Strategus Battles - when time runs out

[Boss_Awesome]

I don't really get why the defenders win when time runs out.  This seems to be an unrealistic and rather shitty mechanic.  It would make a lot more sense to have an army withdraw and not lose any more troops/equipment or perhaps a small amount like 10% as a result of the route.  As it is now, the defender can put so many troops into a location that the attacker must cap flags to win and if they fail they lose everything.  If the timer running out was considered a tie then we would see more battles overall.  Some of the city/castle sieges might take multiple battles to win as the attacker would have to grind down enemy troops.  It would be more realistic as well since sieges typically were not over in a single battle historically. 

[Haboe]

Time limit it the only thing where defenders have the advantage.

Attacker has the option to fight wherever he wants, since he attacks.


So yea, its fine as it is.

[oprah_winfrey]

I thought everyone adopted the strategy of attacking in waves of ~1000-1500 troops so that when the run out of time, they are also out of troops.

[Rikthor]

I see where you are coming from but lets use that last city fight, FCC vs. Hospis. If FCC would have attacked with say 5k vs their 6k, assuming you didn't knock down all the flags, that is going to be one hell of a long fight. I might be in the minority but grinding down  that many tickets for either side for a few hours does not appeal to me as fun.

The waves Egan talked about to me is more fun and doable since you are not relegated to poopsocker status just to win a city.

[Haboe]

Yep, much more then 1500 and you can't use the tickets. Prevents battles that last hours and hours.

[oprah_winfrey]

I see where you are coming from but lets use that last city fight, FCC vs. Hospis. If FCC would have attacked with say 5k vs their 6k, assuming you didn't knock down all the flags, that is going to be one hell of a long fight. I might be in the minority but grinding down  that many tickets for either side for a few hours does not appeal to me as fun.

The waves Egan talked about to me is more fun and doable since you are not relegated to poopsocker status just to win a city.

Yeah, huge 10k on 10k battles sound cool, until 6 hours pass, there are still thousands of troops left, and you have work in a few hours.

[CrazyCracka420]

Being as we're defending right now, I don't want to go into suggesting things that would hurt us, but I'm going to do just that!

If you're an attacking army, laying siege to a city or castle and you decide to retreat with 1000 men and equipment, you should be able to keep most of the equipment you have left, and most of the men you have left.

It's not like the defenders came sallying out and took your flags and routed the enemy.  If the defenders DO want to sally out and attack the retreating army, then they can do so, but they have to physically do that on the strat map.

Never understood why retreating with men (when attacking a castle or city) lost you all your men and a majority of your gear.  They should change the wording to "surrender" (and really think about implementing a retreat option).

[Tomas]

Never understood why retreating with men (when attacking a castle or city) lost you all your men and a majority of your gear.  They should change the wording to "surrender" (and really think about implementing a retreat option).

It used to be a proper retreat function but it had to have overly complicated looting rules to prevent abuse.  The system had to discourage attackers from instantly retreating, encourage attackers to actually attack and reward defenders for actually defending.  The current system does all that and has the added advantage of being extremely simple to explain. 

The only addition that needs to happen is a system whereby walls stay destroyed for at least 24 hours after a battle, as right now there is a bit too much defender advantage.

[Butan]

The waves attack (a.k.a. maximum battle time) is a good solution to avoid the 5+ hours long battles that happened in previous strat. Only no-lifers were capable of doing them, and you couldnt hire participants for the "second part of the battle" so you had to stay there until the end if you really wanted to win.


But what happens when everybody recruited enough troops numbers so they can replenish per waves of 1500 until the end of time ? Noone moves, and those who moves, dies and are never to be seen again (or they need uber strategy + a lot of backing up).



The rate at which troops dies is "too slow".

NOT because the rate at which troops are recruited is too fast, but because attacking is uber-risky and audacious : thus the game is packed with troops everywhere, and noone dares to send them.

This is due to the combination of :

** timer running out = all dead
** retreat = all dead
** losing = 25% loot + attacked again then = all dead



+ attacking in waves is almost always equals to :

** takes days or even weeks = enemy reinforcements (see Slezkh Castle situation for example)
** defenders accumulate loots = no gear problem if camping




If a fief is properly manned, there is not enough incentive to attack it, even for a great faction against a small one (thats not necesseraly a bad thing but its an example of the overpowered defense game mechanic). Players should have options to attack and do damage even if the defense is large and present.
There should be more incentive to attack, so that armies CAN capture things (and not only undermanned and underquipped fiefs, and they become rarer and rarer!!!) and that this fief defense doom-stacking STOP !



Possible tweaks:

(click to show/hide)

- Like the poster said:  TIME running out = TIE (noone dies except those already dead, and looting of weapons used could go 100% defense) then if enough troops are still alive they can resume the attack 24 hours later = THIS will be a proper siege!!!

- RETREAT order (activable only after HALF the battle time has passed) = 100% of used weapons go to the winner and they cant attack (NOR TRANSFER TROOPS OR STUFF OR GOLD) anything for 24 hours, so they cant abuse of retreat like in previous strat, but NO MORE STUPID DEATH !!!

- LOSERS getting away with 25% loot should be INVINCIBLE during the next 24 hours, so that they dont always end up being instantly attacked and have to defend with 50 troops the day after (impossible to win battle + taking up a slot for nothing + giving 100% loot to defense in the end)

- optional:

(click to show/hide)

- INCREASE maximum battle time to 3 hours = little buff that would increase maximum attacking size to approximately 2K troops

- CREATE a "second half of the strategus battle" enlistment : people can be hired for THE BEGINNING or THE END of the battle = 2x more chances to be accepted, 2x less time to be "forced" to participate, and enable longer battles without forcing them to be there from the first second to the last.

