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.

 

[Umbrathor]

I seriously doubt you ever fight in GvG.

I was GvG general for a guild for several years. Sl8yer, it is a low move to try and attack someone's arguments by trying to discredit them.

 

[Umbrathor]

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

Agreed, if it already works that way on mobile then it is merely a matter of aligning the two platforms.

 

[Umbrathor]

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.

In my opinion, you give to much weight to the impact it has on GvG versus the impact is has on battles outside of GvG.

First of all, in GvG the impact is limited to players who check the battle map before they decide to click autoattack. The proposed chance has no effect on players who click autoattack without checking the battlemap and on players who fight manually.

For players who do gain a little time when being able to withdraw faster, the advantage is only relevant when the defending guild is online. A defending guild has a few options:

1. Attacking the province from which they are being attacked, in which case they have the same advantage
2. Attacking the siege army and try to quickly replace depleted defending armies in the small window of time for the attacker to place a new siege army

The only effect the proposed change has, is that an atacking guild gains a few seconds per fight where they check the battlemap. Those seconds do not have a big impact given the amount of time an assault on a well-protected sector costs. Especially since only part of the players check the map first.

If the proposed change makes some attackers who now autoattack start checking the battlemap before clicking autoattack, then that time advantage is actually partly negated, and may even slow down guilds in which attackers currently do not check the batlemap.


On the other hand, it would positively impact GE, GBG, PvP, fights for quests and fights in the Egyptian settlement. I believe that this weighs more than the slight impact it might have on GvG.

 

[Sl8yer]

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

Not really. It can't change how fights occur everywhere, cause according to you this is how it already works on the app. That means that it will change fights only in one place and that would be GvG, so that makes it a change in GvG

 

[Sl8yer]

In my opinion, you give to much weight to the impact it has on GvG versus the impact is has on battles outside of GvG.

Since it is already on the app, it is the only place it will have impact. How can it have to much weight?

First of all, in GvG the impact is limited to players who check the battle map before they decide to click autoattack. The proposed chance has no effect on players who click autoattack without checking the battlemap and on players who fight manually.

In GvG nobody checks the battle map and nobody fights manuallly. It's all about speed. Speed is something you do not need in any other fight part of the game, except for maybe GBG, but in GBG you see the opponent before the fight, so that makes it you can still change your attacking army.

For players who do gain a little time when being able to withdraw faster, the advantage is only relevant when the defending guild is online. A defending guild has a few options:

1. Attacking the province from which they are being attacked, in which case they have the same advantage
2. Attacking the siege army and try to quickly replace depleted defending armies in the small window of time for the attacker to place a new siege army

Learn how it works before you discuss it.

The only effect the proposed change has, is that an atacking guild gains a few seconds per fight where they check the battlemap. Those seconds do not have a big impact given the amount of time an assault on a well-protected sector costs. Especially since only part of the players check the map first.

If the only effect is a few seconds, what is the use of the proposal?I have to accept the loss of a few seconds, so you can gain a few seconds? Why don't you accept it takes you a few seconds more?

If the proposed change makes some attackers who now autoattack start checking the battlemap before clicking autoattack, then that time advantage is actually partly negated, and may even slow down guilds in which attackers currently do not check the batlemap.

Why on earth would they check the map? They have nothing to gaim from it. They autobattle.

On the other hand, it would positively impact GE, GBG, PvP, fights for quests and fights in the Egyptian settlement. I believe that this weighs more than the slight impact it might have on GvG.

No, it will save you a few seconds. A few seconds you do not find important when it comes to GvG, but are desperately important to you when it comes to your part of the game.

Bottom line. You retreat, again and again, so you can get the easy win. Now why should you be rewarded for that? It is ebven DNSL on multiple points.

What Not To Suggest?

Please note that any other ideas along the same lines will also be moved to this forum, and not forwarded, so it's in your own best interest not to suggest any ideas similar to these. However, the threads pertaining to these ideas will be kept open in an attempt to foster healthy discussion and debate.

In particular, please do not suggest the following ideas, as they will not be implemented:

• Ideas to make yourself richer or make the game easier. The game is meant to be played over time and have a element of strategy.
  
  
• Changes/Additions to GvG.

