Retreating Soldiers

Michael764Gamer · 02.10.2012

well something has always bothered me is the fact that during a seige battle, if you lose the battle, atleast 10% of your men are wounded and are able to fight the next battle but what about if you lose as a attacker?
if you lose as a attacker apparentely all your troops die and this can really be quite dissappointing when you lose lets say 600 soldiers. So i thought maybe if you lose as an attacker 10% of your soldiers retreat or flee from battle and return to your castle ready for the next battle which would even things up i believe....

Eric768 (US1) · 02.10.2012

I think it would only be fair I suppose. Though you could look at it this way, if a castle was attacked, and you were the defender, you have no other possibility but to defend. An attacker must keep pressing on until death.

Eric768

Michael764Gamer · 02.10.2012

and to further emphasize the point... it is rather unfair when the defenders get to atleast survive and not the attackers it does give them an advantage because if i wanted to attack again he would atleast have some soldiers to defend while as an attacker if i were to lose i would have to recruit them back and recruiting 600 soldiers isnt easy

LordEssence · 02.10.2012

We cant choose whether to be attacked or not - GGS has a soft corner for us there and gives us 10% or 25%(ruby)
We can choose whether we want to attack or not - GGS doesn't need a soft corner for us there because it's our choice

.
So seriously if you don't want to lose soldiers(in this case attackers) stop playing the game, or keep 0 honour no alliance and a lot of defenders. I like the idea but logically it wont be implemented.

Michael764Gamer · 02.10.2012

im not attacking the game nor criticizing it, im just making a suggestion plus when you take about 'keeping honor 0, no alliance and lots of defenders' is rather going off topic... what if i want to attack someone to gain glory or because he is my enemy am i going to keep honor to 0, have no alliance and have lots of defenders... really?
and when you take about 'stop playing the game' i like this game, i am just giving a suggestion.... i find it rather weird when a person posts a suggestion or states his opinion then he gets blasted on by people who disagree... its an opinion....

Meisangry · 02.10.2012

It wont work. Imagine you are defending, the attackers win and take your stuff. They leave but some people will just be wounded. They can be helped to get better and recover.
In an attack the attackers will be dead or wounded in an enemy castle with no one there to help them, at best they would become a prisoner of war...

DFlynn · 02.10.2012

i can see the main point of this conversation. if an army attacks a castle and is losing then they will stop attacking and retreat. they wont keep moving forward until every last soldier has been killed. however, if your stupid enough to attack a person that you cant beat, then maybe you deserve to lose your whole army.

Helmler · 02.10.2012

Not sure about that, I sent 500 and 570 vets to attack 2 outposts recently: based on espionage I should have won easily but didn't turn out that way...

I can see the logic in this; don't see what the big problem with having 10% of your troops survive, you still have to replace 90% of them. And no army would continue fighting to the last soldier, as others have said, they would rmake a tactical retreat/run away. Would probably be pretty easy to implement this idea too.

Not a bad idea in my opinion.

Baldrick (GB1) · 02.10.2012

I think the reasoning behind this is that the Medico resides in your castle and doesn't travel with your troops.

But, also as previously suggested, surely if they were only injured and the defenders won they would be captured rather than return to your castle.

I think this might just open up a can of worms. People would complain "why did those attackers survive?". "Why didn't I get to capture them and make them mine?".

Helmler · 02.10.2012

That can of worms has already been opened: I've seen lots of posts about being able to capture enemy soldiers and spies! The defender wouldn't need to know how many survived, when you win in attack you don't see which troops survived and it looks like you killed them all so it would be exactly the same but in reverse.

I very much doubt that troops in medieval times were kept as "prisoners of war". They would either have run away or been killed, or possibly made slaves etc. This is only a game anyway, I think we all realise that realism has gone out of the window at times.

I'm not saying that GGE should necessarily implement this idea, just that it's not a bad one and certainly a lot better than most ideas we see posted here.

nicknamearya · 02.10.2012

I think that you should be able to capture a percentage of the attacking soldiers, and then keep them as prisoners until a ransom is paid by the owner. If the attacker doesn't give a ransom after a certain period of time, you can keep the soldiers.

Baldrick (GB1) · 02.10.2012

nicknamearya wrote: »

I think that you should be able to capture a percentage of the attacking soldiers, and then keep them as prisoners until a ransom is paid by the owner. If the attacker doesn't give a ransom after a certain period of time, you can keep the soldiers.

Hmm, that sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that before?

Helmler · 02.10.2012

Told you that can of worms was already open...

No, you shouldn't be able to take them prisoner. This was a good idea, don't complicate it with bad additions.

AgentY · 02.10.2012

If you were an actual defender, would you let any attacker of your oppenent's alive? That's what I thought.

Michael764Gamer · 03.10.2012

well its retreating personally who would fight to the last man... then 10% isnt much 10% of 600 is like 60....
when people talk about the defenders who would take the attackers prisoners what about the attackers?
if you attack someone and defeat them then why would you spare the defenders and let them fight another day its the same scenario

Baldrick (GB1) · 04.10.2012

Michael764Gamer wrote: »

well its retreating personally who would fight to the last man... then 10% isnt much 10% of 600 is like 60....
when people talk about the defenders who would take the attackers prisoners what about the attackers?
if you attack someone and defeat them then why would you spare the defenders and let them fight another day its the same scenario

That's a very good point.

To be honest, I tihnk GGS give the option of "reviving" 25% of the defenders so that players can have enough defenders to ward off robber baron attacks. That's probably the reason.

Michael764Gamer · 04.10.2012

yes i have nothing against having 10% of the defenders wounded and ready for the next battle... what i would like to see is the same case for the attackers who have lost

Dogwood77 · 05.10.2012

Please don't take offense. In this case, you chose to attack. For gameplay purposes, (i.e. soldiers cost money) if you lose the attack, you lose the soldiers. That's the risk you take. Defenders get revived because you don't get to choose whether you get attacked, unless you spend the rubies to safeguard yourself. If you don't want to lose the soldiers, don't send the attack.
Another interesting part to this is that when you lose an attack, you don't get a detailed battle report. If you had "retreating soldiers" make it back to your castle, they would theoretically be able to give you that report. I think it makes it more interesting to not know. "Do I send another attack right away, or does he/she have many more troops than I thought?" It's part of the gameplay.

Michael764Gamer · 08.10.2012

well the commander always seems to return without a battle report furthermore when you talk about its your choice to attack.... what if its an objective or to gain an achievement.... e.g defeat 24 castles and loot 24000 resources (im currently doing that) and as a defender once again it is your choice in war both sides contribute... if you dont want to be attacked make yourself less appealing to your foes by maybe reducing your honor

Michael764Gamer · 08.10.2012

one more thing i left out.... i do like the fact that upon losing a battle you are unable to know the casualties inflicted on the enemies side its quite mysterious, makes you want to take things catiously

Retreating Soldiers

Comments

Leave a Comment