QR change idea

skigglez

FriendsInSpace Ya that would be reasonable numbers. Doubt the general group will agree, everyone seems to want the best of both worlds for the defenders.

Lord Thane

FriendsInSpace what is the purpose of switching to a 50% for? To guarantee some troops always survive even when someone sends 200% attack? Is it only the person on qr that is getting halved? That will make it really easy to break ppl, then adding a larger loss for them as well - qr would be a terrible option.

I couldn't see anyone using it once they realize it's almost entirely all negatives. Why would an average player want qr changed to this option?

skigglez

Lord Thane That will make it really easy to break ppl

Isn’t that the intention of a retreat strategy? You concede the attack but save army. You think it should be difficult to break someone on QR? We are worlds apart in how we view game balance lol. Can compromise on how much extra land you lose, but it needs to be significant enough to force a decision.

If you save 50% of your army when being hit it essentially guarantees your retal will be successful, so then you trade even on castles/land while also saving a ton of troops. That scenario there’s no downside to picking QR, it would be mandatory. But if you make it so that when you take that retal you lose out a bit on the land, you’re actually sacrificing something.

FriendsInSpace

Lord Thane Because the way it is right now, halving the attack power of both kingdoms only favors the bigger kingdom with the stronger army. Which is why Cyber, Nolio and the rest of the top 10 sit on it for defence. I did when I was up there too.

When you get bottom fed on QR, you still get zeroed, but you don't actually do fuck all to the invader because your attack power was halved, so its a pointless strategy in that regard.

The point of switching to a 50% of your force fights is twofold.

Smaller kingdoms that want to use it get to retain 50% of their forces (instead of 0) when bottom fed. Right now, they are getting zeroed on it regardless if the attacker has a big enough army, which is most of the time. It also makes gangbangs to wipe armies slightly smaller by making the lose threshold hit sooner.
It stops being useful for preventing smaller kingdoms from upfeeding (as the big guy turtling on QR has more than 2x your attack anyways), and maybe it stops being the default defence strat, making people have to consider their options a bit more.

I don't personally think it needs any more than that myself. I think to add anything more, like this whole thread has been about, is overthinking the fuck out of it.

To Truphs point about the no retals - I think that's just way too harsh

Zones's idea about an auto lose has so many loopholes for abuse to zero out a kingdom

To Skigglez point about greater land losses on it/it needing a harsher penalty - I don't think its necessarily needed. Half of their army is going to be wiped and they will lose the battle. Yeah MC/clerical magic means less losses sure, yeah they might take the retal but if you oversent then you aren't losing that much anyways when they take it, as your army will be gone.

Adding anything else to it slows the game down even more, and is hunting for a perfect solution that is just going to result in nothing happening. If we just change the 50% attack power to 50% units fighting, then its probably not perfect but I think it's better than what we currently have, and that's a step forward.

Vesuvan

skigglez Isn’t that the intention of a retreat strategy? You concede the attack but save army.

Nowhere in the QR strategy description or game guide does it indicate QR’s intention is to “concede the attack”, the actual description says:

“Quick Retreat - Even if many general consider this strategy as one for cowards, it can be pretty effective if you want to try to capture land or defend your territory with minimal loss. Many famous commanders used this strategy when they believed their chances of winning to be low or if they thought their men lives were more valuable than the victory. Assigning your men this strategy will ensure that your losses are minimal and that many men survive.“

The effects listed on the strategy pages are:

“All units (both sides) attack power divided by 2.
Victory chances reduced by half for you”

Takeaways from the strategy page and game guide description as to intent of the strategy:

1.) Good for “capturing land”
2.) Good for “defending your territory with minimal losses”
3.) Ensures your “losses are minimal and that many men survive”
4.) Divides attack power by 2 for both sides to achieve the lower losses, but also reduces your chance of victory by half as a downside to using the strategy.

That way I interpret this strategy is that it is simply designed to reduce attacking power on both sides in battles so less damage is done, and the downside to you is your chances of victory are cut in half, not that the battle is “conceded.”

