[Ceiron Wars] You Asked For It, We Are Doing It...

31 posts

Flag Post

Noble Céiron Commanders!

Céidot Game Studios’ Creative Director Erkan Bayol explained on our new dev-diary post what is coming to the game with the next scheduled update.

Some hints from the post:

- The hospital is coming
- Changes on the castle upgrades
- Base destruction removed
- Base raids are no longer instant

Click here to read the full story and to learn all the details about upcoming major changes.

Good hunting commander!

 
Flag Post
"- We believe that we have finally found a solution for the chronic problem of “everything being too fast” about the battles, which are the most enjoyable and unique part of the game. What sets Céiron Wars apart is the fact that the players are controlling the battles personally. Travelling or attacking were instant actions, just to prevent you from waiting endlessly only to reach this content. However, this was causing problems such as making it too difficult to defend in PvP battles or making it virtually impossible to help an ally due to the online requirements. To address this, we are developing a “siege duration” system for base raids. When a player wants to assault a base, the player will have to wait for a duration of minimum 4 hours + the number of units in the army times 20 miliseconds. This time barrier only exists for base raids. You still deploy your army and bring it to your target on foot or by a zeppelin flight. Afterwards, the siege begins. Since the battle will not be taking place until the siege duration ends, you can either wait or return to the game once the duration is over. This time barrier will allow the defending player to prepare, call allies to help or improve hir/her castle. Most importantly, if you are checking the game frequently enough, this increases the chances of becoming aware of an incoming attack majorly. Of course, we will not simply block the attacking player for such a long duration. The player is allowed to deploy another army to raid another player or even another base of the first player, attack the deployed armies of players, hunt mob armies, attack settlements, etc…" -------------------------------------- So to do pvp you have to have 4 hours+ time? What happens if the attacker declares and then finds they don't have time to come back in 4 hrs? Perhaps they get stuck somewhere or are delayed somehow. This mechanism could preclude players that don't have chunks of 4 hours time to play, or don't have ready internet access to do a quick declare in anticipation of a battle hours later. Also the variability of the declare time potentially makes it really inconvenient. Say I have 2 players I want to raid and two armies of differing sizes. If I have a set time of day that I can play for an extended period of time then to make sure the battles start when I can play, I have to make sure I can get online to declare at two separate times. Also what happens when players declare multiple raids and the battle times overlap? Does one of these battles then becomes AI played? Another issue is that this effectively restricts most players armies to 1 raid per day (most ppl won't have time to set up multiple battles). To do 3 raids I now need 3 times the resources potentially. --------------------------------------- For me, a better wait time would 15 minutes where players are sent an e-mail warning them of an attack. Then, if they are awake and are recieving e-mails, they can decide if they can go online to defend.
 
Flag Post

Before raids were unbalanced in favor of the attacker, now I think giving allies hours to gang up on attackers makes it unbalanced in favor of the defender. My concern is that this would make it impossible to sneak in a raid on a more powerful Alliance, which means more picking on smaller alliances.

Still, I have to offer a huge thank you to Ceidot for removing 80% medics and castle upgrade Cei-Lira costs. This is the very first time I’ve seen an MMOG remove 2 of the main things people were spending real money on because of complaints about P2W.

 
Flag Post

Unpopular opinion here it would seem, but I’m very happy with the siege system described. It’s quite similar to the POS reinforcement system that has existed in EVE Online for years and that’s an extremely good system.

One item I do have to question however is the purchase of troops for CL. While you rationalize that the high price will keep it from being P2W, the problem is that the kinds of players who actually unbalance the game with such features will spare no expense whatsoever to do so. No matter how high you make the price, whales are still going to make a mess of all your carefully laid plans. I have a counter-proposal however that should solve the problem once and for all and allow you to add a CL option to more things: create a market for trading CL for PLT with other players, a la Spiral Knights. What this would entail is players who have CL but want PLT (sell orders) could trade with players who have PLT but want CL (buy orders). This system works very well in SK and I believe your game design could greatly benefit from implementing such a system here as well.

 
Flag Post

@AndrewC43: New base raid system will inform you appropriately before you lay a siege to your target base. There will be a confirmation step that shows every kind of cost, including the time. Besides, if even you approve the siege and actually trigger the siege process, you will have an ability to “retreat” or lift the siege whenever you want.

