Unicorn lairs

[Suriname]

I'm fine with flyers - I'm just not fine with flyers non engaging, that's just like retreating. Same as cavalries out of town. This is the issue I'm trying to solve. Because it does look ridiculous on videos and that brings bad rep, and because I am forced to use it to beat lunatic too and to weak not to use it. I don't want to be forced to keep cavalry in defence anymore, I want to be able to keep real units without feeling bad about it (because it's stupid not to abuse this trick right now).

I don't understand why it wouldn't be a good idea to raze towns down to outposts, if it goes also all the way to rubble on clicking raze... For me it'd be better to raze them completely mind you on hitting 100% - maybe we can make outposts only the ones with fortresses to avoid the 0 fortress bug?

We could even offer a choice to the player or AI when this happens. Reusing the raze menu.

[Suriname]

[quote pid='661526' dateline='1517866984']

Well, then just add a line that stops damage whenever there are only flyers on the defence side (and none in attack) after skill is spent, and I'm somewhat satisfied.

It doesn't work like that. Damage is only dealt after the entire battle is over, and the winner is known, because armies are fighting. Before that, no actual units take damage, only the total force of the armies gets reduced to simulate taking it.
[/quote]
Something doesn't add up. You have changed the system from concentrated damage - one unit at a a time - to spread damage, haven't you? If not, what exactly have you done to the strat combat system, in short?

I'm pretty sure 75% is enough. Reducing cities to outposts would open a nasty can of worms I want to avoid - aside from a fortress issue, I have no idea what happens if an outpost has buildings already built. (because that might very well happen even if the destruction rate was 100% - replaced buildings cannot be destroyed until after the next overland turn when they reappear.)
We can have somewhere between 75 and 100% as long as it doesn't turn things into outposts, but I really fail to see the need. There is a line between a tactic being "not that useful" as it currently is - you get to be the defender again and maybe summon something into the city for next turn, but the city takes a lot of damage - and "absolutely unusable", at 100% destruction you are better off letting the AI conquer the city (and even save more troops by fleeing!) than send an army and retake it, losing only 40-60% of the buildings and people. I'm not really using this tactic because it's good, I'm using it because I'm used to doing that, and because I dislike losing cities. Even if losing the city is a better strategy, it's worse for psychology - people hate losing things, while with this tactic they can feel they defended it even if they lose most of the buildings. (but at 100% there would be no point and people would start to realize they aren't as smart as they think they are, and would have less fun.)

Making this tactic counter-productive is exactly my point, for the reasons outlined above. How about allowing razing of everything but the fortress? (for magic shield yadda yadda) to avoid the bug.

You must have not played lunatic in forever, you have no idea how important it is to get the defender's role and kill some more of those throngs of nagas with confusion or similar at the beginning. I literally plan for when the throng arrives by having 1-2 cavalries as defenders everywhere, even better if undead.

[Seravy]

I just don't understand what your core problem is except that you think the tactic is annoying (both to use and to fight).

I'm quite sure that's all of it but I'm trying to get the point across that alternatives would be even more annoying to fight against making the game worse overall. (Maybe not to use, but that's really up to personal preferences. I'd vomit if I captured the enemy capital because the 9 sky drakes were busy going after my archers while my random cavalry or fast units walk into the city.)

[Suriname]

Which they don't because you send them back to the city on turn 10...

I can't stand the idea of sending again 1 horse per city, that's the jist of it, but I also believe that the videos with this silliness make your work look bad.

[Seravy]

Something doesn't add up. You have changed the system from concentrated damage - one unit at a a time - to spread damage, haven't you? If not, what exactly have you done to the strat combat system, in short?

Read the strategy combat threads, geez.

step 1 : Total army power for both sides is determined.
step 2 : Each side keeps attacking the other, each attack reduces the enemy army attack power proportionally to the "damage". No damage is dealt to actual units and no units die. (ranged damage goes first btw)
step 3 : Whichever army reached near zero attacking force, is considered the loser.
step 4 : the loser's army is marked dead (or undead if applicable)
step 5 : The percentage of total force missing from the winning army compared to the step 1 is recorded.
step 6 : An amount of damage equal to that percentage of the total hit points of all units in the army is distributed between the actual, real units. (This is the step where I changed where the damage is put.)

By step 6, the winner is already determined, you can't put anything that influences the outcome there.
For all steps except 1 and 6, actual, real units are ignored entirely.

You must have not played lunatic in forever, you have no idea how important it is to get the defender's role and kill some more of those throngs of nagas with confusion or similar at the beginning.

How about steering them towards your capital so the lighting kills them all while your cavalry runs around? In the early game that's the easiest and most effective way to get rid of enemy stacks.
But yea, I admit I haven't played Lunatic in a while. I don't even know if it's a playable difficulty as is, or needs to be removed. That's something to find out later.

[Seravy]

Which they don't because you send them back to the city on turn 10...

There is no turn 10. I control the city tiles on turn 4 so I win the battle - it ends right there. The Sky Drakes are forced to retreat and then all die because they are slower than my cavalry and fail to do so. This is what your suggestion actually does.

[Suriname]

Ah, no, I suggest to keep turn till 25, and at that point run the check, if there's only attackers in the city - or if the defenders are non committal flyers (and invisible?) - then allow capture.

Or offer to raze.

Or at least burn everything to the ground till it's an outpost. Except perhaps the fortress to avoid the bug.

Or barring that at least make it a 0 buildings, 1 pop city.

[Suriname]

Also answering to the strategic sequence in the strategic combat thread.

[Seravy]

If the battle keeps going until turn 25, what's the point?
All I need to do is move my units back on that exact turn to keep my city.
Also there is no such thing as "non committal fliers" in the game. That's not a unit trait that exists.

Whether we draw the line at 75 or 100% is a meaningless debate that's just wasting time. Or did you miss the part where I explained that 100% destruction would still leave a lot of buildings in the city? Replaced buildings cannot be destroyed until the next turn when they actually reappear in the city.

Going over 100% by destroying the city or reducing it to an outpost is something I won't do because it'll lead to new bugs in the game.

[Nelphine]

*shrug* so figure out a way to play lunatic without cavalry. 

You seem to be saying this is only an early game thing, but this would have far reaching consequences in all positions of the game. I simply don't see how you can come up with an easily identified algorithm that slots into current ones, that accounts for all the different possible scenarios, keeps the balance roughly where it is in any scenario where this abuse/feature isn't currently being used, and ensures that this abuse won't continue to happen. Admittedly I never use this tactic, and when the ai uses it against me, which they do semi regularly, I just hunt them down and kill them.

Changing the percentages might matter, but honestly, 75% or 100%? The only thing I care about is the amp tower, and that's already going to go. Any other buildings, at any point in the game, just aren't that important.

That being said, if Seravy wants to change it to 99% (all available buildings, all but 1 population) sure. I just don't see the difference.