Hey Req in non skirmish games you have created an imbalance that completely favors a player on the defense.

In games where the attack damage is limited then the retal damage should be limited as well. If you want to give the defender a slight advantage that is fine but with your new wall rules and the current retal rule it gives a defender a major advantage.

An attacking player is limited to max damage of 1000 points plus the level bonus. A defending player can build huge stacks of melee and set them up to ZOC for their stacks of balistas. Depending on the player retal stacks vary in size from 2000-4000 points. Now these retal stacks aren't meant for attacking. They are used to sit in front of the ranged, so that their ranged units can pick apart your melee units. When you attack a retal stack one of your units takes massive casualties. If they have used proper ZOC then you can at most put two units against a retal stack plus what ever range you have. Units that can do double or tripple their attacking damage is just not ballanced with the new rule that says you have to destroy undefended walls to get them out of your way.

If you are going to keep the new capture rule, then you need to balance the game. I would say that a units retal should not be more than 1.5 times the units attack damage. This still gives the defensive player a slight advantage without unbalancing the game.

This is true...but then they in turn expose themselves to the risk of becoming ballista pincushions

Yes if you use balistas, not everybody does. The game is supposed to allow players to use the strats and troops they like. Not have to select a specific troop because it is the only way they can win now.

Another possibilty would be to allow undefended walls that aren't part of a castle to recieve full damage from a melee unit. When they attack castle walls they then do the 250 max damage to simulate that the walls are being defended.

If we're lucky, we shouldn't have to put up with this too many months longer...but afaik, the biggest imbalance of all is how 3000 gold a turn comes from the castle itself, a virtually impossible supply of income to sever apart from outright victory. I suppose it's even worse for multiple castles, because then you can only cut off 1000 per castle as well...!!!

Sadly, the game favours defence, but the only way to work the defender into a frenzy early and mid-game is not possible. Perhaps the new battering ram code offers some hope for barracks deprivation

I haven't even tried using battering rams it is hard enough to defend ranged and catapults, much less a unit that can't melee but has to be up front to do damage.

Well, with 90% cover from ranged damage....it should now hopefully be viable to use rams. But you still gotta train 'em... :|

At the risk of drifting off-topic...Ghengis- you said that rams weren't able to melee. I was just in a game where one of my opponents was 'attacking' other melee with his rams (not just retal hits)...and doing decent damage. Is this not supposed to happen?

How many Rams did he have in that stack?

Seige units get a horrible damage score against army units. They can melee, but putting them into melee means you lose alot of a unit that is needed to bring down the walls and don't do close to the level of damage that they are capable of.

I believe that the stack was only 50-60 strong. And the attacks were against basic troops...but not lvl 1.

Factoring in the extra resource cost of rams vs the higher cost of falchs, I ran those two in the calc for a quick check, 100 vs 100.

Falchs kill 23, rams kill 4

Even counting the falchs to be a little pricier (if at all), the falchs come out clear tops. Rams CAN hold their own against any basic troop, even scouts - but if you were paying equal costs on your scouts, you'd have so many scouts the rams would be over-run

Best of all, in the scope of the given topic...it means the defender can't just run a few lousy melee troops out and expect to get away with it

Once you count multiple assaults, the rams are toast. The system - for once - works

I agree. Retal should be limited. It is, in my humble opinion, simply absurd to attack 115 towered ballistae (dmg 690-1150) with 105 marksmen (dmg 1155-1890) and have the marksmen take 2477 dmg to the 624 dealt. Seems just a *little* off.
(Ah, the joy of venting.)

Arnof the (Self-Righteously) Vile

Well...seeing as you've gone down this path...

- The ballista are better shielded by the tower. (+20 def skill)
- The ballista are in a better position to aim, using the tower facilities (ledges, window slits, etc - +20 att skill)
- The ballista are suited and intended for this sort of combat. (-50% damage done to them)

Any one of these points is pretty major in itself. When you have all 3...you are begging for trouble

maybe u should just play 12 hr skimish game u do know they are available right?

CTD, how dare you question the righteous indignation of my rant!
As is obvious by now, my particular example is a less than ideal one. Nonetheless, I support a retal dmg cap...

With more forethought and composure,
Arnof the Vile

If you want a DECENT argument, the mega-maceman is a better case. Also not ideal, but it almost scuppered my recent invasion

60-odd macemen is bad enough, had he been using 100+ stacks and capitalised on his rapidly-skill-acquiring-super-stack...well...who knows
Not that it will be happening again this game, I'm buying a counter

Already been mentioned though, I think...

Bump to express a point in Req's new thread.

As I said in the other thread, retal is balanced.

It is the SAME ratio as without the max-damage.

Whether you attack with 2000 and retal is 4000, or attack with 1000 and retal is 2000, it is the SAME RATIO.

Therefore, if you dont like seeing massive retal attacks, adjust your strategy to compensate, because you are obviously attacking a larger more powerful force with the wrong troops.

It would be same if people came crying saying, I attacked and did 100 damage, but my enemy's retal was 500! Its not fair!

The retal is fine.

Req please note the date that this was originally posted!