Balance between Offense and defense heavily favors defense and the game suffers

[Funken_A]

I am not asking for help, this is a vent / complaint thread.

Really do not know what else to say. I have 10 successful defenses out of the last 12 times I've been attacked. Each successful defense I lost resources but gained no shield because my defense is strong, and players got what they could. I gain medals but lost plenty of resources. If I'm losing resources then I do not feel I was very successful

On offense I just started gunpowder age and all my barracks are upgraded. So I can bring 95 troops. As a fully maxed Medieval aged troops (before my recent upgrade to gunpowder) and an extra 15 troops for gunpowder age I should be able to walk through classical age bases without mercenaries or wasting tactics..Yet I was unable to beat a couple of classical bases. I should be able to destroy classical bases and handle medieval bases much more easily and I should be encouraged to challenge gunpowder and even enlightenment age bases, yet this game completely discourages this

Which brings me to the next problem. I avoid all gunpowder, enlightenment and most medieval bases I come across unless I am just sniping. I use to be able to take on stronger foes with moderate success, now its pretty much a waste of time. I will never be able to advance at a palatable pace with this game in its present form which means it is very boring to play right now.

I've vented before , and I', venting again. Bottom line is your game is really boring.. I am not having much fun with it

 

[Vader]

I completely agree!

As they don't seem to care at all, I gave up on sending e-mails to Nexon. I just stopped playing the game. Pity.

 

[alcaz]

Short:
If you can't beat a maxed CA base with 95 maxed MA troops, its not the games fault - its yours. You should definately reconsider your army setup or attacking style (maybe watch some YT videos?). And you should not be able to beat a EA base with MA troops lol, sry - what would be the point of advancing, when troops from 1-2 ages behind you can beat you easily?

 

[Funken_A]

Short:
If you can't beat a maxed CA base with 95 maxed MA troops, its not the games fault - its yours. You should definately reconsider your army setup or attacking style (maybe watch some YT videos?). And you should not be able to beat a EA base with MA troops lol, sry - what would be the point of advancing, when troops from 1-2 ages behind you can beat you easily?

LMAO

STFU dude

Sick and tired of fools like you thinking they know something.

Look at all the posts, everyone is having issues with this game. The AI and the nerfs are the problem


but you keep defending this non sense.

ROTFLMAO.. you have no clue what you are talking about at all

 

[Funken_A]

tell you what you post links to a bunch of youtube videos showing how its done.. bet you can't find any decent ones since the last update

 

[Joe Bamboo Wissmann]

You are not making sense, change your base if you are not getting the shield you need. check out my youtube channel if you need some help. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqsJMb-WKr06V_9RMGjlRrg

 

[Redgar]

Even though I don't like attack nerf, I can deal with it. What's bothers me is AI which makes units unpredictable. The first topic I wrote after the update was that tactics is destroyed after new update. This is NO FUN at all E.g. Earlier You knew that HC will attack a wall near defensive structure you want to distract... But now these bastards may go to the other part of the screen for some garrison out the walls getting under balista. How the hell I should calculate that? And how those units approach buildings before the attack is even more frustrating. Multiple examples per each unit. so I agree with topic starter and do not agree with those who say they there is no problem here

 

[bigcity]

I agree that the AI is meshed up, Redgar put it right, troops are unpredictable.

But nevertheless, Why am I as medeival 80 troops still able to overrun classical with ease ?

Because I probably anticipate on the fact of this new behaviour.

I do not use the heavy Cavalry anymore, cause these guys just lost it completly, they only chase their own shadows.
I use regular troops to break a wall and punch out border defense buildings quickly
Add some archers at the right spot at the right time to attack defenses

and then the cavalry comes to join, and takes the main loot out, with a dessert of town centre.

If you get enough defense out quickly, more then half will survive.


But it has become much harder, and I sometimes get the feeling I'm watching a comic.

Last I saw my pikeman chasing the defense troops, which on their turn were chasing my cavalery who were running through the village fast enough to hardly get shot, while the pikeman all got shot to pieces, while they should have attacked the buildings at which they were dropped...
Was funny though seeing this big chase through town

If They are not scared off into the woods, or run around a building taking position in front of a tower or ballistic before starting attacking themselves.

So although I agree with the fact that Ai has made the troops an incredible stupid, cowerly, incompetent bunch of misfits.

If you whip them hard enough and tell them what they should do, you should be able to get better result.

Again, I'm still are in big favor of a return of the old Ai instead of this crappy one.

 

[Redgar]

I stil use 2-3 HC as tanks, so even if they die randomly, I still have chances . Devs probably do not even have an idea how we played before tactically and what they have ruined. Making soldiers spam or cavalry grinding the most efficient loot tactics is just wrong. I like Saboteurs, tho.