Time management is an important skill in such games. Our game is not purely based on that, however, and we have no plans to convert our unique game into that. But we need some kind of time interval to help players prepare for major battles, such as base raids. You know there are too many things at stake, when you lose your buildings or even your whole expansion base in the blink of an eye, naturally you feel you have been defeated unjustly. Nobody actually things about how much risk that was taken by the attacker player, or attacker player’s investments, etc… Players naturally tend to their own investments, especially if they lose it. And especially if they lose it so fast.

When battles are happening that quickly, our alliance mechanism is not working properly as well. People can’t even catch their own battles. Helping your allies when they are under attack is even harder. All you could do now is trying to send them some resources after they are destroyed, which is better than nothing but definitely not the best thing we could offer.

Good thing is, Céiron Wars will be still a unique game in its segment. You can play it whenever you want, you can make battles whenever you want (except base raids) and you don’t have to set your alarm for every kind of action in the game, to catch the action or even make some action. Developing a game which gives the full control of battles to players, and which has NOT time intervals between battles all the time is something we are proud of. However that design approach made base raids pretty… hard to manage? Or perhaps I should say hard to catch, because rarely people catch their own battles, and miss the best and funniest content of the game, and even worse, losing their investments and soldiers badly. That’s why base raids need time. Time for preparation, planning, even thinking.

All you need to do is building a solid defense (castle), leaving some troops at your main army slot for each base to help your castle defending your city, and time to time check the game to see if there is an incoming assault. If you see an incoming attack, you will have some time to prepare your defenses, summon your armies to the city that is under attack, and even asking some troops from your allies to enhance your defense. If even you can’t be online when a base raid started, your castle and soldiers and allies will defend you. If you can be online, most probably you can command your defense army better than AI and your casualties would be less.

By the way, battle times cannot overlap on the same city. System will put some time interval between battles while calculating the siege duration time. However if you have multiple cities, you might have multiple battles that will start at the same time. This will be the only advantage of the attacker. See my below comment for more details on this.

 
Flag Post

@Toralk: The new mechanics will definitely favor the defender, because the defender has much more risks than the attacker. Attacker might lose his or her troops. Defender, on the other hand, might lose buildings, resources, castle structures and troops. Also, the attacker determines / decides when to attack, attacker is the one who has the luxury of planning ahead. Most probably attacker will try to pick a time which would be the worst time for the defender. Perhaps he will arrange the attack to happen around 4 am so you would be sleeping most probably, therefore you might never saw what was coming, might not have the chance to prepare your defense and call your allies for help…

To balance things up a bit, we are offering the hospital (free resuscitation), cheaper and slightly stronger castle structures and the time interval concept. You see despite of that time interval barrier, attacker still might be able to land a surprise attack.

However, stronger alliances would be checking their accounts frequently, and even communicating and updating their allies about what’s going on constantly, so it would be hard for you to make a sneak attack. But, you can organize with your allies and launch multiple attacks against all opponents at your rival alliance, to confuse them, and to conceal your main target. This would be the best strategy to force your opponent to scatter their forces between their bases. Whatever you do, never attack to a single base of a single player if especially he or she is a strong one, or in a strong alliance. Your troops will be slaughtered easily. Instead, if you can hide your intentions, confuse your enemies and organize properly, you could always succeed!

There are other good strategies that you could apply while attacking and defending, and I’m sure you will discover them in time. Let’s not spoil everything now :)

@Toksyuryel: CL → PLT and vice versa is a dangerous trade mechanism, and might be abused easily. I will definitely carry your advice to our devs, and we will work on this suggestion for sure. We always listen our players and do our best to develop what they require, but of course we should not provide a way to literally “multiply” the premium currency easily. We should look to Spiral Knights for example, and see what they are doing to prevent players from abusing the system to generate the premium currency by using that kind of a trade mechanism.

 
Flag Post

I believe you misunderstand- the trade mechanism doesn’t create any currency. What it does is let players exchange the currency they have for currency another player has. It exclusively uses only currency that already exists in the game. The only thing needed to prevent abuse of this is to change the starting 5000 CL into a starting 5000 PRE instead so that players can’t create multiple characters to flood the market with free CL. In SK, all of the CE (that game’s premium currency) on the market was purchased by another player first before they decided they wanted to sell it to other players.

