Evening out the odds in Fort Battles

The Iceman

Well-Known Member
I think it would even out Fort Battles, if the attackers got to shoot and move first
Afterall they have paid $10,000 to initiate a battle at a Big Fort, so they should have some sort of incentive

Currently, they mount the walls and get KO'd in a lot of cases, without even getting a shot off

I think there would be a major increase in Fort battles, if the option to shoot and move was given to the attackers

/discuss
 

DeletedUser

I don't think that the attackers need to be able to shoot first, but maybe the order of battle could be changed so that attackers shoot after they move. That would have the same effect as having the attackers shoot first when charging up onto the walls, without changing the balance when the attackers and defenders are simply having a shootout. It also adds some tactical options to the commanders' arsenal.
 

DeletedUser

i prefer having the attackers move first. makes more sense to me. if your attacked, then the attacker makes the first move. common sense to me. it even works that way in duels.
 

DeletedUser

Think about it realistically. If someone is attacking a fort, it wouldn't be smart to stop and shoot while they are exposed on the outside of the fort (Like the British at the battle of New Orleans:D). Rather, they will charge forward and start shooting only after advancing to a less vulnerable position. That's why I think that the order of play should be changed to something like this:

1. Defender shoots
2. Attacker moves
3. Attacker shoots
4. Defender moves

True, this isn't consistent with dueling, but fort fighting isn't anything like dueling.
 

DeletedUser

i never said it had to be consistent with dueling, im saying that the dueling system makes sense, whereas the fort system does not.

and if you are already in a less vulnerable position, then why should you move first? your suggestion only makes sense half the time. and it doesn't stop the problem of attackers getting slaughtered before they even get to shoot.
 

DeletedUser

It's not supposed to give the attacker the advantage all of the time, just when they are advancing. Once the attackers clear the walls and are ready to climb over, the next round would work like this:

1. Defenders shoot (the attackers aren't on the wall yet so there will be little if anything to shoot at)
2. Attackers move up onto the wall
3. Attackers shoot a volley down on the defenders inside the fort
4. Defenders move

This also means that if the attacker advances toward the enemy once inside the fort, they will get a closer shot at the defender than the defender gets, but if they retreat, they will get a worse shot or no shot at all (if they climb back down the wall).
 

Deleted User - 819397

I like toms idea. It evens out the whole attacking/defending thing, but don't forget, in most battles of any kind the defenders have the advantage.
 

DeletedUser

I don't think the odds should be even between the attackers and defenders. I think the defenders should have the upper hand. The defenders most likely spent a heck of a lot more money, resources and time building up a fort than $10,000. Forts shouldn't be so easily taken over.

That said, they also shouldn't be impossible to take over, either (which is what people are complaining about -- whether this is actually true or not, I don't know).
 

Deleted User - 819397

That may be true, but you also have to take into account the fact that often times it's the massive correlations of towns that not many people like that end up owning the forts (domination, etc.) so it's very satisfying to see them knocked down a peg.
 

DeletedUser

Lord Regal said:
That may be true, but you also have to take into account the fact that often times it's the massive correlations of towns that not many people like that end up owning the forts (domination, etc.) so it's very satisfying to see them knocked down a peg.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I doubt the devs take such things into account...nor do I see any reason why they should.
 

Deleted User - 819397

I'm just saying...and man you seem to kill just about every thread I post my idea in...:dry:
 

DeletedUser

A maybe fair way to balance fort battles may be to have some type of cover outside the fort, so attackers can get a defense bonus at some distance away from fort. That way some attackers can advance, while others can sit back and hamper the defenders from cover. Really there should be boulders, trees and other obstacles.

Additionally it would be accurate to have attackers and defenders be distracted by being fired upon and have each shot fired (hit or miss) at any player reduce their attack power for the next round due to distraction. Could be mitigated by toughness possibly.

May be a simple way to give attackers a fighting chance, but still leave an advantage to defender. btw defender should have an advantage for sure. building forts is super expensive and tedious.
 

DeletedUser

I agree with having trees or other obsticals outside of the fort

But I dont agree with getting distracted and losing attack power because then the character will be getting 'distracted' nearly every round.

And defenders have an advantage of the cover and bonuses they get from the walls. no matter which side the attackers come from they can be killed instantly when they come onto the walls by the defenders. The defenders will useally out number the attackers by shots fired if they storm the fort by jumping onto the walls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

I don't know about defensive cover for attackers, if i had a fort i'd make sure that attackers would have to sprint across clear ground to get to the walls.

What about cannons? some sort of bombardment to signal the start of battle and even the odds a little.
 

DeletedUser

This is no longer such a big deal. Generally speaking, the current bonuses are now more often forcing defenders back onto the walls & towers at the start (where they should be!) which means all the various offensive tactics which were once so dominant (and gradually forced everyone to adopt the boring 'phalanx' / 'doughnut' defensive strategy) are now once again viable. Round-by-round tactics, both offensive and defensive, are now finally back in play.

Sure, it's still extremely tough for the attackers in a 128-V-128, but it's no longer hopeless.

I would even suggest that providing defensive cover for some of the attackers would likely make an attack less likely to succeed as too many would be vying for these choice locations instead of doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is following the overall offensive battleplan in a coordinated and organised fashion.

Nothing less than this will work in an equal battle, and nor should it.
 

DeletedUser

i agree, the kind of offensive cover suggested wouldn't work. the only offensive cover i think would make sense would be sort of Roman Turtle, but since we don't have shields, that won't be happening. however, allowing towns to purchase war machines might work, so that they could have vehicles for destroying walls or easily bridging walls, and providing cover for attackers.
 

DeletedUser

Couldn't there be a third option when signing into a fort battle. In which you start on the side that has the fewer people in it. Possibly a small exp. bonus for chosing this option.
 

Deleted User - 819397

dueller said:
Couldn't there be a third option when signing into a fort battle. In which you start on the side that has the fewer people in it. Possibly a small exp. bonus for chosing this option.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea...I like this, that would make things more even if everyone picked that, without giving one side an unfair advantage. Great idea!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top