Dem Assassins

[LPhillips]

...Even though you may need as many as twice the number of units as your opponent...

I'd call that 100% defense unless you control 70% of the cities or more.

You're talking about superior numbers overwhelming a single entrenched position. And you've openly stated that the cost greatly exceeds the benefit. If for example it takes 60 turns of production at value 8000 to defeat 40 turns of production at value 1500, I'd call that a 100% defense. The scenario you've analyzed does not at all fit the scenario given. I have (er, had) superior units and deployment. They have complete control of all engagements due to the ability to intercept at 100% deadliness utilizing highly inferior units (low/no cost to their real armies, IE, perfect active defense) and fortified cities with 100% ambush and stacks of medium strength units (total cost of eliminating one city: 40+ mid-high level units; IE perfect defense). Even given your scenario, critically weakening oneself to break one strong point is simply an invitation to utter destruction in any resulting counterattack.

However, against concentrations of troops exceeding 8, they're completely ineffective. In fact, the only thing I can possibly do is play a prolonged stalemate. They can't attack. I can't attack.

KGB, the idea that a stalemate will eventually break after 30 turns of doing nothing is not an acceptable state for the game. All stalemates break. In fact, if I and my teammate use the correct production, this stalemate would theoretically never break. After all, they can't afford to attack (lose those heroes and they lose their edge), and each side will simply stockpile troops until saturation is reached, with the superior macromanagement ending up with a superior army (probably my side, and still completely ineffective on offensive). Given that scenario, the stalemate is perfectly indefinite.

[LPhillips]

Also KGB, what is your point about stack ambush? No one suggested removing it. The player in your scenario (underdog) would simply need to utilize actual ambush units to employ 100% or near-100% ambush ability. The only thing my suggestion does is remove absolute attack and absolute defense with weak units by cheap means.

[smursh]

I suppose the best solution is a drawn game option. KGB you requested a game be declared a draw and it was removed from game history. Instead of this maybe each remaining player gets a % win / loss based on the % of cities they control. The option would need all remaining players to agree to a draw on the same turn. This way once a stalemate occurs the game doesn't become who gets sick of playing first. ( I would envision if you control 55% of the map vs. 45% for your opponent, you would get a 10% win and him a 10% loss charged or some such scoring)

I am playing a game now that has a similar siege situation in one area. Fortunately the map is large enough that the whole map isn't blocked so the game remains fluid, but I see how it could happen on certain maps.

[LPhillips]

It's just one feature causing this difficulty, and it seems to me that the collateral effects of +100% group ambush are undesirable in any scenario. It didn't take this scenario to bring up the cap, but this scenario highlights one situation where it's extremely desirable. Now a player-agreed draw would be a nice feature in any event, but I still think the cap needs to happen sooner rather than later if it's at all feasible. In all likelihood, it's a major programming challenge reserved for 0.9.

[KGB]

I think if 2 players agree to a draw it should just be a 50/50 draw. The game I requested it in had nothing to do with group ambush. It was simply a very long 8 player FFA where another player and I had signed a 30 turn NAP and by the time it was down to 5 turns left all the other players had resigned leaving us with about 50% of the map each. It was a Beta5 game so neither of us really cared that much to finish it since it was literally just a Demon fest at that point.

LPhillips I already said I totally support your push for a cap to group ambush and would like it to be something like 70%. As for coding challenge it should be about 1 line of code: If (groupAmbush > 70) groupAmbush = 70. I think it wasn't done because enough changes (reduced UL, reduced group ambush) were already made to the Assassin that he needed some more play testing before deciding if anything else needed to be done (remember all the fuss about the Demon and how reducing him to 20 strength with +7 swarm(5) for a max strength of 55 was deemed 'still too good' by many players. Funny but I hardly see anyone making Demon swarms now so I'd guess it was 'just right').

KGB

[LPhillips]

I just don't see where this hypothetical entered the conversation:

The question I keep coming back to on this issue is that group ambush is *the only* thing that keeps a player with fewer cities in a game. So if you completely nerf it so that it can't keep a weaker player in the game then what is Warbarons reduced to?

Other points in the post are understandable, but it doesn't seem like anyone made a suggestion approaching what you describe here. If you're in support of the 70% cap, why the strawman hypothetical? Just a cautionary tale about going too far (IE beyond what we've actually discussed)?

[KGB]

Just a cautionary tale about going too far (IE beyond what we've actually discussed)?

Correct. The overall tendency in the game has been to consistently reduce everything (moves, strength, bonus's, heroes etc) toward a weaker state. So that extreme units/strategies etc are not viable. In some cases that's warranted but in others I'm still not convinced it was the way to go since the game is becoming closer and closer to a city race.

KGB

[kenc80]

Agreed. Keep the stacking and bring back Big Red's +12.

[LPhillips]

Agreed. Keep the stacking and bring back Big Red's +12.

I hope with the removal of roads for fliers, we will see the extreme air power return (4-to-band Demons, +12 dragons, etc.). There should be no reason to restrict them at that point, as map design won't be completely overturned by flier power.

[Jeremy]

For a differing view, I always hated the overpowered Dragons. It's ridiculous that they give amazing morale, are personally powerful, and have great movement.

In my opinion, the best morale creature should be in an Angel that is personally quite weak. And the Dragon can be the personal big baddy with the high strength and 3 HP -- and no team boosting power.