Forwarded Surrender button always active

[Umbrathor]

Proposal:
Make it possible to surrender immediately at the start of a battle.

Currently, the Surrender button is greyed out at the start of a battle until one of your troops has initiative. My suggestion is to make it possible to surrender even if you do not have initiative yet.

I have searched the Forum for 'Surrender' and not found any similar suggestions.


Reason:
It saves time. If you employ a tactic that requires you to surrender and restart several times in a row, for instance when you are looking for a specific kind of terrain to fight in, you have to wait until you get initiative. If you happen to have an amry that gets initiative much later than the opposing army, you lose a lot of time for no good reason.


Details:
The button is gold / active at the start of any battle, just like the auto attack button.

If any opposing troops have initiative before you do, and can damage your troops on their turn, there are two options for how surrendering early works:

1. The AI immediately calculates and applies the damage you would have sustained (just like if you had waited for your initiative to surrender, as in the current situation)
2. Any troops that would have gotten initiave before you pressed Surrender, do not get to act and therefore do not do damage

I propose option 1, since I am merely looking to save time. However, I can see how option 2 would make sense in situations where people have misjudged a battle, and want to bail out to minimize losses. Or for attacking with 7 rogues and one other unit. If the player loses that unit early on, they want to be able to bail out before any (more) rogues get damaged. So option 2 seems fine to me as well, and in line with the idea of how surrendering works.


Balance:
It makes tactics that rely on specific terrain types more viable, and therefore awards tactical play. Especially when using troops that can take advantage of specific terrain features, that give attack/defense bonuses or the ability to hide, or the advantage artillery has in battlefields with difficult terrain versus the advantage when using melee troops on terrain with few obstacles to allow them to easily reach opposing troops.

If option 2 (above) were implemented, it would save some damaged/lost troops. Doesn't seem exploitable to me.


Abuse Prevention:
If surrendering and restarting battles to get more favorable terrain is considered an exploit, than this option would not open us a new expluit, but make an existing exploit easier. If it is not considered an exploit but a feature / tactical option, than it makes for faster and therefore better gameplay.

I do not see any potential exploits if option 2 were implemented. The attacking troops can still get damaged or be lost, if one isn't fast enough.


Summary:
I propose making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops until the initiative of the first attacking unit.

If a majority of people prefer option 2. I will change the proposal to making Surrendering possible at the moment a battle is started, with any damage applied by opposing troops who (have) act(ed) up to the moment the Surrender button was clicked.

 

[beelzebob666]

I also once had the thought about such a suggestion but did not follow up on it.

There would be quite some situations where such a function would be exploitable. E.g. you could prevent losses/injured units completely.

E.g. if you faced a bad start with the opponent's units with "Rapid Deployment" you could abort before you take any damages...

But I think it would be OK with the abort button being active as soon as there is no opponent unit anymore that could reach the player's units before the player can move

 

[Sl8yer]

It does save time, but should it save time?

It saves time for the guy that attacks all his neighbours and retreats the moment he sees one of those neighbours has a defense that is to strong, or not suited for his attackers. Should he be rewarded with saving time?

It saves time in GvG or GBG when you are facing the wrong army, but again, should that be rewarded?

Same goes for minimizing losses. Nothing wrong if you lose something when you can not win the battle and retreat.

The time it saves is minimal and are you really in that much of a hurry that you desperately need a few seconds?TYou could be in GvG and GBG where time might be a deciding factor, but in that case you should not be rewarded with saving time when you retreat.

 

[Umbrathor]

It saves time for the guy that attacks all his neighbours and retreats the moment he sees one of those neighbours has a defense that is to strong, or not suited for his attackers. Should he be rewarded with saving time?

It saves time in GvG or GBG when you are facing the wrong army, but again, should that be rewarded?

Same goes for minimizing losses. Nothing wrong if you lose something when you can not win the battle and retreat.

The questions are probably meant rhetorical, but the answer is not obvious to me, as it may seem to you. In your first example, I see no reason why withdrawing would be bad. Seems a logical, even wise decision to me. So yes, reward it, by all means.

Your second example seems unlikely to me. Facing the wrong army need not happen, since you can see the army composition when you select the sector, before you start the battle. What you do not see is the terrain you'll be fighting on, and that can make a huge difference in your win chances. So there certainly is reason to check the terrain and then decide to fight or withdraw. Should that be rewarded? Sure, why not.

