Development poll

[Shadow]

Please answer all three questions by choosing the option that matches what you think about the game. I'll tell you the real answers after, and we can decide what to do about them.

I ask because I believed a lot of the wrong answers before this development led me to read the code. Just curious if others think the way I did before.

[Neobaron]

Hmm. Now i'm curious if I was doin it wrong those years...

[Shadow]

Alright: the real answers

Q: Does standard take buildings?

A: It was supposed to originally, but the code that tried to has never actually been working, at least since the removal of group attacks and likely before. Would you like it to? I personally don't think it should, but if most of you do, we can make it happen.

Q: Do drive, sack, capture, and chaos work if you do standard attacks?

A: No. if you do standard, the subtype reverts to basic attack. I always thought they did however. Would you all like us to make it so?

Q: Does chaos kill more of your opponent's troops?

A: No, it actually kills less of them! It also kills less of yours. I always thought chaos killed extra, myself, but it actually does less. The reason I never noticed it before is because I would always do standard chaos ^_^ which was actually just normal standard since chaos doesnt work with standard, and so there was no reduction in troop losses.

Chaos also takes 1 more health than the other attack types. Who knew?

Would you like us to make chaos kill more enemy troops, and take a normal amount of health? I would...

[Neobaron]

Mixed feelings on standards capping buildings rather than blank land.

It always made sense to me that buildings would be standing when an invading army strolled into a region.

However

(Somewhat) Hypothetical Consideration: Everyone makes herds of leaders and therefore all land is huts. Great if you're also herding leaders. Not so much if you're doing anything else. Now you have to deconstruct and build, wasting turns. Vice versa.

---

Indifferent on the second point.

---

If chaos with +kills also hurts the attacker with +losses, sure.

If not, make the health penalty higher. Much, much higher.

[Shadow]

chaos takes 20% less land then normal attack does, so the extra cost of those kills is the reduced land yield. Is that not enough?

[Neobaron]

So chaos as it stands is effectively an 80% attack?

[Shadow]

with reduced losses to both parties (30%)

[Juska]

Have standards take buildings. If you have stronger armies you deserve the immediate benefit of captured buildings. Don't want huts? Don't standard wolves and martens.

[Neobaron]

If thats the majority of the land holding players, what then?

[Shadow]

My concern is that standard could be used to deduce the building spread of an opponent. It is not a huge deal now since there are really only two strategies, but it will become more important in the coming rounds, and building spread is not something that was intended to be espionage material.

[Neobaron]

Is captured land/buildings an exact representation of the building spread of the defending player?

Is it possible to change that? Makes no sense that the defender would be dealing with the same ratios on a smaller scale... what's really lost? The point of attacking is disruption. Land fat leaders are assisted by being hit.

[Shadow]

It could easily be randomized, but then it's just a matter of hitting more than once and taking the averages. If you attack enough, the average would give a good estimate regardless.

The short answer is no, no matter how we set it up to take buildings, a sufficiently motivated player can use it to deduce building spread.

[Juska]

It's not building ratio will really matter with the new strategies Shadow.....even so that becomes a tool to be used, don't want your enemy to know your building make-up? Stack some weasels.

There needs to be more tools in players arsenals, you can't remove every possibility of discovery. Risks need to be taken, decisions made, basic elements of strategy outside of "race or type strategy" need to be employed to add depth, complexity, surprise, and re playability. 

I say if someone is going to take the time to standard someone 20 times and get an average of buildings gained and use it to determine land make-up, then they deserve to know their enemy's land make-up. Land make-up when gaining turns isn't even that useful, especially in inventive strategies (which would really be the ones worth knowing anyway).

Neo, if the majority of land holder players are leaders and you don't want huts, then don't freaking standard attack lol. Is it really that hard?

And if you really want to kill their troops, then you should make sure its worth the 20 turns spent demoing buildings.

[Shadow]

Fair enough. Anyone else want to weigh in?

[Neobaron]

Neo, if the majority of land holder players are leaders and you don't want huts, then don't freaking standard attack lol. Is it really that hard?

And if you really want to kill their troops, then you should make sure its worth the 20 turns spent demoing buildings.

I apologize for my ignorance. I confused this for another game where all attacks capped buildings.

No need to get snippy. :)