Consequent attacks on same tick.

Lord Thane

Here's an alternate idea for my Castle Protection. It's kinda wild, but the gist of it is = successful attack gets you castle protection.

I present to you,

Castle Loss Immunity (24h)

🧩 Rule:
If a player successfully captures a castle, they gain Castle Loss Immunity for 24 hours.

Only the original defender can still take a castle back from them via retal.

All other attackers who hit them during that 24h cannot gain a castle, even if they win big.

✅ Prevents:

Pre-re from causing 2-castle losses (pre can't take it, only the re can).
Castle passing (friends can't hit and get a castle to give you protection, they won’t get one).

⚔ Still Allows:

Land attacks.
The original defender to retal for 1 castle.
Multiple attackers to hit you, just without stealing castles unless they’re your retal target.

Also possible tie-in Castle Defense Tech, higher tech = longer immunity when you take a castle (if we did this, then obviously the default for CLI would be like 12HRS and increase with tech to match generals speed).

DougEfresh

Lord Thane who would pre for someone with this. the pretaler doesnt get a castle and the defender can then retal them for a castle.

King Haybol

Lord Thane Seems not fun for castlepassers. Wahaha 😂😂😂

trupheus

Lord Thane this is a wild idea! I kinda like it. Assuming there would be some kind of mechanism to let people know a kingdom is in CLI? Would hate to hit someone and then find out afterward. Would only castle hits give a retal? Kinda think that would be needed unless there’s a CLI flag.

Of course I start thinking how could one abuse it.

Two people only attack each other all round. I attack you, take a castle, you attack me, take my castle back. This has 1 person in protection and one person in CLI.

TheKeeper

Lord Thane I don't like at all, castle passing can be used as strategy to prevent castle loss

Lord Thane

DougEfresh exactly, it's designed to shit on both pre-re and castle pass strategies.

Someone may still want to pre, just as a method of weakening the defender garrison. But the effect on the pre-victim would be much less defeating. Instead of getting pre hit for 20 land + castle, instead they just lose 10 land, not near as bad.

Lord Thane

King Haybol yeah, it would actually completely end castle passing since the attacker would not be able to "pass" a castle during castle immunity. I mean, they could get a buddy to hit them for regular protection if they didn't want to lose some LAND to someone else, lol. But the person they attacked would still be able to retal to take back their castle.

It would end pre-re as well, since the attacker would have castle immunity. You could still have your ally do a pre, just to break their garrison a bit, but all they would win is land.

The more I think about it, the more I am certain this is the fix. I knew my castle protection idea was on the right track, it just took a while to reach this conclusion since it's not very intuitive - giving the attacker a new kind of protection, lol. But it works 😵‍💫

Sayer

Lord Thane what about a tourney mode mini game. 2 sides, can only attack the opposing side. Have seasons. Join the tourney and randomly get assigned to a team. Everyone starts at same KS/land. Battle for 2 weeks. A mini game inside of the game. Atleast then casual players can practice battling and vets with a ton of time can still dominate regular round mode. Winning kingdoms get a badge or spoils of war at the end. You can attack all out in tourney mode and get retalled into oblivion but it won't affect your KD in normal game mode.

Some mini game ideas-
-tourney mode (2 sides all out war)
-1v1 challenge
-5v5 challenge
-initial protection KS climb
-resource climb

Lord Thane

Sayer yes we've talked about some side games with interesting rulesets, but prolly not gonna be something we look at for a while - when there's more players.

King Haybol

Lord Thane Not sure why I'm losing the battle on below, I have so many catas and ballistas returning home and only fews are dead. Is it because of KS difference? I'm only taking the retal here. 🤔🤔🤔

Oh, mighty 1000ml of the 1Liter, your "brilliant" strategy has left historians scratching their heads—and your army running for the hills! 🏃‍♂️💨 The CyberKingdom, led by the clearly superior CyberPtra, didn’t just defeat you… they turned your "invasion" into a comedy show! 🎭🤡 Perhaps next time, try attacking with bravery a clue? Until then, enjoy your L—it’s legendary. 👑💀

We managed to kill : 1110 Knight 1107 Infantry 641 Pikeman 214 Heavy Infantry 878 Archer 1296 Mounted Archers

But we lost : 32 Catapult 0 Infantry 12053 Militia 0 Rider 11769 Rock thrower 47 Balista

Lord Thane

King Haybol guessing they had quick retreat on, which would dampen losses on both sides as it cuts attack on both sides -50%. Then, you lose less cats/balls thanks to unit weighted damage allocation (which can be adjusted if needed for your race, just make a post about it with poll).

CyberPtra

King Haybol

I am glad to have helped uncover a potential bug 😁 Came home from work to see a page of attacks against me 😋 We all testing some stuff out. Honestly thought I would have been broken way sooner.

PS: liked how you didn’t find the time to ***** my kingdom like your next post (honestly don’t care) 🤣

Thinking of playing dwarf next round. Anyone would like to join with me?

King Haybol

Lord Thane but we did ganked him with two provmates as pre, mine as retal should be an easy win by rights. Seems weird. 🤔🤔🤔

Lord Thane

Actually, I was just thinking about this and I think we've stumbled upon a sort of bug, an unintended bias against fodder armies.

One of the factors in deciding the winner of a battle is that the attacker must kill a higher % of units fielded.

For example, a gnome fielding a 8k man army that loses 4k units would have a 50% casualty rate. While a human army they attacked that fielded only 3000 units and lost 1000 units only has 33% casualties, so the gnome would lose.

This is gonna make winning any battle for Orc/Gnome much more difficult since they field fodder units that can hugely increase their casualties %.

