#How to prevent fullsends and make it more risky for attacker

36 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

cobalt vine
#

Fullsend now is a problem. The most annoying one. How to change human psychology and decrease fullsend situations?
Make it more risky of course!
I remember in Territorial fullsend was very risky. If you fullsend - it mean game over. So it happened only when person understand he already lost and it's the only thing he can do.
But here you can fullsend and recover. Faster than in Territorial.
What I propose?

  • If person fullsent, he lose all his defense. He is like tortoise without shell. And everyone can advance fast on his territory. Defense posts can save their ass, but their defense capabilities cuts in half.
    It will make most of such people think wise before their actions.
wraith crystal
#

Fullsending has two problems. Snowballing players and fullsending is too advantageous.

#

You gain territory based on the absolute difference between attack and defense - that's the problem.

#

If that's made relative then a fullsend 1mil vs 500k won't be much much more powerful then a fullsend of 100k vs 50k

#

100k vs 50k is a 50k difference.

#

1mil vs 0.5mil is 500k difference.

#

That player fullsending on large size will be gaining territory MUCH faster.

#

Fullsends also allow you to neutralize troops by putting opponent over their army cap before they can respond

#

meaning they lose a BUNCH of soldiers without even fighting back.

#

Early game imo it's fine. Late game with massive fullsend stacks however the attacker gets a huge advantage and capture speeds that don't allow others to react fast enough.

faint anchor
wraith crystal
#

In a way i understand the way it's designed.

#

otherwise late game would turn into a quagmire

#

So i think it's not bad.

#

It's just a design decision to encourage players to act.

#

Since being on the offensive is a general advantage

#

as long as you're not evenly matched.

#

Then being defensive is beneficial

#

i think the biggest issue is that troops don't help defend territory.

#

so when you're loosing troops on defense if you're anywhere close ot the cap you're not really losing troops, they're disappearing because you're loosing capacity.

#

Also fullsends are horrendously expensive if your troops die.

#

Your population growth is reduced to a crawl and you will die to people around you.

#

40-60% attacks against smaller nations are the right degree of aggression and defense imo

#

If you put some soldiers on a boat that takes a while to land, you can restore a bunch of troops before the fight even starts and get another 20% advantage that way.

faint anchor
#

Maybe use a combination of both absolute and relative.
So, first it checks the relative difference, then applies a multiplier based on absolute.
So that for arguament's sakes 1M V 500K is exactly 1.5 times more effective than 100K V 50K.

wraith crystal
#

Yeah but in the early game borders move at a crawl

#

so in a 1mil vs 1mil conflict, you'd regenerate 500.000 troops before that battle ended.

#

I think it sucks to be on the recieving end of a massive attack

#

However, it's better for the game that large scale conflict is faster

#

Otherwise it'd just turn into 1 or 2 hour stalemates.

#

Right now initiative is somewhat rewarded. So if you can start doomsday by fullsending an opponent and Mirving the other guy, you'll take one out and the other guy will get their troops decimated if they don't respond fast enough.

#

Better if oyu don't share borders.

faint anchor
#

10k vs 5k is at normal speed.

#

100k vs 50k is like 1.3 times that let's say.

#

And 1m vs 500k is 2 times that.