

[dodnet]

And this will prevent sutiations when in battle 300 vs 100 both sides lose 100 troops which is a bit ridiculous because in real battle these 100 guys would be just ganked most likely.

Yeah, sure...

DoD_Wolper vs STR_aD_RaGe - Hide Details
- Battle time: 15.10., 23:26
- Battle duration: 21m11s
- Army size: 368 vs 700
- Battle result: 0 vs 87
- Winner: Defender

The numbers say nothing about equipment...

 

[Vibe]

A better solution would be a formula that affects both sides the same.

Something like

Roster size per team = ((TeamA_troops + TeamB_troops)/2 ) / 10

with of course the maximum limit (not sure what it is) that we have right now could work well.

Examples:
100 vs 100 fight = 10 players per team
1000 vs 1000 fight = 100 players per team (or whatever the hardcap is)
500 vs 100 fight = 30 players per team

[Macropus]

Or, even better, automatically calculate the results based on the troop number. Who wants fights anyway.

I see what you mean, but my suggestion isn't about making troops number prevailing factor in battle. I just think what outnumbering your enemy should give some advantage, roster limit doesn't have to be strictly proportional.

Yeah, sure...

Well it's just a single case, I don't quite see how it can be related to what I suggest 

[dodnet]

I see what you mean, but my suggestion isn't about making troops number prevailing factor in battle. I just think what outnumbering your enemy should give some advantage, roster limit doesn't have to be strictly proportional.Well it's just a single case, I don't quite see how it can be related to what I suggest 

If some heavily armed with 100 troops attacks some unarmed with 299 troops, the heavily armed might most likely win even with lower numbers.

Also your suggestion will only benefit the big clans: DRZ, Grey, STR with their 500+ unarmed blobs would be unstoppable!

[Macropus]

If some heavily armed with 100 troops attacks some unarmed with 299 troops, the heavily armed might most likely win even with lower numbers.

That wouldn't change even if my suggestion gets implemented. The point is that amount of players online would be proportional with troops, not 50 knights against 50 peasants, but for example 30 knights against 70 peasants. Just to make it more realistic.

Also your suggestion will only benefit the big clans: DRZ, Grey, STR with their 500+ unarmed blobs would be unstoppable!

Oh please, I hope you don't think I suggest it just to make big clans stronger 
My suggestion comes from singleplayer where battles are done this way:
If you set battle size to 100 - it means there will be only 100 troops "online" in battle from both sides together. If u attack and army of 200 troops with your 100 troops, in battle you will get 66 enemies vs 33 your troops. When some of them die, you and your enemy get reinforcements, and so on till one side loses all the troops.

Otherwise with a small army of perfectly armed soldiers you could beat ridiculously many enemies as they come not all together, like 300 spartans and such.

I wonder whether just my english isn't good enough to explain what I suggest or this suggestion is really bad 

[Haboe]

This will indeed make troop numbers all the more important.

Also known as:

(click to show/hide)

FU little clan
FU little bandit
FU lonely trader

[dodnet]

I wonder whether just my english isn't good enough to explain what I suggest or this suggestion is really bad 

Your English is good (as far as I can say that as German ), so the latter

I know how single player works but the problem with Strategus battles in the way you suggested would be that your 70 peasants would just cap the flags of the 30 heavy armored knights in no time and the battle would be lost. I have seen a few battles lost because of this. One side did have good equipment but not enough players on their side and lost because of that. Your suggestion would make that even worse.

[Macropus]

Okay thanks, now I see it really wouldn't work well at current strategus system.