 
Flag Post

I believe that might be one of the best updates of the game so far, probably only second to the world map update which was deployed around 7 months ago or so… I am one of the most actively attacking players of both servers and I fully agree that we should not destroy bases, it is not good for us as well and instead of destroying it, taking it over is just great and more feasible since destroying it has no benefits for us too. If we take it over instead we can grab a developed city from its original owner so that will be our goal, our incentive to take such a great risk. You know attacking is always, must always a great risk! By this way I prefer attacking over establishing a base, because building a base takes tremendous time and investments, instead I might want to build my army and grab somebody else’s city! Or I might want to play defensively and build my defenses and protect my investments it seems it will be up to me. Besides defending will be easier now, i know when somebody will attack to my cities, I will have some time to gather my strenght and call my allies for help so defensive strategy seems good and strong enough…

Besides if even i lose my cities there is a chance to get it back because it wont be destroyed it will be there, at the same place, waiting for my return…

Other balancing stuff seems good as well, especially reducing castle costs and removing CL / PRE costs of it is a great move, thanks for that. Once again ceidot proved that they are not trying to make a pay2win game. the only concern is selling troops for CL/PRE, it should be adjusted carefully. It must be pretty expensive. Im sure you guys find a good balance because even I might want to hire troops instantly by spending my CL/PRE in emergency times, but it should not be so easy or cheap or I would do that all the time and dominate people…

I especially like the revision u are doing on the battle mechanics, like I mentioned on my comment at your dev-blog post guys, that god damn dominant strategy was a nightmare for the game, every frakkin people in the server was trying to max out their HoP first before attacking, which reduces battle frequency and even worse which makes battles nightmare for non experienced players. Even if you arrange a great army if you dont know that goddamn strategy you always lose! I hope your new system will prevent this and I have really high hopes about it! Good job ceidot!

 
Flag Post

I think the new mechanism suits the hardcore gamers but it definitely alienates more casual players who mostly won’t be able to raid effectively if at all.

Originally posted by sydeamon:

I especially like the revision u are doing on the battle mechanics, like I mentioned on my comment at your dev-blog post guys, that god damn dominant strategy was a nightmare for the game, every frakkin people in the server was trying to max out their HoP first before attacking, which reduces battle frequency and even worse which makes battles nightmare for non experienced players. Even if you arrange a great army if you dont know that goddamn strategy you always lose! I hope your new system will prevent this and I have really high hopes about it! Good job ceidot!

What strategy is this? (Sorry I’m still very new to the game)

 
Flag Post

As I said, take the first turn and use your ranged units to finish the battle super quickly. Use decoy battalions of cheap archers to consume enemy’s main ranged unit’s AP first, it will retaliate to your weak ranged unit therefore deplete its AP. Then use your main ranged unit , like your meteor thrower, to finish enemy’s ranged unit without retaliation. By this way you will annihilate your enemy and dont lose much troops. Which is unrealistic.

Let me give you an example. Consider 2 armies. They have exactly the same strenght and units.

50K meteor throwers
1 janissary
50K venombug
50K sniper
50K sai-jeva
50K durkaen

Now both armies have these units… What you would expect? The one who manages his troops better and the one whose commander stats are better should win but no matter what ,both parties would lose most of their troops right? Because these armies are quite similar and equal in strength…

But no, in this current mechanics it goes like that:

1- Player X takes the first turn
2- Player X attacks enemy’s meteor thrower with 1 janissary. No meteor thrower is dead, but janissary is dead after meteor’s retaliation
3- Player X uses its own meteors against enemy’s, since enemy’s meteor has depleted its AP while attacking to just 1 janissary, it cannot retaliate to Player X’s meteors.
4- Player X uses its venombugs against meteor as well, there will be no retaliation and most probably all meteors are gone now.
5- Player X sends sai-jeva near to enemy’s venombug, to block it
6- Player X know attack venombug without fear of retaliation, therefore can use all his remaining ranged troops to finish it off

Now Player Y can play, but she lost the battle already…

This is because when Player X takes the turn he could spoil this mechanic-set and could use all his troops if he has enough CP to do that. So naturally maximizing your CP, and taking the first turn is the dominant strategy, thats why devs are trying to fix this vital problem because there is no alternative or counter strategy for it.

By the way you say this new mechanism suits hardcore players more, but on the contrary the current system suits hardcore players more. Let me explain. Casual players have less time, right? That means they have a limited chance to catch you when you are attacking their cities, therefore they can rarely defend themselves or call their allies for help right? But the new system gives you more time and more chance to defend yourself. At the moment I can raid you within 1,5 minutes if I have enough stamina. With the new system I can raid you in 4 hours ore more if my army is big, so this one is definitely more feasible for casual players. Actually I believe even better for hardcore players.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sydeamon:


By the way you say this new mechanism suits hardcore players more, but on the contrary the current system suits hardcore players more. Let me explain. Casual players have less time, right? That means they have a limited chance to catch you when you are attacking their cities, therefore they can rarely defend themselves or call their allies for help right? But the new system gives you more time and more chance to defend yourself. At the moment I can raid you within 1,5 minutes if I have enough stamina. With the new system I can raid you in 4 hours ore more if my army is big, so this one is definitely more feasible for casual players. Actually I believe even better for hardcore players.

I understand your point. Defensively, it is better for casual players but it is also good for hardcore players.

Offensively though, this is terrible for casual players. Some won’t have the time to even start raids, at which point really is there any point in playing when you are just a builder waiting for your cities to be stolen by aggressive hardcore players? You’d just play up to the end of the solo missions…

BTW, when is this update going to be implemented?

 
Flag Post

Hello AndrewC43,

Projected date for the update is early August. We are not able to specify an exact day now, but you could expect to see it coming on 5th or 6th August.

 
Flag Post

“We have reduced the aPTS intervals between alliance levels to allow alliances to level more easily and gain easier access to mercenary units. On the other hand, we are making ranking up harder and increasing the XP intervals. We will not make any changes on your current rank while implementing this and you will keep your percent progress.”

I’m not sure about the logic behind increasing XP levels. At the moment it seems like established players are smashing rising players. This change seems only to help perpetuate that.

I’ve seen guys get smashed down to 1 structure which must be pretty demoralising. I think I’d probably quit since it makes all the time you spent on the game basically worthless, all your work undone.

Edit: Infact, the more I look through my alliances raid report the more borked this games seems. It’s just the top guys bullying over-matched newcomers and stealing their lunch money. It’s a nice game but this aspect of PVP is very off-putting. I think there should be a limit to how much you can be hit and how much damage that can be done so that you can still keep rising even if you are being harassed. At the moment though ppl are getting smashed to pieces.

 
Flag Post

With the new system will have rangers tell you what army is attacking you so you can prepare your defenses accordingly?

 
Flag Post

Hello AndrewC43,

We are changing XP intervals to make levelling harder. We have found out that when we allow our players to level up quickly, they rush into the Shadow League too early. There are plenty of experienced and quite dangerous players there, and when you raise your league and enter the Shadow League, if you are simply not ready for it, you will be crushed quickly and therefore you quit playing eventually.

The current PvP mechanics are also problematic, but this is an another story and we are also fixing it as well.

Regarding to your second question, Rangers will not be able to identify number of units. However you will see the unit types of the enemy army, even without Rangers. We cannot reveal number of units of the attacker because it might simply make attacking impossible. We are giving dozens of incentives to the defender, like free healing (Hospital), cheaper and stronger Castle structures, ability to take back bases if even they were captured by another player within a limited period of time, ability to get support from allies (even troops), etc… Attacker player must hire Medic assistant for some healing, besides he or she also will not know any details about the defending army, he must fight against castle as well as defending troops, he will be in a great danger of getting a counter attack and most importantly, he cannot launch a surprise attack or an instant attack, all attacks will take some time so the defender player will have a chance to prepare her defenses. We must be very careful while balancing incentives of attacking and defending. If attacking will be an impossible and unfeasible task, nobody will attack anybody, and raid system will die eventually. But of course, that does not mean attacking should be easy. It will be quite a tough task, on the contrary.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceidot:

Hello AndrewC43,

We are changing XP intervals to make levelling harder. We have found out that when we allow our players to level up quickly, they rush into the Shadow League too early. There are plenty of experienced and quite dangerous players there, and when you raise your league and enter the Shadow League, if you are simply not ready for it, you will be crushed quickly and therefore you quit playing eventually.

Shouldn’t you make league bandings larger then or remove the +100 rating for leveling? Raising the amount of XP needed to level reduces the rate at which their rating increases but it also puts them at a larger disadvantage in terms of stats from the larger level difference and equips.

I don’t think it’s a case of ppl rushing into the Shadow League. The game mechanics naturally push them there if they play regularly (not just upgrading the base but doing quests etc), i.e. the +1000 rating from leveling and relatively small league bandings.

Also perhaps ppl who end up in shadow elite shouldn’t be dropped back down to Shadow league. There are lots of powerful shadow league units and shadow elite ppl should be vets with lots of these unit whereas shadow league could contain lots of newbie shadow leaguers fresh from gold.

 
Flag Post

Rank (level) is not the most important criteria, league is. The game provides fair competition between players by using leagues, not ranks/levels. Levels are good to show your progress in more detail. Leagues are like “eras” and completely change the way of your playing.

When we make levelling up a bit harder, we also force players to prepare themselves better for hardcore leagues such as the Shadow league. After all the hardcore, they deserve some significant rating reward, however. Otherwise, for an experienced player who is starting over, reaching out the Shadow League might be a boring task. Fast levelling would at least provide a shortcut for high leagues.

By the way, we will not drop Elite players to Shadow League at the end of grand seasons. This mechanic has been removed from the internal version, so naturally you will not see such a change at the upcoming version :)

 
Flag Post

Another thing I’ve been thinking about is the base upgrades. For sure they will make empty or short manned keeps harder to take but I wonder for battles between the big players (I don’t have any experience of this) whether they won’t become reserve units.

Given the change to CP they probably won’t be the first 2-3 units that high end players use, which means they will only start having an impact on the battle when the defender has lost a stack or two, or had them crippled.

Are there any top players that have thoughts on this?

 
Flag Post

I believe castle towers and trebuchet will have nearly 0 CP cost (as it is like now) and that means u have at least 3 free moves (upper tower, lower tower, trebuchet) or attack chance if you like…

I think that new system will significantly improve the odds for the defender player. BTW I must say this new battle system might be the best thing that the new update is about to bring because the current one is so messed up and there are several dominant strategies. I have explained this before on my previous messages in this forum.

Probably this new system will also make melee units more important, which is a great thing to make the game more fun and diverse. From heroes of might and magic series to kings bounty series and all other similar TBS games (perhaps disciples could be excluded, its system was more like JRPGs) ranged units were always became too overpowered eventually since they deal tremendous of damage without suffering any retaliation, if you use them correctly… CW has a system which allows a special retaliation mechanic possible and therefore beat this boring dominant strategy to a point, but it was not a perfect system still. I hope the new version will fix that shameful flaw of all TBS games for good.

(PS. My commander name is Scorpion7, alliance is Brotherhood of Steel)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by sydeamon:

I believe castle towers and trebuchet will have nearly 0 CP cost (as it is like now) and that means u have at least 3 free moves (upper tower, lower tower, trebuchet) or attack chance if you like…

I think that new system will significantly improve the odds for the defender player. BTW I must say this new battle system might be the best thing that the new update is about to bring because the current one is so messed up and there are several dominant strategies. I have explained this before on my previous messages in this forum.

Probably this new system will also make melee units more important, which is a great thing to make the game more fun and diverse. From heroes of might and magic series to kings bounty series and all other similar TBS games (perhaps disciples could be excluded, its system was more like JRPGs) ranged units were always became too overpowered eventually since they deal tremendous of damage without suffering any retaliation, if you use them correctly… CW has a system which allows a special retaliation mechanic possible and therefore beat this boring dominant strategy to a point, but it was not a perfect system still. I hope the new version will fix that shameful flaw of all TBS games for good.

Wow, yeah if they have a cost of 0 or 1 CP then that will make a big difference. I was assuming they would cost 4 cp like other ranged units.


Edit:

Another thought just occurred to me at the top level where you can have very large populations. the variable part of the battle delay can be quite large.

“When a player wants to assault a base, the player will have to wait for a duration of minimum 4 hours + the number of units in the army times 20 miliseconds.”

I assume when top players have at it they will be committing all their troops since defending players will be able to pool all their forces from various bases to make this defense.

Say you have an army of 900K units, the delay will be 9 hours. Your units are now committed to the battle.

The defending player can tell all his allies and anyone in chat that the attacker is fully committed for the next 9 hours.

Someone could use an army of 720K units, which has an 8 hour delay and attack the original attacker while he’s essentially helpless.

Was this the intended purpose for the system? I expect that the outcome will be that the top players will be unassailable unless they have already initiated attacks which will lead to more conservative play and picking on relatively weak players.

Perhaps it would be better to have a fixed time delay for all army sizes? That way if you initiate a battle when you have no pending defenses, then you know that at least the remnants of your attack army can be used for defense.

Also in the event that you find out later you won’t have time to fight a battle, can we have a cancel siege function? Perhaps you could put weekly limit of 1 on it to reduce abuse?

 
Flag Post

Hello Sydeamon,

Yes we also hope that the new battle system will provide a better, deeper and immerse combat experience! It will be more fun and balanced, too.

AndrewC43, everything you thought was specifically designed and an intended outcome of the new raid mechanics. Both attacker and defender player cannot see full details of each other’s army. Attacker has an information of the present castle structures but she won’t know the levels of those buildings. Attacker also does not see the units inside the base. The defender, on the other hand, will see the unit types of the attacking army, but without number of units detail. That means you see if your opponent brings catapults or lasers, but you can’t see their numbers. So there might be 1 laser or 1,000 lasers…

Also by looking the remaining time you may not be able to understand if the opponent brought her whole army. Yes perhaps she has got 10 bases and her pop limit might be around 1 million. And if the remaining time is around 9 hours, you might presume she came with her full forces… But, what if she brought only Red Scorpions and 1 laser and 1 catapult, and left her 5,000 lasers and 5,000 catapults at her capital? That might still be a well organized trap, to lure you in her base you see.

Or perhaps the remaining time is just 4 hours. You might think there are few soldiers inside the army. However 5,000 lasers or 500 Maraju might be enough to devastate your defenses, so if you see there are Marajus or Lasers inside the army, you could never be sure…

There will be plenty of strategies to deceive your opponent or to force her to retreat, etc… Your only limit will be your imagination and your skills. I am not even mentioning about organized attacks or defensive moves that will be possible with the new raid system.

Regarding to your second question, yes you can retreat from the attack before it begins (we call it as lifting the siege, or cancelling the attack). However if you do that, the stamina cost you paid to initiate the assault will not be paid back. That means you cannot continuously initiate an attack and retreat just to disturb or confuse your opponent. It would be a lame strategy, and an annoying one. Instead, you should make your move with a proper pre-calculation and a carefully crafted strategy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceidot:

Hello Sydeamon,

Yes we also hope that the new battle system will provide a better, deeper and immerse combat experience! It will be more fun and balanced, too.

AndrewC43, everything you thought was specifically designed and an intended outcome of the new raid mechanics. Both attacker and defender player cannot see full details of each other’s army. Attacker has an information of the present castle structures but she won’t know the levels of those buildings. Attacker also does not see the units inside the base. The defender, on the other hand, will see the unit types of the attacking army, but without number of units detail. That means you see if your opponent brings catapults or lasers, but you can’t see their numbers. So there might be 1 laser or 1,000 lasers…

Also by looking the remaining time you may not be able to understand if the opponent brought her whole army. Yes perhaps she has got 10 bases and her pop limit might be around 1 million. And if the remaining time is around 9 hours, you might presume she came with her full forces… But, what if she brought only Red Scorpions and 1 laser and 1 catapult, and left her 5,000 lasers and 5,000 catapults at her capital? That might still be a well organized trap, to lure you in her base you see.

Or perhaps the remaining time is just 4 hours. You might think there are few soldiers inside the army. However 5,000 lasers or 500 Maraju might be enough to devastate your defenses, so if you see there are Marajus or Lasers inside the army, you could never be sure…

There will be plenty of strategies to deceive your opponent or to force her to retreat, etc… Your only limit will be your imagination and your skills. I am not even mentioning about organized attacks or defensive moves that will be possible with the new raid system.

