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?
Tweet
"Raid" - Rethought
Topic Options
