How fun would a first person shooter be if everyone had infinite health?
PS. its not an advantage when armies of 90000 can kill zero troops.
no use ballista??? WHY?
yep, i dont have ballista... xD!
I think perhaps they should give players more control over troops.
Like, attack formation, or maybe you can choose the speed of troops, as long as it's slower than the max speed of the unit.
I think it's a lot more ridiculous than castles being invincible that you have no control at all when your troops are attacking and they just march forward stupidly.
Yes, you are completely right. The offender should have the advantage if they have overwhelming more troops than the defender. So, having 1 million troops means you should be able to send 1 million troops. There shouldn't be a limit on the amount of troops a player can send. It will solve all your problems. As for the newer pleyers? Join an alliance.. that is what they are for. Many big alliances have smaller sister alliances to help new members grow.
this was extremly helpfl
Why is rockfall not called defensive Treb? Is that pre patch?
With deadzone defense all big alliance who like spending lots of $$$ (NAFTA) need to do is adv teleport into various provinces and clean out the smaller players of alliances.... Well i must say at this rate server 4 might just loose all players. I suppose they wanted a game ending it seems that money wins the game... its becoming another flop. Once im done im not going to play this game anymore. Only reason i dont quit now is loyalty to alliance. I know i can get 150-200K archers in all my bases im almost there but how is that fun... when u cannot attack players of the same size as u.
Here is a more realistic battle report of what you will encounter in the game, and the futility of attacking an established player.
http://battle7.evony.com/default.htm...936ccfe817.xml
and that wasnt even defended to the level a lot are. Half again the nr of ATs and quadruple the nr of defending archers. NOW try and attack it.
Those of you who have played the game for a week, and think/say strategies/tactics will remedy the dilemma, or that working together with your alliance will fix it....PLEASE hush. You have no knowledge or experience with what we are saying and are DEAD WRONG.
If your entire alliance of 100 members do the following:
1) coordinate a 100k wave of attackers from each member
2) log on as needed for everyone to launch AND have their groups ALL arrive at the EXACT same hh:mm:ss....
you know what happens? you think it becomes a combined assault? Nope. The game treats it as 100 attacks of 100k against 1.5 million defenders. (or whatever nr are in the castle) Attackers lose...period, end of statement, game over, tilt....
Your alliance loses 100k, 100 times, and MAYBE the defender has to rebuild his traps.
Wonderous !!! that someone can get many detail analysis of battle.
Anyway, THX for information & that's very nice to be try in real situation.:D
How does 1 castle actually contain 1million troops?? shoudlnt they be sleeping on the battlefield??
1 week ago:
http://j.photos.cx/id2-287.jpg
Nice.
What were his tech/wall levels?
Incredible amount of losses you managed to inflict there, but my god the losses.
I must conclude that full scale assaults against defended targets are too costly to be practically viable at this point no matter what you have to bring against them.
This post is a devastating critique of how the game devs have tilted the pendulum too far toward defense. If everyone just employs the "turtle" strategy - which is rapidly becoming the norm - then what we have is basically a stalemate.
YAWN!
Where is the incentive to work for weeks to create 50K ballista only to have them all killed by 1 player in a city with 15K Archer towers and 150K Archers in support?
I say it's time to seriously reconsider the balance and correct his before we all die of boredom and lose interest. Surely that is not in the best interest of those who are profiting from this "free" game.
I think they know where they're monies mostly coming from. And that is, from civvers and moderates. It would seem they can afford from an economical perspective to lose their most powerful players in game, since they are a minority that generally ruins the gameplay and thus coins sold, of the majority. Warrior players are largely expendible as they seem to rarely pay for coins.
That city was newly conquered and thus the low level of fortification as it had almost no archer towers. If the archer towers were 5k it would be a close fight. Anything around10k-15k will be impossible.
The cataphracts used was 125k. I am sure other defense and attack bonus items were used as well. How often do you think an army like that gets sent to battle?
Must congratulate Idealist for going for it. Not everyday you see an army like that goes into battle winning or losing.
No, no they do not.
First off, the attacking hero was twice the level of the defending hero. The difference between a hero around 120 attack and around 180 attack is huge. Second, catas are worth three archers. They take three times as long to build. They require three times the resources to build. They eat more then three times as much food.
So in order to argue that building catas was more effective then building archers, you would have to send them against defending archers that outnumbered attacking catas by three to one.
If you had set 125k catas with their rainbow up against 375k archers and their rainbow without the huge gap between hero strengths the catas would have been slaughtered.
