Leader suicides

[Kilkenne]

A separate question but it fits with the current discussion, I guess. I'll make a thread if it goes someplace, but:

Is there any other way that we might be able to make leaders a little easier for people to wrap their mind around? I know, as someone who doesn't play leaders I struggle with some of their concepts. However, I also have the advantage of age, experience overall, and I can yell at windhound, shadow, shael, or volkov among others when I have a question about leaders because one of them is usually always around and can help me out. New players only really have the guide and of course if they're picked up by a veteran or join a training clan they can ask there, but I'm curious how many just don't do that.

[Firetooth]

Are leader suicides intended to work like this?

Missions: Success
Your Leaders battle it out with Faux Fur's...
...and you are successful in defeating your opponent's Leaders!
Your Leaders penetrated Faux Fur's defense and captured 3499 Acres of Land!.
You also killed 4347 Leaders, losing 313942 of your Leaders in the process!

They had 180k leaders and I had about 4mil, and I have several like this, good thing it was a loaylty run ^^

[Shadow]

Yes

Leader attacks against people with no leader defense are going to be costly

I have said many times: It isn't realistic, but it is balanced (mostly).

[Firetooth]

Thanks for the answer...can I get the explanation of why it is costly, though?

If I am at war with a clan, standards on somebody with no troops when I have 10mil in each type do not provide high losses.

[Shadow]

The answer is in the fundamental imbalance between leaders and indy. Indy can usually break a leader player in troops, but they can only take land and sack. Not much damage in 21 attacks. A leader player can ALWAYS break an indy with leaders, and they can do any sort of damage they please.

Since leader attacks cost less than troop attacks in health, they are also much more turn-effective.

If a leader player decides to defend their land, the indy has no choice but to take heavy troops losses breaking. If an indy tries to defend their land, the same should holds true in reverse - leader players should take heavy leader losses breaking it.

So the idea is to provide a deterrent to leaders relying exclusively on low-cost leader attacks against indies, who may or may not have a low cost countermeasure depending on whether or not the leader player is defending.

[Firetooth]

I can see how that makes sense, couldn't you balance it without nerfing the leader losses terribly, maybe make it take the same (possibly more) health then a normal attacks? It also affects takedowns on leaders, too. Even as stoat, it was ridiculous that attacking a leader player with less then a third of my leaders that I lost 10* more then them.

[Holby]

I can see how that makes sense, couldn't you balance it without nerfing the leader losses terribly, maybe make it take the same (possibly more) health then a normal attacks? It also affects takedowns on leaders, too. Even as stoat, it was ridiculous that attacking a leader player with less then a third of my leaders that I lost 10* more then them.

I don't think it's an issue in any way.

[Shadow]

No, I don't think I want to see it changed. Leader attacks should be costly. Bottom line is that you have to choose between leader offense and leader defense, which I like.