This topic is closed

New and Improved Battle Calculation Formula!

32 Replies
Basileus Leonidas
Administrator
27 April, 2015, 5:37 PM UTC

New and Improved Battle Calculation Formula!

Orichalcum Production Boost at Pantheons! And – More Pantheons!

Archons!

The gods have bestowed their blessing upon us, and have granted us great new updates!

For those busy Archons, here are the latest changes you would be wise to take note of:

  • You will now be granted a 3x Orichalcum production boost for defending a Pantheon from a Persian attack
  • Improved, more balanced formula for deciding the outcome of battles
  • New Pantheons have been discovered on the Map

    1. You will now be granted a 3x Orichalcum production boost for defending a Pantheon from a Persian attack.

    From this day forth, you will receive a 3x Orichalcum production boost for successfully repelling Xerxes’ warriors’ attacks. Each time you successfully fend off one of Xerxes’ attacks, your Orcichalcum production will increase a further 3 times.


    2. Improved, more balanced formula for deciding the outcome of battles

Your generals have trained your warriors well – they are stronger than ever. Now your warriors will stand resilient in the face of your enemies. Battles will now be closer-fought, and fairer, than ever before! Ready your men and put them to the test on the battlefield!

What it all means:

  1. Combat advantage has been given a lower weighting in the algorithm, but still retains a certain impact on the outcome of battles;
  2. Coalition Challenges are fairer than ever before – each and every Coalition is able to compete;
  3. Be aware: the new battle calculation formula doesn’t influence battles taking place at Persian Positions – they will remain as they were!

Are you an Archon that prefers to remain steadfast in defense, as opposed to forceful in attack? If so, then heed this information!

In the past, if you were caught off-guard by your rivals at your weakest moment, your small defensive squad would be wiped out by a superior, well-prepared force. With the previous algorithm, you would fail to even scratch the surface of your enemy’s armor… But from this day forth, your enemy will not get away so freely!

Take the following situations as examples:

Before: When defending with 25 Mounted Peltasts (15,000 Defense Points) against 200 Agema Horsemen (336,000 Offensive Points), 2  Agema Horsemen (3360 Offensive Points)  and around 25 Mounted Peltasts  (15,000 Defense Points)  would fall in battle.

Now: When defending with 25 Mounted Peltasts (15,000 Defense Points) against 200 Agema Horsemen  (336,000 Offensive Points), 8 Agema Horsemen (13,440 Offensive Points) and 24 Mounted Peltasts (14,400 Defensive Points) would fall in battle.

Remember, Archon! Not only the quantity of units, but also the strength of each individual warrior is important when deciding the outcome of a battle. Our calculations always take into account the overall strength of the forces stationed at a location, not just the sheer numbers!

If you are primarily an Offensive Archon, you would be wise to take note of the following information before planning your next battle:

Take the following situations as examples:

On your way to attack a Pantheon, your opponent managed to station an immovable, invincible army, and there’s no way for your men to turn back. It’s certain death – or is it?

Before: During an attack consisting of 10 Agema Horsemen (16,800 Offensive Points) against 600 Mounted Peltasts (360,000 Defensive Points), you would have lost 10 Agema Horsemen (18,600 Offensive Points), while your enemy would have lost around 6 Mounted Peltasts (3600 Defensive Points).

Now: During an attack consisting of 10 Agema Horsemen (16,800 Offensive Points) against 600 Mounted Peltasts (360,000 Defensive Points), your 10 Agema Horsemen (18,600 Offensive Points) would die, while your rival would lose around 23 Mounted Peltasts (13 800 Defensive Points) .

The Gods have bestowed upon you their favor, Archons – make of it what you will!

As you know, every tale has two sides, and with these changes, we wanted to take into account every player’s perspective. With that said, please take a read through the following to understand the thinking behind these recent changes.

The aim of this update, as ever, is to make the outcome of each battle as fair and as balanced as it can be for each party. Because of these changes, no matter the stature of an Archon, he or she will be sure that their army will be able to stand their ground, and give the opposition a good, hard-fought battle. Because of this, the opponent will also sustain losses – as opposed to the old mechanics, where one side could completely destroy the other, without sustaining losses.

This, as always, depends on the combat advantage correlation of each party. Remember: combat advantage is the key to victory. As in the real world, firm alliances, well-judged strategies and the most powerful armies will always prevail. However, a couple of thousand units fighting against an army that dwarfs it in size, will now be able to cause a fair, realistic amount of damage.

