Author Message

Bodacea

Rank 0
Joined
26 Jan 2012
Posts
13
Location
United States
PostedMar 14, 2012 7:07 pm

Strategy & Tactics game

A use of Terrain with Unit formations& terrain advantage/disadvantage. Read Battle of Cameroon
Your Suggestion: I suggest the Terrain be changed with Mountains, Valleys, Rivers with Ridges, Cliffs, Hilltops and Lakes

Pros 1:AFFECTS on movement; It affect the time it takes to cross to a Wild; the road is just faster movement, while cross-country is always slower.

Pros 2: It adds a tactical flavor when the Armies have certain formations and the introduction of Siege Engineers with allow Sires to create defenses around their cities, as well as Controlling the area better with Battle mounts and eventually, Castles, Fortresses and Outposts seperate from the current city form.

Pros 3: In the combat, certain terrain would provide advantages and disadvantages. Defending a hilltop could be devastating to even large Armies (numerical superiority; as 500 vs 50000 is not a Strategy but merely a matter of having more troops than the opponent) The Combat Results, I hope is an Array that considers all factors of combat and the "1% Factor" which is if something can go wrong, there is a 1% chance is will happen.

Pros 4: The PLAYERS delusional about their abilities to play a "Strategy Game" by numerical superiority, have accomplished nothing because those that have been playing longer, have a decisive edge over PLAYERS, whom just began.

Cons: The delusional types, suffering from the Napoleon Complex or "delusion of grandeur" will have to rely on understanding more than just 5 vs 1 ratios, in the number of troops, in each army. It won't be easy for them to gang-up on one or more because there is a 1% chance they could lose. An EXAMPLE in History is the "Battle of Cameroon", in Mexico, in 1863 was between 63 Legionaries vs, nearly 10,000 Mexican Cavalry and Infantry. 60 Legionaries died but three survived, while thousands of Mexicans lay dead, just outside the abandon villa, the were fighting from, against the Enemy troops. The Mexican thought they were "Devils" and let them complete their mission. There are many cases, in history where small army have defeated large armies. The scale of 10,000 troops being move and deployed is a lot harder than one thinks. While the deployment of 1,000 troops goes much quicker and they can choose terrain for their benefit and then comes the use of Formations with approaches of attack. Tactics is very much part of Strategy and most of these player are on playing "Risk" and not very good at Strategy or Tactics. There is much to learn about Computerized Strategy games and while you have a good start on one of the better online games, there could be improvement to make it distinct and Unique from say, "EVONY?", that is a dumb game but the players are not Master of Strategical abilities. I have been playing strategy games before Computers (PC) and learned a lot from a simple board game of nearly pure paper. Of course, I am a US Veteran and much older than most of these Players, in Golden Age. Let us start here then expand on it to make it even better. Smile

Bodacea of the Celts Smile
Advertisement

electro

Aeria: Product Manager
electro
Joined
23 Dec 2006
Posts
605
Location
The Bay Area United States
PostedMar 21, 2012 7:44 pm
Interesting feedback on terrain reform books Smile Thanks for these carefully crafted suggestions.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious." -Sun Tzu

akkichan3431

Rank 0
akkichan3431
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Posts
103
Location
Orlando United States
PostedMar 21, 2012 7:50 pm
While I agree that there's a certain something lacking from the strategy portion of the game, it's not just who has the largest army. Figuring out the mechanics of the fights is important. For instance, PhoenixX was able to take wonders even when we were a good deal smaller than other alliances just because we could use strategy against them to minimize our losses, while larger alliances have admitted that they were just throwing whatever they had at the wonders and accepting the losses. While most likely this has evened out quite a bit by now as players spread information to each other, there are still a few advantages to players who know how things work and bother to plan ahead.

(I'm not disagreeing though. Just pointing out that there is some strategy at work.)

AyaSnow

Lord_Malzak

Rank 0
Joined
03 Jul 2010
Posts
20
Location
United States
PostedApr 12, 2012 3:26 pm
i think this is a good idea. this game is mostly about throwing troops in together and hoping to have the numerical advantage. while some things, such as walls and defenses can affect the outcome its usually the person with most troops wins.

One of the biggest disappointments i found was the lack of countering. Most the battles (at least on S2) were LARGE battles (usually 1mil+) and full of a diverse amount of troops. there needs to be something like the 1st hero in battles the 1st defense hero (allow defenders to choose how defense is setup, such as descending/ascending lvl/attack/defense power/troop size. Also each individual hero should be able to arrange troops in formations. As of know everything is a giant blob of units. We should be able to put ranged units behind melee units so that they protect them. Also the "2 deep" stack means that unless the 2nd troop in is ranged it cant attack till 1st is dead. If there is a "hole" in the formation where troops r facing nothing (either killed off or no troops placed there) then the troops double team the adjacent troops. This kind of thing will help players make full use of the available troops and will allow knowledge to counteract some if not all of an enemy's superior numbers, giving newer players a chance to survive.

I also recommend that you at least test launch this huge of a change on its own server before 100% integrating it. Ive known games that have launched "expansions" that ruined the whole game. I have felt from the start that this game is seriously lacking in strategy and really could use more to it.

NecromancerV

Diamond Founder: Aura Kingdom
NecromancerV
Joined
15 Mar 2008
Posts
4743
Location
United States
PostedApr 12, 2012 4:08 pm
The strategy of this game is organizing large alliance efforts to take on a powerful enemy and organize kingdoms that for treaties and vanquish foes.


To add terrain bonuses and deficits would require the entire game to be overhauled and redone to keep balances.

Lord_Malzak

Rank 0
Joined
03 Jul 2010
Posts
20
Location
United States
PostedApr 12, 2012 4:47 pm
the terrain bonuses may be out of reach but it is defiantly a good idea for a new RTS or maybe a V2 of this one. However i feel that they rly need to add more strategy. The "large alliance effort" is as we said, throwing a bunch of troops at each other. Organization is key in any strategy game, no man can do it alone (unless hes richer then Hard and buys his way to godhood). However, you when through all this effort to put detailed information on whats good vs what unit then failed to give us a way to fully take advantage of it unless the armies r 100% one type on each side (which i don't think Ive EVER seen happen). Strategy games need to have more then one effective strategy. especially when that strategy so greatly favors p2p who can rebirth heroes, get larger armies and stronger heroes
Display posts from previous:   Sort by: