While fixing the 1000pop bug, I thought of a way to reduce the size of some armies that actually makes sense realistically.

For one, I see massive armies to be contrary to the original design of the game. Secondly, the new version will not have such large armies anyway.

I know we discussed returning to a max-pop here, but thats more work.

So I had another idea that will kind of re-introduce a max-pop, but also leave the door open to massive armies for those that like them.


-- Armies sustain +5% damage for each 100 troops --

So an army of 1-99 troops takes normal damage.
An army of say 550 troops would take +25% damage.
An army of 1000-1099 would take +50% damage.
etc etc

This makes having such huge armies risky in battle, and promotes the smaller 100 pop armies that make tactical strategy better.

Plus, it is more realistic that the more troops inside a set space the greater the chances of any weapon hitting and causing damage. (especially with arrows)

Doesn't the max damage limit SORTA make huge armies stupid?

Except in skirmishes...but isn't the whole point of the skirmish games to have huge armies?

I don't see huge armies being a problem except in skirmish games

Also...huge armies are already vulnerable to balista. Would this new thing COMPOUND with the balista bonus? That'd be tough...

Last Edited : Monday, 8 August 2005 - 22:59

Sage,
I think Req means by "contrary to the original design" something similar to your openning comment, but I'm trying to get a grasp on 50% damage.
That doesn't necessarily mean that an army of 1000 will be reduced to 500 I don't think.
It means that the defending army will inflict 50% more damage doesn't it?

TR

PS:
At a certain point doesn't the size of the defending army become a factor (i.e. reversing and leveling the penalty)?
Actually one practical reason
for large armies is to have enough left
on the other side of the map for the next battle.

*(edit)* not really on the "leveling*
I guess 500 entrenched troops would be much more formidable than 100.

TR

Last Edited : Tuesday, 9 August 2005 - 00:16

i accually agree with req on this once u hit 550 its just too big...i keep my army with in 550 so its all good...

The defending army takes extra damage due to size. A 200 pop stack will take an extra 10% damage, etc.

Could you please tell me how that will be effective, or is req going to remove the max damage cap?


Unless it has changed there is only one reason I can think of to use extremely large units in non skirmish games. That is because retal from defending units isn't limited.

If req really wants to eleminate what is a problem, there are two choices.

1. Remove the max damage cap, this wont really eleminate the problem but it will make it fair for attacking units to deal a fair amount of damage.
2. Institute a retal damage cap in non skirmish games. This would eleminate a level 1 300 pop falc unit from doing its full points of damage in retal. Retal should have the same limitations as attack, then players wouldn't feel the need to build huge armies.

I would consider that fair.

Actually, I was looking at +1% damage per 10 troops.

So 50 troops would take +5%, 100 troops +10%, 1000 troops would take +100%(double damage).

It does make it so that huge armies become more risky and promotes more tactical play with more units, as well as more strategy in what size is best for what situation.

as for the damage cap, im not sure whether to keep it at all. it is rather confusing.

It does cap the retal damage as well as the attack damage. However, the retal damage cap is proportional.
It is the same RATIO as if there was no cap at all.
eg...
if you were to do 2000 damage and the retal would have been 4000 damage, the CAPPED version would be 1000 damage and the retal would be 2000. Same ratio, but both damages are capped.

But req why does the unit being attacked get to do more damage than the attacking unit? I could understand if a unit is actually defending, ie protecting a castle or holding their position whithout moving while in defense mode, their being allowed to do more damage.

But if the fight is in a general location with both sides moving around and attacking then the defending unit should not recieve a benefit. Because they aren't really defending.

Eh I don't like the idea.

As it is we produce way too many troops a turn to make small stacks. Especially when you can only attack in many places with just a few units at a time. If you forced a steep damage penalty without opening up the campaign maps more you'd basically be doing three things:

(1) giving master level troops even more advantages over basic troops

(2) making ballis more powerful than marks, and

(3) giving a defensive posture even more advantages, as it would be even harder to break through a seige or bust through terrian that isn't to your advantage.

In short I think it would be unbalancing.

Card

Last Edited : Thursday, 11 August 2005 - 16:53

Ghengis, there is no advantage to defenders.

If the RETAL damage is higher than the ATTACK damage it is because your tactics are bad, and you are attacking a superior force.

If your Attack would do more damage than the Retal, that will always stay the same, and the "capped" retal would be much smaller.

As I said, the RATIO stays the same.

Whatever you multiply the ATTACK with to get it to 1000, you ALSO multiply the RETAL with.

When did you change this? I know several months ago it was set so the attackers had a damage cap while the defending unit did full retal.

From your description above it sounded to me like you were still giving the defender an advantage.
attacker can do 2000 points and is limited to 1000 points damage, while the defender can do 4000 points and is limited to 2000.

So what you are saying is that if the attacker can do 4000 points damage and is limited to 1000, then the defender who has 4000 points damage is also limited to 1000?