The system had to discourage attackers from instantly retreating, encourage attackers to actually attack and reward defenders for actually defending.

I know you posted before me but please, can you read my ideas and tell me if they are sound ? You look like you know how this should work, and how it actually work but with some flaws.

The only addition that needs to happen is a system whereby walls stay destroyed for at least 24 hours after a battle, as right now there is a bit too much defender advantage.

Great idea that would give more incentive to attack. +1.

[Boss_Awesome]

I must have written the opening post poorly, let me clarify.  I want the battle times to remain the same, just when it is over it ends where defender is still in control of the fief.  Lets say Kesh attacks a city with 5000 troops.  He fails and runs out of time with 3k troops left.  The defender retains control of the fief and gets a portion of the gear used in the fight.  Kesh keeps his 3000 troops and whatever gear was not used.  Then Kesh can schedule another battle 24 hours out.  No poop socks required and more fights!!!!

[GOBBLINKINGREATLEADER]

I support Boss_Awesome's idea based on the principle that the current system makes absolutely no sense when you look at it from a realism perspective.

[Tomas]

I must have written the opening post poorly, let me clarify.  I want the battle times to remain the same, just when it is over it ends where defender is still in control of the fief.  Lets say Kesh attacks a city with 5000 troops.  He fails and runs out of time with 3k troops left.  The defender retains control of the fief and gets a portion of the gear used in the fight.  Kesh keeps his 3000 troops and whatever gear was not used.  Then Kesh can schedule another battle 24 hours out.  No poop socks required and more fights!!!!

But what in that system stops Kesh from simply sitting at the battle and not actually attacking?  He could lock a fief down for 24 hours, including all the troops in it and then retreat for minimal and calculable losses.  Retreating becomes a strategy again and one that encourages boring battles.  As it stands the attacker is forced to attack and is forced to try their absolute hardest to kill off the defenders as quickly and as efficiently as possible which makes for a fun battle.

What you ask for Boss_Awesome can easily be achieved by Kesh simply giving 3k troops to someone else stood nearby and only attacking with 2k.  This is what everybody else does and we then send the attacks in waves. 

The system was changed to prevent entire factions falling in the space of a few days as they did in Strat 3.  It has gone a little too far in the defenders favour imo and made the strat map tactics too defensive but better that than defensive tactics in the actual strat battles.

[Keshian]

But what in that system stops Kesh from simply sitting at the battle and not actually attacking?  He could lock a fief down for 24 hours, including all the troops in it and then retreat for minimal and calculable losses.  Retreating becomes a strategy again and one that encourages boring battles.  As it stands the attacker is forced to attack and is forced to try their absolute hardest to kill off the defenders as quickly and as efficiently as possible which makes for a fun battle.

What you ask for Boss_Awesome can easily be achieved by Kesh simply giving 3k troops to someone else stood nearby and only attacking with 2k.  This is what everybody else does and we then send the attacks in waves. 

The system was changed to prevent entire factions falling in the space of a few days as they did in Strat 3.  It has gone a little too far in the defenders favour imo and made the strat map tactics too defensive but better that than defensive tactics in the actual strat battles.

It doesnt have to be black or white - all or nothing.  Make it a a minimum 25% of troops/remaining gear lost, with a sliding scale going up to 50 or 75% the earlier you retreat so if you use them to tie up someone's army you lose 75% but if you really fight you only lose 25% of what remains at the end of a real battle.  problem solved and makes strat map more active.  Currently its too much of a stalemate in eu and na side where attackers always get all the risks and defenders barely get any and favors the inactive turtlish clans that like to sit around all strat doing nothing over active vibrant clans that attack and play it as a war simulator instead of a simcity simulator.

[Tomas]

It doesnt have to be black or white - all or nothing.  Make it a a minimum 25% of troops/remaining gear lost, with a sliding scale going up to 50 or 75% the earlier you retreat so if you use them to tie up someone's army you lose 75% but if you really fight you only lose 25% of what remains at the end of a real battle.  problem solved and makes strat map more active.  Currently its too much of a stalemate in eu and na side where attackers always get all the risks and defenders barely get any and favors the inactive turtlish clans that like to sit around all strat doing nothing over active vibrant clans that attack and play it as a war simulator instead of a simcity simulator.

So what actually forces you to attack in that system?  You can start a battle and then hug your spawn until the end for just 25% losses.

[Butan]

So what actually forces you to attack in that system?  You can start a battle and then hug your spawn until the end for just 25% losses.

Hugging a spawn as attacker is very risky imo :

- if defenders doesnt sally out, your playerbase could revolt and/or disconnect en masse, leading to being undermanned and, ultimely, death.
- if defenders sally out, if you get powned you lose flags and voila, dead. If they doesnt get you they spawn back before you can use the "momentum".
- losing 25% (could make it to 33% minimum imo) of a 1500 man army isnt a small thing and if you exploit it commonly you will finish the war on the losing side.


I think we should take the example of the 1/3 army sent to lockdown for 24 hours and EXTEND it to the retreat system. That way we would open a "exploiting" path of the retreat but keep it costy enough (like when sacrificing 3x 600 men army to delay an incoming invasion of 3 1500+ armies is a good use of the 1/3 rule (see Grey's action against Mercs at the end of Tshibtin area campaign)) so that factions doesnt end up aboozing it but using it in some cases when the cost/result ratio is reasonnable enough.


I think we ALL AGREE that defending is too easy in Strat 4.

We need to find a bulletproof way to add advantages to attacking, and this topic may be what we need.