PDA

View Full Version : 19,775 Troops!



rasqual
08-30-2005, 08:25 AM
And to think that my father and son are both named Stan. For shame!

Well that was one anvil I didn't need to knock my head up ag'in. ;-)

It's gonna take more than a U.N. resolution to deal with this. The world must act together!

LOL

Stanley
08-30-2005, 05:12 PM
yeah, perhaps a bit large.

You should've seen how many troops Bastian had in Cape Town though(30k+), holy crap! I never thought my army of 10,000 would be wasted so easily.

This does bring up the question of what algorithm is used to determing who wins/loses a battle?

Wouldn't my 30,000 troops kill those 100 troops without losing a soul?

rasqual
08-30-2005, 07:06 PM
Well, I'm all for differentiating force specialties, potencies, and the effects their deployment has on the odds of troop losses in these various branches of the military. Heck, I think towns should suffer value loss in war (as part of a larger economy of occupation/taxation/conscription/rule), but that having certain kinds of defenses -- or meeting your enemy in the open field -- would preserve urban assets (none of which are really in play, population being an abstraction not organically interacting with other martial dynamics).

Mickey
08-30-2005, 07:34 PM
This does bring up the question of what algorithm is used to determing who wins/loses a battle?

Wouldn't my 30,000 troops kill those 100 troops without losing a soul?

50/50 shot at who gets damaged (attacker or defender). Damage is randomly set to a number between 1-50 troops. Those troops are then removed from the battle.

Repeat until one side is dead.

If the dead side is the defender, bring out the next smallest defending army and do it again...

Stanley
08-30-2005, 07:43 PM
So there is NO advantage for the defender?

Roger Andrew
08-30-2005, 07:52 PM
That is good to know; sometimes it feels as if size matters ;)

I like the idea of war impacting the city itself; can we reduce the city population by a percentage of the total deaths in the battle, which takes time to recover.

Nuking would automatically remove 50 to 90% of the population and recovery begins after the radiation drops away?

Maybe this would slow the rapid transfer of ownership?

Lukepuuk
08-30-2005, 09:08 PM
So there is NO advantage for the defender?

Eh thats not a bad point.
In real life the defender usually has the better position.
Normally the attacking force loses more lives.
Except in air strikes and such. But in ground troops who go one on one and have to stampeed to the city walls...a third would normally be already down before even reaching it.

I kinda like the idea of the defending site having the 60/40(or even 55/44) advantage.

rasqual
08-30-2005, 10:00 PM
I kinda like the idea of the defending site having the 60/40(or even 55/44) advantage.
Well, sure. But that doesn't stay static -- which is why Mickey needs to build in some smarts to the martial aspects of the game.

When an enemy has an advantage, what do you do? You innovate. You work the problem. That's human history. So whaddya do when a defender has an advantage over your infantry? You mechanize. Or you bring in an air force.

Overwhelming troop strength is a barbarian's way of winning, and I'm not sure the game would be best served by stopping there. Give the advantage for all I care, but recognize that realism also means that sophisticated attackers will seek methods beyond brute force. This is why force differentiation should come soon. It's not just quantity -- it's differing qualities of forces that needs to be im play.

Volli82
08-30-2005, 10:08 PM
yeah, perhaps a bit large.

You should've seen how many troops Bastian had in Cape Town though(30k+), holy crap! I never thought my army of 10,000 would be wasted so easily.

This does bring up the question of what algorithm is used to determing who wins/loses a battle?

Wouldn't my 30,000 troops kill those 100 troops without losing a soul?


b076467 killed 30000 troops in my ex city moscow with one army. maybe he got luck with the 50:50 chance, or it was a very big army. it would be cool if both people gets a battle report

Stanley
08-30-2005, 10:12 PM
Heck, why not just put it in the battle report for the city?


The city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was attacked by War_Peace. No defending armies were killed in the battle. 2000 Attacking troops, and 1945 Defending troops were killed. Stanley retained control of the city.

EH?

Volli82
08-30-2005, 10:21 PM
thats ok, but i think it would be better if only the two involved people get the report. when everyone can see what happend, more try to attack that city and in the end no city would have the same owner than a few hours, a little bit boring building big armies but canīt hold cities because everyone is attacking

Lukepuuk
08-30-2005, 10:29 PM
That's where the spy thing comes in.
The total battle report shouldn't be for all to see, or else the spies would be useless to the game and as far as I read even Mickey thought spies were a cool asset to the game.

earthstar
09-04-2005, 04:21 PM
Heck, why not just put it in the battle report for the city?


The city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was attacked by War_Peace. No defending armies were killed in the battle. 2000 Attacking troops, and 1945 Defending troops were killed. Stanley retained control of the city.

EH?

Was that a boast or a real point ;)