Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 129 of 129

Thread: Offense VS Defense (Then and Now)

  1. #121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pokey View Post
    As for faux attacks, 90k archers eats very little food in comparison to to 1million, yes? Off the top of my head I'd say about 10 times less. (some say journeys require 2x food, which doesnt add up in my experience but we can say 5x if you want). If they pull their armies out, then you can hit them again, don't see the problem there. As for sending MILLIONs of troops don't be absurd.

    A: it doesn't take twice as much food. An hour trip costs two hours worth of food because they go and come back again. Round trip is two hours, so they take two hours worth of food.

    B: If you are only sending 90k archers, why would they keep 1 million troops there? In order to get someone to bother with having 1 million troops in a city, you have to send millions. Launch 90k archers at anyone with level 10 walls, and they will just stick in 150k and yawn.

    Quote Originally Posted by pokey View Post
    If you squinch them all in to one big garrison city, all your other cities are fair game

    This would work if there was no such thing as a relief station, embassies, and the ability to move resources.

    A: High end players tend to be in top 100 alliances. Top 100 alliances tend to dominate an area. Generally when one high end player wants to fight another high end player, they have to look fifty to 100 miles from their cities. Thats 3-7 hours travel time.

    If you are a top 100 alliance who can squish a player within 20 miles, most times they just TP out or join you.

    B: if you launch attacks at 9 of one player's cities, they can move their troops around in a much shorter then you can. They are probably not 50-100 miles apart, and they are moving at 6 times the speed you are thanks to RSes.

    C: People have embassies in more then one city. Divide your forces into ten attacks hitting 10 cities, and someone only needs 10 people to stick an army or two in each city. If they are really in a super neat alliance, they can stick 10 armies in every city.

    Defenders have all of the advantages. All of them. They are 6 times more mobile and have to cross less ground. They get fortifications. They have no limit on the number of troops they have in a city, and they have embassies.

    Attacking armies move at 1/6th the speed, generally give hours of warning, and have a hard limit of 90-100k per wave.

    Because of these advantages, a good alliance can counter anything but a coordinated attack by several top 100 alliances on most of their major cities.

    As for your comments about level 10 NPCs, have you ever captured one? Have captured two for myself, and several for my allies, and I can tell you it is much harder to clear the troops out of an NPC city then the above battle reports and their three wave army. Generally I do it with 10 attacks every 6 mins set to land seconds apart from each other at least, 19 if I have two cities in the area. It isn't a simple as shooting off three armies and then forgetting about it.

    And that is of course assuming it is within 3 squares of one or two cities. Think it is easier to cap mid ranged offline PC cities then NPC cities? Try capping a level 9 or ten NPC city from 20 squares away.

  2. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
    A: it doesn't take twice as much food. An hour trip costs two hours worth of food because they go and come back again. Round trip is two hours, so they take two hours worth of food.

    B: If you are only sending 90k archers, why would they keep 1 million troops there? In order to get someone to bother with having 1 million troops in a city, you have to send millions. Launch 90k archers at anyone with level 10 walls, and they will just stick in 150k and yawn.




    This would work if there was no such thing as a relief station, embassies, and the ability to move resources.

    A: High end players tend to be in top 100 alliances. Top 100 alliances tend to dominate an area. Generally when one high end player wants to fight another high end player, they have to look fifty to 100 miles from their cities. Thats 3-7 hours travel time.

    If you are a top 100 alliance who can squish a player within 20 miles, most times they just TP out or join you.

    B: if you launch attacks at 9 of one player's cities, they can move their troops around in a much shorter then you can. They are probably not 50-100 miles apart, and they are moving at 6 times the speed you are thanks to RSes.

    C: People have embassies in more then one city. Divide your forces into ten attacks hitting 10 cities, and someone only needs 10 people to stick an army or two in each city. If they are really in a super neat alliance, they can stick 10 armies in every city.

    Defenders have all of the advantages. All of them. They are 6 times more mobile and have to cross less ground. They get fortifications. They have no limit on the number of troops they have in a city, and they have embassies.

    Attacking armies move at 1/6th the speed, generally give hours of warning, and have a hard limit of 90-100k per wave.

    Because of these advantages, a good alliance can counter anything but a coordinated attack by several top 100 alliances on most of their major cities.

    As for your comments about level 10 NPCs, have you ever captured one? Have captured two for myself, and several for my allies, and I can tell you it is much harder to clear the troops out of an NPC city then the above battle reports and their three wave army. Generally I do it with 10 attacks every 6 mins set to land seconds apart from each other at least, 19 if I have two cities in the area. It isn't a simple as shooting off three armies and then forgetting about it.

    And that is of course assuming it is within 3 squares of one or two cities. Think it is easier to cap mid ranged offline PC cities then NPC cities? Try capping a level 9 or ten NPC city from 20 squares away.
    I was the #20 player on server 2 before I stopped playing, I helped my alliance fight the #10 alliance on the server to a stand-still, I npc'd a few towns of and crippled the resources of the player with the #6 attack hero on the server, so have I ever taken a lvl 10 npc? Have I ever engaged in high end pvp? Do I still have a ridiculous amount of troops even though I only log in to check how much food I have left and talk with my alliance? Yep!
    I wonder if you can say the same. So knock off the "ooh I'm so big and you probably aren't" garbage. Taking a level 10 NPC is so easy there's a video of someone on the forums doing it while they absent mindedly post on the forums in chit chatting with queens. A players situation changes by the player and other players, which you yourself said, so it's mildly ridiculous that you seem to suggest that it doesn't.
    You have to pick one: Attacking a player is static and then can be killed but is boring. Attacking a player is dynamic and fun but not possible. Complain about one or the other, can't be both.