 

[Emberguard]

Not really. It can't change how fights occur everywhere, cause according to you this is how it already works on the app. That means that it will change fights only in one place and that would be GvG, so that makes it a change in GvG

You know full well it would change more then just GvG for desktop.

 

[Sl8yer]

You know full well it would change more then just GvG for desktop.

GvG you can only do on desktop and it will have the biggest impact on GvG. Besides maybe GBG, speed isn't relevant in any other part of the game. Game is a game of patience. Is it that hard to wait a few seconds?

 

[Umbrathor]

In GvG nobody checks the battle map and nobody fights manuallly.

In which case it will not impact GvG at all, rendering your entire argument moot.

 

[Sl8yer]

In which case it will not impact GvG at all, rendering your entire argument moot.

Once the battlemap has loaded you do look at the army you are facing. That can be reason for retreat.

 

[Umbrathor]

Once the battlemap has loaded you do look at the army you are facing. That can be reason for retreat.

You contradict yourself:

In GvG nobody checks the battle map and nobody fights manuallly.

 

[Umbrathor]

You contradicting yourself is especially poignant since you use the argument that 'nobody checks the battle map and nobody fights manually' to question my experience with GvG. Please accept that people play (aspects of) the game differently. And be respectful: you have questioned whether I have played GvG, and even go so far as to question it when I tell you that I was GvG general for several years. You are basially calling me a liar, and that is very disrespectful. Please take arguments at face value rather than trying to discredit the person who puts them forward.

 

[Sl8yer]

You contradict yourself:

I don't. You do not check terrain. That's the map.
You do not fight manually. That takes way to much time.

You contradicting yourself is especially poignant since you use the argument that 'nobody checks the battle map and nobody fights manually' to question my experience with GvG. Please accept that people play (aspects of) the game differently. And be respectful: you have questioned whether I have played GvG, and even go so far as to question it when I tell you that I was GvG general for several years. You are basially calling me a liar, and that is very disrespectful. Please take arguments at face value rather than trying to discredit the person who puts them forward.

Like it is respectfull to say I troll?

 

[Umbrathor]

Like it is respectfull to say I troll?

I have called you out on your behavior and asked you to be more respectful. Instead of doing that, you divert attention away from your own actions. I see no reason to turn this into a food fight so I will not respond to any further provocations.

As for continuing the discussion about the proposal, I have quoted a direct, literal contradiction in your arguments. Your reply: "You do not check terrain. That's the map," does not make sense to me.

Either we agree that some (not all) people will, for all kinds of fights including GvG, check the battlemap / terrain before deciding to fight (either auto or manually, but that is irrelevant to the discussion). If we agree on this, than your original argument stands, and I have stated that the impact of the proposed change on GvG is minimal and is outweighed by the fact that it promotes tactical play (checking the battlemap to gauge and improve your chance of success) in most types of fights.

Or you say that no one checks the battle map / terrain when playing GvG, in which case your argument is moot.

 

[Sl8yer]

I have called you out on your behavior and asked you to be more respectful. Instead of doing that, you divert attention away from your own actions. I see no reason to turn this into a food fight so I will not respond to any further provocations.

You accused me of trolling. The "to go to" strategy when you run out of arguments.Why should I be respectful after that? You reep what you sow.

As for continuing the discussion about the proposal, I have quoted a direct, literal contradiction in your arguments. Your reply: "You do not check terrain. That's the map," does not make sense to me.

If it does not make sense to you, you can ask. The map is terrain. Terrain is the map. You need the map to see the terrain.

Either we agree that some (not all) people will, for all kinds of fights including GvG, check the battlemap / terrain before deciding to fight (either auto or manually, but that is irrelevant to the discussion). If we agree on this, than your original argument stands, and I have stated that the impact of the proposed change on GvG is minimal and is outweighed by the fact that it promotes tactical play (checking the battlemap to gauge and improve your chance of success) in most types of fights.

I never disagreed to that. You are just not willing to agree to the fact that in GvG you do not check the terrain, but check the opposing army. You have no time for the terrain. Opposing army is the key. That makes the proposed change not minimal at all. Especially since it is already working this way on the app, so you are left with only one option.