Regarding to your second question, yes you can retreat from the attack before it begins (we call it as lifting the siege, or cancelling the attack). However if you do that, the stamina cost you paid to initiate the assault will not be paid back. That means you cannot continuously initiate an attack and retreat just to disturb or confuse your opponent. It would be a lame strategy, and an annoying one. Instead, you should make your move with a proper pre-calculation and a carefully crafted strategy.

Hmm interesting. Do you get to see what time the attack was initiated or only the remaining time?

Also, I guess this new system will pretty much mean most people will only do at most 1 raid per day? Or you could predict that you will win and knock down the opponents defenses and declare with pillaging parties to follow up your initial attack, but these armies are likely to be weak and won’t be able to draft the remnants of the first raiding army. With the hospital possibly being 70%, it might mean that following up with pillaging parties is not really feasible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceidot:


There will be plenty of strategies to deceive your opponent or to force her to retreat, etc… Your only limit will be your imagination and your skills. I am not even mentioning about organized attacks or defensive moves that will be possible with the new raid system.

This does mean the safe option is to just defend with all your toops and pick on much weaker opponents as Toralk suggested.

Is the minimum army size for mounting raids being lowered to facilitate greater deception?

 
Flag Post

In theory you could make 2 base raids per day. But then you can’t attack settlements or make guild quests, etc… Since nearly all your stamina will have been depleted.

Organized attacks are the key, key to really harm your opponent. However that does not mean the defender will be totally defenseless against organized attacks. As I said there are tons of strategies and in addition to the hospital’s free healing/resurrection bonus, the defender could continuously receive troops from his allies to support his defense. That means once the first wave of attacks are done, the second wave of attackers cannot be sure that the only remaining army will be the 40% or so of the previous defending army. There might be 5x more troops there!

The hospital will resurrect 43% of your troops. For every additional hospital you have (= every additional expansion city, because hospitals come for free at each base) 3% more healing rate you will receive.

Everybody will naturally try to pick weaker opponents. Nobody would prefer to attack a player who is stronger than herself, or as strong as herself, because the casualties will be much higher. That’s why we have league mechanisms. A player in the Gold League might pick a weaker player from a Gold League, but cannot attack a player from the Silver League. That will limit your “weak” options up to a point. And that’s why the defender must have more advantages. Nearly 99% of the time, defenders have to face a stronger opponent than themselves. That’s why we must support their defense with castles, free healing, ally support mechanics, time-based attacks (to let them prepare better defenses), etc…

 
Flag Post

What will happen to raids that have participants outside a league due to time delays?

Say you have someone that is just in the Shadow league, they get declared on multiple times and after the first defense loss they drop into the gold league. Thankfully they have 70% of their troops returning due to hospitals but now that they are in the gold league can they even use their healed shadow league units?

Or will the other attacks not be valid anymore?


Edit: Also, I’ve notice that my leveling has slowed down a lot. I hope the higher exp requirements for leveling are for the lower levels, since the change is meant to be helping new players prepare properly for higher leagues.


Edit 2: Do the changes mean the end of getting resources from raiding? First, it seems to give the target a good amount of time to spend their resources or even spend their resources to allies for safe keeping.

Also looking back at your replies does:

“By the way, battle times cannot overlap on the same city. System will put some time interval between battles while calculating the siege duration time. However if you have multiple cities, you might have multiple battles that will start at the same time. This will be the only advantage of the attacker. See my below comment for more details on this.”

mean that if you attack multiple cities of someone at the same time they will only be able to fight one battle and the rest will be AI? Also I guess this would also force them to split their army rather than using the zeppelin to move from one city to the next?

If he manages to end his fight quickly, can he join another fight mid-fight? Would that mean that optimal AI should wait until the last second before making it’s moves (that could be kinda annoying to play against)?

To capture cities, I assume you have to be from the same faction?


Edit 3: “Obviously TAC stat will not affect your CP anymore. Instead, it provides 0,1% bonus to your soldiers HP and DR and it applies 0,1% damage reduction to enemy battalions”

What do you guys mean by DR? does the 0.1% damage reduction work the same way as the DEF stat?