"Raid" - Rethought
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=688
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 20:45
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: "Raid" - Rethought
Posted By: Aelfric
Subject: "Raid" - Rethought
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2010 at 09:42
|
Currently, Raid means having one-third of your army and the commander attack the target settlement. I'm pretty sure the majority of players think Raid is useless, because you don't attack a settlement unless you're sure the it is undefended or you know you can overpower the garrison. Raid is useful when you don't scout the target settlement first and unsure if it is undefended or if your army would be able to overpower the garrison. But even if you decide to Raid it, while you limit the loss of your army to only one-third of the troops in it, you still may lose your commander (expensive and time-consuming to resurrect). Then again, how many times have you attack a settlement when you're unsure about the strength of its garrison (or the lack thereof)? Probably a more direct question, how many of you have found Raid useful? I'd expect the answer to be none, or close to it.  The word 'Raid' is defined as either: 1) Surprise/quick attack; or 2) Entering someone's territory and taking spoils Therefore, I'd like to suggest that Raid be changed to the following: 1) If interpreted as surprise/quick attack: +10% offensive strength, -10% seized loots This reflects because the garrison got surprised by the attack, they'd take more casualties (Blitzkrieg?). But because it is a short attack, the attackers have little time to loot the settlement. 2) If interpreted as the second definition: -10% offensive strength, +10% seized loots This reflects that the attackers want to plunder the settlement as much as they want before withdrawing from the battle. The % is just illustration. May be 20%, 25%, or whichever the developers think is balanced. I personally like the surprise/quick attack better because it's more realistic. What do you guys think? |
Replies:
Posted By: Shrapnel
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2010 at 13:25
|
The idea of raid imo is to hit a settlement hard and fast with the end result of stealing some resources and limiting your troops losses. Technically, a raid should always be a loss tactically (results in a retreat), but a strategic win (you take stolen resources with you). I think raid should work something like this:
If raid succeeds:
minimum loss of troops for raider.
Reduced loss of troops for defender, chance of no loss
Guareenteed looting of resources but at smaller take than full attack.
If raid fails:
Still chance of troop survival for raider but may suffer losses as per normal attack
Even further reduction of trroop loss for defender.
No resources looted.
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2010 at 13:43
|
What if a raid commited a third of your army against a third of their army, (as if they;re going to be taken completely by surprise) If the raid is successful then the entier army makes off with 50% of their carry capacity, If the raid fails the 1/3 of your army is killed and some of the opponents troops are killed (the one third against one third battle) That way raids become a safer method of attack and if your army is only slightly bigger than the attackers then you will have a lot more surviving troops and therefore will make off with much more resources. |
Posted By: GlyphGryph
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2010 at 13:46
|
I'd say the suggestion I like the most is col0005s "1/3 fight 1/3, but EVERYONE on the attacking side loots" suggestion, with one tweak - There shouldn't be a chance of failure. Raid should be the goto for resource aquisition (if a person doesn't mind potentially losing a third of their army each time) |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2010 at 15:08
|
Hmm... maybe but then there'd be no possible defense against a raid. By
a successful raid I mean that your attacking army beats the 1/3rd of
the defending army. if you don't like the possibility of coming out
with no resources how about the number of resources that can be grabbed
is dependant on how easily the battle is won/lost ie if the defending
army easily beats your army then you can run of with say 5% of your
carry capacity. If you easily win you take 95% If its really close its
50% not in the case of the 50% capacity you will make of with a much larger amount of resources as you will have atleast 2/3 of you army left where as since its close you'd mormally have almost no troops left |