Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Colonization: Crush Uprising Option

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    62

    Default Colonization: Crush Uprising Option

    An annoying aspect of colonization is that the colonized tend to spam with one fake uprising after another, at all hours of the day and night, and with no risk to those who do so (if they have any idea what they're doing). As I (and several others) have mentioned previously, the last point is particularly annoying and effectively kills colonization gameplay. So here's another thought about improving/adding some risk to uprising...

    Instead of waiting until the clock runs out, give suz's the "Crush Uprising" option when a colony launches one. This would effectively allow the suz to attack the colony with troops he/she selects during the uprising period and, if successful, the uprising would end and the colony would suffer increasingly severe city damage. After, say, ten or so uprisings, the city would be reduced to rubble.

    I'm wide open on the nature of the damage, etc. In any case, it strikes me as a better gameplay option than what we see now on colonization-only servers.

    Historical Heroes :39 Historical Cities :3 3 1 *

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maelee View Post
    An annoying aspect of colonization is that the colonized tend to spam with one fake uprising after another, at all hours of the day and night, and with no risk to those who do so (if they have any idea what they're doing). As I (and several others) have mentioned previously, the last point is particularly annoying and effectively kills colonization gameplay. So here's another thought about improving/adding some risk to uprising...

    Instead of waiting until the clock runs out, give suz's the "Crush Uprising" option when a colony launches one. This would effectively allow the suz to attack the colony with troops he/she selects during the uprising period and, if successful, the uprising would end and the colony would suffer increasingly severe city damage. After, say, ten or so uprisings, the city would be reduced to rubble.

    I'm wide open on the nature of the damage, etc. In any case, it strikes me as a better gameplay option than what we see now on colonization-only servers.
    An uprising is an attack on a Suzerain. Simple as that. So why penalize fake attacks? Why penalize only fake attacks that colonies do? Do you think it is also annoying for Suzerains to draft troops and take heros and resources? So it is OK for s Suzerain to annoy but not for a colony to? It is ok for players to launch fake attacks with 1 transport and a 12hr camp time but not ok for colonies to do fake attacks on their Suzerains? Fake attacks are a very old war strategy. If fake attacks are penalized for colonies then they should be penalized for everyone.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    62

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    An uprising is an attack on a Suzerain. Simple as that. So why penalize fake attacks? Why penalize only fake attacks that colonies do? Do you think it is also annoying for Suzerains to draft troops and take heros and resources? So it is OK for s Suzerain to annoy but not for a colony to? It is ok for players to launch fake attacks with 1 transport and a 12hr camp time but not ok for colonies to do fake attacks on their Suzerains? Fake attacks are a very old war strategy. If fake attacks are penalized for colonies then they should be penalized for everyone.
    Why not give suz's the option of speeding it up and, if successful in crushing the uprising, inflicting some damage on the colony itself? We both know that colonization in its current form carries substantially greater risk for the suz than the colony, and getting rid of a suz is one of the easiest aspects of the game even for those who are vastly overpowered. Adding a modest risk component the colony owner's decision making will not change this dynamic in the least.

    Historical Heroes :39 Historical Cities :3 3 1 *

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maelee View Post
    Why not give suz's the option of speeding it up and, if successful in crushing the uprising, inflicting some damage on the colony itself? We both know that colonization in its current form carries substantially greater risk for the suz than the colony, and getting rid of a suz is one of the easiest aspects of the game even for those who are vastly overpowered. Adding a modest risk component the colony owner's decision making will not change this dynamic in the least.
    Keep in mind, the way a colony attacks is by uprising. The name is just different. But it is indeed an attack on the Suzerain. So why penalize a failed attack? If I send 1 transporter and 10 workers to attack your city with a 24hr camp time, annoying, right? My attack will fail. When it fails what happens to me? I lose my transporter and 10 workers. What happens to you? Nothing. So if I uprise (attack) you withbasically no troops (gates closed or empty city) it is the same as me attacking you with 1 transporter. So why penalize one but not the other? Why only penalize failed uprisings? If so then we need to penalize every type of failed attack with extra damage. For example, if you send a fake attack with 1 transporter then you will lose not only the transporter but a hero and 5% of each troop type as well. How about that? You see, it would cause big problems because then fake attacks could not be used without some penalty.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Hell
    Posts
    3,120

    Default

    The point is, Japanpimp, that no one will want to colonize anyone else because of these stupid "fake" uprising attempts, and other annoying stuff that you yourself revel in. When no one wants to colonize each other, game play dies.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    62

    Default

    I understand the comparison you are attempting to make, but it is not compelling.

    In the transporter example, the risk/reward framework is roughly in balance. The attacker bears little risk but also no real reward (other than annoyance) in the attack. If it is part of a larger scheme to distract and confuse, then so be it.

    By contrast, the risk/reward framework in colonization is skewed. A suz who is unable to be on 24/7 and knowledgeable on the mechanics of uprisings knows of the substantial risks involved even if he/she is substantially stronger than the colony and may reasonably choose to avoid that risk. The suz is making a high risk/low-to-high reward decision (keep high settings) or a low risk/low-to-high loss decision (protect himself/herself) and must live with the consequences.

