PDA

View Full Version : Strength of siege and fort affected in battles



Jedi
30th July 2006, 10:07 PM
Okay, I've read this thread (http://www.giveupalready.com/showthread.php?t=27598) and so far nobody has posted this. (Truthfully I don't have the time to browse the entire throne room).

Let's make this game more interesting.

The strength of your siege tech and fortification are also affected if you attack or being attacked. If one suffers from a mass attack, the strength of his fortification deteriorates and soon he will loose his current fortification. I.e. downgraded to the previous level. Unless of course, he choose to repair the damages in time.

As upgrade strength goes down, it affects the damage multiplier of the weapons.

Upgrade strength = damage multiplier.

For example, Towers has a multiplier of 2.00. Each time he suffers a SUCCESSFUL blow from the enemy, the multiplier drops. Not too much, but maybe a small fraction, say 0.001 for each attack turn used against him (if you use 15 attack turns, then your opponent's fort's strength reduces by 0.015 points). But as soon as the strength goes down to 1.75, his fortification automatically downgrades to Walled Town. And it goes all the way down to Camp. Camp will be the lowest possible level. You can't go any lower than that.

If the attack attempted by others failed (i.e. attack defended), the strength of your fort will not be affected. However, the strength of your opponent's siege level is affected.

Each time you strike, the strength of your siege level goes down.

Each time you fail to defend your gold, the strength of your fortification goes down.

As such, both parties will suffer more damages this way. Gold pillage would be lesser and it would be harder for people to maintain their account.

It also balances the game. More people choose to purchase upgrades than weapons because these are better investments, upgrades couldn't be broken and will remain there forever. I've spied several accounts which have powerful upgrades but lousy armory.

atat23
31st July 2006, 07:11 AM
how would this make the game more interesting?, it would just add more to repairs and/or mean you would have to purchase your upgrade again, it would also mean that sabbers could bitch slap your defence into nothing sound like it would make the game even more tedious

robin85
31st July 2006, 08:20 AM
i like the idea very much but don't think its anything for KoC

dancks
6th August 2006, 03:39 PM
I like it and I think the power of sabbing should be very reduced or easier to defend. i realize this is a game based on fantasy but i hear about people losing 500 BPMs or ISs from frequent sabbing. does that sound realistic? massive amounts of weapons being sabotaged right in front of all those sentries yet they dont notice. amazing

LoseR
6th August 2006, 08:27 PM
KoC is actually quite realistic.... not only do soliders work for free, but they pay YOU 28 gold per turn, sheilds are invisible, elves, orcs, and dwarves are all common sites, and anyone can command an army of thousands.

Anyone comparing KoC to real life needs to take a look at the game every now and then...

ComunisTico
7th August 2006, 12:30 AM
KoC is actually quite realistic.... not only do soliders work for free, but they pay YOU 28 gold per turn, sheilds are invisible, elves, orcs, and dwarves are all common sites, and anyone can command an army of thousands.

Anyone comparing KoC to real life needs to take a look at the game every now and then...
:pointlaug :rofl:

actually is a pretty gud idea... would bring a bit more fun to masses, and like that u could see ppl really massing and trying to find hours to attak to not totally wast their turns

would be nice thing 2 c next age.. if i play it >P