Author Topic: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance  (Read 3457 times)

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2016, 03:42:51 PM »
I'm continuing my "ordinary player observation", after number of battles seen in unrelated wars in the meantime, I still have strong feeling how attacking is too easy, defending too hard, battles permanently crush one side completely, putting that side in frustrating, unplayable mood that repels people much.

Let me express plain feeling - if all defensive bonuses would be tripled, game would be much more playable, much more interesting, while noone who likes attacks would be deprived of attacking opportunities.

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2016, 03:48:39 PM »
The only problem I have with war is that it is too fast and tactics too demanding. Block, evade, attack. It demands activity just to reach the battle. It greatly, truly greatly favors the active player. Which is not how it should be. One active player with many characters will always win the war. Perhaps battle corruption should be imposed on one player hoarding armies and apreading them across his characters?

Weaver

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
  • Karma: +53/-42
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2016, 05:01:00 PM »
I'm continuing my "ordinary player observation", after number of battles seen in unrelated wars in the meantime, I still have strong feeling how attacking is too easy, defending too hard, battles permanently crush one side completely, putting that side in frustrating, unplayable mood that repels people much.

Let me express plain feeling - if all defensive bonuses would be tripled, game would be much more playable, much more interesting, while noone who likes attacks would be deprived of attacking opportunities.

How do you even come up with this stuff? You have no idea how defensive buildings even work, yet feel qualified to suggest that they are tripled? What?!

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2016, 05:07:38 PM »
I'm continuing my "ordinary player observation", after number of battles seen in unrelated wars in the meantime, I still have strong feeling how attacking is too easy, defending too hard, battles permanently crush one side completely, putting that side in frustrating, unplayable mood that repels people much.

Let me express plain feeling - if all defensive bonuses would be tripled, game would be much more playable, much more interesting, while noone who likes attacks would be deprived of attacking opportunities.


Stone walls and wooden castles with tripled defensive bonuses? Score cause I have a lot of those, and they already massacre armies several times the defending armies size.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #34 on: March 14, 2016, 02:37:18 PM »
The only problem I have with war is that it is too fast and tactics too demanding. Block, evade, attack. It demands activity just to reach the battle. It greatly, truly greatly favors the active player. Which is not how it should be. One active player with many characters will always win the war. Perhaps battle corruption should be imposed on one player hoarding armies and apreading them across his characters?

It is too fast because defenses mean so little, and it will never change, I believe, without much more weight on defenses.

With much stronger defenses:
- Wars would progress slower giving more chance slow players to play at all, while not depriving attackers from ability to attack.
- Tasteless ambushes that just point at who has time to hang online whole day would have less tactical and strategical meaning, as moving troops would not be so much more valuable than anything else as it is now.

As long as moving troops as the most valuable asset, there is no way to avoid high activity to be one and only crucial factor of playing.

Currently it is almost impossible to defend any single estate without having active mobile troops around, attackers are always, always able to prepare prevailing force to be 100% sure to win. Once we see that attackers are at least sometimes forced to attack without being totally sure to win - we would say some sustainable balance is achieved.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #35 on: March 14, 2016, 02:42:15 PM »
Of course, there are other means as well, like, for instance:

- much faster training of all troops
- distant recruitment orders to be allowed (like distant permissions)
- random events to exist like occasional delays in travel times

All that could disallow control freaks to establish total control by any means, and allow different playing styles. I believe it is fair that more active guys have some advantage, but it's not OK that such advantage be absolute and total like it mostly is now.

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #36 on: March 14, 2016, 02:57:10 PM »
Have you tried taking a town recently Stue? Because I have, and it was not as trivial as you seem to think it is. Hawks are very good at what they do.

And of course, ambushes are far, far more effective for the defender.

stueblahblah

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
  • Karma: +9/-35
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #37 on: March 14, 2016, 08:15:27 PM »
I did not use term trivial, finally anybody can have his own thinking on what is trivial. here the focus is on balance of dynamic vs. static elements to achieve more playability for wider folks.

To respond you with counter-question: do you know some recent example of successful defense that is not based on mere fact that defenders were quicker than attackers to bring enough troops to the spot? quicker in race?

any example where attackers are pushed to attack before bringing two-three or more times stronger troops just because something limits them to endlessly gather troops until reaching 100% certainty that they will win?

i see little but troops race toward one spot, which makes all other game elements quite trivial. and even than attackers are at large advantage because they know much in advance where they will attack, they can know it say five days in advance while defenders have nothing but that 8-12 hours battle preparation time?

finally, ambushes are very effective defensive strategy, yes, but again - just for very active players: one more advantage for very active players...

high evasion chance for large troops - one more advantage for very active players. and so on...

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #38 on: March 14, 2016, 08:37:34 PM »
I did not use term trivial, finally anybody can have his own thinking on what is trivial. here the focus is on balance of dynamic vs. static elements to achieve more playability for wider folks.

To respond you with counter-question: do you know some recent example of successful defense that is not based on mere fact that defenders were quicker than attackers to bring enough troops to the spot? quicker in race?

any example where attackers are pushed to attack before bringing two-three or more times stronger troops just because something limits them to endlessly gather troops until reaching 100% certainty that they will win?

i see little but troops race toward one spot, which makes all other game elements quite trivial. and even than attackers are at large advantage because they know much in advance where they will attack, they can know it say five days in advance while defenders have nothing but that 8-12 hours battle preparation time?

finally, ambushes are very effective defensive strategy, yes, but again - just for very active players: one more advantage for very active players...

high evasion chance for large troops - one more advantage for very active players. and so on...


The war of "Declaring the independence of Dubh Dun"
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #39 on: March 14, 2016, 08:40:03 PM »

 It is too fast because defenses mean so little, and it will never change, I believe, without much more weight on defenses.
 


