100000396406941

umm back to the main topic...

I noticed that wall castle defense is very weak even at level 20 having 800 archers with blindages and level 20 weaponsmith. A 10k infantry (which is an army composition of probably a 4446 full city) with level 20 weaponsmith can easily wipe it out. How much more a 9f or 15f city. If the developers would make castle defense sturdier like not putting a cap on archers in towers and the number of blindages (what I can think of now) then maybe lower level players can build sturdier defense.
I don't see any point in having any defense when a 30k troop from a county attacks a city with 10k troop (level 20 armorsmith) level 20 tower and wall with 800 archers (level 20 weaponsmith with 800 blindages), the attacker wiped out everything and only had 800 troop casualty? 11k troop defending from a 30k troop in a castle and the attacker had only 3% casualty? As far as I know in any battle situation specially fortified defensive positions the ratio is always higher for an attacker than a defender in terms of casualties.
Also if an attacking force does not have any siege weapon that demolishes the wall, then there should be MUCH higher casualty with the attacking troopS. In the battle of Troy, the Spartans don't have siege weapons when they attacked the Greeks and that they have to resort to using a Trojan horse to gain access to the city. imagine the Spartans sending a thousand ships if each ship has 50-100 troops that is around 50k - 100k attackers.
If there is no cap on the number of troops you can build for an attack then please don't put a cap on building defenses. I know some people would say leave your troops in the city (but that is not the point).
I think there should be a re-evaluation of the computation for attack and defense, make it more realistic and not biased for the attacker.

AmandaPanda

it was designed to favor attacking and i agree that theres a huge disadvantage to defending. What offsets it slightly is the fact that nobility rankings boost def earlier than attacking as you rank up. Im guessing they made the game this way to discourage sim-city types and turtles but along the lines of china and most warring periods of time, i believe the more aggressive leaders/armies were conquering the majority.

Seinfeld

Like I said before - Defense is a fairytale in TKO.

The ratio for attacking side to win against defenders should be 3:1 based on the war tactics. But in this game you need only half and in some cases even a third of the defenders size to win a battle. That is without considering nobility ranks, epics and other bonuses.
Unless they're scottish lead by William Wallace I don't see how could this be possible.
I mean c'mon, imagine 1000 shield infantries in real life trying to win against 1000 of swordsman and 500 archers on the wall. Thats completely impossible. But not in this game.

100000396406941

it was designed to favor attacking and i agree that theres a huge disadvantage to defending. What offsets it slightly is the fact that nobility rankings boost def earlier than attacking as you rank up ...
AmandaPanda Post at 31-7-2010 05:34

I noticed that higher nobility ranked players still don't stand a chance against the numbers, the main difficulty surrounding defense is the fact that TKO's computation on attacking and defending needs an overhaul.
They based this story on Chinese historic accounts, and this is a war game, I doubt they have not read 'Sun Tsu's art of War'

How can a war game be a war game when it is utterly useless to build defenses since their computation is flawed? There should be a balance between attacking and defending since it takes HUGE amounts of time to rebuild unless what they have in mind again is $$$, if that is the objective, I rest my case.

Aura