    3. New Pantheons on the Map!

Archons! New Pantheons have been discovered on the Global Map. March your men and take control of Hellas!

War doesn't determine who is right - only who is left.
UTC +0:00
DarthRevan
27 April, 2015, 7:49 PM UTC

Heya King,

i read both your posts about the battles and i have to ask...

based on the defencive values of M peltasts their defensive stat value against cavalry is 725, why in all your examples the multiplier is 600?

 

UTC +0:00
Spartan206
27 April, 2015, 8:14 PM UTC

DarthRevan said:

Heya King,

i read both your posts about the battles and i have to ask...

based on the defencive values of M peltasts their defensive stat value against cavalry is 725, why in all your examples the multiplier is 600?

 

Are you talking about the number of Mounted Peltasts in the examples? 600 isn't the multiplier, it's just the amount of units.

UTC +0:00
X-Men
27 April, 2015, 8:27 PM UTC

why not include a battle calculator --- it would make things simpler and people would know the minimum amount of troops needed to defeat an enemy force

UTC +0:00
DarthRevan
27 April, 2015, 8:28 PM UTC

Nope, the DP in the brackets....He multiplies the amount of units by 600 to get the DP (highlighted below)

Before: When defending with 25 Mounted Peltasts (15,000 Defense Points)  against 200 Agema Horsemen (336,000 Offensive Points), 2  Agema Horsemen (3360 Offensive Points)  and around 25 Mounted Peltasts  (15,000 Defense Points)  would fall in battle.

Now: When defending with 25 Mounted Peltasts (15,000 Defense Points) against 200 Agema Horsemen  (336,000 Offensive Points), 8 Agema Horsemen (13,440 Offensive Points) and 24 Mounted Peltasts (14,400 Defensive Points) would fall in battle.

UTC +0:00
Kris5225
27 April, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

I have to admit, I prefer the older algorithm.  The older method is also more real world realistic - if an army of 200,000 men attacked a small band of 500 men, the army of 200,000 would have zero losses.  That is the way it has been throughout history.  This change isn't real-world at all.  I understand why it was made - the big elephant in the room - the problem with all MMORTS is that advanced players can easily destroy newer players and newer players quickly become disenfranchised and leave the game.  With this change, advanced players suffer losses when destroying newer players, slowing down the elephant in the room.  Still, I would like to see a different solution than eliminating real-world realism.

Other game designers smarter than me have offered other solutions, such as restricting attacks to a 10-level difference or limiting army size based on level difference and those are relatively easy implementations.

Personally, I like the idea of factions and territory.  When a person joins the game, they select a faction (in our case, Greece, Persian or Roman) and are automatically assigned an island of all in the same faction.  Everyone on the island are in the same "coalition" and cannot attack each other.  There would sill be bandits and pirates to practice attacking and earning points.  Each city would still have its own defense, and there would also be an island defense which everyone would work together on, and the big battles would be against other islands group defense, then raid cities in the island if we could break through.  Very Trojan War and very real world realistic.  We'd all have friends close by when we started the game rather than spread all over.  Territory and comradeship.

But, either way, I still prefer the old algorithm.

UTC +0:00
war_is_play_x
28 April, 2015, 12:33 AM UTC

Yeah. This update is no good. There should always be that advanage to the stronger players..Atleast the attacker. This will make game more like turtle. Alt player(as we know there is alot) will win more for less with their accounts.. I really don't like this new change of the game. I hope they reverse it soon before it cost them many gamers

Every morning, after i open my eyes. I say with pride... I AM HUMAN :)
UTC +0:00
RRFC
28 April, 2015, 11:56 AM UTC

I am looking forward to taking advantage of this change. As a lvl50 player i can expect to be raided daily by lvl60, 70+ neighbours.

I come on daily to see that my reinforcements are gone and resources are limited unable to level buildings. 

Restricting attacks within a 10lvl margin as mentioned by Kris makes sense. 

Now i know my small army won't die in vain, die all the same but one will come home to talk of the injustice.

Love the game.

UTC +0:00
Spartan206
28 April, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

Wow. The amount of players saying that this change is bad amazes me. The losing army is still going to get wiped out, except now the winning side will suffer slightly more losses. It isn't that big of a change. Also, it's a game about WAR. You should expect to lose troops. 