 

[Funken_A]

Even though I don't like attack nerf, I can deal with it. What's bothers me is AI which makes units unpredictable. The first topic I wrote after the update was that tactics is destroyed after new update. This is NO FUN at all E.g. Earlier You knew that HC will attack a wall near defensive structure you want to distract... But now these bastards may go to the other part of the screen for some garrison out the walls getting under balista. How the hell I should calculate that? And how those units approach buildings before the attack is even more frustrating. Multiple examples per each unit. so I agree with topic starter and do not agree with those who say they there is no problem here

yeah the AI is maddening but combined with the nerf it makes for lots of missed quick victories producing a diamond, missed loot and lost troops.

I don't mind challenges but I definitley enjoyed the game I was playing last month more so post update.

 

[Funken_A]

I agree that the AI is meshed up, Redgar put it right, troops are unpredictable.

But nevertheless, Why am I as medeival 80 troops still able to overrun classical with ease ?

Because I probably anticipate on the fact of this new behaviour.

I do not use the heavy Cavalry anymore, cause these guys just lost it completly, they only chase their own shadows.
I use regular troops to break a wall and punch out border defense buildings quickly
Add some archers at the right spot at the right time to attack defenses

and then the cavalry comes to join, and takes the main loot out, with a dessert of town centre.

If you get enough defense out quickly, more then half will survive.


But it has become much harder, and I sometimes get the feeling I'm watching a comic.

Last I saw my pikeman chasing the defense troops, which on their turn were chasing my cavalery who were running through the village fast enough to hardly get shot, while the pikeman all got shot to pieces, while they should have attacked the buildings at which they were dropped...
Was funny though seeing this big chase through town

If They are not scared off into the woods, or run around a building taking position in front of a tower or ballistic before starting attacking themselves.

So although I agree with the fact that Ai has made the troops an incredible stupid, cowerly, incompetent bunch of misfits.

If you whip them hard enough and tell them what they should do, you should be able to get better result.

Again, I'm still are in big favor of a return of the old Ai instead of this crappy one.

My samurai and crossbowman die within 2 -3 shots from an archer tower or a catapult, so my experience is if the heavies don't get in there and take out or absorb damage then my samurai and die very very quickly
My Crossbowmen are ok on defenders but really are not very good at buildings or walls unless in large numbers which means they start off quick but as they lose their numbers become less and less effective.

So I use 9 knights, 18 smaurai, and 15 crossbowman and have 3 Heavy raiders on the side for clean up. That's my usual army. I usually deploy knights 1st to take out easily exposed catapults and archer towers or any defense then allwo the knights to hack through the fences as my samurai and crossbowman come in a bit behind them. But that's where the knight AI and nerf screw up attacks as they will take bad routes or choose bad places to attack a fence etc.. and no using a supply cart ballista or wall miner are not options as none of them give me the vlaue I expect for the amount of troop space and training time they take

Now I posted that I did get beat back by a classical base or 2. I can defeat classical bases but I am use to those bases producing me a 5 star quick victory, and with my gunpowder ages barracks that should be an easy outmatch for me in my favor.

BUT what bothers me the most is I can't even make much of a dent in a solid gunpowder aged bases, I can take advantage of a bad layout and lose troops and gain some resources but mostly I am forced to stay low where I can get my victories and my trade goods, and to me that's not much fun. Lesser loot down low makes for long dragged out raiding sessions. I enjoy having more success on the bigger foes and moving upwards, but instead this game keeps dictating that I shed medals and stay low for survival purposes


Most people seem to agree the latest changes sucked lots of fun out of the game

 

[bigcity]

Well as you described, knights act like dumma$$es, so thats why I do not use them anymore.

My whole strategy had changed, I do not go for medals anymore, getting loot is more important, so I try to estimate the troop loss, if I attack.
If I can get loot, by breaching a wall, get the loot and get a town centre or 50%, I'm gone (as long as I can get the most of the loot), In such an attack I try to use 30%-50% of my troops, and spare the rest for a next attack.
So while I attack the next, new troops can be produced, and so on.

So moving, from complete victory, to satisfying attack, makes the game bearable.

I only do a full attack, if I estimate that troops will survive, but then and only then I throw in my mercenaries and request troops along with some tactics and/or generals.

Actually, the way of raiding has not really changed, only the choice of my troops, and....I do not go for a victory if that will cost me too much troops.

First I want the loot, if there is a left over of troops I will throw them on the city center, Or maybe I deploy some extra if needed, to get a 50 % or the town center.

Now again, the Ai is focked up, but to me it only means less total victories and well... less medals.

But the loss of medals is compensated by other users, which I see use more or less the same strategy, cause I see a lot more users going for loot and not for a victory.

You gain the medals overnight.

