Fixing Battles (new options!)

trupheus

I’m leaning more towards fodder units don’t act like fodder and castles are being defended by 100% being the cause of many issues in troop losses both attacking and defending.

LR should still probably be cut in half like old days though.

MithicYort

Can we add an option to stat polls to give our vote to a dev to place as they best see fit?

I feel I lack knowledge about the nuances of how the battle calcs exactly work. I feel my vote would be better utilized by a dev on matters like this until I am more informed.

Within this knowledge, I agree with trupheus that 100% defending forces seems a bigger issue. I just had a thought that having two strategy sets could help with this. A defensive and offensive strategy set that offer distinctly different options.

Xliest

Why do we have to choose necessarily, the damage resistance thing doesn’t make sence the way it is stated but could offer some useful integration into the combat system over all. The phased casualties numbers might be a bit overtuned, but I don’t mind it and we can work in progress on the numbers. The ranged damage reduction does need to be in but again we can play with the numbers per race I think to make it fair. And intuitive.

Lord Thane

Xliest because there's been a dozen chat threads in the last week where people are talking about and complaining about the battle system. Nobody is coming up with viable ideas, and nothing is changing.

I guess that's a fair vote - keep things as-is, lol, I will add that.

Also, I did see another interesting idea in another thread today, altering and maybe capping on an individual unit basis. I will add this one to vote later - people can change their vote.

Xliest

Lord Thane we are all 40 year old dads, with little to no coding experience? Would be my guess.
I have plenty of ideas, but no idea if they would work or are implementable. Or even good ideas.

Is there there a dev chat you guys use discord or something to communicate? For sure add me on discord I’m in the old thard discord so you should be able to find me.
The forums get way too cluttered with ideas. Let’s chat.
I have been privy to some very big battles. This round and it seems like some of them should have gone in the other direction however with that said we don’t have the full numbers. But it seems to be getting better I’m not sure what work you guys are doing on the back end. Either.

Brozee

I don’t think the current battle mechanics are working as intended in the coding, there has been some really weird outcomes

Leo

Multi-selection is disabled as intended? I really wanna opt for Nerf Ranged Attack -50% (as it was used be) as well. But this can use an adjustment which was not present before by racial buff / debuffs. Considering as "accuracy"

After nerf only for long range (numbers to be discussed to have a common community agreement):

Elves: +%20
Human: +-0%
Dwarfs: -10%
Gnomes: +10%
Orcs: -5%

Lord Thane

Leo I kind of thought about it, but maybe just incremental changes would be best. Also don't want to skew results too badly from people picking multiple options that drastically change battle outcomes - like phased damage resistance + 50% nerf combined would really dump on ranged battle.

At least with 1 vote we can see what people think is "the best" direction overall - while still considering runner ups.

If people wanted the target weighted reduction + a less powerful casualty caps, that might be a doable combo.

We should just see how the polling goes for now.

Jules

imo we put it back to the way it was in the original and balance/change/add/remove from there. Otherwise everyone's brains will be out of sync

AdinTheDark

Jules
People are complaining about the current state of the game when it isn’t anywhere near how an actual round would flow. Army compassion with unlimited resources is all over the place. Said it a few times now that balancing should wait. Is there an actual bug in the attack code not letting it perform properly or is it just a balancing issue? We won’t really know till we are off sugar daddys tit.

Lord Thane

AdinTheDark to me the free resources are just magnifying problems that will be a big issue later. People currently getting disappointed in losing 1 days worth of troops in battle, when in a real round they might spend 3 weeks carefully crafting their army - only to see it get obliterated from a mismatched battle (getting clapped in range phases).

It seems like nerfing ranged units -50% is what most are pushing for, and maybe that's what was done in old Thard at some point to bring balance, maybe that is what we need to give a chance and test next... RIP slingers with 0.5 range attack lol

I'm liking the idea of distributing damages too, as currently the damage is split evenly (sans a Strategy modifier). So fodder will be more like fodder and elite units won't get clapped as bad.

trupheus

Lord Thane

I'm liking the idea of distributing damages too, as currently the damage is split evenly (sans a Strategy modifier). So fodder will be more like fodder and elite units won't get clapped as bad.

this is just getting the game to the old state and probably the second biggest problem with attacking behind defending with you full army and getting zeroed in just about every lost defense. SW might actually be hiding but you can't tell because they're getting killed at a higher rate than they should be because fodder isn't being fodder.

in the fight below, i should have sustained heavy RT losses, they made up 75.74% of the army sent.

But we lost : 348 Catapult 407 Infantry 1250 Militia 411 Rider 7905 Rock thrower 390 Balista

Total Units Sent: 46,219
Total Units Killed: 10,711
Overall Loss Percentage: 23.17%

My % losses per troop is between 20.15% and 25.56% even though 75% of the army was rock thrower. Riders made up a meer 3.48% of my army yet sustained the heaviest losses at 25.56% of them dieing.