QR change idea

trupheus

Change quick retreat to defend with only 50% of kingdom’s army that is home, a change from the approximately 80% that is used today. In exchange, if you are attacked on quick retreat you do NOT gain a retal. Use the normal win condition on these defends. Quick retreat can also only be used when defending. If you are on QR when attacking you will use No Strategy instead.

The trade off here is clear, no retal on the kingdom that attacked you and at minimum 50% of your entire army at home will live after a defend meaning more of your army is alive to attack later.

Zones

trupheus terrible.
I got hit 3x today by people wayy bigger than me, intentionally sending small attacks to break me slowly. Only reason I had anything left to retal with is qr. This hurts the small people wayyy more than anything

skigglez

I support this message. Make picking QR have an actual downside. Current state way too good in too many situations. I think the generals report should include some verbiage indicating that the army you attacked ran away too.

FriendsInSpace

I would almost argue that if we aren't going to give a retal for the defender, then the percentage of army that is sacrificed should be a bit smaller. Maybe like 30%?

trupheus

FriendsInSpace

Some random maple syrup chugger pointed out that after MC healing 20% of 50% and then humans having another 12.5% of healing from knights that the potential was there already to have 60-66.25% of an army live. Which I would hope just about anyone can retrain that in 24 hours of prot.

Definitely run into some interesting hypothetical scenarios as is with a QR rework. Think someone is on QR and massively under sent leaving yourself exposed to pre/re or do say screw it and YOLO a second attack giving that person 2 retals.

Lord Thane

IDK about that addon for attacking with QR, senator trupheus. Maybe people want to attack in a skirmish mode, minimize troop loss in an attack.

skigglez

How does that work though? You can only send 50% of your current units? Would that be 50% of each unit or 50% total units? What if attacking it did the same half damage for both sides that it currently does?

Lord Thane

skigglez it could work the exact same way it works on defense. A lot of people want an option where their attacking troops don't get zeroed out. Sending them on this kind of QR could accomplish that, minimize potential troop loss. Harder to win, but at least they aren't risking getting zeroed. I can see s lot of ppl sending blind attacks doing this.

trupheus

Lord Thane

If you use it on an attack though it has to give a retal or this is insanely broken.

skigglez

Suiciding but safer - saves half your army from getting zeroed. That seems kind of broken. What would be the downside on offense

Lord Thane

Definitely couldn't imagine any kind of attack that didn't give a retal. I just meant it could work similar to the defensive mode, only have half the troops fighting/dying. It's like what ppl complain "if my general sees we're losing badly he should order a retreat so they don't all die", it would work like that, sort of. If the half can still beat whatever the defender has, great, they won, but if it's an even match or the attacker is outmatched then at least they don't get zeroed.

Lord Thane

Zones that is a good point. Without retal a gangbang could be horrid. Well, even with retal it's horrid. Would this change make it worse tho? I get GBed pretty often and if I used this new QR it would go something like hit 1 kills 30% of my army, hit 2 kills 30% of my army again, hit 3 kills 50% of my army and I get pro. End result for me is I have 24% of my original army left and no retals. At least under the current QR I might only have 20% of my army - but I also have 3 retals To possibly get back some of the economy I lost.

Now I'm thinking most smaller players could never use QR if it didn't give retals, because GB or bottom feeding would just totally destroy them. Having 50% of the army alive is pretty meaningless when the guy that hit you is in cli pro, so you have 50% of your army - now what? Not a good tradeoff.

Need to think of a new twist. Or maybe it doesn't need the twist to be workable. Kinda feels like it is missing something still tho, to balance.

Psidon

Zones its literally the only thing giving me a chance after getting hit and realizing the aggressor is now twice my KS......

Zones

Lord Thane yeah I think I mentioned something in the chat last week or something about QR being an auto lose, but you lose 20% of your troops and then maybe 50% of the rest are out as if they attacked for some amount of hours. they ran away to stay alive, so now they are marching back home for a bit.

FriendsInSpace

Lord Thane I think we are all overthinking the hell out of this.

