Attacking calculations

[War_Peace]

There will be a ranking sytem for the armies. When 2 armies with the same ranking meet, the army with X troops mustn't kill the army with 3X troops! That is just senseless...

People are complaining about this for a while now. 1700 troops killing 5100 troops and a lot more examples...

If there has to be risk factor, make it %10 or %25 tops!

A 100-troop army can kill a 125-troop army but not a 126-troop army.

Ranking thing is a whole other level. I really think that there has to be a balance between the armies in the same ranking.

[Timmetie]

why go through the trouble to make a ranking? and not just the 25% tops difference rule?

[Lukepuuk]

I've said it in another thread and i'll say it again. The negative reaction from people getting hurt by this is worse then the positive reaction you get from those who win.
The differences in losses shouldn't be so far off. 25% tops sounds good.

[His Lord Uberdude]

While minority-wins victories have happened in history, they've been few and far between. Until the amry experience points feature gets kicked in, I'm for a limit like this. Although I will miss the thrill of an extrordinary victory...

[blitzkrieg]

The city of Johannesburg, South Africa was attacked by blitzkrieg. 3 defending armies (9,766 troops) were killed in the battle. 15,452 attacking troops were killed. pappaschlumpf lost the city.

I'm going against the grain here even though I just suffered this injustice. I still believe the system as it stands is better, chaos theories and massive upset victories are good for variety in the game.

The more predictable the game becomes the less exciting it will be.

blitzkrieg

[araT]

While minority-wins victories have happened in history, they've been few and far between. Until the amry experience points feature gets kicked in, I'm for a limit like this. Although I will miss the thrill of an extrordinary victory...

At the moment all your troops are "idiots" they are completely untrained and thus the chances of a win are 50-50 on an army-to-army basis.. when we bring in training and "special forces" troops this will only get worse.. you could see an army of 2000 well trained and special force soldiers kick the butts of a 20,000 group of idiots.. so get used to it :)

As BK said, when the game gets too predictable it becomes mucho boring ;)

T.

[War_Peace]

Hahaha! Let's have some fun! My hardly gained 10,100 troops are killed by 3,550 troops! Heheheheh! So much fun!... :mad:

[Lukepuuk]

Then the game becomes more a game of luck then of strategy.
From the reactions i've read, a few 'bad luck numbers' in a row could be enough for a lot of players to stop playing.
I'd still put a limit on it....but it's not my game ofcourse ;)

[Stalker]

I would welcome a change in the attacking calculations!

Yes, perhaps it is more realistic when a smaller army destroys a bigger one...but 7k over 20k is too much.
That means, that I attacked him about 140 times and he attacked me 400 times at least...
But the system is working with 50/50-chance to choose who attacks.
The more troops there are, the more often the program has to run the 50%-chance and the ratio of who attacked should tend to 1/1 (and not to ~1/3).
In another thread (http://www.googleearthhacks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3642) Radeon said something about battles with 80k/40k...With that huge numbers of troops the ratio should be 1/1 in any case!
Perhaps the random-function does not work probably. *run*
I don't know how it is in php, but in c++ it is better to use the "srand"-function before in order having better random-values.


The limit of 25% are imo still to high. I think 20% would be good.