Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
Why Admin, Why
Topic Started: Dec 11 2009, 07:48 PM (824 Views)
Patton Dec 31 2009, 12:03 PM Post #21
Member Avatar

 The person I was playing did not have a bigger army stacked underneath. The other General openly admitted that I had been shafted.

These losses can deter Generals from playing the game if they have put themselves in good position only to see their larger army get pummeled with virtually no loss to their opponent. I have certainly been less active and I believe Italiandude also hinted that he was less active, perhaps due to righteous indignation at the current battle system.

This problem can be solved. If lopsided victories were not so prevalent, I believe there would be far less anger regarding the current system. The current underdog bonus, though I dislike it, can remain intact. That way, there would still be the 'mysterious outcome of war' in terms of who wins and loses yet Generals who are defeated will still have a chance to defend themselves instead of suffering certain defeat, particularly in cases when Generals commanding larger armies lose.
Edited by Patton, Dec 31 2009, 12:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Sandboxbob Feb 27 2010, 01:35 AM Post #22
Member Avatar
Patton
Dec 11 2009, 07:48 PM
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.
ive had something like that happen to me befor, but when i realized later on from millitary chart it explained alot to me ,

i cant remmber the exact number but i had a fairly decent size army that was attacking an army of 2 inf , when i moved and clicked attack battle read as me winning 4:3

i was in shock becasue my army was almost destroyed by 2 soilders, and i thought for sure that i would lose that army once he build a new 1, but it turned out after i won that game, i looked at the millitary chat and realized that his army size jumped up from the time i attacked him to about the same size i had.

right when tactical map loaded and showed it as 2 soldiers he purchased many inf art and tanks, so it appeard that i attacked his army of 2 but it attacked his newly purchased units also

just saying sometimes those things happen, especial when its in a fast moving game
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Outlaw311 Apr 30 2010, 01:04 AM Post #23

I don't mean to grave-dig old posts, but I don't think a smaller, less strong army defeating a much larger army is that far fetched, It has happened many times in history. However I do think it could possible improve, basically giving more of a reason why. Position on the map should/could be a main factor, and would add to the strategic element.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Version 2 Suggestions · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3