Multiplayer Hub Logo  
  Powered by Noble Master Games, http://www.noblemaster.com Multiplayer Dragon
  Forums Twitter Dev. Blog ⊕  
Home > Forums

MultiplayerHub.com
» Forums|New Posts
» Twitter
» Dev. Blog
» About
» Contact Us
Showcase
» Age of Conquest
» Demise of Nations
» Retro Commander

































Multiplayer Forums


Board index » Games » Age of Conquest (AOC) » AOC: Feature Requests


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 

How would you guy's like it?
A) Leave as is (-1% for aggressor until war is over) 75%  75%  [ 3 ]
B) -1% for aggressor until peace/ceasefire is requested (by the aggressor) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
C) -1% for aggressor and defender that is eliminated by requesting peace/ceasefire (for the whoever requests first) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
D) -1% for aggressor and defender that is eliminated by requesting peace/ceasefire (for each person who requests) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
E) -1% for aggressor and switches to defender if they reject/ignore peace/ceasefire (and then back and forth if defender and aggressor go back and forth rejecting/ignoring each others peace/ceasefire) 25%  25%  [ 1 ]
F) Scrap the new idea completely (for ppl who think the old way is better) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 05:09 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 07 Apr 2019, 07:56
Posts: 9
I'm relatively indifferent to the new -1%/turn penalty for declaring wars. However, I fear that the defender could take advantage of this by never accepting peace. I personally think this could be solved by making it so that the penalty is removed as long as an attempt for peace has been made (i.e. a ceasefire or peace request sent).

This could also work well for if both defender and offender are loosing 1%/turn, since in theory the person worse off will be the one requesting peace/ceasefire.

The poll is a list of ideas I made to gauge what you guys want since knowing peoples opinion will definitely help with help noblemaster decision make for the next update :^^:

If you have any other suggestions that's what the reply section is for ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 06 Sep 2019, 13:33 
Game Developer
Game Developer
User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2005, 02:34
Posts: 8537
Location: Honolulu
I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.

_________________
play: Age of Conquest IV


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Reworking the -1%/turn
PostPosted: 07 Sep 2019, 20:57 
Serf
Serf

Joined: 20 Nov 2016, 18:19
Posts: 18
Noblemaster, that's true

noblemaster wrote:
I first thought (B) was a good idea. However, players will attack another nation, gain some new territory quickly and then send the peace request.

If the defender rejects, which is probably likely as they want to re-gain the lost territory, on the other hand the attacker will have all the penalties wiped.


I have seen some players telling me. I don't want to peace him because he attacked me and conquered all lands except my king (fortified island or good spot to defend) and request me some protection or money.

I think most times it is a valid strategy to fight until the very end and I don't like the proposal of avoiding the penalty. The attacker reaps what he saws. If you declare war to a player, you will have to fight him until the very end or both agree in peace. It doesn't matter if his king or last land is surrounded by other lands and you can't get your troops there. Trade province or ask your ally to abandon it. And if he protects your enemy "the protector of your enemy is your enemy".

The -1% penalty isn't very harmful when it is a surprise attack when you kill your enemy first or second turn after war starts. But the longer the war the worse for you, a super long war of 100 turns in a huge map means a huge difference.

In fact, I keep thinking that when two players want to fight to get first or make an attack after hundreds of turns of total alliances. They can agree to fight each other, therefore no penalty is needed because there is no attacker. Instead of the classic gang I'm first you are second.

My vote is: I like -1% penalty, but I want to add mutual agreement wars


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 3 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
cron

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Green Smilies by http://www.greensmilies.com/

Home  |  Forums  |  Twitter  |  Dev. Blog  |  About  |  Contact