Forum: empire-en
Board: [584] Players ask Players
Topic: [76939] Advantage to the defenders
[-76939]
Mheva [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 3:48 p.m.
It seems like this game gives huge advantage to the defenders. It's frustrating when the player I'm attacking has over a thousand troops and I can only attack with a maximum of well below that number. Why does the defending player have as many troops as they can feed (and pay for), but the attacking player has to split his army if he wants to attack with more troops than the maximum limit for each attack?
[1388821]
MaJeStiic [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 4:01 p.m.
It seems like this game gives huge advantage to the defenders. It's frustrating when the player I'm attacking has over a thousand troops and I can only attack with a maximum of well below that number. Why does the defending player have as many troops as they can feed (and pay for), but the attacking player has to split his army if he wants to attack with more troops than the maximum limit for each attack?
I've thought about this too. But you have to think, if you couldn't defend yourself from 1 attack just because of your food limit, wouldn't that be a little unfair? And what happens when 2 people attack? Then you're royally screwed without defenders. I think it's good that defense has the advantage.
BUT......
On the side note, I think even with the "max" number of attackers, you should be able to change how many you send to each flank. It's pretty lame that your attacks can only be 20-60-20 no matter what you want to do.
[1388831]
DarkAdam327 [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 4:15 p.m.
agreed i always want to send more troops than possible
[1388842]
Mheva [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 4:39 p.m.
I've thought about this too. But you have to think, if you couldn't defend yourself from 1 attack just because of your food limit, wouldn't that be a little unfair? And what happens when 2 people attack? Then you're royally screwed without defenders. I think it's good that defense has the advantage.
Majestiic, my point wasn't regarding food limit, I mentioned it only to clarify that I was thinking about a scenerio where the defending player had as many troops as they can, instead of equal numbers of attackers and defenders.
[1388846]
MaJeStiic [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 4:54 p.m.
Majestiic, my point wasn't regarding food limit, I mentioned it only to clarify that I was thinking about a scenerio where the defending player had as many troops as they can, instead of equal numbers of attackers and defenders.
Yes I understand. But it wouldn't make sense to limit the number of defenders you have. The only limit is the amount you can feed. Limiting the number of attackers sent also protects smaller players from larger ones. If I could send 1000 attackers at any player in the game, that would be pretty unfortunate for the smaller players.
[1388850]
Mheva [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 5:02 p.m.
Yes I understand. But it wouldn't make sense to limit the number of defenders you have. The only limit is the amount you can feed. Limiting the number of attackers sent also protects smaller players from larger ones. If I could send 1000 attackers at any player in the game, that would be pretty unfortunate for the smaller players.
Right, I understand now. It would be highly unfortunate for anyone who didn't have the troops and tools ready for the attack. But I'm still a little bit annoyed over it though.
[1388885]
Luke Fierysword [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 6 p.m.
To add to this, we can't even send nearly enough tools (even if they're ruby ones!)
Pretend that on the right flank, the defender has 100% moat bonus, 180% wall bonus, and 125% defense against ranged attackers and you can only send 30 tools on that flank in two slots....I CAN'T EVEN TAKE OUT ALL HIS BONUSES BECAUSE OF THAT!
Pretend that on the right flank, the defender has 100% moat bonus, 180% wall bonus, and 125% defense against ranged attackers and you can only send 30 tools on that flank in two slots....I CAN'T EVEN TAKE OUT ALL HIS BONUSES BECAUSE OF THAT!
[1388902]
Gaz The Boss [None]
:: Sept. 11, 2012, 7:01 p.m.
Dont forget, the defender is in a castle with massive walls, towers and moat, the attacker is on empty ground.
so its obvious that the defender is going to have the advantage, and these stuffs cost hundreds of thousands of resources and weeks of working hours to built. and u want to equal it with 2500 rubies?:D
anyway, 1 castle can be attacked with unlimited number of force at the same time (with 1040 soldiers 400 tools packs) so having the huge deffensive advantage in 1v1 is absolutely correct.
and u cant attack with 1040 soldiers on 1 flank, because there is no room on the walls for them to get inside and they would be in each others way.
so its obvious that the defender is going to have the advantage, and these stuffs cost hundreds of thousands of resources and weeks of working hours to built. and u want to equal it with 2500 rubies?:D
anyway, 1 castle can be attacked with unlimited number of force at the same time (with 1040 soldiers 400 tools packs) so having the huge deffensive advantage in 1v1 is absolutely correct.
and u cant attack with 1040 soldiers on 1 flank, because there is no room on the walls for them to get inside and they would be in each others way.
[1389015]
Mheva [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 12:39 a.m.
Gaz The Boss wrote: »anyway, 1 castle can be attacked with unlimited number of force at the same time (with 1040 soldiers 400 tools packs) so having the huge deffensive advantage in 1v1 is absolutely correct.
Do you mean that one castle can be hit in one attack with that many troops and tools? As I understand it, that's dependent on the defending player's level, and I've not gotten to that point yet, so based on my experience, it's still confusing and annoying.