    You clearly haven't read my post and/or digested what I've been saying. All your responses are in relation to things that have nothing to do with my posits.
    You seem to only want to argue, you have your mind set on "THIS IS HOW THINGS ARE" and if anyone disagrees then its time to start arguing even if that doesn't really relate to their points.

    Defenders do have the advantage, I've always said this, never deviated from saying this, you can act like I haven't if you want, that's your call.

    My only problem was the wall patch making defenses invincible no matter what. They weren't before, they were after. If things are different in that a player can be knocked down to size again by some means then great, let the action resume. If you have a problem with it, come up with a solution, don't just whine.
    Last edited by pokey; 06-07-2009 at 07:08 PM.

  3. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pokey View Post
    Yep!
    Thanks, thats what I wished to know. I think you took a simple question way to personally. I asked if you had experienced capturing level 10 NPC cities after you said it was easier then slaughtering off line players with small armies who are not even in an alliance.

    Thats a pretty fair question to ask after such a claim, (“Attacking level 10 NPCs is easier then anything”) not an insult. My disagreement isn't personal, and I haven't insulted you, perhaps you can stop insulting me?

    Quote Originally Posted by pokey View Post
    You have to pick one: Attacking a player is static and then can be killed but is boring. Attacking a player is dynamic and fun but not possible. Complain about one or the other, can't be both.
    No I do not. Attacking online players in good alliances is dynamic and fun. Attacking offline players is by definition static, as nothing changes in reply to the launching of your attack.

    And as for explaining why defenders have the advantage, and about NPC cities in detail, rather then simply saying things as fact? That also wasn't an insult, rubbing your nose in presumed inexperience, or anything else. If you look back on this thread I and many others have taken the position that simply saying things does not make them true, one must support their arguments.

    It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to simply say 'those strategies wouldn't work' ect and stop there. I had to explain why they wouldn't work, and so I did.

    Sorry if my explanations made you feel like I was talking down to you, but after spending five pages convincing someone they need to support their arguments with facts, I felt it was a good idea to do so myself.

    So, lets quit the insults?

  4. #124

    Default

    I understand the need to raise defense, especially to protect smaller players. The only problem is that the amount of attacks is unrealistic. I took me 68 attacks to get the gates of a city open. I don't think in real life it took that many attacks...

  5. #125

    Default

    The thing is, Castles in real life did not fall either. Big defended city walls throughout history have been a solid defense. Think Troy, England, and the Alamo. Small numbers of defenders were able to hold off large armies. So how do you win against a castle? You siege it. No that does not mean ballista and catapults. It means you cut off the supply routes and starve them out.

    Here is what I would do:
    1) Retreat. Armies that are outmatched should at some point retreat. Modify the 100 round rule to 25 rounds. After 25 rounds, if all defenders are dead, attacker wins. If not remaining attackers retreat, defense wins. Fewer losses on the attacking side.

    2) Add Siege/Blockade. Attacking army marches to and camps on city square. During the Siege, no new resources are generated, no taxes are collected and the market is disabled. City under siege can raid attacking army. Attacking army can send units on a 25 round skirmish against the wall. Multiple attacking armies can garrison outside the castle. Alliances or other cities owned by the defender can send armies to attack the attacking army. This levels the playing field with garrisoned troops. loyalty of city drops every hour under siege.

    You should even be able to take a city complete with wall defenses intact!

  6. #126

    Default

    Okay here it goes. This is my two bits.

    What I think needs to be done is this, remove the archery buff from the walls altogether. then set the bonus you gain from your walls level to 10%. by doing this you put level 9 walls on par with level 10 archery. and give people willing to work or pay to get a Michel Angelo script for level 10 wall a slight edge. This would of course work all the way up, walls one level lower equal to archery and same level walls and archery walls have an edge. this way peoples defenses can hold out and attackers can still win with the troop limit.

  7. #127
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    715

    Default

    I've already come to the conclusion that Walls give a 10% range bonus per level, due to the way rockfalls are triggered on lvl 8 npcs and not lvl 7 npcs when using catapults.
    ~Success without the possibility of failure is meaningless.~

    Queen Daisuke

  8. #128
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    Walls have value now? Wow.
    However, the old axiomn of walls not being worth anyting without fortifications still holds true. Most players, and I mean most, don't understand this.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    1,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by donny77 View Post
    The thing is, Castles in real life did not fall either. Big defended city walls throughout history have been a solid defense. Think Troy, England, and the Alamo. Small numbers of defenders were able to hold off large armies. So how do you win against a castle? You siege it. No that does not mean ballista and catapults. It means you cut off the supply routes and starve them out.

    Here is what I would do:
    1) Retreat. Armies that are outmatched should at some point retreat. Modify the 100 round rule to 25 rounds. After 25 rounds, if all defenders are dead, attacker wins. If not remaining attackers retreat, defense wins. Fewer losses on the attacking side.

    2) Add Siege/Blockade. Attacking army marches to and camps on city square. During the Siege, no new resources are generated, no taxes are collected and the market is disabled. City under siege can raid attacking army. Attacking army can send units on a 25 round skirmish against the wall. Multiple attacking armies can garrison outside the castle. Alliances or other cities owned by the defender can send armies to attack the attacking army. This levels the playing field with garrisoned troops. loyalty of city drops every hour under siege.

    You should even be able to take a city complete with wall defenses intact!
    Ikariam uses this very system. You can blockade cities, cutting them off from the resources of their other villages, and prevent allys from sending resources, severly hampering the defender's ability to fight off the attacker. Also, battle in that game takes 20 min. per round of combat. This means the attacker can retreat or call in reinforcements. The defender can do the same. It takes a while to get started in Ikariam, but it is exactly what you're looking for.

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
  •