Fix chaos exploit

[Eldorren]

As unfair as chaos might seem... I think it's a vital component with the current rules and dynamics. Let's face it, if you are conquering a city that was a 12 hour march and cap it, you have a several hour gap until you can get your fastest troops (mounts) to support the city which is very low on loyalty. If you are trying to infiltrate deep into enemy territory, the city will most likely get re-capped. You may have had a very precisely timed attack to lower support just enough to cap the city, only to lose it because you can't defend it.

The underlying problem is not chaos... it's the inability to retain the last attacking/conquering army within the new city as "support" with the option to send it back if needed, like you can do with any support sent to a city. You say chaos isn't realistic? Well neither is conquering a city with an army, only to leave a single scholar there with no troops and essentially a ghost town. That makes about as much sense as chaos.

Now, I think chaos is a needed feature.. Otherwise you could have hundreds of attacks going on and it DOES add an element of strategy.

My personal opinion is that chaos is fine just the way it is, but I do think you should be able to retain your conquering army as support in the city because it makes no sense to conquer a "ghost town" and no army to stay to defend it. That doesn't happen in war... So, if you're considering fixing anything, fix that first before you move onto chaos...

I think the people that complain the most are the ones who can't communicate and facilitate chaos effectively and quickly. That's teamwork and provides an additional incentive for distant allies who can not only help with attacks, but also help with chaos.

[Eldorren]

Also... there are many ways to attack a city and chaos can be used to defend it against your attack. If you've launched attacks and want to add additional clearing waves a few hours later, the enemy can get an ally to chaos the city and be prepared for your initial assault, so it works both ways guys... Not just in the capturer's favor. I often worry about launching an attack and finding it in chaos a few hours later when I need to add clearing waves. I think it adds an interesting twist to the dynamics of attack and defense and adds complexity that makes the game interesting.

[Bl1ndFury]

Good discussion.... so how about implementing something like being able to send support to a non-guild member, but only from a city with a scholar in route. This would add several dimensions for both the attacker and defender. Attacker could defend a conquer, but at the same time either leave their city exposed or tip their hand to the defender. Chaos serves a RL purpose and that is to keeps the server running efficiently, so scale back the number of attack waves to about 30 and give attackers a different tactic to use in defending a conquest.

[Leushen]

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with chaos the way it is now except for one flaw. It's the players that get all of their cities chaosed on a constant basis. It's exploiting the system. Cowardice in my opinion, not strategy.

I attack with chaos, defend with chaos, and I know how to attack around someone trying to chaos the city I am going for. So I have learned to live with the current system. I also started in world 3 where chaos was needed, but I believe there is a better solution out there than the current chaos. Something more realistic and something to make people actually defend with troops rather than "ghost" attacks on a city from an ally.

[Leushen]

ToolTip: I thought about that right after I posted and my solution really does not take away the problem of 100's of attacks able to be made on a city.

I know it's a game and realism really can't work all the time. Strategy to me is a lot more fun when you use the troops that are meant for defense rather than using a game fix to exploit it.

I also like Eldorren's comment of leaving troops in a city after attack, but that's getting off subject of what this thread is about.

I am no programmer but I imagine something could be done to where an attack sent with 1 or 5 troops over and over the system could send a message back saying your troops disbanded because they don't want to suicide.

[Asplundh]

Chaos has a place in the game. It represents siege warfare. In the medieval period, a city under siege was effectively locked down. Incoming supplies and fresh troops came only in small numbers and were usually smuggled into the city. Offensive operations were usually small raids or sorties that came and went through sally ports in the wall. It also had an effect on the army laying the siege. A long logistical train was the worst. The was rampant disease in the siege lines.

I'd keep chaos, but consider the following changes: the city under chaos/siege CANNOT receive Support and change the numbers of units required to constitute an attack wave from one to 1,000. Easily done with minor changes to the game's source code. And it would reflect the effect of chaos/siege on the city and the attacking guild/alliance.

[Tooltip]

Hmm, 1000 minimum would present problems for new worlds, scouting, tripwires, and faking.

[Naita]

I think the biggest problem with chaos, is that it adds a lot to the amount of time it takes to play the game properly. Once you have 30+ cities, chaos becomes a huge part of the game. Conquering cities is all about managing chaos, leaving windows open, trying to find openings etc.... Defence is all about chaosing and receiving chaos from allies. This huge time commitment leads people to give up in the game, because they don't have the time required.

[Sickpuppy]

I would make it more costly to chaos. I would like to see a 50 or 100 troop minimum per attack. You could put a timer on it like beginner protection of 14 days so for the first 2 weeks there is no minimum troop level to send an attack.
At 50 minimum troops per attack, with the 40 attacks to chaos, it would cost 2000 troops to chaos a city. It would still be usable, but there would be a greater cost.

[Natbrnk1llr]

I couldn't imagine the game without chaos. I am a user of it but only use it when capping a city. I take pride in the way I use chaos it is a very strategic way to defend a newly conquered city. The team work involved makes you closer to your allies gapping trust issues and forming bonds. It opens the game up to more interaction with more players. I believe that it becomes a well oiled machine. It gives the players that are not paid players a chance to survive. For those who don't reap the benifits of it join a guild that truly works with each other to make the game fun for all.