Lord Thane

FriendsInSpace what if we left QR as is, and just added on a little tweak that changed the existing "defend with 70-80%, so it would just change that to 50%?

Then we still get both sides being halved. Defenders go from saving 20-30% of their army to s flat 50%.

Current QR
100 units on both sides, each unit 1 attack and 1 defense.
A attacks B with 50 attack points killing 50/80 of B's units.
B defends A with 40 attack points killing 40/100 of A's units.

Under this QR addon:
A attacks B with 50 attack points killing 50/50 of B's units.
B defends A with 25 attack points killing 25/100 of A's units.

For the defender it doesn't really change much in this scenario, except 20-30% more of its units are guaranteed to survive the battle. On the attackers side they need fewer troops to attain victory, and more of their troops survive.

Konkistador

If changed please next round. This change is very likely to benefit some army compositions more than others. Thus the obvious push. While not in favour or against. Think would be a unjust change mind round.

FriendsInSpace

Konkistador you got money riding on this round Konk? Unjust change pffft

skigglez

Wouldn’t be any more or less unjust than the changes already forced through this round. Don’t worry, it’s not being changed anyways.

FriendsInSpace

Lord Thane

So keep the half attack power in, but tweak it so the defenders army modifier is 50%? Could work.

How would that work on using it for offence though? Like if I hit you on with QR on my side, would the 50% modifier apply to me or you?

Lord Thane

FriendsInSpace yeah exactly, just bumping down the regular "defend with 70-80%" so it's "defend with 50%", then everything else stay the same.

I think maybe we wouldn't need to alter the attacker side at all, just the defender side. It's such a niche use to attack with qr, I think most ppl attack with qr on accident even.

I guess we could think of a way to slightly alter attacking with qr to make it more useful - maybe a casualty reducer, like add 10% healing or something (stacked with MC a 30% heal on attacks would be pretty decent).

Vesuvan

skigglez Multiple hits can be done against anyone on any strategy, not sure why it would be a downside unique to QR.

I was referring specifically to if QR was changed so it no longer provided retals, which would make this a situation where it would be a downside very unique to QR seeing as it would be the only strategy in the game that doesn’t give retals.

skigglez

Vesuvan but it would also be the only strategy that lets you only risk 50% of your army - what’s your point? The attackers would need to know with certainty you’re using the strategy for your situation to ever play out, which means it’s just as likely you aren’t defending with QR and now you have a bunch of retals.

FriendsInSpace

Vesuvan

Vesuvan Nowhere in the QR strategy description or game guide does it indicate QR’s intention is to “concede the attack”, the actual description says:

Vesuvan “All units (both sides) attack power divided by 2.
Victory chances reduced by half for you”

I would say that right there makes it clear that the idea is you aren't supposed to win the fight, but it's supposed to be a strat to save military.

It doesn't work in its current form. I will say it for the umpteenth time, all QR does is allow kingdoms with greater than 2x the attack power to zero you, to still zero you, while losing less themselves.

I realize these issues may not be as obvious at lower KS levels as the military disparity between a 100k ks vs 70k ks kingdom is exponentially less than the military disparity between a 400k ks kingdom vs a 300k ks one.

Vesuvan

skigglez
My point is this change would neuter QR to the point where nobody would use it, it would no longer be a viable strategy….and if that’s the case, then why even keep it in the game at all?

skigglez

Vesuvan it would be a situational strategy for sure, and not auto picked. Definitely more useful than infantry attack. I would support just disabling QR altogether until strategies get a rework

Lord Thane

FriendsInSpace we already have the ks penalty to punish BF though, and the penalty actually works this round. I don't think BF is a good selling point for changing QR to get mass support. If the selling point is to reduce casualties and ease kingslaying attempts then I think more ppl will get on board.

I'll pull stats tomorrow that should illuminate the use case for QR. A lot of ppl, including myself, have a lot of assumptions about how it's being used and how effective it is (for most players), so getting the actual data will be useful for the discussion.