Or you say that no one checks the battle map / terrain when playing GvG, in which case your argument is moot.

I have to meet he first yet who does look at the terrain in GvG. Nobody fights manual, so nobody looks at the terrain. Did you fight manual General?

 

[Umbrathor]

In GvG you do not check the terrain, but check the opposing army. You have no time for the terrain. Opposing army is the key.

I have to meet he first yet who does look at the terrain in GvG. Nobody fights manual, so nobody looks at the terrain. Did you fight manual General?

It makes sense for players to check the factors that decide whether the fight will be a win or a loss. The opposing army is not known so that is a major factor, we agree on that. But the terrain can also be a factor. If your army is one artillery and six rogues, you'll want difficult terrain. If your army is a heavy, fast or light unit, you want easy terrain, especially if you have artillery against you.

The fact that you (and most players probably) do not play manually, does not mean that there is no one who plays differently. So yes, there are people who fight manually in GvG. For instance when they cannot afford to lose (m)any troops. Such as people who do not yet have a (high) alca. People will seldom play manually when time is of the essence, but that is not always the case. If a sector is not well defended, time need not be a problem, as long as the siege is not noticed.

 

[Sl8yer]

It makes sense for players to check the factors that decide whether the fight will be a win or a loss. The opposing army is not known so that is a major factor, we agree on that. But the terrain can also be a factor. If your army is one artillery and six rogues, you'll want difficult terrain. If your army is a heavy, fast or light unit, you want easy terrain, especially if you have artillery against you.

You really look at it in a very strange way that does not make sense to me at all. Six rogues most likely is a mistake, cause you use 7, but you do not combine them with artillery. If you use artillery it will be 8 artillery. Not one with rogues.

Now once again, in GvG, when you use 1 unit and 7 rogues, you start the battle, put the unit to the side and hit auto. You do not look at the terrain. Terrrain is the least of your wories and you hope the auto will use it a bit.

The fact that you (and most players probably) do not play manually, does not mean that there is no one who plays differently. So yes, there are people who fight manually in GvG. For instance when they cannot afford to lose (m)any troops. Such as people who do not yet have a (high) alca. People will seldom play manually when time is of the essence, but that is not always the case. If a sector is not well defended, time need not be a problem, as long as the siege is not noticed.

If a sector is not well defended the guild holding it is not interested in keeping it. If a sector is well defended, fighting manually is not an option, unless you want to spend a few hours in the middle of the night. Fact remains your proposal influences fights in GvG.

Don't hear you about the fact the proposal has only one option left.

 

[Umbrathor]

Six rogues most likely is a mistake, cause you use 7.

Indeed, I meant 7 rogues and 1 other unit.

Don't hear you about the fact the proposal has only one option left.

There are two options (besides keeping things the way they are), I do not know why you think there is only one option left.

I'm fine with either option. I propose option 1, though option 2 is apparently how it works on mobile.

 

[Sl8yer]

Why don't you admit what this really is about. You want the Egyptian Settlements to be made easier. That is where you are having problems. No attack bonus, no rogues and fights based on equal strength. That's where the terrain becomes important and retreating becomes a strategy. Whay the effects will be on other parts of the game is of no importance. It's not like retreating works against your neighbours or in GE.

 

[Sl8yer]

There are two options (besides keeping things the way they are), I do not know why you think there is only one option left.

I'm fine with either option. I propose option 1, though option 2 is apparently how it works on mobile.

One of the two already seems to be available on the app. Do you expect that will be changed?

 

[Umbrathor]

Why don't you admit what this really is about. You want the Egyptian Settlements to be made easier. That is where you are having problems. No attack bonus, no rogues and fights based on equal strength. That's where the terrain becomes important and retreating becomes a strategy. Whay the effects will be on other parts of the game is of no importance. It's not like retreating works against your neighbours or in GE.

Retreating to get specific kinds of terrain is a good strategy for the Egyptian settlements. It also works in other battles, even in GE, though that costs an attempt.

It is clear that you do not employ the strategy for terrain. That does not mean that is not a valid strategy or that is 'not important'. What you mean is that is not important to you. Please do not be so judgemental and intolerant of playing styles other than your own.