How on earth did my flanks get defeated?

B.Stinson

Keeping in mind that the both of my flanks had a 80% castle wall bonus.


Attachment not found.Attachment not found.

Its hilarious how I've failed to see any official announcement or amendments to this random Travelers Knight change. Which genius in Goodgame Empire Studios decided to make a unit available to all the best unit in the game which can be attained with complete ease (its more of task not to obtain a relic from attacking a Robber Castle since they increased the probability).

Baldrick (GB1)

Well, this would depend on the tools you used, but it's pretty difficult to defend against the TKs unless you have Veteran defenders. It is a war game though. What tools did you have in place?

lordsaruman (US1)

Traveling knights are much more powerful in attack than regular men. It also depends on their attack stats, if the attack stats are higher than your defense stats of your men, he has an advantage. If you want your own travelling knights, you can buy them with rubies or go attack a robber baron castle yourself. Also it depends on what tools you have as Baldrick said, the more tools you have the better your defense.

xJadetsssx

you had less amount of soldiers, and the power of the knights is 146 and the crossbows is 135, even if you had 80% of bonus, those defenders you are using are not veterans also, but I think it makes sense

B.Stinson

Baldrick wrote: »

Well, this would depend on the tools you used, but it's pretty difficult to defend against the TKs unless you have Veteran defenders. It is a war game though. What tools did you have in place?

I had two Tar Pitch Kettles on each flank, and he attacked with two Belfry on each flank. Leaving me left over with an 80% castle wall advantage which I would thought would be enough...

lordsaruman (US1)

Look at the logic, hes using a belfry, you had a tar pitch kettle, guess what, your tar was poured on top of the belfry, it didn't affect his soldiers as they were apparently protected inside the belfry. Stone throwing is better, it takes out belfries and siegetowers while tar takes out men in the open.

xJadetsssx

lordsaruman wrote: »

Look at the logic, hes using a belfry, you had a tar pitch kettle, guess what, your tar was poured on top of the belfry, it didn't affect his soldiers as they were apparently protected inside the belfry. Stone throwing is better, it takes out belfries and siegetowers while tar takes out men in the open.

Seriously? are you trolling the important thing here are the bonuses, not the "type" of tools

Luke Fierysword

lordsaruman wrote: »

Look at the logic, hes using a belfry, you had a tar pitch kettle, guess what, your tar was poured on top of the belfry, it didn't affect his soldiers as they were apparently protected inside the belfry. Stone throwing is better, it takes out belfries and siegetowers while tar takes out men in the open.

Not everything about this game runs on logic...check out Jade's comic thread and you'll understand

B.Stinson

lordsaruman wrote: »

Look at the logic, hes using a belfry, you had a tar pitch kettle, guess what, your tar was poured on top of the belfry, it didn't affect his soldiers as they were apparently protected inside the belfry. Stone throwing is better, it takes out belfries and siegetowers while tar takes out men in the open.

Look at the logic, there are dragons and skeleton warriors.

xJadetsssx

Look at the logic (check my signature), and well I think it is more fair having the best troops in the game for all the players instead of only a few

lordsaruman (US1)

xJadetsssx wrote: »

Seriously? are you trolling the important thing here are the bonuses, not the "type" of tools

Bonuses sometimes dont even make that much of a difference. You can have flaming arrows and increase your defenses by 125% and you can still lose your entire army. Trolling? Are you kidding? There are many more contributing factors as to why he lost this battle. All I'm suggesting is that we think outside the box and not focus on just bonuses by itself. And Im sorry if I didnt make it clear enough.

BobFighter834 (INT2)

lordsaruman wrote: »

Bonuses sometimes dont even make that much of a difference. You can have flaming arrows and increase your defenses by 125% and you can still lose your entire army. Trolling? Are you kidding? There are many more contributing factors as to why he lost this battle. All I'm suggesting is that we think outside the box and not focus on just bonuses by itself. And Im sorry if I didnt make it clear enough.

It did sound like a joke to me. The bonuses are the things that matter. Don't think about it like real life - in real life, no 2 soldiers would be exactly identical in strength and you certainly couldn't measure it very simply.

If we don't focus on the bonuses, then we have to look purely at the number of troops and strengths. If we do that, then we come to the conclusion that the attacker lost too many travelling soldiers which is the exact opposite of the original point.