My guess is the pushback from most players about changing it is going to be because QR is working just as intended for the majority. Meaning I expect to see most combatants to be within 30% ks, with defenders losing, and only losing around 30-40% of their garrison.

We'll see 🧐

FriendsInSpace

Lord Thane Heres one for you, one of my defences, and within 30%.

On October 31, 2025 at 18:04:20: defense loss
My Lord, my Lord, we were invaded by Some feller at some province Enemies are upon us. They took everything what they could, our troops were unable to defend our kingdom. We must do something now!

We lost 2 Castle(s) surrounded by 66 lands.
In this lands are also constructed : 35 Advanced Training Center , 20 Farm , 30 Forge , 66 Guard House , 19 Guard Tower , 260 House , 65 Market , 22 Medical Center , 33 Mill , 74 Mine , 0 School , 34 Training Center ,

In this lands also lived 22143 people who left our Kingdom.

We managed to kill : 494 Shadow Warrior 2127 Rusher 939 Slother 1741 Wolf Master 3678 Slinger 2083 Axe Thrower

But we lost : 1630 Dark Knight 10089 Skeletal Legion 2579 Wraith Pikeman 0 Abomination Caragous 3659 Phantom Archer 2800 Wraith Rider

⚔️ DEFENSE COMMANDER'S REPORT ⚔️
Commander, our defenses were breached. Enemy short-range forces overwhelmed us. Consider more defensive specialists. Heavy losses sustained. Immediate reinforcement and strategic review required.

Defense report summary, sire:

• • •
We suffered 22% of our casualties in Long Range.

We inflicted 39.6% of enemy casualties in Long Range.

We suffered 67.1% of our casualties in Short Range.

We inflicted 16.1% of enemy casualties in Short Range.

We suffered 11% of our casualties in Melee.

We inflicted 44.3% of enemy casualties in Melee.

We inflicted 40.4% casualties on the attacking force.

Our defensive losses totaled 81.3% of our garrison.

We were overwhelmed. A catastrophic defeat that requires immediate attention.

81.3% loss of my garrison on QR. And thanks to the strat, I only killed 40.4% of his force, whereas if I was on no strat I would have lost 100% but might have actually done some decent damage to him.

Better yet, according to the TS i got after, he only send 50% of his forces.

FriendsInSpace

Lord Thane

Lord Thane we already have the ks penalty to punish BF though, and the penalty actually works this round. I don't think BF is a good selling point for changing QR to get mass support. If the selling point is to reduce casualties and ease kingslaying attempts then I think more ppl will get on board.

You are misunderstanding me.

The selling point is being able to actually retain more of your army when on the strat. I'm saying that it may work for the smaller kingdoms, because 30k ks difference in a CLI range is a whole fuckton different than 100k ks.

The other selling point is the runaway kingdoms lose one more tool in their toolbox. How do you think Nolio was able to take 7 retals earlier this round? He was on QR, bounced the first 6 and then the 7th finally broke him. If QR didn't favor the large kingdoms, he would have been broken a lot sooner and not gotten as massive of a jump in land/castles that he did.

Look at Cyber's defences, and tell me he's not sitting on QR for half of them, and see how fair those are. I'd be willing to bet that he's losing a lot less than he's killing, and still bouncing more than he should, by more than the KS margins should allow.

If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but these are just my observations from these last two rounds.

Psidon

Stop bottom feeding!

STOP BOTTOM FEEDING!

……. Stop bottom feeding..

That’s one major way to fix this game and keep players…

It’s made me want to leave already… getting sick and tired of it..

FriendsInSpace

Psidon

I hear you, but it will never happen. Hitting higher than you carries far too much risk with the state of the game.

trupheus

Psidon

If your army is still suffering 100% casualties when defending on QR, that's a sign it's not doing what it is supposed to. Even for you around 50k ks.

You should be able to take the retal and win in more scenarios than ever. If you can't, you need to change something.

« Previous Page Next Page »