    The colony, however, is making a low-to-no risk/high reward assessment in a faux uprising. At worst, it fails and leaves the colony owner where he/she started (and perhaps with some useful information). At best, the city is liberated solely because the suz had to make a risk/reward assessment that the colony owner never had to make (I'll ignore the other benefits of uprising as they'll detract from the basic discussion). And given the relative ease of hiding troops and heroes from drafting, the colony owner can effectively avoid any significant downside risk of repeated faux uprisings and loses virtually nothing in terms of resources. And, as I said before, I care less about the form of the potential downside than that the risk/reward calculus strike more of a balance.

    Ironically, from a strategic perspective, a crafty colony owner may prefer the Crush Uprising option notwithstanding the potential additional risk...

    Historical Heroes :39 Historical Cities :3 3 1 *

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Keep in mind, the way a colony attacks is by uprising. The name is just different. But it is indeed an attack on the Suzerain. So why penalize a failed attack? If I send 1 transporter and 10 workers to attack your city with a 24hr camp time, annoying, right? My attack will fail. When it fails what happens to me? I lose my transporter and 10 workers. What happens to you? Nothing. So if I uprise (attack) you withbasically no troops (gates closed or empty city) it is the same as me attacking you with 1 transporter. So why penalize one but not the other? Why only penalize failed uprisings? If so then we need to penalize every type of failed attack with extra damage. For example, if you send a fake attack with 1 transporter then you will lose not only the transporter but a hero and 5% of each troop type as well. How about that? You see, it would cause big problems because then fake attacks could not be used without some penalty.
    Okay, so if its an attack on a suzerain, they should be able to see what they will have to fight. The problem with fake attacks is that is that the suzerain has to reinforce his city in case its an actual successful uprise and when it turns out there is no uprising army, its a waste of time. Its just another way to be an annoying prick.
    /hijack
    Oh yeah, is the next test attack on Atlantis coming soon? Didn't he agree to fight you 1v1?
    /end hijack

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maelee View Post
    I understand the comparison you are attempting to make, but it is not compelling.

    In the transporter example, the risk/reward framework is roughly in balance. The attacker bears little risk but also no real reward (other than annoyance) in the attack. If it is part of a larger scheme to distract and confuse, then so be it.

    By contrast, the risk/reward framework in colonization is skewed. A suz who is unable to be on 24/7 and knowledgeable on the mechanics of uprisings knows of the substantial risks involved even if he/she is substantially stronger than the colony and may reasonably choose to avoid that risk. The suz is making a high risk/low-to-high reward decision (keep high settings) or a low risk/low-to-high loss decision (protect himself/herself) and must live with the consequences.

    The colony, however, is making a low-to-no risk/high reward assessment in a faux uprising. At worst, it fails and leaves the colony owner where he/she started (and perhaps with some useful information). At best, the city is liberated solely because the suz had to make a risk/reward assessment that the colony owner never had to make (I'll ignore the other benefits of uprising as they'll detract from the basic discussion). And given the relative ease of hiding troops and heroes from drafting, the colony owner can effectively avoid any significant downside risk of repeated faux uprisings and loses virtually nothing in terms of resources. And, as I said before, I care less about the form of the potential downside than that the risk/reward calculus strike more of a balance.

    Ironically, from a strategic perspective, a crafty colony owner may prefer the Crush Uprising option notwithstanding the potential additional risk...
    Ok, so what you are saying is that a colony should have a penalty imposed for a fake uprise because it offers greater risk to the Suzerain than the colony? Well hasn't the Suzerain gotten "rewards" from the colony over a period of days/weeks/months? Resource tributes, troop drafts, heros, etc...?
    Isn't that penalty enough? Do you want the penalty to be large enough so that it basically makes it easier for the Suzerain to keep colonies under their thumbs/control? So it makes it even harder for colonies to free themselves? I don't think Suzerains need more "domance" tools in this game. If players want to "OWN" other players then they are welcome to take historicals from enemies and use the historicals to draft all enemies in an area or on the entire server. Colonization is not supposed to be "ownage". It is to be rulership over a player yet the player having the ability to build up and take on the ruler someday. Not the ruler having the ability to keep subjects from ever getting as strong as them. It sounds like this is what you want, no?

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluefingas View Post
    Okay, so if its an attack on a suzerain, they should be able to see what they will have to fight. The problem with fake attacks is that is that the suzerain has to reinforce his city in case its an actual successful uprise and when it turns out there is no uprising army, its a waste of time. Its just another way to be an annoying prick.
    /hijack
    Oh yeah, is the next test attack on Atlantis coming soon? Didn't he agree to fight you 1v1?
    /end hijack
    No, the Atlantis owner only agreed to fight me if I attack a compact defense in Atlantis. That means a single trap or abatis can cause me to lose. I only agree to fight Atlantis by uprise/supression and take wall defenses out of the equation. Anyone can sit back in a compact city and keep building traps and abatis as I clear them. So me trying to crack a compact defense is indeed 1v1 but the defender has all the advantage. I will only do it troop on troop and hero on hero via uprise/supression. I do not want some player to sit back and watch me send wave after wave to a compact defense and laugh. That is not a square battle.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  10. #10

    Default

    I would say to be free of an oppressor, you have to fight their entire army. Therefore I would suggest two things :

    1 ) Colonised people cannot demolish or downgrade buildings in that town.

    2 ) All the Suppressors troops will fight in the Uprising over all their cities.

    2alternative) Supperors can select which cities troops will quench an uprising, and all the troops in those cities fight.


    This would mean if you can hold onto someone, you don't need to move troops around, and change your defensive structure of your cities.

    How about that?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •