Hunger Mutator

[Bence791]

Disagree, because that would also give the "advantage" to the defender (since you can't determine who is the attacker and who is the defender, meanwhile when writing the game engine)... So it's actually just an addition (Btw the + AP to storming infantry was proposed before the shieldpatch [by me] in order to enhance infantry).

Horses are used, and not rarely...

Implementing this would certainly mean that the defensive player is at the advantage

The defensive player is already at a huge advantage... That's the main problem with your idea.


Attackers don't need any advantages or bonuses or whatever. It is logical that they take more losses, but giving them more disadvantages... Stop, please. Imo this idea doesn't even worth further discussion... I wouldn't even say yes if it would only be implemented as a mutator. Just read all that I have written now and before.

[WhiteWolf]

Using my idea the units are only weakened at the last 15% health he has left. So there is plenty of time after you fed your units to make a proper attack, just as it is now. The idea of the bonus when storming was to balance your problem with the hunger idea, however if the attacker feeds his troops before he attacks the game wouldn't be different as it is now, just a bit more realistic.


So it seems the attacker/defender can't be determined but if the defender would storm towards the attacker he wouldn't have the advantage of his towers/bowman and since melee units need 3 tiles before they start the storm attack the defender can't abuse the storm attack to gain the bonus before the attacker hits (unless he is lucky to see the enemy start a storm attack and choose to meet him halfway the battlefield).


I get the feeling that you're against the idea because it would mess with your tactics, not because it would mess the game up.

[Shadaoe]

I like the idea of making food more important, because currently this is quite rare to see a MP game where not a single citizen dies of hunger. Pretty sad to see that in a game where economy has such an important role
I don't know what's the best way, but trying to find ways is always good.

[WollongongWolf]

I still don't see how a camper should be able to outfeed his troops, as whatever happens, at the end of pt, he still needs an army, and have towers (I haven't seen anyone being strong with camping without towers), and in order for this idea to improve camping (according to the believes I read here) he needs to have a good feeding industry as well. If someone is really camping, you can at least surround him so he has no way to expand his town, thus barely a way to improve his pt army, while the aggressor has map control and can use offensive towering (if enough stone that is, but that's again map-dependant) to gain more land for creating food (or wood/weapons or whatever you want). Expanding this village (and if it gets huge, perhaps do consider a second storehouse near the battlefield for food) (which makes me wonder why an aggresor is assumed to have hungry troops) results in a better economy and should snowball in victory.
And yes perhaps it's not a good idea to give recently fed troops a bonus, but the original idea of the hungry troops being weaker sounds good to me. Perhaps weaken them to almost useless (towermeat) at like no food bar left. After pt you basically got 15 minutes to try and do something, attack some towers, catch perhaps some kills (you will force the camper to do at least something mostly by just doing at least something. You also got 15 minutes to create a little back up army, to put on the front line when you feed your pt troops.

Of course some maps got plenty of space, but come on, there are tonnes of different maps, with probably 99% being called bad or imbalanced, you simply can't balance a game for all those maps. As said before, an anti-camp solution for one map might be a disastor for another map.

And perhaps we should also give everyone a big army at the end of pt, because a small army encourages camping...

[Bence791]

@Wolololololololo[...]longWolf

With a rushbase, you can usually have 70+ soldiers in pt, and +60-70 soldiers in the intervallum between pt's end and the time when your soldiers are hungry. I really doubt if you could get 120+ food to store in those 18 minutes (assuming you also feed your economy...). Also while keeping up your weapon production and paying full attention to the battlefield.

A "good camper" usually has 2-3 bakeries + 2-3 vineyards running by the end of pt. He doesn't have leather, but can have iron. You can't see behind his towers, or can you? And let's say you don't underestimate anyone (which would sometimes be a pretty bad idea). You won't "dare" to enter his base, but you will start taking his towers down. With some proper archer micro from the defender's side, you can only take 1-2 towers down in those 18 minutes (or even less). He feeds his army, yours stays hungry... What can you do without food? Nothing, maybe a last attack in hope of breaching and winning. Now, if you are given such disadvantages, it will rather be a suicidal move instead of a "maybe worthy" crush. Is that what you want under the actual circumstances (defenders having much of advantages over the attackers)? I guess no. Please consider my writings before posting other arguments against my replies.

[Shadaoe]

@Wolololololololo[...]longWolf

Priest spotted.

[Bence791]

@Wolololololololo[...]longWolf

Priest spotted.

OFFTOPIC SPOTTED!