Proof? The catas already got slaughtered. You lost 85k catas killing 200k archers and some warriors. Given that catas are worth 3 archers, your losses were equivalent to 255k archers. On top of that defenders have a bonus when it comes to the medic camp, so they are replacing far more of their losses instantly then you are.
And all this was without fortifications.
You sent an army against a smaller player with a weak hero and zero fortifications and got your rump handed to you. Sure, you won the battle, but you lost a lot of honor and more valuable troops.
have a go at my self'spankage when i went up against lvl 8 walls + archers that just reinforced right before my 2nd wave hit. my first wave hit him n' took out his AT's so i thought i could start suckin away his mad amount of resources but NOPE lvl 8 walls + Archers = GAME OVER
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b2...boxa/RAPED.jpg
So the answer for this game is to build a lot of archer towers and support them with a bigger amount of archers, with all the technology at max level....
This game is kinda lame.....i still prefer Age of empires II.....AEGIS!!!
His point, is that 1 catapract is worth 3 archers. time and material wise. Yes, 1 phract will "go farther" then 1 archer. But 1 phract is worth 3 archers, and 3 archers "go farther" then 1 phract.
Atm the ONLY unit worth building is the archer...
I almost had the dead zone figured out, but I just lost another 10 ballista finding out why the stupid war system is making a joke of the battles.
SURELY the entire army would advance at the same pace, or atleast give us an option to do so.
Atm, things that move faster than others, just attract fire earlier, and since we have -NOTHING- that can soak arrow hits atm it makes it very bloody hard to counter these things.
If only swordsmen actually had been good against archers, we'd be talking.
Sorry, but even that is untrue. 100k archers can do something. they can farm level 10 NPCs and bring back lots of food and gold. 100k Catas can only get slaughtered knocking down weak defenders with no reward.
If you think 100k catas can do anything against a player of equal strength, I would point you at
http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?...ght=cataphract
The 100k cata army is a newb tactic for killing newbs. It costs far more then is taken from the defender, and is thus always a net loss.
I say double the speed of all units.
-> dead zone will be reduced to half.
-> traveling faster! Thus,
-->increasing the radius of the zone in which you can attack.
(YES it is stupid to attack someone who is 50 miles away, he will get reinforced and slaughter you)
--> better chances of catching the opponent unprepared.
The increase of speed along with the advantage of the offender that uses a hero with very high attack, can change the game.
What about damage and health? Pretty much everyone has been ignoring Rams since early on in game developement. I've been wondering lately if Rams with thier 5k health got a boost from the Wall update. There are so many elements to the game that it's very difficult to do the math that takes them all into account. :) Here's an examble of two waves of mixed troops taking down 18k ATs with Troops defending.
battle4.evony.com/default.html?logfile/75/f8/b2/5d/75f8b25df2352e388b2b20889de749c5.xml
battle4.evony.com/default.html?logfile/92/c9/4b/ee/92c94beeb3220969eda560f777cfae9d.xml
That's about what anyone would expect when attacking a weakly defended enemy.
yeah it's a weak defence, but that's because several players joined to attack all of Dave's cities at the same time. He couldn't move all his troops to one city to protect it from one attack.
Those attacks also didn't really include Rams. I'm still curious about what Rams can add to a Battle.
To reply to things I read in the 8 pages of discussion. I like the idea of having more control of your army in battle. Defenders can set "default" defending speeds attackers can manipulate their armies speed.
I also like the idea of removing/changing the way attacking troop numbers are limited. There is still an limit to attacks based on Food. As a player with 200 mil food in just one of my cities I'm aware that some other changes would have to be made to make it work.
My suggestion is to let Food be the limit of attacking troops, but also slow the attack time down to account for the extra troops marching. Larger armies move slower. Pick an army size for average speed and make attacks smaller than that move faster and attacks larger than that move slower exponentially. When an army moves slower it will increase the amount of food it has to carry with it. Now we have another attacking troop limit imposed by how much food an army can carry.
Pretty complicated for this style of game though. :(
If he split his army to defend against multiple fronts, he's an idiot. Better to keep your army intact to hold a few cities, then to lose it all and be wiped out.
Another solution: 125k Catapults would still own nearly any defense out there :D
But how to get those, and how to upkeep them.. Now that's another problem :p
________________________
Nah, just kidding.. Awesome thread you have here.. And explains very well, for most of those whiners who just can't figure why they lost some random fight even tho they had liek over 3k catapults D:
I personally like to think it simple and count 1 Archer tower as 1.5 catapults ^^.. Works pretty well on exercise too