Quark Games forums

There are a few problems with people being able to cancel attacks. Whilst chaos is also a bit unfair at times, I feel being able to cancel an attack would be worse.
Imagine a large incoming, you move troops to defend your city. Attacker sends in his spies just before he lands to get a report. Does not like what he sees and then cancels the attack. That would get really annoying. Nit would become the normal way to attack as well I think.

This idea is stupid, lots of people would attack from far away then recall their troops a few minutes just before hitting, this would be a noobish version of chaos (sry if someone else wrote this but i didnt bother)

Currently unlimited attacks on a city would be detrimental to performance, so we've hit a wall, as chaos is the maximum number of attacks.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in buying into my bets. I am known to gamble, so the concept is not unfamiliar to me. But it's also true that I tend not to gamble on rigged tables.

The analogy of the dice roll is invalid because a player who calls chaos after winning a city is in fact taking another turn while the other player cannot. And here's the kicker: blocking the player from making a turn was not designed by the developer; it is an exploit. Why should one player get an extra turn when chaos is not the intent of the game maker?

So I simply disagree with you. Because I do not believe that this kind of rigging was meant to be be part of the game, I think the developers need to find a soluition when this exploit yields unintended consequences to paying customers.

Untill they balance chaos, preferably with a penalty, I like the risk as it is.

The excitement for me is in letting the all the dice land rather than scooping up the dice mid-roll.

Also, if you can cancel attacks, you could probably cancel support, since troops are troops. This would make fakes a lot less valuable.

Tooltip wrote:If you can't handle the risk, don't attack.

Point taken. I would accept the ruin of dozens of hours of work if it were part of the game. However, I am saying that the reason my scholar escort died was because an exploit in the game (chaos) prevented me from trying to counter a change on the battlefield. The simple solution to this exploit is to allow armies to turn back.

But beyond that, perhaps the argument to be made is this: the chaos exploit in fact makes the risk to attack unbalanced against anyone who isn't using an outside piece of software. I very much doubt the Valor developers intended for this to happen...

I meant in-continuity, with the willing the suspension of disbelief; from the settings of the story not the viewpoint of the player.

In ages past, armies could be communicated via coats of arms, signal fires, war horns or war drums. However distance was limited.

Since there are no messengers in the game...

Tooltip wrote:Armies can do this real life cause they got radios and Internet...

If I'm not mistaken, Valor and using the internet as a decision making tool are commonly linked, as evidenced by extracurricular "chaos" activities as well as the game's own built-in messaging system and e-mail.

So by that logic, Valor armies should be able to stop attack as well.

Agree with tooltip but I dont think many armies carry a laptop so they can search the Internet while there on the march haha xD

Armies can do this real life cause they got radios and Internet...

In previous discussions, a new unit called the messenger was a popular idea.

Support, Truce, and third party scholars, can quickly change the situation.

The strategy in attacking is the risk to gain. If you can't handle the risk, don't attack.