Postby worldbuilderlov » Thu May 31, 2012 8:28 am
I own a software company and have built online games so I understand both the principles of game design and the technical limitations you are trying to address. That said, I totally agree with the removal of the chaos exploit, yes it’s an exploit but one that became a necessity due to a key game play deficiency. I know many on this thread have touch on it but I will explain in my own words below:
Reasons for Chaos:
1) To block an abandoned city so you can conquer when you have scholars and time
2) To defend a newly conquered city until you can support and supplies arrive, where you can build a defense.
Justifications for Chaos:
I think we can all agree that #1 is just BS and should not be allowed. In real warfare, you can NOT block attacks so why allow it here. #2 is one that needs some game play changes. In real warfare, when a conquering army laid siege on a city they didn’t just bring their attacking units. They brought their support units, supplies, wife and kids, and the family pet… What would make this game more realistic is if I could designate resources and support units that can travel with each attack. That way if I conquer the city I can leave support and supplies to defend against reconquering attempts. And yes I know you can send the merchants at the same time as your attacks but that would only telegraph where the real attacks are being attempted. Here is my proposal along with an example:
Game Change Proposal:
1) Allow the attacker to include resources along with an attack that is appropriate given the haul capacity of the attacking units. This would allow you to have some resources to build a defense force in the conquered city.
2) Allow the attacker’s attack waves to be assimilated into the city after its conquered much like the scholar but still be reused to make further advancing attacks from the conquered city. This allows you to include support type units in the later waves of your attacks so you can defend and should you conquer with excess attack units, you benefit from having some attackers stationed in the conquered city for furthering your conquests.
3) If the attacker does NOT conquer the city, the resources being brought into battle are lost to the defender and the later support type attack waves will pay a heavy price in loses.
So an attack can look like this:
0-N clearing waves of attack units
4-5 scholar waves
0-N attacks with defensive units rather than attack units and carrying resources.
Some here have requested that you allow the supporting of any city, so they can time in their support along with offensive attacks. Though that is somewhat acceptable, I think it has that flaw of giving away where the REAL attacks are headed. If I see a train of support attacks heading my way along with some offensive attacks, I know then to funnel all support there. At that point the game becomes a game of out resourcing your enemy. No strategy no tactics, just pick a city and have all your guild mates funnel attacks there until one guild runs dry.
That is why I propose that support be incorporated into the offensive attacks and absorbed into the city as troops stationed there, if you conquer. This has the effect of allowing a well-planned attack at long distances to succeed, while allowing the poor planned attacks to be very costly, in resources, attack units and support units.
In my opinion, this makes the game more realistic from a warfare tactical perspective. In real siege warfare if you failed to conquer a city, the defending city would turn on your siege army and slaughter your support units and claim your supplies, once you lost the ability to attack.