UTC +0:00
May June
28 April, 2015, 5:58 PM UTC

What is hell did Plarium do to our Persian Quests?  It is almost impossible to get GPS to buy articles.  It makes it almost impossible for new players to compete with the old players.  Before a new player could get enough GPS to buy Mac Calvery after 3 months of playing.  Now it will take a new player an entire year. 

Do the math.  

UTC +0:00
Kris5225
28 April, 2015, 9:14 PM UTC

Thank you, RRFC, for the thoughts on a 10 level restriction. The game could call it "The Spartan Code of War" - in where honor prevents the strong from preying on the weak.

A bit more information... every MMORTS out there uses the old "dungeon and dragons" resolution method. In this method all the units on one side attack enemy units one at a time until the unit is dead or there are no more attacks. This means that you will always suffer some losses in every battle , regardless the army sizes. That is the new PvP battle resolution algorithm being used here Before the change, this game was much more realistic - each unit attacks another unit in the formation randomly. (Think of a long battle line crushing into each other - attacks up and down the line). That means you can send in a huge army and suffer no losses at all.

One thing I'm glad is that they're at least keeping Persian Positions in the old algorithm.

Unfortunately, now this game is the same as every other MMORTS out there - and I specifically started playing (and paying for) this game because of their realistic battle algorithm - it was unique and real. Games should strive to be as real-world as possible.

Still, I do understand the change. An advanced player poaching on a new player is a significant problem in MMORTS games.

UTC +0:00
abdirahman1st
28 April, 2015, 11:40 PM UTC

I see it is more fun and i am excited try it 

UTC +0:00
IAC
30 April, 2015, 2:23 PM UTC

it is a terrible move.

the key element in this game is to get some ressources from raiding an enemy city.

but,now, if you leave 350 javelotiers lvl20 in your city (not in the acropole) the degats for the attacker will be bigger than even the 50K from the ressource that you can get .

this mean the end of the raid for ressource.

in the long run even with your 3 sieged cities and with your colonie, leaving 350 javelotiers is better.

please change this.

have fun with the game...without raid for ressource :(:(:(

IAC

 

 

 

UTC +0:00
d4nt3x
30 April, 2015, 2:27 PM UTC

please changed it back to what it was!

UTC +0:00
Sicario
30 April, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

IAC said:

it is a terrible move.

the key element in this game is to get some ressources from raiding an enemy city.

but,now, if you leave 350 javelotiers lvl20 in your city (not in the acropole) the degats for the attacker will be bigger than even the 50K from the ressource that you can get .

this mean the end of the raid for ressource.

in the long run even with your 3 sieged cities and with your colonie, leaving 350 javelotiers is better.

please change this.

iac

 

 

 

He not it in nothing to add.

It should absolutely put back in place the former system

please change this.

UTC +0:00
Marc Marti
30 April, 2015, 3:22 PM UTC

hi, that good, thank you for thing in the gamers

UTC +0:00
rcsc
30 April, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

hello all, ba late game looks if he does not change his mind and they do not put the game as it was before, they always look the same spending more, and the new poor the game looks terrible for them and for us too lool,
Courage friends we will win.
rcsc

UTC +0:00
Rontonimo
1 May, 2015, 7:44 AM UTC

I don't think this will matter that much, only defending pantheons. 

John hancock
UTC +0:00
IAC
1 May, 2015, 9:37 AM UTC

yes it is true for defending Pantheon it will be a Problem. but for the raiding it is also a problem

 

let take an example


today i had raid a city where i knew from my scout that  there was more than 50k of ressource to take but there was also 170 javolotiers.


i have raid with 50 Agema and 600 hoplites


i had got my 50k but i have lost 1 agema and 8 hoplites: this means, i have lost in ressource 1*(5000+12277+7000)+8*(100+270+150)=28437:


my real win was only 21K of ressource but i had attacked only 170 javelotiers and not 350...

 

in one month everybody will leave 350 javolotier in their City to prevente a raid

have fun with the game...without raid for ressource :(:(:(

IAC

 

 

 

 

UTC +0:00
pascal
1 May, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

I would agree with most of the players on the forum, the overkill aspect has been completely leveled out, removing to some extent interest to the game and coallition benefit in defending/attacking. It is and should not be only about loosing more troups, and spending more cash to the game. but a more balanced approach and more realistic as very well epxlained by few player. please review and take into consideration player feedback!

UTC +0:00
1722523 users registered; 42708 topics; 272098 posts; our newest member:asuka.nsfw