Quote Originally Posted by Valin View Post
The only problem I can see, is that it kinda makes battles an all or nothing system for prestige. Lets say you attack a certain city, and lose. You then attack another city with the same troops as the first, but this time you add in one extra unit, and because of the extra unit, you win. That one unit made the defference between getting squat for prestige, and getting a prestige gold mine.

As for the medals, the rate is higher if you lose troops. Started medal farming the same time as the players in my alliance who had just started playing. They were posting in the chat about constantly getting medals, while I was sending out a dozen attacks before getting one. We started talking about it, and turns out they were farming with warriors and swords, while I was farming with archers. They would take a few dozen losses each attack, while I would take none. It really does reward using noob tactics, which I hate doing.
The concept of losing large numbers of troops to gain an objective is a very Russian and Chinese concept. In both WW2 and the Korean War the 2 countries named used human wave attacks with some success. I wonder if this attitude is not coming across in the Devs game mechanics.