| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Hadus 
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
 Topic: City Subjugation
Posted: 10 Sep 2012 at 15:01 |
 gameplayer wrote:
random roll of loss greatly changes strategy, the attacker has to plan on several attacks or one major attack always with the knowledge that any attack has a slight random chance of failure, this chance prevents bullying and is done by a simple dice roll mech that the devs can easily implement as they have done with thieving......that random chance totally changed my plan of stealing people blind
|
The problem with random chance is that while it does add a bit of strategy in the way you mention (sending smaller attacks to reduce unfortunate losses), it ends up potentially destroying any other strategy since you can never rely on the given tactic without factoring in potential failure. Essentially reducing the mechanic to probability. Don't you think the devs are smart enough to come up with strategy-increasing game mechanics that don't revolve around luck? They've said themselves they don't like the random diplo failure anyway.
|
|
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 10 Sep 2012 at 01:04 |
|
random roll of loss greatly changes strategy, the attacker has to plan on several attacks or one major attack always with the knowledge that any attack has a slight random chance of failure, this chance prevents bullying and is done by a simple dice roll mech that the devs can easily implement as they have done with thieving......that random chance totally changed my plan of stealing people blind
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 21:59 |
What if Raid was modified to be more unique? Instead of only commiting a portion of the attack, it commits everyone. If the attackers win, the survivors of the army storm the city and do the following: - Steal T1 res (only the Basic 5) - Interrupt building and research queues - Deals up to a certain amount of p/h (based on the number of survivors that storm) by de-leveling buildings. It could be thought of as a "light" siege. The stolen res from army attacks never amounts to much in comparison to the units lost in battle, so it wouldn't be profitable. And it isn't like siege, where it continues until the city's fallen. But it certainly is strong enough to send a message to the player.
|
|
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 04:17 |
gameplayer wrote:
why not make raid a little more damaging, but i would also add random failure with attacker or defender losing all troops involved, this would add alot more strategy, hopefully the new magic adds spells that kill troops within the castle, in other games i have played this makes even the most powerful players think twice about bullying, but some changes must be made to make conflict more part of the game than just verbal exchanges
|
Another awful idea :/ so to increase strategy we need to add a % chance that you completely lose? How does that fit any ones description of strategy? It would be like playing chess and you roll a d20 each move to see if the piece you moved survives. Surely this would improve strategies in chess... 
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 03:16 |
Something similar exists in... I think it was Civ Call to Power. You can do diplomatic attacks that divert some research and resources from their town to yours.
|
|
Vanerin
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 09 Sep 2012 at 02:36 |
TomBombadil wrote:
I'm not too worried about it being very expensive. Although I'd still consider this profitable since the demands could be enforced without earth-scorching tactics;
|
And this is not possible with thieves and/or blockades?
|
|
TomBombadil
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 16:17 |
I'm not too worried about it being very expensive. Although I'd still consider this profitable since the demands could be enforced without earth-scorching tactics; Costing me extra resources to do that is not a problem.
I think the OP meant for the subjugation to be quite profitable though.
|
|
Hadus
Postmaster
Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 545
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 16:11 |
hellion19 wrote:
Hadus wrote:
Oh, I guess my system was just misleading. I was trying NOT to make it unprofitable, while posing an alternative that does not require the destruction of cities. |
Again is there really a purpose to it? I have stated this a number of times as have others and it really boils down to making it profitable. Everything the idea brings to the table can be dealt with by means that already exists.
Lets use an example... You and I fight and lets say you won. Lets say said issue was over the placement of my city to add a few elements to it.
Subjugation is designed so you don't have to take out the city... so instead you get X resources from it.
So in our agreement perhaps the payment was X gold and Y advanced resources. At this point we fulfilled what you would have achieved from subjugation without the need of a siege.
The alternative could be that because it was a land dispute as mostly mentioned in this thread it leaves my town demolished.
Subjugation being the alternative being option 3 if added... it has no additional function and doesn't add anything to the game. If you can do it through a demand of X gold and Y resources how does it actually differ? So it likely means that it will be more a source of income... subjugate as many as you can and your empire will be far stronger... however you wanted to add another element to it like a time table (to keep it a temporary thing). How does this benefit the player compared to just demanding the resources?
So unless you can explain how it differs at all or adds an actual new element to the game I can see it as nothing more than simply making war profitable in the game.
|
Okay, good point. One way it differs: prevents military and diplomatic orders while subjugated. No attack in the game currently restricts troops from being sent out of a city besides perhaps siege. This allows you to "declaw" a city for a while, so the only thing they can do is attack your occupying force. If they want to attack your city in return, they must do it from elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 12:16 |
|
why not make raid a little more damaging, but i would also add random failure with attacker or defender losing all troops involved, this would add alot more strategy, hopefully the new magic adds spells that kill troops within the castle, in other games i have played this makes even the most powerful players think twice about bullying, but some changes must be made to make conflict more part of the game than just verbal exchanges
|
|
hellion19
Forum Warrior
Joined: 01 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 310
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 07:11 |
TomBombadil wrote:
A demand for X gold and Y resources can be refused. Demands that you should exodus can be refused. Many people irrationally refuse demands they consider to be wholly unfair.
If a demand to exodus is refused with the obvious consequence of that city's destruction, I doubt the same person that refused to exodus will change their minds if you only threaten to blockade, raid and thieve them into submission.
I generally dislike razing cities to the ground if I have another option. But as there is no way to force down these demands when refused the only option left is razing the city to the ground. |
Which is why this all boils down to an idea that is meant to promote profitable war. Unless your plan is like vanerin stated and make it so that Subjugation actually costs a bit to maintain to almost completely knock out the possibility of a profit margin. Then it would be fair to say that your doing it out of the kindness of your own heart. Otherwise the way its designed now is meant for profit.
|
|
Tweet
City Subjugation