The time it saves is minimal and are you really in that much of a hurry that you desperately need a few seconds?TYou could be in GvG and GBG where time might be a deciding factor, but in that case you should not be rewarded with saving time when you retreat.

Your approach seems based on rewarding certain types of play. A tactical approach, in withdrawing when the terrain does not suit you, until you have a terrain that does, fits well with that. That means you may have to withdraw several times before you have good terrain. The seconds won then do indeed add up.
Quite signifcantly, sometimes. For instance in the Egyptian settlement, if you want terrein with bushes close to the starting position for your Nubian archrs to hide in. There are not many battle maps that offer that, so you will have to restart the battle often. And Nibians are slow, so that means waiting unti the opponent has moved. That can add up to several minutes saved. I speak from experience. : )

 

[Umbrathor]

I also once had the thought about such a suggestion but did not follow up on it.

There would be quite some situations where such a function would be exploitable. E.g. you could prevent losses/injured units completely.

E.g. if you faced a bad start with the opponent's units with "Rapid Deployment" you could abort before you take any damages...

But I think it would be OK with the abort button being active as soon as there is no opponent unit anymore that could reach the player's units before the player can move

Beelzebob, I'm not sure we understand each other correctly. My proposal does not allow for preventing losses/injuries. Option 2 in my proposal would, but I am not proposing option 2.

Your suggestion to have the button become active when no more damage can be done is similar to my option 1, in that any damage that would be inflicted before your own initiative gets inflicted. However, my option saves more time. You withdraw immediately and all damage that would be inflicted gets inflicted anyway.

I see no possiblity for exploiting option 1. If you do, please let me know.

 

[beelzebob666]

Beelzebob, I'm not sure we understand each other correctly. My proposal does not allow for preventing losses/injuries. Option 2 in my proposal would, but I am not proposing option 2.

Your suggestion to have the button become active when no more damage can be done is similar to my option 1, in that any damage that would be inflicted before your own initiative gets inflicted. However, my option saves more time. You withdraw immediately and all damage that would be inflicted gets inflicted anyway.

I see no possiblity for exploiting option 1. If you do, please let me know.

Guilty as charged... Did not read the "details" section...

 

[Sl8yer]

The questions are probably meant rhetorical, but the answer is not obvious to me, as it may seem to you. In your first example, I see no reason why withdrawing would be bad. Seems a logical, even wise decision to me. So yes, reward it, by all means.

It isn't bad, but why should it be rewarded with saving time and units

Your second example seems unlikely to me. Facing the wrong army need not happen, since you can see the army composition when you select the sector, before you start the battle. What you do not see is the terrain you'll be fighting on, and that can make a huge difference in your win chances. So there certainly is reason to check the terrain and then decide to fight or withdraw. Should that be rewarded? Sure, why not.

In GvG you do not see the army you are facing.

Your approach seems based on rewarding certain types of play. A tactical approach, in withdrawing when the terrain does not suit you, until you have a terrain that does, fits well with that. That means you may have to withdraw several times before you have good terrain. The seconds won then do indeed add up.Quite signifcantly, sometimes.

That is more your approach. You want to change things in a way that you get rewarded for retreating. I see no problem in it staying the way it is where you lose time and units when you retreat.

Quite signifcantly, sometimes. For instance in the Egyptian settlement, if you want terrein with bushes close to the starting position for your Nubian archrs to hide in. There are not many battle maps that offer that, so you will have to restart the battle often. And Nibians are slow, so that means waiting unti the opponent has moved. That can add up to several minutes saved. I speak from experience. : )

The Egyptian settlement isn't a race. Nothing wrong with your tactic, but if you want the easy win every time all the time, it is only fair it will cost you time and maybe units.

GvG on the other hand is a race and making it easier to retreat does have an influence on that race. An influence it should not have in my opinion.

 

[Umbrathor]

It isn't bad, but why should it be rewarded with saving time and units

Maybe I should clarify my initial post. You have misunderstood the p[roposal: it saves time, not units. It is possibly to implement it in such a way that it also prevents damage / loss of units, but that is not what I propose.

The Egyptian settlement isn't a race. Nothing wrong with your tactic, but if you want the easy win every time all the time, it is only fair it will cost you time and maybe units.

In the first round of an Egyptian battle nu units are ever damaged or lost. Non of the units can reach the opposing units. So there is no reason why players should not be able to withdraw immediately at the start of the battle. It saves time, and there is no reason not to speed up the option to retreat. Is there?

GvG on the other hand is a race and making it easier to retreat does have an influence on that race. An influence it should not have in my opinion.

