Welcome Guest
[Log In]
[Register]
- Tour of Generals Forums
- →
- Tour of Generals Technical
- →
- Suggestion Box
- →
- Version 2 Suggestions
- →
- 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: |
| Why Admin, Why | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 11 2009, 07:48 PM (825 Views) | |
| Vivi | Dec 16 2009, 01:46 AM Post #11 |
VIvi
|
Calling a system flawed and saying "This is crap. You better fix it." are two completely different things. Any changes that will be made to the game will, as always, be made by admin. As such, I can't really tell you what changes will be made because I won't be the one making them. Constructive discussion on the topic is your best and only option if you wish to express your concerns. |
|
|
| Patton | Dec 19 2009, 10:26 AM Post #12 |
|
If nothing else is done, can we at least implement Sherman's suggestion of a Pyrrhic victory? I was recently playing a game and my force of 200 soldiers, 3 tanks and 2 artillery were attacked by a force of 375 soldiers, 3 tanks and 3 soldiers. As expected, I lost. However, my army was completely destroyed and my opponent lost 23 soldiers. That's right, 23 soldiers vs. the loss of my entire army (200 soldiers, 3 tanks and 2 artillery). After that loss, I had no chance of putting up any sort of strong resistance because his army was virtually intact while my largest army was destroyed. As much as I hate the other components of the battle system, I will be somewhat mollified by an alteration of this component. Another thing that goes hand in hand with this concept is that there are so many lopsided victories (or losses) in ToG. Can things be more even? Even in a 4-3 victory, one army pummels the other. It seems to me that the battle system is inherently lopsided. Perhaps other people can refute my belief or concur . . . ? |
|
|
|
| Beavers | Dec 19 2009, 10:54 AM Post #13 |
|
Lopsided victories of the kind described above are the norm in this game indeed, and although they do occur in real life: Battle of Zama (202 BCE) - casualty ratio of 8:1 Battle of Carrhae (53 BCE) - casualty ratio of ~20:1 ... most battles are much more balanced in their outcomes, even ones that are clear defeats for one side. Now, with the game system, the goal is to completely destroy the opposing units (there's no option of forcing the other unit to retreat from the battlefield unless the player specifically moves it), so we need to have casualties HIGHER than reality in absolute terms, but not have a casualty ratios ABSURDLY different from reality. Some examples: Battle of Waterloo (1815) - casualty ratio of 1.4:1 Battle of Antietam (1862) - casualty ratio of 1.2:1 Battle of Lepanto (naval, 1571) - casualty ratio (in terms of people) of 2.6:1 Battle of Issus (333 BCE) - casualty ratio of 2.8:1 (and this with the excellent general Alexander the Great leading one of the armies) It is something like finding a way to reduce casualty ratios to realistic numbers that I think everyone is wanting. |
|
|
|
| italiandude1 | Dec 21 2009, 11:43 AM Post #14 |
|
Here's what I have discovered, even though I have refused to play in a while. If the win/loss factor could be taken out, then there would be less upsets. |
|
|
|
| Zolfers | Dec 21 2009, 02:45 PM Post #15 |
Vice President of The Warhammer Group
|
I have recently had a brush with this. in one of my games, i am completely pummeling the enemy. he has been retreating and at this point i own almost all of europe, but he managed to put together a resistance army of 1000 inf. 5 tanks and 5 arty. i move in my army of 20 tanks 20 arty and 2000 inf. i attacked him 6 times and in the end he had 300 inf 3 tanks and 3 arty and i lost. i was pissed, but had money left over, so i built an army of 500 inf 5 tanks and 5 arty and again lost all of them with my opponent only reduced to 274 inf, 2 tanks and 2 arty. now this didnt make sense, so i went and captured a couple regions and used the loot money to build an army of 500, 5, 5. i attacked again and this time finally won but my army is reduced to ~100, 1, 1. so let me get this straight. when i attack with an overwhelming force he takes few losses and i lose, when i attack with a smaller force, same out come, but when i win with a larger force, i take large losses too? i would have won this game but because of this whole ordeal if i can beat his teammate at all, it wont be for another 3 turns... |
|
|
|
| Patton | Dec 28 2009, 09:06 PM Post #16 |
|
Well . . .? Is anything going to be done? |
|
|
|
| AppealDenied | Dec 28 2009, 11:45 PM Post #17 |
|
In my opinion, it's much much better than the last time I played. I prefer it this way. It makes it a bit harder. |
|
|
|
| Comrade Jaques | Dec 29 2009, 12:25 PM Post #18 |
Hater of politicizing.
|
It does make the game less systematic. If a larger army always wins, I do believe the game would be less fun, it would too predictable. I'm not gonna lie, I've been pissed in the past when this has worked against me. But to get rid of it would destroy the game. -Jaques |
|
|
|
| Patton | Dec 29 2009, 12:37 PM Post #19 |
|
The thing is that I'm not talking about eliminating that aspect. My main objective is to implement Pyrrhic victories. Too often when large armies battle, one is left largely intact while the other is completely annihilated. For example, I played a game last night where I had a large army destroyed with the opponent suffering a 2 artillery loss. Also, an opponent of mine attacked 2 soldiers with 2000 only to see his entire army be destroyed. Is that really fair and by extension desirable? In my mind, that answer is no and for a few reasons. This destroys the capacity for the losing General to resist and is inherently unfair. As Niels pointed out above, decisive battles in real life sometimes have a casualty ratio of just 1.2:1. I believe implementing this would make the game more fun as one battle wouldn't play as much a factor in determining the outcome as it does now. Surely making battles more fair and grounded in reality is not too radical. |
|
|
|
| evil yoda | Dec 29 2009, 01:37 PM Post #20 |
|
i have to say that i have found it to be flawed sometimes but it has been a long time since i played. also did you check to see if he had a bigger army stacked under that army? |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Version 2 Suggestions · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Tour of Generals | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 6:34 PM Feb 7
|