Forum: empire-en
Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback
Topic: [74662] Rampage option
[-74662]
Alcraigh [None]
:: May 3, 2012, 4:45 a.m.
So I'm thinking a "Rampage" option would be cool.
You know how you send an army 300km to hit a target, then it returns and you have to send it another 300km to hit the next target that may have only been 10km from the first? Well, why would your troops return to their castle and not just carry on?
I'm thinking that you should have access to a rampage option that once used takes 7 days to be available again to you (a weeks recharge time effectively).
This "Rampage" option would allow you to queue as many fights as you could afford in coins and food resources until you stop clicking targets. For example, I want to attack a castle, I have done espionage and am confident of a win, so using the "Rampage" special option I then queue the outpost as the next target.
My army hits the castle and instead of returning, goes on to the outpost to also attack everyone there (or onto one of their neighbouring allies castle if you like). If I win, I double my loot I bring back, I get the honour/glory of two battles plus troop losses and return home if I haven't got any more targets in the queue. Essentially you are only limited to the amount of coins (each attack is still costed at distance from initial start point) plus food - you could run the risk of having the troops out for 14 hrs over 4 battles and lose troops to hunger.
If you were to lose at one point along the way, you keep the honour/glory but all the loot you're carrying goes to the victor where you were defeated.
In terms of notifying defenders of incoming attacks, they would only be privvy to the first attack coming in (not know the subsequent attacks queued) but on the travel screen and warhorn icon it would show a star indicating "Rampage" and the possibility of a follow on attack. This would allow defenders to think strategically.
They may have 50 defenders in their outpost which is being attacked first, but notice the "Rampage" star and instead of sending another 50 troops from their stronger castle to total 100 defenders, they can choose to send their outpost soldiers to their castle to have their force at a better defensive station - risking the outpost being undefended against the possibility of a secondary castle attack.
Once the first attack has hit, the warhorn and incoming arrow would then show the next target to whomever is due to be attacked next (ie. the castle or if an ally, the ally would then be notified). It would make sending support a real tactical decision too. "Do I send support to help fight at my allies base? Or do I wait to see if they're going to rampage on to me?"
Yay/nay?
You know how you send an army 300km to hit a target, then it returns and you have to send it another 300km to hit the next target that may have only been 10km from the first? Well, why would your troops return to their castle and not just carry on?
I'm thinking that you should have access to a rampage option that once used takes 7 days to be available again to you (a weeks recharge time effectively).
This "Rampage" option would allow you to queue as many fights as you could afford in coins and food resources until you stop clicking targets. For example, I want to attack a castle, I have done espionage and am confident of a win, so using the "Rampage" special option I then queue the outpost as the next target.
My army hits the castle and instead of returning, goes on to the outpost to also attack everyone there (or onto one of their neighbouring allies castle if you like). If I win, I double my loot I bring back, I get the honour/glory of two battles plus troop losses and return home if I haven't got any more targets in the queue. Essentially you are only limited to the amount of coins (each attack is still costed at distance from initial start point) plus food - you could run the risk of having the troops out for 14 hrs over 4 battles and lose troops to hunger.
If you were to lose at one point along the way, you keep the honour/glory but all the loot you're carrying goes to the victor where you were defeated.
In terms of notifying defenders of incoming attacks, they would only be privvy to the first attack coming in (not know the subsequent attacks queued) but on the travel screen and warhorn icon it would show a star indicating "Rampage" and the possibility of a follow on attack. This would allow defenders to think strategically.
They may have 50 defenders in their outpost which is being attacked first, but notice the "Rampage" star and instead of sending another 50 troops from their stronger castle to total 100 defenders, they can choose to send their outpost soldiers to their castle to have their force at a better defensive station - risking the outpost being undefended against the possibility of a secondary castle attack.
Once the first attack has hit, the warhorn and incoming arrow would then show the next target to whomever is due to be attacked next (ie. the castle or if an ally, the ally would then be notified). It would make sending support a real tactical decision too. "Do I send support to help fight at my allies base? Or do I wait to see if they're going to rampage on to me?"
Yay/nay?
