Look throughout history, Many times has a much smaller army wiped out a larger one. I for one like the way a small army has the possibility to beat a much larger one. Keep it the way it is!!Originally Posted by Aaron-UK
Army size disparity
This question has probably been asked before but I couldn't find where so either an answer or a link to another thread would be appreiciated...
How are the attack statistics calculated? How can an army of c.7500 be beaten by an army of c.3500?
I can understand how a smaller army might beat a bigger one when the number of troops is closer but how can an advantage of 4000 be wiped out?
Has happened before...
Look throughout history, Many times has a much smaller army wiped out a larger one. I for one like the way a small army has the possibility to beat a much larger one. Keep it the way it is!!
sorry to steal your thunder cowtreky but i had to post this:
The city of Chicago, Illinois, USA was attacked by cowtreky. No defending armies (741 troops) were killed in the battle. 6,950 attacking troops were killed. js3486 retained control of the city.
is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever seen?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
speedfreak227
This One Hurts
The city of Chicago, Illinois, USA was attacked by cowtreky. No defending armies (741 troops) were killed in the battle. 6,950 attacking troops were killed. js3486 retained control of the city.
I did not want to mention how many troops js3486 had in the first place
But considering what the percentages are supposed to be, 25% of the smaller army first and then so on, this really one really bites.
One foot in the stirup, the other on the transporter pad.
That's exactly what I'm talking about... 741 killed versus 6,950... I would totally understand a larger force loosing if the difference were much smaller number but that seems a little bit extreme...
I'm not whinging or whining here but I don't quite understand this... It almost negates the principle of building a larger army as it may be defeated by a far smaller group.
I have to say the earlier threads I've read on weighting the performance of an army based on experience (how many battles won?), time since last battle (rest required before battle but rest too long and troops loose their edge), etc, etc... this would mean there can be defined parameters on the performance of troops and armies (the exact details of which Mickey keeps to himself of course) that would encourage players to become more tactical and skillful with their use adding an extra element to the game...
Any thoughts people?
I completely agree...
http://www.googleearthhacks.com/foru...ead.php?t=4100
Come on Mickey......this is crazy. These numbers are way off.
I think there is a set percentage on army loss and and a random loss with in that percentage. It would be to much programing involved to set variables to each army as mentioned in the above posts. I think Mickey is keeping it simple as he can to allow his server some breathing room.
This may be a bug. This has happened during beta 1 to this one and Mickey seems to always get a handle on it.
Yeah battle results like this are frustrating, but has anyone seen js3486 complaining about it??? Or would you have posted this if the battle result was reversed, cowtreky???The city of Chicago, Illinois, USA was attacked by cowtreky. No defending armies (741 troops) were killed in the battle. 6,950 attacking troops were killed. js3486 retained control of the city.
Leave it the way it is, chaos is good. I've been on either side of bad results and was only mildly bothered or amused either way.
Basically, how boring would it be if you could walk up to a city and be guaranteed you would win it because you scouted 4,739 troops and you have 4,740 troops....
blitzkrieg
Double thread....
The city of Chicago, Illinois, USA was attacked by cowtreky. No defending armies (741 troops) were killed in the battle. 6,950 attacking troops were killed. js3486 retained control of the city.
Yeah battle results like this are frustrating, but has anyone seen js3486 complaining about it??? Or would you have posted this if the battle result was reversed, cowtreky???
Leave it the way it is, chaos is good. I've been on either side of bad results and was only mildly bothered or amused either way.
Basically, how boring would it be if you could walk up to a city and be guaranteed you would win it because you scouted 4,739 troops and you have 4,740 troops....
blitzkrieg
Multi thread ....
This never ending story has to be stopped!
to win with 1 troops plus is boring, ok!
but to lose with 6k troops plus against an army of 0,6k is boring too!
but in none of all the threads i read a reaction of the game creator!?
-MERGED WITH ARMY SIZE DISPARITY-
T.
That's my point exactly... a defending army has to have the advantage as it's set up at the moment as they are 'dug in' but to have an extreme advantage that destroys a force superior by thousands doesn't really make sense...
Agreement
I think we all agree that a small army should have a chance at beating a larger army. The problem appears to be that on _any_ given battle, both sides have just as much chance of winning.
It should be _possible_ for a 100 man army to beat a 10000 man army, but it should be _very_ improbable. Like one in a million improbable.
Nobody thinks that 5000 troops should always beat 4999 troops.
it IS improbable traveler... what's asked here to make it impossible.
I for one say remove the randomness, no game has it, and add some other things to not make every battle thesame, experience, defense bonus, a bonus for the larger army, a bonus for the winning army etc..
Posting Permissions