O, and I do raid gunpowders and enlightment also, as long as they have weaknesses in their defense to exploit

 

[Funken_A]

Well as you described, knights act like dumma$$es, so thats why I do not use them anymore.

My whole strategy had changed, I do not go for medals anymore, getting loot is more important, so I try to estimate the troop loss, if I attack.
If I can get loot, by breaching a wall, get the loot and get a town centre or 50%, I'm gone (as long as I can get the most of the loot), In such an attack I try to use 30%-50% of my troops, and spare the rest for a next attack.
So while I attack the next, new troops can be produced, and so on.

So moving, from complete victory, to satisfying attack, makes the game bearable.

I only do a full attack, if I estimate that troops will survive, but then and only then I throw in my mercenaries and request troops along with some tactics and/or generals.

Actually, the way of raiding has not really changed, only the choice of my troops, and....I do not go for a victory if that will cost me too much troops.

First I want the loot, if there is a left over of troops I will throw them on the city center, Or maybe I deploy some extra if needed, to get a 50 % or the town center.

Now again, the Ai is focked up, but to me it only means less total victories and well... less medals.

But the loss of medals is compensated by other users, which I see use more or less the same strategy, cause I see a lot more users going for loot and not for a victory.

You gain the medals overnight.

O, and I do raid gunpowders and enlightment also, as long as they have weaknesses in their defense to exploit

I use a snipe approach to drop medals and get back down low for easy prey. in that case I just launch 10 - 20 samurai let them eat up easy loot then rally them to a final spot. Sometimes I can snipe a TC and gain medals other times I just lose the medals and grab the loot.

I might have to try the 50% approach your talking about, but I have little confidence in crossbowman and samurai without meat in front. Guess it comes down to loot availability and clicking next a whole heluva alot

I do attack enlightenment age and gunpowder age occasionally if they have bad layouts I can expose, but even those bases have me being swarmed by defenders to quickly

 

[bigcity]

Yes defenders are the worst, if the place is swarming with them, only thing you can do is try to get them to the other side of the playfield, away from the looting spots.

Indeed archers/crossbow do not have the damage they used to, but they can detract defense troop from attacking the cavalery


Clicking next a whole lot, is something already did before the update.

What use is it to attack a village which does not have enough resources, to compensate for the lost troops. and what use is it to attack a village where there is nothing to loot at all ?


And then I look at the village, how is it build up etc.
But more important is my army the right army to attack this village ?

What I liked before the update, is the fact that I could make any type of army, and still could find the right village to attack.

But what took the fun for me out is that, this is not possible anymore....

But to be honest, my approach before the update is quite the same from what you described, using knights as defense pounders, but they are way too slow, too stupid so they just don't work anymore, again, thats why I stopped using them.

But no village is the same... As I also had a nice army with 3 ballistics and so,me troops around them, which completly whiped out 2-3 villages, later it just didnt do it anymore for me.
There is also a cost/gain issue and rebuild time.

normal cavalery is by far the cheapest and fastest created, and they move fast, so for looting, they are perfect.

To be honest, before the update, I hardly used them, I used infantery, crossbows, and knights... but nothing lasts forever.


Saying that, I hope this focked up Ai also does not last forever, I hope they move back to the old one VERY SOON PLEASE !

 

[bigcity]

The reason I stopped chasing medals:

I was top rank of my alliance with a end of medieval, ready to go for gunpowder, I had 1260 medals
But I already noticed that most wars, I could only gain 1 medal at a time and loose a lot if I lost a battle.

then my village got swapped I had to do with a classical army, but still had to face high level gunpowders and such.

Because my alliance was a little bit going dead, I left and joined another one (immediately top rank)

I had to explain how the héll I had so many medals while I had this small classical village, named as a medieval...
Another user pointed me out that dropping medals made raiding a lot more fun.

So I switched from attacking for a star, taking as much loot in the process, to attacking for loot and sometimes taking a star to prevent going to low on medals.

I now hover between 400-600 which in my case (medieval by now again) made the game a lot more fun to play.

And with 65 troops instead of the 80 troops I had, I needed to be inventive to get loot in.

And then the update came along, I had to retry again, to see how I get more loot in.

So again, I hate the new Ai, but it is a strategy game and I also think people should approach it as such.

Nobody has the same troop setup from start to end, you always will adjust according to new villages/structures or troops you meet.

 

[Redgar]

Well, on a good note enlightement saboteurs made GP bases fall easily. I came back to comfortable 5 mins between battles what is nice

 

[Danix den Andre]

A single guerilla, when other defenses are distracted by other troops, can take out half a bases defensive buildings. And I've just managed to get a grip on a rather successful strategy with the new troops and AI, which is truly retarded

 

[bigcity]

Maybe they can rename the game to : "Plundering idiots"

It's not a catchy name, but it perfectly describes the troop movement.