[1356471]
leah ash [None]
:: May 3, 2012, 6:28 a.m.
lol, i dont know, that could be good 
xxxx
xxxx [1356474]
the champion [None]
:: May 3, 2012, 7:15 a.m.
sounds like a great idea
[1356507]
mrgi [None]
:: May 3, 2012, 8:50 p.m.
I think it would be inbalanced, there are players that play like "aggresors" (minimum defence and max attack units) like myself (at the moment i have like 450+ attackers on 31st lvl) coins are not problem so basicly i can attack castle and outposts with full force? And by the way how you can plan further attacks when you dont know how many of your soldiers are going to die in previous attack? Generaly i like the idea but i think it needs a lot of work on it to make it acceptible in game
[1356521]
Alcraigh [None]
:: May 4, 2012, 4:03 a.m.
I think it would be inbalanced, there are players that play like "aggresors" (minimum defence and max attack units) like myself (at the moment i have like 450+ attackers on 31st lvl) coins are not problem so basicly i can attack castle and outposts with full force? And by the way how you can plan further attacks when you dont know how many of your soldiers are going to die in previous attack? Generaly i like the idea but i think it needs a lot of work on it to make it acceptible in game
But that's the thing isn't it. You select your planned attack formation before hand, not knowing how many of your soldiers will survive the previous fight. If you want 40 x 2 handed at the gate, 20 at left and 20 at right flanks, but you lose 30 in the previous battle, the loss is shared evenly across your distribution. That's why the risk vs reward scenario comes into play. How many castles can you rampage on to? Can I go one more or will I lose my troops and all my loot?
[1356523]
Parcoria [None]
:: May 4, 2012, 4:31 a.m.
The idea sounds really cool but knowing ggs, they'd probably only allow 1 rampage.. but you could buy additional slots for rubies! xD
What about tools? All tools that are sent with an army are used on the only/first attack. Are you left with no tools for subsequent attacks or can you send tools to the first castle that are brought along only to be used for the second, third, fourth? They might have to add "rampage 1, 2, 3, etc." tool slots then o.O
What about tools? All tools that are sent with an army are used on the only/first attack. Are you left with no tools for subsequent attacks or can you send tools to the first castle that are brought along only to be used for the second, third, fourth? They might have to add "rampage 1, 2, 3, etc." tool slots then o.O
[1356571]
Alcraigh [None]
:: May 5, 2012, 7:34 a.m.
Exactly Parcoria. Like selecting your targets, you have to select the spread of tools across each rampage attack before departure. Would be cool to just see massive armies rampaging across the map from castle to castle until an alliance got smart and sent support to one castle to stop them.
[1366246]
warlord32 [None]
:: July 16, 2012, 2:44 a.m.
i suggest that when an army attacks a castle you could order to continue attacking anthor castle and when your level increase you can attack more castles with one army like waves at level 13 you could have 2 waves 26 3 waves and like that
Thread merged with one on same topic - Bunzy
Thread merged with one on same topic - Bunzy
[1366250]
the champconq [None]
:: July 16, 2012, 2:51 a.m.
huh what do you mean exactly the castle does need protection so that thy can repair and such how would you feel if that happened to you
[1366357]
Luke Fierysword [None]
:: July 16, 2012, 5:38 p.m.
the champconq wrote: »huh what do you mean exactly the castle does need protection so that thy can repair and such how would you feel if that happened to you
That's not what he means...I thought about this before myself. What he means is that when you're done fighting at one castle your army goes from there to another and so on (useful in alliance wars, you hit one castle and then your troops march against another and another like series of chain attacks)
[1367195]
warlord32 [None]
:: July 21, 2012, 4:46 a.m.
exactly this what i meant
[1367200]
Alcraigh [None]
:: July 21, 2012, 6:05 a.m.
I agree. In fact I made this suggestion some time ago with what I thought was a pretty good outline of functionality of the idea. Read this link for some of the suggestions...
http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?17096-Rampage-option&highlight=rampage
http://en.board.goodgamestudios.com/empire/showthread.php?17096-Rampage-option&highlight=rampage
[1367272]
Unknown
:: July 21, 2012, 1:01 p.m.
Have merged thread with one originally posted on topic and have reopened the thread in order to continue the discussion...
