Loopy idea

[Devari]

Well.... This is a crazy idea, that shall be hated by most. Nonetheless, I press forward.

My suggestion is that it costs you less health in an attack where you send less forces. For example, if you can get away with sending around 50% of your forces, then it only costs you 3 health to attack and not 6. 90-100% forces would cost 6 health, 75-90% 5 helath, 50-75% 4 health, 50% forces 3 health, 25-50% forces would be 2 health, <25% would be 1.

My reasoning behind this is that currently there is no advantage to sending less than your maximum army. This would enable a bit more strategic planning and increase the importance of a balanced army - you cannot get away with 0 of a troop, because then someone can attack you at a 1% health cost. This obviously works against Farmers, but, hey, this game isn't about farming. Balanced, Industry, and Hawk-Loot should all work with this, so the only family of strategy hosed is Farming.

[Ruddertail]

Well, I like the idea. It would make hawk strating a little harder, but there is still the attack limit. People couldn't attack any harder. Maybe to make things fairer for hawk straters, it should be that if your ratio is twice the ratio of the guy you are attacking, it only costs 1 health, instead of two.

[The Beatles]

Ooh, I really like the idea. I don't like farmers very much myself.
You know it also means we'll have to add "percentage" checkboxes to the Military page, which will make it a bit more complicated. Oh well, not a significant problem. Great idea!
Although Ruddertail is right that this will indeed affect hawkers not a little.

[Devari]

No percentage boxes. Just use the current troop sending boxes something like this:

code: Select all

$sentpercent = round(($sentbox/$alltroops)*100)

And then a simple if and ifelse statement for the health costs. Pretty easy to do.

But perhaps the 50% should become 45-55% and the rest adjusted for that. Plus, it perhaps should still cost 6% health if you lose, although that depends on what everyone else thinks.

[Veranor]

there is no advantage to sending less than your maximum army

code: Select all

	if ($usent[$type] > 0)  // can't lose more than you send... send none, lose none
  $uloss[$type] = min(mt_rand(0,(ceil($usent[$type] * $uper * $umod)+1)), $usent[$type]);
	else	$uloss[$type] = 0;

	$maxkill = round(.9*$usent[$type]) + mt_rand(0, round(.2*$usent[$type] + 1)); // max kills determination (90% - 110%)

Lower Losses.


Still your idea is interesting.


(EDIT: Code from QMT... so unless we changed that....)

[Zephyrus]

Well, I like the idea. It would make hawk strating a little harder, but there is still the attack limit. People couldn't attack any harder. Maybe to make things fairer for hawk straters, it should be that if your ratio is twice the ratio of the guy you are attacking, it only costs 1 health, instead of two.

Hawks were not really intended to be used that way, anyways, and if you do, well, your loss. There are easier eays to kill off indy-ers. And get their land too.

You know you have several times my ratio, because that's just 1/land, and I'm sure yours is near one.

So you want to hit me infinitely? Nice try, but no.

If you hawk battle, then you can hawk heal too. More than fair for you.

[The Beatles]

Well, I didn't want to mention lower losses as it's obvious, but perhaps it hasn't been thought of yet. Anyways, to my mind this just makes killing even easier.

[Devari]

Well, yes, I assumed lower losses...

Yeah, the kill thing could be a problem, depending on your opinions. Perhaps this thing is only for standard attacks?

[Zephyrus]

No, because people regularly standard hawk massers for spite.

[Devari]

Bringing this topic up again...

Any more thoughts? I still like the idea or something like it. Perhaps it could only work up until attack limit - 10 (currently 10 attacks, assuming no one else has attacked). Or perhaps only if you are at war with someone.

[The Beatles]

What about, this works until max_attacks, regardless of your war status?
What if we also applied that reasoning to the 3% fear losses thingie? I know that would be hated, but also worth considering. Killing is too easy.

[Zephyrus]

Well, no attack should be less than three or four health in cost, if the cost is lowered at all. But the killing argument is a valid one, since after the first twenty or thirty attacks, the defender has no troops, at all.

[Devari]

So, Beatles, you're saying that health effects desertions on a graded scale like my attacks suggestion? If so, sounds good to me.

I'd say up to $max_attack would be good. I personally like the idea of health cost going lower than 3... Although I would have to say that hawkers should be able to execute attack missions (of any type) without health cost or loss if the opponent has less than 10 hawks (since some bug allows 9 hawks to live without any huts). To balance it all out, of course. Only farmers really lose out. Maybe indy has the advantage here, but there are other things that we can do for hawkers to balance it out. (Like not losing so many hawks when attacking someone much weaker than you.)

[Devari]

In retrospect, given the massive kill run trouble that Brome provided, this is an exceptionally silly idea. We need a "retired suggestions" forum.

[Freenhult]

Not really. If we don't have Brome, like now. Then this idea is still valid no? Infact, this sorta makes up for Brome. I agree with Zeph. 3% should be the min.