Millitary problems...

Okay.. Well, Millitary combat is sort of pathetic... I mean say i send out 100 men to kill 50 men
I kill all the enemys on the first attack but somehow they attack me back once they die...
Meaning if u send a certain amount of people it doesint matter how many more men you send you will still lose the same amount of men as if you send say 100 men, I can send 100000000 men but i will lose the same amount of men if i send 100.... Maybe you can differ this to make it much more realistic and enjoyable.. otherwise everytime i will lose half my men no matter what i do...

There are ways of avoiding losses on some fights, using cavalry or even higher end units. If there was just no losses though there would have to be an overhaul of the games economy since almost everything is based on fueling your military in some way. Once your island grows you will produce more and more troops so you wont have to worry about loosing them since they will be replaced faster.

You are attacking at the same time. It's just easier to show one side then the other. That is unless you have first attack units. Even still both side's first attack units attack then normal attack then slow.

yeah i like how theres always attrition though i agree combat could use some overhaul

Look, the illusion is that you've lost men even after the enemies have all died. But remember you also have sacrificed some of your men to kill the enemies. CEO displays one side at a time, rather than a simultaneous battle.

An overhaul would be, in my opinion, to show simultaneous battle deaths and attacks to show most logic to the players.

Technically its not you attacking first, its both of you attacking at the same time.

Without some troops dying combat would become boring. Though the combat system could use an overhaul this aspect of combat is fine the way it is

I am going to guess that the OP does not understand how a turn-based fight system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V4r0n4

I am going to guess that the OP does not understand how a turn-based fight system works.

---

i second that motion.

my biggest thing is the game play up to L20, which is directly attributed to the high attrition rate of the "recruits"

1) there is no progress bar for "exp" as such there is no direct feedback or "reward" to judge progress from actions.
2) The high attrition rate slows leveling, such that game play is moderately boring for 5 levels.
a) you must gather your resources to build your army.
b) the best strategy seems to be to build your "orcs" to the same level as the opposing ground forces and to counter from behind with bowmen.
c) this way the attrition rate is lowered to 40-50% of your "orcs" but still time consuming to rebuild.
3) The resultant gameplay is to be totally concentrated on military conquest with "empire" building only a means to achieve a larger army.

You should introduce a small element of other gameplay at least 2-3 levels before 21 to relieve the monotony. Not all beginning players will have the patience to play long enough to get to more varied content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GRYDDELOCH

c) this way the attrition rate is lowered to 40-50% of your "orcs" but still time consuming to rebuild.

---

The biggest factor in how long this takes is determined by the player. Many people send waves in to take out camps as soon as they can win the battle. This is a self defeating approach, you need to try and take out early camps with one crushing wave that defeats the enemy in one round of combat. Any more than 1 round and you are throwing away recruits- and then it takes longer- and longer the next time etc...until it just seems like it is taking forever. Be disciplined and do not throw away recruits like i'm guessing 70% of people do early on cause they just can not be patient. This game punishes those with little patience severely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bobj

This game punishes those with little patience severely.

---

Well this is a waiting game after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V4r0n4

I am going to guess that the OP does not understand how a turn-based fight system works.

---

that is how turn based works, one side attacks, kills enemies, other side counters with whats left. If targets could be selected then this would be very strategic such as in the HoMM games of turn based combat

the combat system is not clear in where both sides are simultaneously attacking at the same time which makes sense. As it is, it appears as though the dead enemies par take in the counter attack. With out knowing the mechanics the combat appears to be broken. i came here looking for a flame fest about the broken combat but as soon as i saw its simultaneous attacking i cooled down.

I've read a few other things about combat and honestly the system looks to be working like it indicates it does. Now turn based fighting, it works like it should be. The things I would like to change if I had my way is archers would be a first strike unit, not cav. Cav would be meatier troops, think soldiers on horses. Also I dont think first strike units should attack the weakest units first. Slap some more hp on those first strike units and let them tag the meat shields. Don't beef em up to much tho, they are meant to be glass cannons so it wouldnt take much altering if any at all really. I just dont believe units should get first strike on the troops that chill in the back of the formation. These are all logic issues, as far as working like its suppose to, it does. If you read descriptions every troop works as intended.

Quote:

---

1) there is no progress bar for "exp" as such there is no direct feedback or "reward" to judge progress from actions.

---

You'll find the progress bar under your avatar's picture, it's a semi-circle that fills with green as you progress. If you hover over it, you'll see the experience required to achieve the next level.

Quote:

---

I've read a few other things about combat and honestly the system looks to be working like it indicates it does.

---

I don't think you're really tracking what those people are saying. The point of so many of these posts isn't that the combat system is buggy in the sense that dogs suddenly attack elite soldiers when bowmen are right there. The point is that the combat system doesn't track closely to real life scenarios. The purpose of meat shields like Recruits, Militia, Soldiers & Elite Soldiers is to protect their more expensive ranged counterparts, (Bowmen, Longbowmen, Crossbowmen and Cannoneers, respectively). In reality, an enemy's dogs would wash up on the line of recruits & be decimated before coming close to the archers. And while everyone's willing (presumably) to suspend many of the details of reality in these types of games, the true point of their comments regarding the combat system is that it lacks the maturity & richness which would enable, and require!, some true planning & thought around attack force composition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hobknocker

I don't think you're really tracking what those people are saying.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamsfear

These are all logic issues, as far as working like its suppose to, it does. If you read descriptions every troop works as intended.

---

I understand what people are saying. In fact you just explained what I did in my post. I get the fact its not real life scenarios and doesn't work that way and yes I agree it's dumb. But none the less it's still not a bug.

"A software bug is the common term used to describe an error, flaw, mistake, failure, or fault in a computer program or system that produces an unexpected result, or causes it to behave in unintended ways."

It doesn't behave in unintended ways, nor is it an unexpected result when you look at the description of the troop. It says exactly what it's going to do. Do I think its stupid that your bowmen get hit first by dogs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreamsfear

Also I dont think first strike units should attack the weakest units first.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hobknocker

the true point of their comments regarding the combat system is that it lacks the maturity & richness which would enable, and require!, some true planning & thought around attack force composition.

---

If this were true would we have combat simulators that are accurate? I simulate every attack before I hit a camp.

For the most part we're arguing the same point really. It doesn't fit real life standards, we have logic issues with the way the combat system works. But again it all works like it says it will.

did not know that

1) the xp bar is directly under your avatar's picture... lil green half circle bar. mouse over it to see actual xp with progress towards next lvl.
2) make sure you send enough recruits/bowmen into a fight to minimize the number of rounds u have to fight. there will always be losses. by the time people get higher level they realize they can use bread to make more population and will use that to speed up their army productions.
a) time based, just make sure you have enough beer production/bsword production/bread production and it's fast.
b) best strategy is overwhelming force. throw 200 units at what ur hitting. bowmen work on sector 2, 5, and 7. cav work well to help with sector 3. beyond that spam recruits (sometimes 2 waves of them) to flatten bandit camps easily. some camps can be skipped and you will still get xp for them once the leader camp for that sector burns.
3) lvl 17-19ish players should be concentrating on upgrading their building chains with hwp and marble that they're harvesting/converting in provis house as fast as they can. this greatly speeds up the process. if they don't think about their gameplay strategy and options then they will be slowed down. it's on them, not the developers to make them into great players.