If I understand that correctly, how does this work with smaller armies against larger ones? As there is currently a damage cap on attacks in most games I perfer to use units around the size of the cap.
So for example: I have several spearmen units each capable of 800 points damage. My opponent has 1 huge scout unit capable of 4000 points damage. I attack him doing full damage to reach 1000 points. Does my opponent get a full retal at 4000 points?

If my question is correct, then it is really messed up. If there is a damage cap on attacks, no matter what size the army; then the retal cap should be the same, no matter the army size.

Not to sound rude but it isn't bad tactics when the game mechanics are so screwed up, that nobody understands how they work.

A good question, Ghengis, is why you think a small stack of spearmen should be able to attack a HUGE stack of scouts and NOT be at a disadvantage.

Hello! You're attacking an enemy with superior numbers!

The current system works fine. It limits both the attacker and the defender equally.

I never said a smaller unit attacking a larger unit shouldn't be at a disadvantage. But a cap for attackers while allowing the defender full retal is unfair.

How is it fair that a defending unit can do full damage against a smaller stack and only 1/2 to 1/3 damage to a larger stack.

Another question, If what I understand is correct and the retal is based off of what the attacking unit does. Does that mean that when my smaller unit is attacked by a force that could do 4000 points damage but is capped at 1000 points, that their retal will only be 1/3 of their actual ability?

Req's complaining about large armies now. Yet if I understand the game mechanics, they are designed to favor the larger army. I am beggining to understand why I've seen several players building large stacks of units.

Here's the way the system works. Maybe I suck at explaining it, but it actually is fair.

Lets assume we have a stack of scouts that does 1000 damage. It attacks a stack of scouts that does 2000 damage.

The attacking stack will do 1000 damage, and the defending stack will do 2000. They both did the maximum allowed by their population size.

Now lets say a stack that does 2000 damage attacks a stack that does 4000. The attacking stack will do 1000 damage...half of what its max is. The defendinng stack will do 2000...half of what its max is.

Both units had their damage chopped in half. Of course the defending unit did more damage, because it's a larger stack. But it's completely fair.

Sorry I don't see it as being fair.

Lets say a force that can do 4000 points of damage attacks a force that can do 1000 points of damage. By the rules that means that the smaller force only gets to do 250 points of damage? If that is wrong, then how is it being fair to the attacker who's forces should be doing more damage than the defender? If this is such a well balanced technique, wouldn't it be just as balanced and fair without the cap? Let the forces do the damage the game says they can!

From what I'm seeing it is to my advantage to build large armies. After all there may be a max attack cap but that doesn't really harm a defending unit.

I really don't consider having any damage cap as being fair. Its almost as lame as saying you can't own walls or towers so you can't take them over. But if you built them, then it is ok for you to own them, and tear them down when they are interfering with your troop movements

You don't see it as being fair that a larger army should do more damage than a smaller army?

We have games with no damage cap. They're called skirmishes. I prefer no damage cap, so I play skirmishes. Perhaps you should, too?

And yes...if a HUGE stack of scouts that can do 4000 points of damage attacks a very small stack of scouts that can only do 1000, then the HUGE stack does 4 times as much as the smaller one. Whether thats 4000 vs 1000, or 1000 vs 250...it's the same damage, just in a smaller ratio. That's completely fair.

It's not really to your advantage to build large armies. While you COULD build a 4000-damage stack of scouts, and then only take 250 damage in retaliation...you'd kill your enemy faster if you built 4, 1000 damage stacks of scouts. Then you'd be able to do 4000 damage a turn instead of 1000. Usually the only troops I REALLY make big stacks for in regular games are macemen. Because they're so fricking hard to kill when they're in huge stacks.

If there were more 24 hr games in skirmish I would play more shirmish games.

I posted a thread last october about retal damage and this is the first I've heard for a reply from Req.

In one breath sage you say that smaller units attacking larger units should be destroyed. In the next you say it is better to use smaller units, even though with each attack 1 unit will be fully wiped out.

Don't get me wrong a small army attacking a larger force should take more damage, but in the same way a large army attacking a small army should be able to do its full damage. If I have a spearmen unit that is capable of destroying a scout unit with one attack, why should I have to strike it several times? While my troops are replenishing their MP and BP, the scout unit gets to run off, I suppose you consider that fair too?

Your example of macemen shows how off balance the system is. After all, I can build a 500 pop macemen unit, and I have seen them, and it would be virtually indestructable in melee, especially if you were using 1000 point stacks. A squire unit built up to the size that it would do it's damage cap would be virtually wiped out. Now you have 5 squire units of the same size, granted they'll damage the mace unit, but each one will be rather badly mutilated.

In short the damage cap is lame and should be removed. Or the cap should be put on retal as well, as this will do what Req wants and force players to play his way even more!