[1368754]
[Deleted User] [None]
:: July 26, 2012, 9:03 a.m.
Terrible idea completely defeats the point of more than one commander which undermines the point of an encampment,which makes sword brothers less useful!Also it would make bullying a thousand times worse,think about it we have enough trouble with low level players getting farmed as it is,your idea would allow a single high level player to farm low level players pretty much to extinction!This idea gets a massive NO!
[1368763]
Alcraigh [None]
:: July 26, 2012, 10:04 a.m.
swiftarrow21 wrote: »Terrible idea completely defeats the point of more than one commander which undermines the point of an encampment,which makes sword brothers less useful!Also it would make bullying a thousand times worse,think about it we have enough trouble with low level players getting farmed as it is,your idea would allow a single high level player to farm low level players pretty much to extinction!This idea gets a massive NO!
I think you'd find that every attack would effectively require a commander, so if you wanted 3 rampages you'd need 3 commanders free to do so. Sword brothers are still useful.
I'm sure they would implement level restrictions on which players you can rampage against. They have restrictions on attack frequencies as it is and if you used a rampage option to hit a castle and then their OPs there would, I imagine be a very long cool down period (longer than had you just launched one attack) to prevent repeat rampages and bullying actions.
Tell me true swiftarrow - you're just hating it because I didn't I didn't like your other suggestion....
[1368792]
[Deleted User] [None]
:: July 26, 2012, 1:10 p.m.
I think you'd find that every attack would effectively require a commander, so if you wanted 3 rampages you'd need 3 commanders free to do so. Sword brothers are still useful.
I'm sure they would implement level restrictions on which players you can rampage against. They have restrictions on attack frequencies as it is and if you used a rampage option to hit a castle and then their OPs there would, I imagine be a very long cool down period (longer than had you just launched one attack) to prevent repeat rampages and bullying actions.
Tell me true swiftarrow - you're just hating it because I didn't I didn't like your other suggestion....
1.Now that you mention my suggestion,yours shares all of the problems with it,so yes I am because it has all the same problems that you have just glossed over so yes,I am hating it because of my suggestion because you have so kindly listed all the problems there that are in your suggestion.
2.I don't really care what you think of my suggestion,because nearly 80% of votes are "Yes".
[1368795]
Alcraigh [None]
:: July 26, 2012, 1:21 p.m.
swiftarrow21 wrote: »1.Now that you mention my suggestion,yours shares all of the problems with it,so yes I am because it has all the same problems that you have just glossed over so yes,I am hating it because of my suggestion because you have so kindly listed all the problems there that are in your suggestion.
2.I don't really care what you think of my suggestion,because nearly 80% of votes are "Yes".
To point 1. I'm pretty sure I have just replied to you and given you grounds as to why it is not the same as your idea. Your idea doesn't function well - I've expressed as much in my last post on your thread, as you are relying on alliance members activity, a new attack screen development and delaying attacks. This idea, being single player governed has none of those restrictions.
To point 2. Votes on here count for nothing. It's what the CMs forward on to/bring to the developers attention.
[1368809]
[Deleted User] [None]
:: July 26, 2012, 2:14 p.m.
To point 1. I'm pretty sure I have just replied to you and given you grounds as to why it is not the same as your idea. Your idea doesn't function well - I've expressed as much in my last post on your thread, as you are relying on alliance members activity, a new attack screen development and delaying attacks. This idea, being single player governed has none of those restrictions.
To point 2. Votes on here count for nothing. It's what the CMs forward on to/bring to the developers attention.
I didn't say it was like my thread I said it had the same problems.
It still means that the POPULAR opinion is in my favour not yours.
[1368814]
Unknown
:: July 26, 2012, 2:23 p.m.
It's actually a good idea. You hit one guy, and can decide to hit the next, and so forth.
HOWEVER
if one of your soldiers die,then they lose their loot capacity in wood,stone, or food. Also, you canonly hit 5 targets...
HOWEVER
if one of your soldiers die,then they lose their loot capacity in wood,stone, or food. Also, you canonly hit 5 targets...
[1368952]
The awesomeness3 [None]
:: July 27, 2012, 12:07 a.m.
YAY this is an awesome idea