I assume you say thinking that I propose that withdrawing saves units from getting damaged or lost. That is not the case. I merely propose a swifter provess, including any damage dealt. The few seconds won there are relatively unimportant. Would you still object to that, knowing that the potential for damaged or lost units remains the same as it is now?

 

[Sl8yer]

Maybe I should clarify my initial post. You have misunderstood the p[roposal: it saves time, not units. It is possibly to implement it in such a way that it also prevents damage / loss of units, but that is not what I propose.

Still, saving time would influence fights in GvG in the wrong way.

In the first round of an Egyptian battle nu units are ever damaged or lost. Non of the units can reach the opposing units. So there is no reason why players should not be able to withdraw immediately at the start of the battle. It saves time, and there is no reason not to speed up the option to retreat. Is there?

There is also no reason to speed it up. You are looking for the best option to fight. Why should that be made more easy for you? It's like the RQ's. People like to do one, but still have to click through all. It's what yoou do when you want to have it your way.

I assume you say thinking that I propose that withdrawing saves units from getting damaged or lost. That is not the case. I merely propose a swifter provess, including any damage dealt. The few seconds won there are relatively unimportant. Would you still object to that, knowing that the potential for damaged or lost units remains the same as it is now?

Those few seconds won can make a difference in GvG If it is relatively unimportant, why do you need it?

Even with lost units remaining the same, it will have an infuence on GvG I do not like or want.

 

[Umbrathor]

Still, saving time would influence fights in GvG in the wrong way.

Could you explain how? Everyone would have the same advantage after all.

 

[Emberguard]

This is already a thing on mobile. So I see no reason not to make it the same on desktop

 

[Tanmay11]

option 1 sounds right, opponent must deal damage if its their turn first. also could do away with the "Landing" animations of "Rapid Deployment" units. they look nice, but waste of time.

 

[Sl8yer]

Could you explain how? Everyone would have the same advantage after all.

Most used way to attack in GvG is with one unit and 7 rogues. Start the fight, move the unit to the side and hit auto. Having to retreat, slows you down. With your proposal it no longer does. It becomes equally fast. It increases the advantage of the attacker.

 

[Umbrathor]

Most used way to attack in GvG is with one unit and 7 rogues. Start the fight, move the unit to the side and hit auto. Having to retreat, slows you down. With your proposal it no longer does. It becomes equally fast. It increases the advantage of the attacker.

Thanks, I understand. It favors the attacking guild over the defending (established) guild. As the attacking guild, I'd love to have that advantage, so that just confirms me in my proposal. Defending in GvG is extremely hard I find. It is seldom possible to stop a determined onslaught. But this makes it harder to find defending armies that may, in terrain tyhat favors them, have a better chance of repelling attacks. So i do see your point.

 

[Umbrathor]

This is already a thing on mobile. So I see no reason not to make it the same on desktop

Thanks, I didn't know that. So apparently, the scenario that @Sl8yer describes is already possible on mobile?

 

[Emberguard]

P

Thanks, I didn't know that. So apparently, the scenario that @Sl8yer describes is already possible on mobile?

Pretty much except for GvG unless you use paratrooper units. Option 2 in your poll is mobile.

on desktop paratrooper units ability effects when you can surrender. From memory I think you have until they land on the field but been a while since I tested it

 

[Emberguard]

Pretty much except for GvG unless you use paratrooper units.

*GvG is desktop only

 

[Emberguard]

on desktop paratrooper units ability effects when you can surrender. From memory I think you have until they land on the field but been a while since I tested it

Looking up Rapid Deployment skill you have it available in Modern, Contemporary, Tomorrow, Future, Oceanic Future and Virtual Future

 

[Sl8yer]

Thanks, I understand. It favors the attacking guild over the defending (established) guild. As the attacking guild, I'd love to have that advantage, so that just confirms me in my proposal. Defending in GvG is extremely hard I find. It is seldom possible to stop a determined onslaught. But this makes it harder to find defending armies that may, in terrain tyhat favors them, have a better chance of repelling attacks. So i do see your point.

I seriously doubt you ever fight in GvG. Attacking guild already has a big advantage. Defending guild however has a chance if they are on at the right time. There is no reason to limit that chance.

I did not know, but Emberguard explained that option 2 already is available on mobile. That makes option 1 no longer realistic and the idea PC only. As PC only it influences GvG which makes it DNSL.

 

[Emberguard]

That not even remotely DNSL. It’s not changing GvG, it’s changing how fights occur everywhere