The fix is going to be switching from a unit based model to something like defense points - which should work universally for this usage.

Poor Orcs and Gnomes getting bent over all this time lol

Edit: this will also negatively affect Undead as well, since they have the cheap skeletons that get sent in mass. No wonder so many gnomes and orcs always submitting battle reports wondering why they lost, lmao

King Haybol

Lord Thane Here is another battle against elf 145K and mine gnome 132K. I won the battle but all my troops almost wipe out by 96% only few catapults left returning home. Lol 🤠🤠🤠

Oh, the ***** thought they stood a chance? 1000ml and the mighty 1Liter have reduced their so-called "defenses" to rubble! 🏰💥

Did ****** really believe their strategic genius was a match for 1Liter's sheer brilliance? 🤡 Their army now flees in terror, tripping over their own fallen banners! 🏃‍♂️💨

Another glorious victory for 1Liter—because, let's be honest, ***** was just a glorified target practice. 🎯👑

We won 1 Castle(s) sorrounded by 41 lands.
In this lands are also constructed : 17 Advanced Training Center , 19 Farm , 2 Forge , 24 Guard House , 0 Guard Tower , 69 House , 24 Market , 0 Medical Center , 8 Mill , 5 Mine , 61 School , 12 Training Center ,

In this lands also lived 14640 people who are gratefull to join our Kingdom.

We managed to kill : 3751 Mage 476 Swordman 624 Lanceman 949 Caragous 634 Archer 384 Elite Archer

But we lost : 478 Catapult 211 Infantry 15000 Militia 34 Rider 15000 Rock thrower 800 Balista

Lord Thane

Lord Thane this is fixed, notation added to changelog and final notes:

Unintended Fodder Bias
Combat outcomes were previously based on percentage of units lost, which unfairly penalized armies that include large numbers of low-defense units ("fodder"). This created a bias against races like Gnome, Orc, or Undead, whose strategies rely on disposable units.

Example
A Gnome army losing 90% of its units (mostly 1-def fodder) could be judged as losing the battle, even if they only lost 30% of their total defense value, while the enemy lost 80% of theirs.

Fix
This specific victory condition was updated to calculate casualties as a percentage of total defense points lost, rather than raw unit count. This ensures more balanced outcomes across all army compositions among the races.

Lord Thane

trupheus I hadn't thought of posting the info of CLI, but I think it would be cool if we posted both the CLI status and also regular protection as well, in the KHoF and province view. We could do something like a emoji, or color coded background. It would be a big help to disregard people in various protections, make target hunting easier. A lot of games Thardferr-adjscent added this feature and it was pretty good I think.

All hits would still generate a retal. Further discouraging pre hits.

For the abuse. I think it would prevent that from happening naturally. Like, there's not a scenario where 2 people can abuse it.

For example, both kingdoms still need to keep armies, so they'd be making hits outside their two-way in order to get armies off the table - but as soon as they do that, then they can't lose a castle, so their buddy attacking them would just generate a land loss with regular protection + the CLI they already had = it would be pointless.

Even if they only generated armies on the tick in order to attack each other every 24h on the tick, it doesn't make sense. 1 attacks 2, gets a castle + CLI. 2 retals 1, gets castle back. Now 1 has protection and CLI, and 2 has no protection and no CLI and also no army to defend... It's a losing proposition.

Lord Thane

King Haybol I bet you only won that due to zeroing out the elf, you at -98% and them at -100% lol

trupheus

Lord Thane

How would 2 not have CLI if they attacked and took their original castle back? Taking a retal wouldn’t give CLI?

1 attacks 2.
2 is in prot with retal. 1 is in CLI.
2 breaks prot hits 1. 1 is in prot (and I guess CLI?). 2 is just in CLI.

Maybe I’m missing something but that’s how the logic plays out for me.

Lord Thane

TheKeeper I know, people use it as a defense against pre-re. The CLI would put an end to both those practices. After weeks of thinking about it, and finally making this breakthrough, I'm convinced there's only 2 options = use CLI to prevent castle pass + pre-re tactics, or everyone needs to stop complaining about castle pass and pre-re.

People have been complaining about castle passing and pre-re since the first castles were built. I agree it's toxic gameplay and it sucks when you're on the receiving end of it.

At least there's an option now, if people get fed up about it, they can cry for CLI lol

Lord Thane

trupheus in your scenario your missing the point of them both having no armies - which is significant (not sure what use they'd be in the game), but also I don't think we would give CLI to retals. So 2 would have his castle back and have no prot, no CLI, and also still no army.

Even if 1 and 2 had armies, that they perpetually build as they constantly kill each other, one of them would still be stuck with no CLI and no prot, while the other had CLI and prot (but no gain of castle).

Lord Thane

trupheus I was perusing old threads about castle passing/pre-re, and stumbled on this little nugget lost to time:
https://forum.thardferr.com/d/128-castle-passing/2

You were SO CLOSE to inventing a unified theory of CLI. All you were missing was the castle component to drive it home. Well, those are the kinds of brainstormings that were critical to getting here = an actual working and simple fix that solves every possibility revolving the castle pass and pre-re scourge.

I'm just glad the problem is solved, the option is available, now we just wait until enough people are fed up with those toxic loopholes so it gets enough support to implement.

That problem really did bug me for a long time, I knew there was a solution somewhere tho!

Jaxx

CyberPtra
I already feel bad for you. You need good teammates to endure wars. Ofc this is valid for every race but man, dwarf are expensive. Foodwise is just sad to bear this.

« Previous Page Next Page »