-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Surrendering needs a bigger penalty.
- Thread starter Pugg1972
- Start date
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
There are two reasons to initiate a combat and stop : First is the defending troops are stronger and you wish t save your troops from Dying. Second is you just want to peek at what the other player has for defense bonus
The attacker troops surrendering could become yours, and the attacker loses them. But then there would be no point in ever surrendering.
An alternative is the attacker who attack Hood and surrenders the person attacked gets a free pass to a 24hr chance to plunder the attacker's city.
The attacker troops surrendering could become yours, and the attacker loses them. But then there would be no point in ever surrendering.
An alternative is the attacker who attack Hood and surrenders the person attacked gets a free pass to a 24hr chance to plunder the attacker's city.
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
I think he's talking about PVP Arena battles, since he mentions points lost. It's the only area where you lose points for losing a battle.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
Surrendering in the PVP arena doesn't equal a loss?
Pugg1972
New Member
This isn't the pvp i'm talking about, this is about the pve open world just building your kingdom as ya go. I'm fairly new. Under 3 weeks into the game, likely closer to 2.
But the point of my post is, being attacked daily by people who surrender, because they suffer no penalty's for doing the surrender, other than the lost attack attempt. There needs to be something bigger in play, they risk nothing, by attacking and surrendering as is. What does the word surrender mean? At the very least, there should be a 3-5 day penalty before they can attack that person again, because of their surrender.
As it stands right now, you can gauge the strength of the persons defending army, by wasting 1 day in a attack that may or may not succeed. If you surrender, then there should be a much longer period of time, before you can attack them again. Instead of that 1 day default. Doesn't matter if their there to plunder or not, the point is, the player has seen the defending army. Decided it wasn't worth attacking, and left. They can do this freely, on every attack, against any player, without consequence. Players who don't think they can win, surrender every time and have little to no losses. They should limit that option, or put in a cost attached to its use. Because to me, it seems like players are abusing it for their own benefit.
If you go into a battle to attack someone, you should be attacking them, not getting away scot free every time.
To put it another way, if the attacking player can't beat them, they risk nothing by surrendering. This needs to change. They should in my opinion either lose half their units, pay a ransom for their safe return, or have to wait 3-7 days (random generated number) before they can attack anyone (meaning everyone, they lose their attack option for a set duration).
This is where the revenge option could come into actual use,
Hell, if i was coding in changes. I'd put a stacking debuff on your troops, with a timer attached to the surrender. Refreshing a newly increased stacking debuff and adding another 2 day's to its timer, everytime you do another surrender. The more you do it, the longer it stays, and the bigger the penalty as it would keep growing.
You want to scout them out, click their picture, check their town for military troop types, take a guess as to what they have in numbers and types for defending army. If any (otherwise the default 2 spearmen). The options there for everyone to see. You can check their great buildings and the offensive & defensive bonus's attached to them by their level., Why send in a army to surrender, when u can just look for yourself.
The attack option there, isn't supposed to mean. I'm going to attack them, and if they're weaker than me from the start. I'm going to win, and maybe plunder something. Otherwise, i'm running away with no consequences.
But the point of my post is, being attacked daily by people who surrender, because they suffer no penalty's for doing the surrender, other than the lost attack attempt. There needs to be something bigger in play, they risk nothing, by attacking and surrendering as is. What does the word surrender mean? At the very least, there should be a 3-5 day penalty before they can attack that person again, because of their surrender.
As it stands right now, you can gauge the strength of the persons defending army, by wasting 1 day in a attack that may or may not succeed. If you surrender, then there should be a much longer period of time, before you can attack them again. Instead of that 1 day default. Doesn't matter if their there to plunder or not, the point is, the player has seen the defending army. Decided it wasn't worth attacking, and left. They can do this freely, on every attack, against any player, without consequence. Players who don't think they can win, surrender every time and have little to no losses. They should limit that option, or put in a cost attached to its use. Because to me, it seems like players are abusing it for their own benefit.
If you go into a battle to attack someone, you should be attacking them, not getting away scot free every time.
To put it another way, if the attacking player can't beat them, they risk nothing by surrendering. This needs to change. They should in my opinion either lose half their units, pay a ransom for their safe return, or have to wait 3-7 days (random generated number) before they can attack anyone (meaning everyone, they lose their attack option for a set duration).
This is where the revenge option could come into actual use,
Hell, if i was coding in changes. I'd put a stacking debuff on your troops, with a timer attached to the surrender. Refreshing a newly increased stacking debuff and adding another 2 day's to its timer, everytime you do another surrender. The more you do it, the longer it stays, and the bigger the penalty as it would keep growing.
You want to scout them out, click their picture, check their town for military troop types, take a guess as to what they have in numbers and types for defending army. If any (otherwise the default 2 spearmen). The options there for everyone to see. You can check their great buildings and the offensive & defensive bonus's attached to them by their level., Why send in a army to surrender, when u can just look for yourself.
The attack option there, isn't supposed to mean. I'm going to attack them, and if they're weaker than me from the start. I'm going to win, and maybe plunder something. Otherwise, i'm running away with no consequences.
Last edited:
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
Welcome to the game! I'm pretty sure that you'll learn soon enough that very few city defenses can stand up to attacking armies. Maybe very early in the game but that's it. Right now you are being attacked but not plundered so you're not losing anything. If the rules were changed, if attackers were penalized for surrendering, then most (if not all) attackers will fight to the finish. Again, early in the game your city may put up a successful defense but later on you'll lose far more often than you'll win. Under this new rule I think you'd probably get plundered far more often. The good news is that, in my experience, there's a fair amount of attacking to fulfill quests and use up Himeji charges but not much plundering.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
They risk you deciding to attack them because they attacked you. Since your defending armies don't die why should the attacker lose their troops for a failed attack in which they decide discretion is the better part of valor? Surrender in this context means surrender the field not surrender to the defenders. An attacker can just turn around and leave unless the defenders want to chase them down. If they add that option in then sure let the computer do the battle and any troop that dies then dies.......including the 'defender'. Which would mean that you wouldn't have an army for the next attacker that comes along.
Pugg1972
New Member
I'd prefer they fight to the finish, simply because this is a WAR GAME. As many have stated. But its acceptable by the majority to chicken out before the battles even started, because they saw the defensive army set up by the person they attacked. If they can't win, they don't try. They just surrender (aka leave with no consequences except a 24 hr timer until they can try again).
@Pericles. I have city defender army set up to protect, yes. And since i discovered that option he hasn't been able to plunder me. But its just a matter of time, because he's sitting in the iron age, with his diamond bought town, building his resources, and max'n out his gb's as you call it. Great buildings. I'm not a cash shopper, or a diamond farmer. Like he is. So i'll probably have to jump up another age, just to deal with the likes of him. Hope he enjoys being plundered, by someone with less than 1/10th of his point rating.
@wolfhound. What kind of war game, has no penaltys to a person that surrenders? They left the field after the battle had started? Combat was engaged the moment they attacked. This is between players kingdoms, one computer player controlling the defender, vs the player who has full control over their troops against said computer. That's the player advantage over the AI. So tell me, why is there no actual penalty to people who surrender, in a war game?
Because it seems like the surrender was put in, for people who want a easy way out of a fight they start, but can't win. Wonder how many whiners it took, before that went in. Or was it a original feature of this game?
@Pericles. I have city defender army set up to protect, yes. And since i discovered that option he hasn't been able to plunder me. But its just a matter of time, because he's sitting in the iron age, with his diamond bought town, building his resources, and max'n out his gb's as you call it. Great buildings. I'm not a cash shopper, or a diamond farmer. Like he is. So i'll probably have to jump up another age, just to deal with the likes of him. Hope he enjoys being plundered, by someone with less than 1/10th of his point rating.
@wolfhound. What kind of war game, has no penaltys to a person that surrenders? They left the field after the battle had started? Combat was engaged the moment they attacked. This is between players kingdoms, one computer player controlling the defender, vs the player who has full control over their troops against said computer. That's the player advantage over the AI. So tell me, why is there no actual penalty to people who surrender, in a war game?
Because it seems like the surrender was put in, for people who want a easy way out of a fight they start, but can't win. Wonder how many whiners it took, before that went in. Or was it a original feature of this game?
Agent327
Well-Known Member
What benefit?
They can not attack you for the next 24hrs. They missed out on the aid reward. They missed out on a chance of getting a BP. They do not lose any units, but neither do you. If they get a bigger penalty shouldn't you be losing defending units?
This isn't a war game. It is a strategy city builder. Fighting is only part of it.
Pericles the Lion
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't describe FOE as a "war game". It's a city building game with a battle element that can mostly be avoided if desired. Consider how battles work in FOE....you take a turn....your opponent takes a turn...you take another turn....etc. That's not how battles happen. If a few of your neighbors are attacking you then simply wait them out. The neighborhoods usually reset every other Monday. No guarantee that your bothersome neighbors won't show up again but the odds are against it. For sure I wouldn't age up to EMA to avoid an attacking IA hoodie because there will be troublesome hoodies in EMA to deal with.
The Lady Redneck
Well-Known Member
FoE is a turn based strategy empire building game. The only real war element in the game is GvG which also has a lot of strategy involved. To be successful you must maintain a balance. The worst thing you can do it age up when you are still weak as you will then simply be even weaker against the military units of your next age. And you do not have to buy diamonds or even have a diamond farm in order to get advanced GBs. What you do need is a lot of patience. The best thing to do is stay behind the military tactics Tech (you cannot be attacked or plundered until you complete that tech) You can still do GE, GBG and GvG. If are patient enough to do that you can build up your city and military until you are strong enough, and have the experience to move forward. Then once you do, you can liken what your attacker is doing to a skirmish unit sent out to test the ability of a possible enemy. In a real war situation such units do not wait around to fight and get killed they get in and out fast so they can return and report to their HQ.
I played the game for about 5 years before I spent any real cash to buy anything. The game gave me all I needed and it is a lot easier to get stuff now than it has ever been. And because I did not spend any money, it cost me nothing but the few months of time I had spent to delete the first city I started because I had made so many noob mistakes. Then I moved to another world and started a new city based on what I had learned from those mistakes. You also need to get into a good guild with founders and leaders who have years of experience behind them.
I played the game for about 5 years before I spent any real cash to buy anything. The game gave me all I needed and it is a lot easier to get stuff now than it has ever been. And because I did not spend any money, it cost me nothing but the few months of time I had spent to delete the first city I started because I had made so many noob mistakes. Then I moved to another world and started a new city based on what I had learned from those mistakes. You also need to get into a good guild with founders and leaders who have years of experience behind them.
Last edited:
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
@Pugg1972
Maybe they spent real money or maybe they spent diamonds they earned in the game or maybe they got those advanced Great Buildings by working with others and spending the time to get those buildings. Some people run diamond farms on other servers to get 'free' diamonds (free as in they spend no money but not free in terms of time but a game is basically a time passer anyway). Maybe they spent a bit of time learning from their guild and that guild help them develop their city accordingly.
An Arc increases the rewards you get from winning spots in other's Great Buildings including blueprints which makes it much easier to get the blueprints you need to advance your other Great Buildings at some point.
Also this isn't the movie where "2 armies enter 1 army leaves". Sorry.
Maybe they spent real money or maybe they spent diamonds they earned in the game or maybe they got those advanced Great Buildings by working with others and spending the time to get those buildings. Some people run diamond farms on other servers to get 'free' diamonds (free as in they spend no money but not free in terms of time but a game is basically a time passer anyway). Maybe they spent a bit of time learning from their guild and that guild help them develop their city accordingly.
An Arc increases the rewards you get from winning spots in other's Great Buildings including blueprints which makes it much easier to get the blueprints you need to advance your other Great Buildings at some point.
Also this isn't the movie where "2 armies enter 1 army leaves". Sorry.
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
Another way for the surrender to cost something would be when a player surrenders, his troops on the battlefield become the property of the person who was being attacked. It is closer to what would happen in real life.
An alternative is the attacker loses the troops in the battlefield anyway.
An alternative is the attacker loses the troops in the battlefield anyway.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
An alternative but not a good alternative. As noted the defending players troops don't die so there's no reason an attack should be all or nothing. And no it's not closer to what happens in real life as troops can and do retreat effectively quite often in real life nor does someone being captured suddenly make them soldiers for the capturing side in real life.
Also as a general rule the way it would work in real life doesn't mean much since this isn't real life. What people usually mean is that it works better in their headspace.
Also as a general rule the way it would work in real life doesn't mean much since this isn't real life. What people usually mean is that it works better in their headspace.
wolfhoundtoo
Well-Known Member
Don't focus on semantics so much. The game mechanics are what they are and you need to adapt to what's there rather than expecting the game to change to what you 'think' is the way it should work.