Why Admin, Why

Welcome to the Tour of Generals forum.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2
3

Why Admin, Why
Topic Started: Dec 11 2009, 07:48 PM (822 Views)
Patton	Dec 11 2009, 07:48 PM Post #1
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	After getting shafted for the fourth or fifth time today, I have to post something about this and it has been a long time coming. The current battle system *sucks.* It's not that it has a minor flaw or anything like that. It really flat out *sucks.* I'm not sure how this severely flawed battle system works but I've been on the receiving end of so many losses with superior strength that it's clear that changes are in order. I propose that the battle system be changed so that outcome is based strictly on strength and the number of victories for each battling army. None of this underdog and luck crap. I understand that luck is a part of war but the 2 soldiers who manage to take down thousands of soldiers and tanks and artillery? Give me a break! That's ridiculous. Most games only have one climatic battle. After that, the outcome is usually pretty certain and the loser of that climatic battle can leave or watche a drawn out defeat. Should the loser be someone who put himself in a good position only to watch his good work be subject to a system where the smaller army fights like the 300 spartans at Thermopylae? In my book, that's unfair.



Beavers	Dec 11 2009, 08:02 PM Post #2
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	I don't know exactly what the battle system entails except that it relies on a random number generator at some point. However, the one thing that does seem to be lacking and which should be implemented if it is possible, is the Pyrrhic victory. Often when two large armies go head to head, one wins 4-3, and the one left standing is still at a significant percentage of its initial strength, such that the loser is unable to build up an army even remotely capable of defending against it on his next turn. Yes in reality this sometimes happens, but also in reality is that both sides get annihilated but one gets off slightly less annihilated than the other. If that possible outcome could be added, I think it might help make everyone's experience better without much effort.



italiandude1	Dec 11 2009, 09:10 PM Post #3
Posts: 25 Group: Members Member #441 Joined: Nov 21, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	The battle system also includes a rock-paper-scissors thing. Patton, I definitely understand how you feel.



italiandude1	Dec 14 2009, 03:27 PM Post #4
Posts: 25 Group: Members Member #441 Joined: Nov 21, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	I have got to agree with this now, I started getting TOTALLY ripped off. I have double, even almost triple troops than my enemy, and i lose.



Patton	Dec 14 2009, 03:36 PM Post #5
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	Let's face it, the battle system is simply unfair. Italiandude just mentioned a situation where his army was obviously superior and . . . lost? Come on, how many more people are going to have to bring this flaw to light before something is actually done about it? I know a General who suffered one too many losses like that and has now essentially quit the game. Not only is that a hell of a shame, it translates into lost business. To conclude: Fix the system for crying out loud! If you think we're complaining, your loss. These concerns are legitimate.



Beavers	Dec 14 2009, 09:20 PM Post #6
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	First, we ought to not act too rashly; lopsided battles do occur, and lopsided numbers of casualties do occur: Example: Battle of Fort Sanders Union Forces: 440 vs. Confederate Forces: ~3000 Outcome: Union victory Casualties: Union: 13, Confederates: 813 Here, the winner had only 1/7 the number of men, and the difference in casualties was 65x. Other examples exist, and given them, we ought not to adjust the battle system too far to fully prevent the improbable. I'd be happy with a change that better allowed for the other, and unrepresented, extreme: Pyrrhic Victories. These also exist, but they do not in this game, where all battles have seemingly lopsided casualties.



Patton	Dec 14 2009, 10:30 PM Post #7
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	This is complete crap. If this doesn't convince you to change the system, it's obvious I'll never be able to. I had 700 soldiers, 7 tanks and 7 artillery. I attacked a 2 soldier army. I won but my army was completely destroyed. 2 soldiers took down 699 soldiers, 7 tanks and 7 artillery. In what &^%$#eyed world is that fair? This is crap. You better fix it.



Vivi	Dec 15 2009, 04:11 AM Post #8
VIvi Posts: 264 Group: Moderator Member #2 Joined: Dec 3, 2008 Clan: ToG Staff	Patton, if you wish to keep posting here you'll watch what you say. You have legitimate concerns, but if you continue to be blatantly disrespectful in the way that you express these concerns than you will lose the ability to do so.



Patton	Dec 15 2009, 09:55 AM Post #9
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	I apologize for any construed disrespect on my part. I'm just calling a flawed system what it deserves to be called. If that is wrong, you have my humblest apology. That being said, I am glad you recognize my concerns are legitimate. Are those concerns going to be addressed or is asking that question disrespectful?



TCTriangle	Dec 15 2009, 05:03 PM Post #10
Posts: 223 Group: Members Member #301 Joined: Mar 4, 2009 Clan: NONE	Yea the system really needs some fixing. Two soldiers ALWAYS take down a force larger than their size when faced with a greater army (due to this 7 to 0 victory thing). I think we should abolish the use of ratios altogether and instead use a battle result system similar to CN (i.e. "GenericPlayer was victorious. His army 1 killed 100 soldiers, 2 tanks, and 0 artillery and lost 50 soldiers, 0 tanks, and 0 artillery") or something like that.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Version 2 Suggestions · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3