[1389017]
trunkssaiyan (GB1) [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 12:50 a.m.
Its all well and good saying that one person can be attacked as many times in one place but ive seen countless people crying bully to other alliances if even 2 armies head towards one person which is stupid because one army isnt going to get past most high level players defenses, but we have to follow these "rules" of mass attacks are bad because people continue to cry that they have been attacked in a war game.
[1389049]
Andrea50 [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 4:22 a.m.
Luke Fierysword wrote: »To add to this, we can't even send nearly enough tools (even if they're ruby ones!)
Pretend that on the right flank, the defender has 100% moat bonus, 180% wall bonus, and 125% defense against ranged attackers and you can only send 30 tools on that flank in two slots....I CAN'T EVEN TAKE OUT ALL HIS BONUSES BECAUSE OF THAT!
Yes, But if you use armorer tools you can take out most. But the defenders are meant to get a upper hand. Attacking is always harder.
[1389057]
camo2795 (AU1) [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 5:57 a.m.
you know you can send more than one wave if thats possible for you but if you can the first wave takes some troops and the next does the same and the next does the same and so
camo
camo
[1389068]
Andrea50 [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 6:55 a.m.
Of course we know that. We are talking about the max amount of soldiers total.
[1389070]
camo2795 (AU1) [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 7:05 a.m.
yeah i know but you can send more waves that makes the amount higher
[1389072]
xJadetsssx [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 7:18 a.m.
I agree with andrea, attacking lately, it seems to be a headache
[1389243]
William89 [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 6:11 p.m.
You need the best soldiers and tools available to be able to take on these type of players. If you don't buy rubies then get veterans or get travelling knights if you can. If you use weak soldiers then you will definitely fail. Even though veterans are much more expensive used in large scale attacks like the one you want to do then you will find it will add a good few thousand attack power.
Secondly if the person you are attacking has vast numbers of troops and tools, then a good technique is to send a few small scale weak attacks against them, spreading the soldiers you use across the three waves. Doing this about 3 times will probably take away most of there defence tools thus making it easier to attack. Do when they are offline, if you can't time it so your main attack follows less then 2 mins after. This attacks will make it much easier to break through defences but you will lose honor.
Finally the person you want to attack sounds like a heavy ruby buyer. With these players you need to be persistant attack them constantly. It is good to have large amounts of soliders spare so if you lose a attack you can send another one back out ASAP
Secondly if the person you are attacking has vast numbers of troops and tools, then a good technique is to send a few small scale weak attacks against them, spreading the soldiers you use across the three waves. Doing this about 3 times will probably take away most of there defence tools thus making it easier to attack. Do when they are offline, if you can't time it so your main attack follows less then 2 mins after. This attacks will make it much easier to break through defences but you will lose honor.
Finally the person you want to attack sounds like a heavy ruby buyer. With these players you need to be persistant attack them constantly. It is good to have large amounts of soliders spare so if you lose a attack you can send another one back out ASAP
[1389275]
Unknown
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 7:54 p.m.
First, allow me to explain what I would do. You say that you don't have enough soldiers to attack the enemy because the enemy has too many soldiers. Tehn why complain about it. Send 2 attacks, or 3 attacks. Suppose the enemy has 2000 soldiers, correct. And I can only fit in 600. I would send in 8 attacks.
First 4 attacks are suppose to take down the enemy defenses, and tools. Only send in a few soldiers.
the other 4, are suppose to attack the enemy, full waves, full attack force, full tools, etc etc etc.
But to have this be a success, then you must do it around the same time limit. First, send the first 4 waves to take down enemy defenses, and tools, then send the rest in, quickly, and right afterwards.
First 4 attacks are suppose to take down the enemy defenses, and tools. Only send in a few soldiers.
the other 4, are suppose to attack the enemy, full waves, full attack force, full tools, etc etc etc.
But to have this be a success, then you must do it around the same time limit. First, send the first 4 waves to take down enemy defenses, and tools, then send the rest in, quickly, and right afterwards.
[1389276]
BobFighter834 (INT2) [None]
:: Sept. 12, 2012, 7:57 p.m.
Secondly if the person you are attacking has vast numbers of troops and tools, then a good technique is to send a few small scale weak attacks against them, spreading the soldiers you use across the three waves. Doing this about 3 times will probably take away most of there defence tools thus making it easier to attack. Do when they are offline, if you can't time it so your main attack follows less then 2 mins after. This attacks will make it much easier to break through defences but you will lose honor.
To take out 99 tools, you need 25 martyr attacks with 4 waves of troops in all armies but the final one, which you need 3 waves in. This wastes 297 troops and takes 3 batches of seperate attacks because you have a maximum of 9 commanders. The enemy might be 2 hours away with full ruby horses with level 3 stables on all attacks. This means that it takes 4 hours to get there and back, so 12 hours total for the martyr attacks.
So, the opponent would have to not sign on for half a day (or they could replenish the troops), you would have to waste 297 troops and thousands of rubies, all before you send a single proper attack.
Or you could just use armourer tools and get some disadvantages with the bonuses.