War!

[Ruddertail]

I think we should probably re-evaluate how losses are calculated. Honestly, the more you overpower an opponent by, the less you should lose. Health, of course, should factor, but the losses calculation should probably take in affect OP vs. DP.

[Shadow I]

How are they calculated right now?

[Ruddertail]

I'm not exactly sure. I believe it's a strait % of attacker's troops and defender's troops, with health and Exp thrown in somehow. But I could be wrong. Still, I don't think it calcs OP v. DP, not the way it should, in any case. Having 10x the defender's losses are a little ridiculous. I don't know of any normal war situation where that would carry through... specific battles, maybe (Thermopyle, for example), but not over the course of the whole war.

[Arthus]

And since when is outnumbering your opponent a bad thing in war? I usually think that if you outnumber the opponent, in a battle of swordsmen, around 10000 to 1, the greater army would suffer less losses, equal to, or perphaps if they are well trained, slightly more.

[Ruddertail]

That's what I'm saying. If you outnumber your opponent significantly, should lose fewer troops than your opponent. In fact, we should probably calculate losses based on the opponents points. If I have 25 mill OP and attack somebody with 5 mill, I should be probably losing around 1/5th of their losses. Now, this might not be practicable in game, but I should certainly not been taking more losses than they are.

[Shadow I]

there are other issues too if you are going for realism - if the defender has only a small amout of land, less of the attacker's forces can get on it.

attacker's losses should decrease with a high OP/DP ratio, but they should increase as the defender's land gets less.

[Ruddertail]

Meh... I don't know about that. There's still exhaustion on the part of the defenders troops, while the attackers tag team, more or less.

But that is why you need to standard under 500 acres - defenders troops are too concentrated.

[Death]

I think we should probably re-evaluate how losses are calculated. Honestly, the more you overpower an opponent by, the less you should lose. Health, of course, should factor, but the losses calculation should probably take in affect OP vs. DP.

Why? An Indy here now doesn't have to worry about finances in the least if they have half a brain, that would just cause them to have low losses when raping other empires. Makes things a little too easy, don't you think?

[Ruddertail]

How does it have more effect on indies than on any other strat?

[Death]

Because Indys live on troops, others just get troops to block other people from screwing with them. Meaning Indys usually have more net from troops compared to others who get net from cash, food, and Spys, unless the ones here have discovered the joys of crack/cocaine.

[Shadow I]

Which could be countered by having high land = higher losses and low land = lower losses. High land attacking low land wouold create very high losses for the attacker. Think bottleneck. Indies usually attack about as much as they can (I do anyway), so they have a ton of land when they run and usually hit lower land empires that other strats won't bother touching because attacking doesn't slow down production at all.

[Death]

Now think of the way that will change killing on this game. You'd be getting major losses when you're supposed to be STDing.

[Shadow I]

Now think of the way that will change killing on this game. You'd be getting major losses when you're supposed to be STDing.

Is that a bad thing? Killing should be hard to do, and to kill someone you should have to sacrafice a lot of your own net.

[Death]

I don't think so, but my background with the game is quite different from most here. I'm used to people taking advantage of the code as much as possible to win.

The way I see it is usually you kill someone who did something offensive, and you shouldn't have to sacrifice the contents of your empire just to defend yourself.

[Shadow I]

I don't think so, but my background with the game is quite different from most here. I'm used to people taking advantage of the code as much as possible to win.

The way I see it is usually you kill someone who did something offensive, and you shouldn't have to sacrifice the contents of your empire just to defend yourself.

There are plenty of ways to defend yourself without killing people. It is much more of a victory to beat someone while they are alive, because that basically says "I am better than you" rather than "I think you are enough of a threat to me to make you worth the kill." Being hit in your strength is usually pretty hard to recover from. I think killing is a drastic measure, and should be a tough decision - is killing this guy worth the sacrafice I am going to make doing it?

That's just me though :*laughs*: