Major battles

[Itangast]

In end game battles it is currently too hard to beat a well defended town.

This situation is likely to occur if there are 2-3 at even level players late in a game.

Some points:
- a defending player may/will put stacks of 32 armies in total in some important towns.
- If you as attacker manage to kill 3 armies with your full stack (which quite OK atm) in the defending city you will require at least 96+ armies (thats 12 full stacks)
- In the end game its quite easy to achieve lvl 3 defense in a city.
- Powerful abilities like the Devil, Medusa, Hero and Dragon applies for all armies inside the defending city.

It is not funny or rational to need about 100 armies to take a certain city.

City defenses may be countered with Catapults or Battering Rams, but they are simply not worth the effort at the moment due to few moves and long production cycle. See my other suggestion above.

The real problem the way I see it is powerful bonuses being applied to all armies in the city. eg a single Devil and Medusa inside a city will negate opponents bonuses (non-hero) while fighting all 32 defending armies.

So how do you currently counter this.... yes you can attack with Devils yourself, but it would most certainly take at least 5-6 devils in well organized stacks to capture the city (which isnt rational)

Trying to recall how it worked in earlier Warlords games; wasnt the bonuses only applied to the seperate stack inside a city? Anyways I think thats the only solutions for this issue.... while defending you will still get the +STR from city defence for all armies, so its still benficial to defend.

[KGB]

Itangast,

In end game battles it is currently too hard to beat a well defended town.

This situation is likely to occur if there are 2-3 at even level players late in a game.

Some points:
- a defending player may/will put stacks of 32 armies in total in some important towns.
- If you as attacker manage to kill 3 armies with your full stack (which quite OK atm) in the defending city you will require at least 96+ armies (thats 12 full stacks)
- In the end game its quite easy to achieve lvl 3 defense in a city.
- Powerful abilities like the Devil, Medusa, Hero and Dragon applies for all armies inside the defending city.

It is not funny or rational to need about 100 armies to take a certain city.

City defenses may be countered with Catapults or Battering Rams, but they are simply not worth the effort at the moment due to few moves and long production cycle. See my other suggestion above.

It seems to me that this is the time that such units are *very* worth it. 2 turns for a battering ram and 3 for a catapult are not excessive times. Those are the times for normal bonus units like Medusa/Devil/Pegasi. Especially the Catapult which is giving -2 to the enemy stack due to negating 2 levels of walls. That's a better return than a Medusa/Pegasi! Even if they are slow moving units (the Ram moves faster than the Medusa and only 2 less than a Devil), the defender can only put 32 men in the city anyway.

The real problem the way I see it is powerful bonuses being applied to all armies in the city. eg a single Devil and Medusa inside a city will negate opponents bonuses (non-hero) while fighting all 32 defending armies.

So how do you currently counter this.... yes you can attack with Devils yourself, but it would most certainly take at least 5-6 devils in well organized stacks to capture the city (which isnt rational)

Trying to recall how it worked in earlier Warlords games; wasnt the bonuses only applied to the seperate stack inside a city? Anyways I think thats the only solutions for this issue.... while defending you will still get the +STR from city defence for all armies, so its still benficial to defend.

The bonus's applied to all units in the city. So it's working correctly. I would not vote to change that.

The actual problem right now is that the combat routine is changing the bonus's mid battle. So as the attacker when you lose one of your own bonus units your bonus's change. Since the defender has 32 men it's unlikely he loses any of his bonus's so his never change. Thus the more men you lose as the attacker, the weaker you get. This isn't how Warlords 1/2/3 worked. It would be nice if this got changed.


I'd say there are three things you can do that I do:

1) Build some siege units especially late in the game for well fortified cities.
2) Pick other cities to attack. I typically just bypass cities with 32 men for other cities. Either my opponent comes out of his city to attack as I go by (in which case he can only use 1 stack at a time) or I pick on another city. Make sure you send stacks around the city in 2+ directions so that one hero stack can't pick off multiple stacks. In the screen shot in your original post I can't believe your opponent with 10+ stacks didn't just go around you with 6 stacks (3 on each side) and leave 4+ to prevent you from moving forward.
3) Starve them out. 32 men in the city, even a capitol costs more gold to upkeep than the city can generate. I don't mind waiting 10-12 turns until their gold runs out. Especially now that you've reported the income bug with armies on defend we'll see true upkeep costs rapidly deplete gold reserves.

DLR had a 4th option. That was assassination units (what here is called first strike). You could late game build a bunch of assassination units and send them in and let the first strike power just kill defenders regardless of bonus. That's why I wanted a 2 turn unit with 30% first strike skill.

KGB

[Itangast]

I do not consider Medusa as an attacking unit to be honest... 12 moves makes any stack consisting a Medusa an easy target. As it currently stands, its an excellent defender.

Catapults are even slower with only 10 moves. Battering rams is slightly better but still a slow "attacking unit". Thats why suggested the 16 move for battering rams (see above).

The main reason I post this is because I want the game to be as fun as possible.
The alternative tactics, they are not fun, and you know it. Holding up a game starving a player out, requiring tons of armies with slow siege armies... it takes too long... and in the end - it will always be better to defend than to attack.

If changing the bonuses to be seperate for all stacks is too radical then at least consider the following:
1. Change the Catapult and Battering ram to have increased movement (and perhaps movement penalties in wood/hills)
2. Make level 3 defense at city very expensive.

I dont think its enough but I could we worth trying out first.

[KGB]

Itangast,

I do not consider Medusa as an attacking unit to be honest... 12 moves makes any stack consisting a Medusa an easy target. As it currently stands, its an excellent defender.

Hmm, I use it as an attacker. Mostly because my serious assault stacks include Spiders/Minotaurs which are basically moving the same speed as the Medusa. I use Lt Cavalry stacks to stop raiding stacks from bothering my good assault stacks.

Catapults are even slower with only 10 moves. Battering rams is slightly better but still a slow "attacking unit". Thats why suggested the 16 move for battering rams (see above).

Personally I think both move just fine at 10/14 moves. Mostly because any 'good' assault unit like spiders/minotaur (Even Elephants/Elementals/Unicorns) etc only move 14 or less themselves. So I don't mind taking a siege unit along with my assault stacks.

I honestly suspect all this is coming from the fact that you are literally a Lt Cavalry player (from another one of your posts). Basically making nothing but Lt Cavalry, Hv Cavalry, Pegasi and maybe a couple of other bonus units. So you want/need something to keep up with those units as they race around the map trying to finish the game in 20 turns.

The main reason I post this is because I want the game to be as fun as possible.
The alternative tactics, they are not fun, and you know it. Holding up a game starving a player out, requiring tons of armies with slow siege armies... it takes too long...

I'm perfectly fine employing that strategy when needed. I don't find it ruins my fun at all. I don't care whether a game takes 20 turns or 40 or even 100+.

I've played well over 1000 games of multiplayer online and Email games of DLR. You learn VERY early on that you have to be prepared to play a variety of styles. Sometimes that means wearing someone down over time (other times it means rushing someone or handling a rush against you). I have a friend I play with who NEVER surrenders even if I have 50 cities to his 5. He makes me take every last one of them even if it means doing nothing but hitting end-turn for 20 turns while I build up forces to take down his last cities. And believe me, I take every last one of them. He's not the only player like that. There are/will be lots of players who play that way, especially in ladder/competitive games. They want to see if you have the will and skill to wear them down. So you better come prepared to play 100 turn games because I've played an awful lot of them in my time.

Remember, you can always start another game while you finish off a couple that are in progress.

and in the end - it will always be better to defend than to attack.

For now maybe.

I maintain that Fog of War will change that completely. Once you can no longer see where all the enemy units are and which cities are strongly defended the game will play 100% different. You'll be able to move stacks past cities, around long back routes etc to reach back cities. Players will have to be much more active if they hope to survive.

Of course games without Fog of War will play as the game does now. In those cases I still say you better come prepared with Siege and strong assault units, not just Lt Cavalry/Pegasi.

2. Make level 3 defense at city very expensive.

I'm OK with this. I think your suggestion to have the cost from L7 to L8 be more than 200 is a reasonable one. Not sure if it should be 500 as you mentioned or something in between like 300 or 400.

KGB

[Itangast]

Itangast,
Hmm, I use it as an attacker. Mostly because my serious assault stacks include Spiders/Minotaurs which are basically moving the same speed as the Medusa. I use Lt Cavalry stacks to stop raiding stacks from bothering my good assault stacks.

Personally I think both move just fine at 10/14 moves. Mostly because any 'good' assault unit like spiders/minotaur (Even Elephants/Elementals/Unicorns) etc only move 14 or less themselves. So I don't mind taking a siege unit along with my assault stacks.

Your so called assault stacks of minotaurs, spiders etc are completely useless if there is a devil defending in a city. Thats what my post is actually all about. I will say it again.... your "good" assault units it pointless vs a single devil defending inside a town (or unicorn even).

I honestly suspect all this is coming from the fact that you are literally a Lt Cavalry player (from another one of your posts). Basically making nothing but Lt Cavalry, Hv Cavalry, Pegasi and maybe a couple of other bonus units. So you want/need something to keep up with those units as they race around the map trying to finish the game in 20 turns.

I'm perfectly fine employing that strategy when needed. I don't find it ruins my fun at all. I don't care whether a game takes 20 turns or 40 or even 100+.

Sounds like your stategy is based on winning at all cost, a strategy I dont fancy at all, I rather have fun winning, but off course I respect there are different approaches. Lets leave that discussion as it will take us nowhere...

Condemning a simple playstyle like you did is another pointless discussion.
Regarding your suggestion about me using lt.cavalry pegasi combo is like hearing an adult attempt to lecture a child....
I use this combo for the sole reason its a bit imbalanced at the moment (which we have pointed out many times before). It would be silly not to use good combos available....
I too fancy building good stacks consisting of clever setups, if its a good option!

I've played well over 1000 games of multiplayer online and Email games of DLR. You learn VERY early on that you have to be prepared to play a variety of styles.

You seem like a very hardcore Warlords player and you have equally many opinions. All your post is refering to how things were in earlier versions of Warlords, "...thats how it was in warlords 3 but it was changed in warlords 4... etc etc...". Off course there is value in comparing with earlier tested methods, but its also sometimes better to think out of the box. The devs have pointed that out I believe, that they try to make a fun strategy game, not a Warlords clone.

I do think your experience is very well needed. An addicted critic is always required in any project in order to be successful. Anyways its up to the devs to make the changes and our role is to give as much info possible to improve things.

Once I have put my kids to sleep I will provide some valuable info about some major battles we have evaluated...

I maintain that Fog of War will change that completely.

I have never been a fan of FoW to be honest. I dont think I will play that many FoW games - I think its quite important to point that out, that some of us do not like the FoW feature and as an option will play games with no FoW. Yes - I understand the two conflict with one another balance-wise...

[Ansgar]

To add some fuel to the discussion...

Some people may find it enjoyable to starve the opponent to death, some don't.

The problem is that the people who don't, are runnig out of options fast if you get into the end game between two players that have somewhat equal armies & cities.

It's all too easy to "dig down" in certain strategic cities - and just "snipe" off most assaulting units from coming within striking range (using trash mobs - or a powerful stack that can return to the 32-army-slot-3-defense "uberstack" before "point of no return" is reached).

Right now, 10-12 (or more ?) fairly powerful stacks don't stand a chance against a fully & properly defended city - unless *each* of those stacks contains both catapult *and* devil (and pray to the higher powers that the snail catapult magically avoids sniping, and doesn't die from old age before reaching the target city).


I understand that the game may be too early in development to take advantage of discussing balancing like this - but the feedback is valuable nevertheless.

/Ansgar

[KGB]

Itangast,

Your so called assault stacks of minotaurs, spiders etc are completely useless if there is a devil defending in a city. Thats what my post is actually all about. I will say it again.... your "good" assault units it pointless vs a single devil defending inside a town (or unicorn even).

True. At that point you may as well just build Giants since the only thing you are getting is the 5 strength.

Condemning a simple playstyle like you did is another pointless discussion.
Regarding your suggestion about me using lt.cavalry pegasi combo is like hearing an adult attempt to lecture a child....
I use this combo for the sole reason its a bit imbalanced at the moment (which we have pointed out many times before). It would be silly not to use good combos available....
I too fancy building good stacks consisting of clever setups, if its a good option!

I'm not condemning the play style at all. Virtually everyone is building gobs of Lt Cavalry at the moment including myself. My only comment is that assaulting well defended cities with these units is hopeless so you at least need to build 5 strength units once the neutrals are virtually all conquered.

My other point is that if Lt Cavalry gets fixed (either less moves or less strength) then the number of units moving more than 16 becomes very few (basically just fliers, Giants, Hv Cavalry). At that point the 10 and 14 moving siege units don't look near as slow.

You seem like a very hardcore Warlords player and you have equally many opinions. All your post is refering to how things were in earlier versions of Warlords, "...thats how it was in warlords 3 but it was changed in warlords 4... etc etc...". Off course there is value in comparing with earlier tested methods, but its also sometimes better to think out of the box. The devs have pointed that out I believe, that they try to make a fun strategy game, not a Warlords clone.

I do think your experience is very well needed. An addicted critic is always required in any project in order to be successful. Anyways its up to the devs to make the changes and our role is to give as much info possible to improve things.

I hope I'm not an addicted critic! Or maybe the fact I'm in the middle of 15 games makes me one

Anyway, the only reason I mention other versions of the game is because the dev's have Warlords 2 experience but not experience with other version of Warlords or other similar games like Age of Wonders. So I hope to avoid pitfalls those games had and point out things those games did well.

Once I have put my kids to sleep I will provide some valuable info about some major battles we have evaluated...

Looking forward to the ones you are going to list.

I've been keeping my own list and as I said, I wrote a quick combat simulator to generate odds for battles to see if things aren't working/looking as they should.

I have never been a fan of FoW to be honest. I dont think I will play that many FoW games - I think its quite important to point that out, that some of us do not like the FoW feature and as an option will play games with no FoW. Yes - I understand the two conflict with one another balance-wise...

Other things that will make a difference in Beta3 and beyond will be the temple blessings (defenders in cities won't be able to bless themselves), ruins, the possibility to rebuild cities etc.

Unfortunately that's the problem with providing a lot of feedback. All of it is based on what we currently have now. But until we know what's in Beta3 and beyond its hard to know for sure how much of that feedback is truly useful. Things that are good/bad now will likely change a lot as new things are added to the game.

KGB

[Itangast]

Please find below result of a quite large battle I recently encountered... I have included pictures as text logs are a bit boring.
All in all there are 6 full stacks (48 armies) attacking my well defended city.

I am the defending side and I know the stacks thrown at me are far from perfect... but I am quite sure they illustrate the issue that has been discussed.

The result of each battle can be seen in size of the next picture.. and so on....

1st: a quite nasty armour using both stack bonus/cancel terrain and some city conus as well as individual attack bonus.

1st

1st.jpg (115.71 KiB) Viewed 4437 times

A lighter army but still some city bonus + stack bonus and even some higher individual crit chance

2nd

2nd.jpg (105.45 KiB) Viewed 4437 times

A much lighter army which is not suitable for attacking a city, but its still important to have open terrain units to protect your other "assault" units

3rd

3rd.jpg (103.66 KiB) Viewed 4437 times

[Itangast]

Slightly better assault army as it consist of both stack bonus and city bonuses.

4th

4th.jpg (95.12 KiB) Viewed 4436 times

In my opinion - a great assault stack. Stack bonus, city bonuses, individual attack bonus and negating both terrain and stack.

5th

5th.jpg (87.18 KiB) Viewed 4436 times

Almost equally good assault army - City bonuses, negating terrain and stack bonus.

6th

6th.jpg (84.08 KiB) Viewed 4436 times

[Itangast]

The end...

7th

7th.jpg (84.07 KiB) Viewed 4436 times

13 of my lesser units have been eliminated... which is basically lt.cav + elven archers. These 13 armies will easily be restocked with vectoring and moving from nearby cities.

The attacker removed his other 5 full stacks from the arean once he experienced this...

To sum this up... a Devil cancelling terrain/stack and Medusa (-1 stack) is extremely powerful while defending.