Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Epic battles
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedEpic battles

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 15>
Author
HonoredMule View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 01:37
Drejan [Dlord]  Dwarven Lords [Dlord]  15,565 48,564 64,129

Wow, kudos to Drejan for killing nearly 50k units with just over 15k. Shocked

"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 14:04

Mandarins31 [VIC] Invictus [VIC] 38,43628,54266,978
Drejan [Dlord] Dwarven Lords [Dlord] 15,56548,56464,129

I'm really glad the battle algorithm was corrected. Good for the folks who prefer to break sieges than deploy it :)
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 15:37
I still don't really like that it takes a huge coordinated effort from many players+cities (large or small) to set up a solid occupation/seige camp or whatever and it only takes 1 bored guy 2 minutes to wipe it out after simming a huge army for 6 months.... just adds even more weight into the attacker(s) hands imo. Player's should be rewarded for team efforts, not rewarded for going solo.

Personally I'd like to see more inter-alliance full-out combat in Illy and I think strengthening attack even more (i.e. making it easier to defend against seiges etc.) will just add another barrier to this.

Just my opinion - guess we will see how it plays out in the future. It might even work in the opposite way (more easier defences makes people more willing to risk going into PvP combat).

The other thing I don't like is how elementals+other special units have become almost totally obsolete - before the update they had 'some' value in that they could be used to buff armies a little by dropping a few special units in, the raised overall strength would reduce your casualty rates fractionally... as long as you had overwhelming strength then you could be fairly sure you would not lose your elite units (as you would expect wiv some kind of real life comparison... elite units are used to buff a force but always teh grunts take the force of the attack/casualties or whatever)... with the new rounding/damage changes you are almost gauranteed to lose your elites in every combat they engage in - which means mine at least will be avoiding pretty much ALL combat from now on (unless this is fixed of course).
Back to Top
SunStorm View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 15:51
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

Player's should be rewarded for team efforts, not rewarded for going solo.
+100!
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

with the new rounding/damage changes you are almost gauranteed to lose your elites in every combat they engage in
Scary thought. (~_~)
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR

Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 16:00
Createure, from what I read of the new rounding rules the deductions are taken from the units that are weakest against whatever the opponent is.  The elites should rarely be that, and therefore wouldn't be guaranteed losses.  The elite troops seem like a way people could build up an insurmountable lead in a perpetual game like this; if they are also virtually invulnerable due to rounding that adds another handicap to newer players who must be attracted and retained if Illy is to thrive.

And I say that as someone who is expecting to win her first elite units in a few days -- so it's not a matter of thinking that because I don't have it other people shouldn't, lol.
Back to Top
Createure View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 16:16
I dunno Rill I've seen combat reports with elites getting cut down due to the rounding system already.

SC once mentioned how he was pleased to see people using these units in pvp combat/tournament - making these units much more vulnerable means people will just stop using them.


Edited by Createure - 15 Mar 2012 at 16:23
Back to Top
Gragnog View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 598
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 16:20
As much as I prefer attack to defend, I have to agree. The system where defense was stronger than attack was great. Actually gave planning and co-ordination a huge advantage over solo actions. It seems more tweaking is required. One would assume that commanders should make a huge difference, and having 50 commanders in defense versus one in attack, would give some advantage. Being able to kill 20 commanders with a few sword troops and a relatively new commander was great for me, but really unfair on the people who had spent time and effort claiming and holding the place in the first place.
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6817
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 16:30
The changed battle system still allows for planning and coordination, just a different type of planning and coordination.  I know HUGS has been having a lot of fun battling DLords for Taomist using a strategy in which incoming opponent armies are timed fairly precisely, then other armies are landed so as to attack and clear, then a following army to claim and hold.  It's rather like a ballet.

I am not advocating any particular type of combat calculation in saying this; merely pointing out that tactics and strategy are still useful, just that different tactics and strategy are needed now.

Createure, I wasn't suggesting that players with elite units are prone to newbie bashing, just that if established players have insurmountable advantages that very fact will be somewhat discouraging to some players who are joining at a later stage of the game.  I personally have no ambition to be a top-level player, merely a contributing member to my alliance and the community, but other players do have such an interest and one wouldn't want them to be turned off on the game because they don't feel like they have a chance.  I don't think that's true in any way right now and hope that it will not be in the future.
Back to Top
Ander View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1269
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 17:32
Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

I still don't really like that it takes a huge coordinated effort from many players+cities (large or small) to set up a solid occupation/seige camp or whatever and it only takes 1 bored guy 2 minutes to wipe it out after simming a huge army for 6 months.... just adds even more weight into the attacker(s) hands imo. Player's should be rewarded for team efforts, not rewarded for going solo. 
 

In the case of a siege camp, the sieging side would have been preparing and training units for months. They have the advantage of numbers for one (and having simmed cheap spear and archer unit over many months). 

Also in a siege, the sieging army could loose only their troops, while the player being sieged may loose everything. So it is only fair that someone has a better chance for defending against a siege than a normal attack. 

Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

 
Personally I'd like to see more inter-alliance full-out combat in Illy and I think strengthening attack even more (i.e. making it easier to defend against seiges etc.) will just add another barrier to this.

Just my opinion - guess we will see how it plays out in the future. It might even work in the opposite way (more easier defences makes people more willing to risk going into PvP combat).
  

I too hope this will bring in more battles. 

The increased difficulty of doing a siege would actually make people bolder that they may not loose 'everything' in a battle. (maybe dudes might even try out attacks on their neighbors just for 'teh lulz of it'!)

Originally posted by Createure Createure wrote:

  
The other thing I don't like is how elementals+other special units have become almost totally obsolete - before the update they had 'some' value in that they could be used to buff armies a little by dropping a few special units in, the raised overall strength would reduce your casualty rates fractionally... as long as you had overwhelming strength then you could be fairly sure you would not lose your elite units (as you would expect wiv some kind of real life comparison... elite units are used to buff a force but always teh grunts take the force of the attack/casualties or whatever)... with the new rounding/damage changes you are almost gauranteed to lose your elites in every combat they engage in - which means mine at least will be avoiding pretty much ALL combat from now on (unless this is fixed of course).

I dont know how it works. I havent seen any reports. But maybe the casualties comes only in the case of elite units being present with a weaker force.. say one elemental and one archer in a division - if the army suffers 60% casualty, logically the elemental should die? Even on suffering 40% casualty, the elemental should die as the archer doesnt constitute 40% of the total defense?

What will happen if you send an army of say .. one elemental and 10,000 archers in the same division? How much casualty would the defending side take before the elemental die?

praetorians are going to be more common and i dont like the idea of having to fight against all praetorian guards in an alliance standing with tiny armies alongside, without suffering attrition. But it is perfectly OK for me if a single praetorian in a moderate army dies only last.


Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Mar 2012 at 19:17
Creature is right about the rounding. The second pass killed the weakest of the group of units that didnt get casualties during the first pass because of the rounding. So, if you only put Elites in those small groups that will benefit of the rounding, this is the weakest of these Elites that will be killed to adjust to the good result during the second pass. If youre Elites are all the same, it will randomly kill some groups of them...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1011121314 15>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.