| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Thexion 
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
 Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 20:44 |
|
New Buildings don't slower building time it lowers the cost of upkeep unless you are not talking about sovereignty buildings.
Sorry but your words about zerg tactics and different personalities is very similar to LH:s. This game is also social game as in making allies and enemies someone is always in the receiving end.
|
 |
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 20:24 |
|
Q: How many 'sally-forth' actions there were against the 5 seiges H? set up against VALAR in the inital attack?
A: Zero.
Edited by Createure - 12 Oct 2011 at 20:30
|
|
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 20:19 |
 Truth wrote:
Thexion wrote:
Â
I don't think it is meaningful to make it possible to defend against over whelming numbers since where is the reality in that? I'm sure that one player might be happy about winning many. But many would be unhappy that there is no point in warfare anymore.
I agree about making the siege slower with you but making it nearly impossible would cost the game much more players.
Truth you could start call your self Lion_Heartz the second (or just again Lion_Heartz?) since you share the ideas and vocabulary.
|
With that logic, you can start to call yourself Creature the second.
It is all about the status quo, you are in an alliance that is on the offensive ends of things, so defense will not be a worry for you all for sometime.
Offensive strategy is a zerg warfare right now, thus defense needs to be a little bit more powerful.
A topic like this will always have two sides. Hopefully the devs will adopt each of our ideas.
I think we can all agree that defense needs a huge improvement. From the age of empire days, I liked the option of playing defense.
I am hungry for more strategy in this game other than the zerg warfare in the game now.
I know terrain and the type of troops used can be a difference in outcomes. Biome warfare buildings are a cool addition to defend if a player lives in the jungle, desert, or artic. Most players need to decide to either make a spearman or a cavalry in each town. On top of this, how many towns does a player want to be for spears or for archery or for magic or should their be two towns for diplomats. This new specialization has made things more interesting but I am hungry for more defensive building additions that will make the game more fun in my opinion.
I was wondering if someone can answer a question about the buildings for cavalry or archery etc.., do these buildings decrease the troop build time only? What other benefits do these buildings offer? |
it seems you understand nothing about the mechanics of combat. this is not about zerging. you cant zerg your way to victory here. a lone player cant hope to do much. what you need is coordination. and whit a bit of luck and a bit of common sense you can archive great victories whit great effort or be defeated in battle but victorious on the paper, thus making the enemy sacrifice an enormous number of troops . troops are as valuable as the time they need to be made. defence is al right. crushing an army on camp is not defence, its madness.
|
|
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 19:57 |
Thexion wrote:
Â
I don't think it is meaningful to make it possible to defend against over whelming numbers since where is the reality in that? I'm sure that one player might be happy about winning many. But many would be unhappy that there is no point in warfare anymore.
I agree about making the siege slower with you but making it nearly impossible would cost the game much more players.
Truth you could start call your self Lion_Heartz the second (or just again Lion_Heartz?) since you share the ideas and vocabulary.
|
With that logic, you can start to call yourself Creature the second. It is all about the status quo, you are in an alliance that is on the offensive ends of things, so defense will not be a worry for you all for sometime. Offensive strategy is a zerg warfare right now, thus defense needs to be a little bit more powerful. A topic like this will always have two sides. Hopefully the devs will adopt each of our ideas. I think we can all agree that defense needs a huge improvement. From the age of empire days, I liked the option of playing defense. I am hungry for more strategy in this game other than the zerg warfare in the game now. I know terrain and the type of troops used can be a difference in outcomes. Biome warfare buildings are a cool addition to defend if a player lives in the jungle, desert, or artic. Most players need to decide to either make a spearman or a cavalry in each town. On top of this, how many towns does a player want to be for spears or for archery or for magic or should their be two towns for diplomats. This new specialization has made things more interesting but I am hungry for more defensive building additions that will make the game more fun in my opinion. I was wondering if someone can answer a question about the buildings for cavalry or archery etc.., do these buildings decrease the troop build time only? What other benefits do these buildings offer?
Edited by Truth - 12 Oct 2011 at 19:59
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 19:31 |
|
I don't think it is meaningful to make it possible to defend against over whelming numbers since where is the reality in that? I'm sure that one player might be happy about winning many. But many would be unhappy that there is no point in warfare anymore.
I agree about making the siege slower with you but making it nearly impossible would cost the game much more players.
Truth you could start call your self Lion_Heartz the second (or just again Lion_Heartz?) since you share the ideas and vocabulary.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 19:03 |
|
Defence is fine. The problem was with VALAR leadership getting themselves so outnumbered, and uncoordinated.
