There’s a maintenance cost for base buildings isn’t there? There should be an upkeep cost for troops permanently strationed there also.
That seems plausible… primarch could get through enemy lines but not a whole standing army… Yeah that could be interesting.
I agree, but I am just saying that it seems like cherry picking to say this is part of “real war” but then when things are inherently unfair (just as in war), create mechanics that dont exist in war to solve it.
I’m not worried about fair, I just believe some planning and strategy should be necessary to keep large armies… would like too see that incorporated.
It’s a good idea…
True…I guess just “being disbanded” feels like a waste.
Do you know there isn’t?
No I don’t. Just adding my 2 cents to the pot for the benefit of all!
Fair enough, I do think it is something that probably needs to be kept in mind though as part of balances/checks. Hopefully, this lets teams feel like they can attack more freely…but if/until it actually happens who really knows.
Agreed… it’s a good start on what could be a great improvement… and yeah, disbanding would suck, but maybe that woul d be the troops you could recall…
This idea has merit… hope it gets developed further.
Maybe if you defeat that castle you get a % back? for your team to use?
Sure… winner gets the spoils…
Not sure how that would parse out that, would need a set time frame or something.
True… maybe a check in every time a cert ain number if troops are lost wityhin a giuven time frame: like it triggers if 100k+ total troops drop in an hour as an example.
I think having offense troops and defensive troops is a great idea and will reduce the standstill. But having one base defend an entire castle will increase it. It will futher the gap more from the teams that have a whale or two, and the teams that don’t. Benefits the best teams and some midlevel teams. Will also make conquering land practically impossible. Lower level players wont even be able to contribute in the conquering of lands as well. Seems you’d be limited to having a few good fliers slugging it out with the best base on a team with full defenses. Which will result in horrible troop loss ratios, when trying to conquer an island. Making it not even worth trying to conquer the island. Would give great GP though and not negatively effect your teams ability to hold your own islands. Also,seemslike this would make taunters less relevant for defending a castle.
Every team has at least a few bases. It means you have to strategically pick which one.
Meaning then people should hopefully strive to improve their team.
Depending on which island you attack
Not if you 5 flame it
This one probably does need to be looked at, it is not really now in some ways either.
Are we being a bit restrictive?
- The Ratio should be set by the level of the “Fort” (no Fort, no ‘Team Troops’)
- The Ratio may be set as a whole for the team, but I prefer it being castle specific.
- The Team Troops go into the Castle Pool, but they are not bound to the castle.
- The ‘Marshal’ (or officers) can ‘Deploy’ Troops (like a banker transfer) to any Primarch at that Castle.
- Once Transferred, they belong to the Primarch, which can move to defend or attack surrounding castles.
By this mechanic, if a high-level player with a taunter is parked at a Castle, the Marshal can ‘Deploy’ Troops to the Taunter, even if the high-level player is offline.
I do not like the idea of an attacker attacking an invader type target to kill team troops which have yet to be deployed.
- If a base is under attack there should be a “Deploy All” button to one available Primarch.
- Deploy All can exceed the capacity of the Primarch, but the Primarch cannot move until they are at or below their carrying capacity
- Once deployed, they troops cannot be transferred if there is an attacker on the castle (consistent with the current mechanism)
- If team troops are not deployed, they are spoils, like rss.
Only way to improve your team in this scenario would seem to add more whales. If you have all defensive troops defended under 1 maxed base only a handful of players will be able to take that base with a favorable ratio. Say there is 500k troops there on a 2 to 1 raio, you’d need 250k troops to kill all the troops in said garrison. Thats in a perfect scenario 5 flames every run. If you arent a team relatively big team with loads of spenders that are also good fliers, youd have to have those 250k troops spread across a few prims of those that can take that base. Smaller players won’t be able to kill that big base that has every troop assigned to it. I think the troops offensive and defensive is a good idea though. Forum noob, so not sure how to directly quote and seperate every line as you did above.
Simply highlight the passage you are trying to quote.
Personally I do not think it is that simple
In any case, I think this is driven by a separate issue…if it is not a team that is beatable for you, then why not attack periodically? It does not have to be all at once, or bring another team with you? If you are say…just for this scenario a Sapphire 2 team, why would you spend all your troops attacking a team from D2? That does not really make sense?
Sure, teams can defend1-2 islands BUT because the island is tied to THAT base, they are limited by that as well are they not? Currently, could this same maxed base player put 100k troops on 5 islands…which is now 5 islands you cant beat?
the thing is normally that my team would be able to be beat the defending team, because that one whale wouldnt have a full teams worth of troops in garrison you’d have to kill. Killing off 100k troops from a maxed base is different from killing 50 players worth of troops all assigned to that maxed base. Say for instance I and a couple of my better fliers kill of the maxed base with 100k troops. Our lower to mid level players could contribute to killing off the rest of their low to mid level players. If we had to only attack this maxed base it would be all in the hands of that handful of skilled players. to do all the lifting not just the heavy lifting. I do see your point a bit more though I may be oversimplifying the situation.
A couple of thoughts.
- this might make the current defensive (castle) use of taunters irrelevant.
- what if for the castle base we let the Marshall or someone pick the base for it, but the strength of the base was scaled based on the strength of the team or those with their home set to that continent
- retroactively giving castle troops seems to be a dangerous slope. I feel like castle level or some other mechanic should determine this.
- with current changes this does seem to increase the difficulty of land entry, and it almost might be something that needs to wait for others changes to first make land more available
Interesting thread, I remember offensive and defensive troops were once suggested (probably on the old forums) but the idea was shot down by many, so I guess let’s have another go at it
My concerns and questions currently are:
Will only the one marshall base be displayed for all troops on the garrison?
If yes, you ‘only’ have to learn how to beat that one base and don’t have to fight through several base layouts which makes it look much easier and faster to defeat a garrison.
Will all garrison/team troops be part of the fight?
If yes, does the attacker only need to attack once to wipe the entire garrison or is there a certain cap, eventually capping the troop loss at the amount to trigger the shield (=80k+ troops killed in one blow)?
I assume that currently, most teams probably have troops from their biggest players or from all players on their garrison. If we are now forced to keep primarchs on our borders and castles to have several bases defending them, how does this motivate attacking?
How do we determine how many team troops guard which castle and how can players contribute team troops if they aren’t marshalls?
Does this mean that team troops on garrisons that are unter attack and kill enemy troops do not generate GP for our defense rider?
If teams have team troops to defend and personal troops on primarchs to either defend or attack, how are teams motivated to use personal troops for attacking if they could just use them to guard their castles on primarchs, effectively doubling the defensive troops (team+personal) while halving the offensive troops (only personal) in the long run?
Version 4.16 Release Notes