The original intention of QR was a most likely loss, but it saves at least a portion of your army. I think it's fine if it gives a retal on both defence and offence, but it just needs to be changed to only having 50% of your army fight. Normal win conditions apply.

Positive - Only risking half your army in hopeless defences
Negative - Risking half your army, which you will probably lose all of it if you were able to actually bounce the hit.

On defence, that means the big guys who sit on it are going to actually lose on it sometimes, along with probably a decent portion of their army. The little guys who are defending on it get to retain some portion of their army, while making it easier for a victory for the attacker (and thus, less gangbang potential)

On offence, sure you are pillow slapping someone, but you lose the ability to use the remaining half of what you sent for 24/18 ticks. And likely will lose the fight if the opponent has a decent army home (and is also not on QR)

It makes it situational, like a strat should be, instead of the default defence strat for the top 30.

skigglez

Lord Thane Having 50% of the army alive is pretty meaningless when the guy that hit you is in cli pro, so you have 50% of your army - now what? Not a good tradeoff.

Not sure I agree with this logic. I've heard plenty of complaints that people get bottomfed and can't take the retal currently (I personally think alot of that is them not even trying to retal, but those are the complaints regardless). Wouldn't this be a superior situation for them, considering they aren't taking the retal from the bottomfeed anyways? They still lose the attack, but instead of losing 80% of their army they lose 50% of their army and can rebuild within the protection window to hopefully make an attack of their own. If you just sit there and wait to be attacked the whole round there isn't a strategy that's gonna work out for you. There has to be downsides built into a situational defensive strategy or it doesn't become a choice, it's just auto picked without any thought. Can't have the best of both worlds where you preserve your units plus get the ability to gain back what you lost.

FriendsInSpace

Zones You don't want it to be an auto lose, because if that's the case then using an auto lose on offence is a sure-fire way to zero someone.

10 guys line up on QR and hit you, they will all auto lose, therefore you will never enter protection. Bye bye army.

skigglez

FriendsInSpace I think it would still be the default strat because current QR you lose over half your army and most people are able to retal. New QR and you’re guaranteed to retain 50% or more of your army (MCs), so your retal % would probably be close to 100%. There has to be a serious downside associated with it because the potential army preservation is incredibly strong.

skigglez

What if it grants retal but your land losses are higher if defending with QR, and less if attacking with QR. Something significant like 50%. The tradeoff then becomes preserving troops at the expense of losing more of your kingdom. Still gives the smaller kingdoms a chance to retal, but if you engage in an attacking/defending loop with someone you lose out long term.

trupheus

Psidon

You were likely right at 70% their size and assuming you have a decent sized army and MCs you should have a really solid chance at the retal.

Lord Thane

skigglez every attack in the game is not a hopeless bottom feed, ppl retal all the time, some ppl even retal on a daily basis. Getting hit on QR and then retaling it is most likely the most popular strat.

Now you take away the retals from the equation.

In what universe is that good for the player? Saving a little bit more of their troops, can't even attack the person that hit them because that person is in pro and they got no retal. Can't hit anyone else because they only got 50% of troops.

The only ppl I see benefiting from that is the top 30.

skigglez

Lord Thane That's exactly my point - I was addressing the niche example given that someone gets relentlessly bottom fed and can't take the retals. In that scenario having more troops live is just a better outcome for them. If all other things are equal and in one scenario you have 20% army left and the other you have 50%, in what universe is that NOT good for the player?

Lord Thane Can't hit anyone else because they only got 50% of troops.

You're assuming that they are just immediately attacking after they get hit - why? They get protection from being attacked, in that time they are able to rebuild their army. If they are running MCs I find it hard to believe in 24 hours they can't fill close to 40% of their GH space.

Lord Thane Getting hit on QR and then retaling it is most likely the most popular strat

Exactly - which is why it needs to be addressed. The strategy that is intended to be one that concedes victory to preserve troops is the best defensive one in the game - does that not seem odd? There's essentially no downside to using that strategy now, which takes away the strategic aspect.

On top of that it enables a large kingdom to be borderline immortal once they gain ground on the rest of the players.