But we're way off topic now anyways...
Edited by Createure - 12 Oct 2011 at 20:25
|
|
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 19:00 |
Createure wrote:
To say I have been 'hiding' anywhere is the only joke here... I have always been honest about my in-game identity, and open with my opinions.
Truth wrote:
A player of 150,000 pop verse several alliance filled with many players
is what I would call zerg warfare and the big player verse the little
player approach. |
It is logic like this which is the reason why VALAR completely collapsed at the vaguest threat of difficult fight. The fact that it WAS 150,000 person against many people several times - because VALAR demonstrated zero tactical ability and organisation - they threw away all their troops in the first wave of attacks and left themselves open to annihilation or surrender.
In reality - the first 5 seiges against VALAR were ALL from Harmless? members only. VALAR could easily have wiped out 2 or 3 of these seiges with good coordination, while also preserving their forces for re-use - but instead each player was left to fend for themselves and all the hostile seiges were untouchable.
It is complete lack of basic common-sense demonstrated in the defence of VALAR that was also reflected in VALAR's diplomatic disasters that left them so isolated in the community.
The problem was not with 'seige being too easy' - although I'll admit that this does make a convenient excuse for cry-babies - the problem was with terrible leadership that VALAR is better off without.
|
Again I will restate this: People's opinions are shaped by the experiences they have gone through in life and even in a game. This means if you have not experienced having to defend against overwhelming odds first hand, it would not surprise me that you would think better defensive options are not needed. A person does not feel the urgency for a cure of a disease until they have been diagnosed with the disease. ------------------------------ H? did not fight Valar 1 vs 1 like you are trying to imply... Second, Valar was facing many alliances verse themselves. Think about the train of thought of each member when facing such odds... H? had planned for a month for this attack while Valar all of a sudden had a couple days to react. This means they possibly had some players not active during these attacks, thus threw strategy into a bind including the fact they were helping roller out by taking out Curses sieges. H? and their friends spent a month making as much troops as they can to make this operation a success. The only failure the Valar leadership had was that their leadership's personality was different from the leaders of H?. Anyway, you can try to spin that defense in this game is just fine, but in reality the TRUTH is, defense is just a sense of your imagination.
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 18:50 |
|
I was not always in H? bud... though I guess that part doesn't fit this little ideal world of yours.
VALAR got wiped because each player was left to fend for themselves - the most help for VALAR arrived from outside of VALAR.
VALAR leadership gave up before the fight even started which is why they lost.
If they had pooled their defence to kill off attackers instead of throwing troops away all over the place in a totally uncoordinated manner then VALAR would have stood a much better chance.
Edited by Createure - 12 Oct 2011 at 19:00
|
|
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 16:50 |
Createure wrote:
TBH I'm not sure where this issue has risen from.
I really haven't noticed many 'little players' getting seiged recently (or ever)... the only active seige targets in the last few months have been very high level players.
And I think many of you posting have little concept of how effective the 'sally forth' mechanic can be when employed effectively.
|
Very funny. I think the fact you have been hiding in the H? alliance has made you unaware of the zerg strategy tactic used by H? and its coalition. Sally forth may work when the odds are equal, however when faced against a zerg, the odds are impossible to defend against. H? knew that, thus why they brought in many alliances to ensure a win against Valar. A player of 150,000 pop verse several alliance filled with many players is what I would call zerg warfare and the big player verse the little player approach. I can understand why you would be afraid of defensive players getting a chance to actually defend in this game. This will more or less hurt the way H? does things. Oh and btw, there has been plenty small players sieged out of the game by the bigger players. Like I said before, you have not experienced this since you are in H?. People's opinions are shaped by the experiences they have gone through in life and even in a game. This means if you have not experienced having to defend against overwhelming odds first hand, it would not surprise me that you would think better defensive options are not needed. A person does not feel the urgency for a cure of a disease until they have been diagnosed with the disease.
Edited by Truth - 12 Oct 2011 at 17:01
|
|
Createure
Postmaster General
Joined: 07 Apr 2010
Location: uk
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 16:28 |
|
TBH I'm not sure where this issue has risen from.
I really haven't noticed many 'little players' getting seiged recently (or ever)... the only active seige targets in the last few months have been very high level players.
And I think many of you posting have little concept of how effective the 'sally forth' mechanic can be when employed effectively.
|
|
Tweet
Limiting siege damage