Defenses are not an issue. At least town defenses are not. They are too powerful actually but scale a lot. A palisade, for example, is nothing. It is really more an obstacle for wild animals than they are for the invading army. Wooden walls is better, but still easy to crack if you have superior numbers. Things get tense with a stone wall. Stone wall makes all the difference in the world and with it you can actually route a much more superior army. Provided you have the right army structure. With stone towers and stone castle things get way more in favor of the defender, while I have never seen anyone stupid enough to attack a fortress. I am not even counting citadels. I'd dare say that settlement fortification are too powerful in the game as some settlements on the map are unconquerable (the ones with fortresses). Once and if siege engines are introduced this will probably change but that is a different topic altogether.

The problem that gives the active player the edge is the hourly updates on travel and maneuverability. What this means is that active players can redraw their travel every hour which is of immense importance when the battle is staging up. My suggestion in other topics on this problem was to change the travel updates to ever two hours while stile travelling at the same speed. This means you need some planning in advance.
 

Insanegame27

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Karma: +7/-3
  • I am the Bopmaster, master of Bops.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #40 on: March 14, 2016, 09:12:16 PM »
Doing that will make the community less active. Let's say that at the end of one travel turn I am just out of interaction range of the settlement by 1 yard. I don't want to wait 2 hours to move 1 yard. It contributes to stagnation, not forethought. I'm actually in favor of making travel turns more often, say every 15 mins or half an hour.
Now I have a mental image of horses lined up in a goods factory, building things on an assembly line.

Dorian

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 219
  • Karma: +26/-11
  • Playing since 2015.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #41 on: March 14, 2016, 09:32:25 PM »
It would be bad luck. I once missed a crucial battle for 20 yards with troops that would have made the difference. It just happens sometimes.


Battles against settlements are not an issue here. You have a fixed target - a settlement - and you know you're gonna make it there. However, in a field battle when there are 20-30 nobles involved things get different. I've witnessed a situation where two nobles start a battle and I had the entire army marching to join. I got off to work only to come back to see that none of my troops managed to join the battle because they were blocked by several small sized units of the defending player who was active enough to prevent me from joining. The other time things were similar and I luckily had a day off. Still, I was blocked, forced to evade and then do it all over again before I could reach the battle in time. I did, but I spent the entire day doing it. So, I don't want to spend the entire day on my laptop just trying to reach the battle and be lucky enough every time I am blocked. If travel updates are more rare then I could have a chance to outsmart my opposition by bluffing moves etc etc. The tactics are a drag cause they demand activity. This game should not be a competition on who can spend more time on line and make more clicks.

Arx

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
  • Karma: +16/-3
  • Sunscreen will not protect you from despair.
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #42 on: March 15, 2016, 12:34:42 PM »
To respond you with counter-question: do you know some recent example of successful defense that is not based on mere fact that defenders were quicker than attackers to bring enough troops to the spot? quicker in race?

The two that come to mind are Weaver absolutely crushing some attacks, for instance on Tharsis, and recently one incident in the Black Road.

And whilst you did not use the word 'trivial', you did say that they meant 'so little'.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #43 on: March 15, 2016, 12:55:55 PM »
It would be bad luck. I once missed a crucial battle for 20 yards with troops that would have made the difference. It just happens sometimes.


Battles against settlements are not an issue here. You have a fixed target - a settlement - and you know you're gonna make it there. However, in a field battle when there are 20-30 nobles involved things get different. I've witnessed a situation where two nobles start a battle and I had the entire army marching to join. I got off to work only to come back to see that none of my troops managed to join the battle because they were blocked by several small sized units of the defending player who was active enough to prevent me from joining. The other time things were similar and I luckily had a day off. Still, I was blocked, forced to evade and then do it all over again before I could reach the battle in time. I did, but I spent the entire day doing it. So, I don't want to spend the entire day on my laptop just trying to reach the battle and be lucky enough every time I am blocked. If travel updates are more rare then I could have a chance to outsmart my opposition by bluffing moves etc etc. The tactics are a drag cause they demand activity. This game should not be a competition on who can spend more time on line and make more clicks.


Well the obvious answer there is, don't split your forces so much. I think the telling things is this part

[/size]
[/size]If travel updates are more rare then I could have a chance to outsmart my opposition by bluffing moves etc etc. The tactics are a drag cause they demand activity.
[/size]
[/size]

[/size]
[/size]The only time bluffing works for me is when I have another party involved, either in running the bluff, or being the hammer once the bluff is taken. Trying to do it all myself leads to two problems
  • I need to be online for 16+ hours
  • The bluffing troops are essential to the actual battle, but by the nature of the bluff are vulnerable trying to link up.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

WVH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
  • Karma: +20/-47
    • View Profile
Re: Dynamic war vs. static war ultimately needs sensible balance
« Reply #44 on: March 15, 2016, 04:59:16 PM »
What Dorian is saying is a real thing.  It is the arriving is the worst problem of the games battles.

I like things that put in more tactics.  Block and evade for example are good things, but it does mean you have to watch out the entire trip.

People do stay on a lot and do try to use time sensitive tactics to win.  It is bullshit but they do it.

The best way I can think (and I have thought about it a lot) requires more code...which we do not have the means to see done.  That would be to give anyone some options while traveling.  For example Travel: instantly engage any enemy blocks of equal size or less.  Evade any blocks and keep traveling.  Go around blocks.

They idea here is that my scouts KNOW if there is a blockade ahead.  They are trained to tell me that crap.  So let me choose to go around it, fight it, or other options, so that I can do something about it.

if my travel time is important, let me force the battle at a greater loss to my army but get it done and move on.
If less important, I may stop or go around to avoid the battle.