New victory condition: Siege

Despite the name, the victory condition would not focus on the scenario being a siege map, but an attacker against defender kind of map.

Since the attacker will almost always win in the long term(also because of higher SP gain) the defenders are usually a bad pick unless they can somehow counter the attacker later on(like by events).

What I want is a victory condition which allows the defender to win by holding out for a certain amount of turns, and not the attacker winning by SP or with any events for the defender to counter(imbalance the game as well if the units get turnblocked and die).

This would make siege and attacker against defender scenarios more unique without having to turn the tide, also if the defenders are almost hopelessly outnumbered they are saved by time, instead of losing with the least SP as atWar mechanics give very little SP when defending compared to attacking and capturing cities.

I half support, it seems like a good idea

Wut??? 'Since the attacker will almost always win in the long term(also because of higher SP gain)' wtf is this on about??? Defending wins you a lot more PvP battles and a lot more SP than attacking.

Eshkruar nga Xenosapien, 27.09.2013 at 06:10

Wut??? 'Since the attacker will almost always win in the long term(also because of higher SP gain)' wtf is this on about??? Defending wins you a lot more PvP battles and a lot more SP than attacking.

You do not gain as much SP from defending(from what I have experienced) while you gain a lot more from being offensive and taking cities, I've gained about 20 SP from a large battle where I was defending while I gained the same amount from a minor battle.
SP system is odd, but usually in scenarios you will find attackers having more SP than the defenders as the latter is constantly losing ground, the attacker frequently being superior in number regardless of Strategies to help you defend like PD or Imperialist.

So basically a mode where the worse player wins... I dont see how that can be fair.

The most used strat is already PD, theres no more encouraging needed

And PD can very much be not boring, maybe fun to you is wf first turn

It all depends how you play it, if you do not find it fun you are not playing it properly and too your full extent, if you do not find it fun or challenging or similar do not play it because that's what this game is about. It also engages you more so you pay more attention and concentrate more and therefore better performance.

Eshkruar nga VRIL, 27.09.2013 at 08:39

So basically a mode where the worse player wins... I dont see how that can be fair.

What do you mean with ''the worse player''?
It's supposed to be a victory condition for scenarios where one side is defending and the other attacking, and if the attacker(s) fail to eliminate the defender(s) in a certain amount of turns or are destroyed themselves the defenders win.

Eshkruar nga Permamuted, 27.09.2013 at 08:56

It would encourage the use of more defensive strats like pd and iron fist etc, in other words, boring gameplay

That is incorrect.
Spamming Infantry is not always the solution to winning as a defender, sometimes the best defence is the offence, despite the possibility of turnblocks.

Dont we already have a ''hold for x amount of turns'' for victory?''

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 30.09.2013 at 15:49

Dont we already have a ''hold for x amount of turns'' for victory?''

The problem with that is that it is only five turns max, and a specific region as well.
More turns means that it will just be much harder to hold, and I don't want the defenders to win because they hold a specific country for a while, but just for surviving the onslaught of the invaders for several turns.

I like that idea.
I imagine it would work in a scenario based off something like the American Revolution, where the goal isn't to defeat Britain but to stay alive.

Eshkruar nga Pyrrhus, 01.10.2013 at 00:44

Eshkruar nga Tik-Tok, 30.09.2013 at 15:49

Dont we already have a ''hold for x amount of turns'' for victory?''

The problem with that is that it is only five turns max, and a specific region as well.
More turns means that it will just be much harder to hold, and I don't want the defenders to win because they hold a specific country for a while, but just for surviving the onslaught of the invaders for several turns.

Well yeah, it's the same thing. Ask to increase the number of turns a territory to be held. Intervals of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 up to 50 or even 100.

Tats essentailly what you want and the only way it can work. I fully support an increase in that victory condition. 5 weeks is very short.

citoj:

citoj:

citoj:

Eshkruar nga NoOne, 01.10.2013 at 03:18

I like that idea.
I imagine it would work in a scenario based off something like the American Revolution, where the goal isn't to defeat Britain but to stay alive.

That is one example out of many, but that is basically the main purpose of the game mode, just so you won't need to kill Great Britain in order to win as the Americans.

The problem with that is that it is only five turns max, and a specific region as well.
More turns means that it will just be much harder to hold, and I don't want the defenders to win because they hold a specific country for a while, but just for surviving the onslaught of the invaders for several turns.

Well yeah, it's the same thing. Ask to increase the number of turns a territory to be held. Intervals of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 up to 50 or even 100.

Tats essentailly what you want and the only way it can work. I fully support an increase in that victory condition. 5 weeks is very short.

Problem with that is, how will the attackers then win?
If the defenders have to hold it for a certain amount of turns, so will the attackers.
Therefore it doesn't help to increase the possible intervals of turns it should be held to win, but just to make the condition to survive for 1-100 turns or the like.

Eshkruar nga Pyrrhus, 01.10.2013 at 10:13

Problem with that is, how will the attackers then win?
If the defenders have to hold it for a certain amount of turns, so will the attackers.
Therefore it doesn't help to increase the possible intervals of turns it should be held to win, but just to make the condition to survive for 1-100 turns or the like.

So pretty much you just want to make it so the game will end at a certain turn, and Side A loses if he didn't capture Side B

The real problem with this is how will an attacker be decided?
And, in that case, what assures that either of them actually fight?

basically this is the same as holding their capital. All they have to do to win is make x number of walls around their capital until the game is finished. The players might not even move their units once and still the defender auto-wins.

That's something that isn't easily fixed or circumvented.

Eshkruar nga Dr Lecter, 01.10.2013 at 17:55

The real problem with this is how will an attacker be decided?
And, in that case, what assures that either of them actually fight?

basically this is the same as holding their capital. All they have to do to win is make x number of walls around their capital until the game is finished. The players might not even move their units once and still the defender auto-wins.

That's something that isn't easily fixed or circumvented.

Okay, that's it, this idea is dead now.