Luke Fierysword

lordsaruman wrote: »

Bonuses sometimes dont even make that much of a difference. You can have flaming arrows and increase your defenses by 125% and you can still lose your entire army. Trolling? Are you kidding? There are many more contributing factors as to why he lost this battle. All I'm suggesting is that we think outside the box and not focus on just bonuses by itself. And Im sorry if I didnt make it clear enough.

Hey kiddo, my alliance defeated 1232 VETERAN DEFENDERS yesterday with a mere 900 VETERAN ATTACKERS, thanks to canceling bonuses. BONUSES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THIS GAMES WAR FARE!

BobFighter834 (INT2)

Luke Fierysword wrote: »

Hey kiddo, my alliance defeated 1232 VETERAN DEFENDERS yesterday with a mere 900 VETERAN ATTACKERS, thanks to canceling bonuses. BONUSES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS IN THIS GAMES WAR FARE!

Second most. Having arrow slits and all that isn't going to help if the flank is completely empty.

Soldiers are the bread. Bonuses are the butter. You aren't going to get very far with just soldiers, but you aren't going to get anywhere at all with just bonuses - who eats butter alone?

xJadetsssx

The only Important thing are the bonuses, with your awesome "real life" logic, 1 soldier couldn't kill 500 defenders if he want to (something that is possible)

lordsaruman (US1)

Ok, I agree with every post here but upon reading all of these, (my opinion) I don't think anyone understood what I was trying to explain. (yes I'm repeating myself). But upon further analyzing the screenshots I came to another hypothesis, probably not correct but Ill give this a try. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but don't be a jerk about it. I'm going to focus on this militarily so read carefully so hopefully understand. The OP stated that he had an 80% bonus on both flanks. Lets look at the right flank first. In total, the OP has 19 men total. I'm not going into each type of soldier he had as that Multiply that by 80% and you get around 15 men. Add that by 19 and you get 34.

Now for the left flank. There was an 80% bonus on the left flank and a total of 20 men. Multiply that by 80% and you get 16 add that to the total and you get 36.
Now you had the bonus, but why did you lose? There are two possibilities on how you lost this match. Attack and defense, and the numbers. Bonuses do help but they can only go so far. Thats the point I was trying to get across as well as answer your question. I guess I did a poor job of doing so. Any questions?

And Luke I don't bother talking to people who bragg about their accomplishments or make acquaintances with braggers. I cant stand it when people Bragg. You won, good for you, I dont care.

xJadetsssx

well, "lordsaruman", the defense power combined was higher than the attack power of the soldiers anyway (at least in the left flank)

X = Melee attack power, Y = Ranged attack power, Z = Total Melee defense power, A = Total Ranged defense power

X = 17 * 109 = 1'853
Y = 12 * 135 = 1'620
Z = {(12 * 135) + (8 * 51)} * 1,8 = 3'650,4
A = {(12 * 45) + ( 8 * 125)} * 1,8 = 2'772,0

X < Z
Y < A

So saying "attack power is the higher than defense power" is totally incorrect, at least in the left flank, no one can predict or calculate a battle anyway, so we don't know what kind of other hidden variables are taken in count in the battles.
^_^ GGE is confusing

BobFighter834 (INT2)

I believe that someone once said on another thread that they sent 2 identical armies to 2 identical RBCs, and lost 1 soldier in the first battle and 3 in the second. They then concluded that there is a luck element.

This could possibly be due to some luck factor. I doubt it, but it's the only possible explanation that I can think of.

Duterte (INT1)

xJadetsssx wrote: »

you had less amount of soldiers, and the power of the knights is 146 and the crossbows is 135, even if you had 80% of bonus, those defenders you are using are not veterans also, but I think it makes sense

Does the attack power of traveling knights and crossbowmen vary? My recent reward of 80x each from the traveling knight event has 146 and 135 for attack power respectively. I have however seen recently some with lesser power like 132 and 121 resp. Are the former values an upgrade to the latter?

Duterte (INT1)

BobFighter834 wrote: »

I believe that someone once said on another thread that they sent 2 identical armies to 2 identical RBCs, and lost 1 soldier in the first battle and 3 in the second. They then concluded that there is a luck element.

This could possibly be due to some luck factor. I doubt it, but it's the only possible explanation that I can think of.

I think this is true... I also see this with IDENTICAL FLANK BATTLES; i.e., same offense and defense elements in both flanks and the outcomes are slightly different... some troops died in one flank while the other is zero loss.

AgentY

This is soooo confusing!!!!!!!!!!