It's my opinion that Marksmen and their equivalents in other classes maybe ridiculously powerful,
but it's also my opinion that melee units need to be adjacent to the enemy to be able to attack and so that's why it's not so ridiculous that they would become exhausted and therefore get only one attack, although that's debateable also I guess.

In any event I would like to see ranged units be able to make as many as three randomly powered attacks which attacks for Marksmen and their equivalents do not in total equal their present power for one attack.

My logic for this is that ranged units do not need to be adjacent to the enemy in order to attack.

rex

Something said about "adding new levels of programming" has caused me to feel the need to add additional explanation here.

This idea of mine involves use of the *random function* in programming which to my knowledge is nothing complicated to use (i.e. the complicated programming is already built into the function):

www.phanderson.com/C/random.html

Admittedly I had only limited acquaintance with the function long ago in machine language
and I only recall that there was such a function.

Here the function would be used to generate a # say from 0 to 2 (i.e. e.g. y = random (3) I guess)
and then the random # would be assigned to a damage value (i.e. e.g. 0=a=25 points of damage, 1=b=30 points of damage, 2=c=33 points of damage).
I didn't use percentage on purpose because I'm trying to show that the amount of damage would be directly determined with the random hit.

Anyway so there it would be ...
if a ranged unit like a marksman were given three attacks/turn, each attack would be equal to a, b or c with as I had said before the total of the 3 being less than the total hit points as they are now.

This can be modified also with movement of the unit possibly reducing the # of attacks like for example if the marksman uses all of the first phase of his move his attacks may possibly be reduced to two attacks or even one.

Again this suggestion is because the marksmen are too powerful as is imo
and the programming of the commandeer as is or as was seems adaptable to this ranged unit idea.

Please excuse my double post,
but at least I didn't just do a bump.

rex

Last Edited : Saturday, 26 September 2009 - 21:48

To be frank, i would not say a marksmen is way too powerful nowadays as compared to last time. It seems that in a fast paced game, it would be better to deploy ballista instead of marksmen to defend your castle. Added to the fact when you upgrade your castle defense and put a few squires in, your castle and near to impenetrable. I was invading princess' castle and found it ridiculously hard to kill anything with range. I killed only one to two squire with my marksmen. And her ballista were picking off my armies like dirt, even a heavy cavalry. So there's something wrong over there...either the castle defense is too powerful, or squires defenses against range are too good(causing everyone in the opposing team to use it ), or i don't know what i'm saying.

But all in all, it seems that everyone still seems to want the old system back which obviously req won't change. The system where we have percentage of movement and then attack and stuffs. That would be much more strategical instead of nowadays you just storm and attack. It's either you win or you lose according to the superiority of your army - apart from the fight in the castle of course.

Seriously, marksmen is already bad enough nowadays that i don't think it needs tuning(no offense taurus), because it can't even pick out squires as compared to a ballista picking out a falch..

The thing that i think need changes is the Zoc system. It's totally ridiculous because it's darn hard to Zoc out an enemy nowadays as compared to last time making the range army able to move away and still attack on the same turn.

Yang,
I will grant you this, that the recent change in the cost of a barracks may have put a serious dent in the ability to deploy Marksmen with nearly the efficiency as before

and I really had only been playing in the PG games;
but the PG game is really just a fast-foward campaign,
So the problems there are also in the campaigns to a degree imho.

It's also interesting that your one Marksmen in the PG where I quit against you seemed to be my nemisis in the field at least.
Yes castles aren't so easily taken if defended properly,
but when catapults eliminate barracks with two or three hits, maybe you need to change your siege tactics.

However, in the field when Marksmen smash a stack of scouts with one hit along with most other non-master troops and reduce squires by half or two thirds with one hit, I think they are too powerful.
I think that stack of scouts should have a few survivors.

rex

If that's the case, then all other range unit should also be reduced its power. Ballista have about the same firepower as a marksmen apart from attacking marksmen or master units. It would only be fair that ballista were toned down too.

Though, i would agree with you and the other post that it really have became a range game. Whoever are more superior in range, wins. As long as you have enough melee to defend it. Just ask donrico in PG.

True to say that castles can't be easily taken especially with the castle defense. So all you can do is just to destroy the barracks and wait until your army are MUCH more superior than the enemy to take over the castle. Cause he or she can't produce...I will say in this case, if you can't fight him in the open field, there's little chance you can defend your barracks in the castle.

And to be frank, i don't really care about anymore changes here. Because the wok is coming and this game now is more like a "play while waiting for wok game"....it's way too unbalance in a lot of other aspects that it would probably require overhaul if you were to make it balance again...

Well this technique can be used in WoK too ...
that is, I don't know if Requiem now uses the random function for anything, but it is a way around the percentage technique of applying damage and the like.

If need be, the number randomized could be increased to allow for more variables (i.e. e.g. there could be a, b, c, d and e instead of just a, b and c).
That would allow for a couple of more hit values like:
25hps, 27hps, 30hps, 32hps and 35hps.
The values are not calculated, they are just assigned
and always the same.

The random difference occurs because the random function would be used to randomly choose an assigned value of the three or five values with each attack.

Anyway Frank
oops I mean Yang,
glad you at least partially agree with me.

rex

But you did not agree with me even partially, mike
oppss i mean rex...or taurus...

Actually, i don't really understand. Haha. You mean to implement it so that the marksmen will attack 3 random armies? Or its attack power will be randomized whenever you attack and you get 3 attacks? But to include too many random calculations will turn it more like a luck game...so i don't really agree with that.

"The random difference occurs because the random function would be used to randomly choose an assigned value of the three or five values with each attack."

Random, uh... what? I think you may have randomly fried my brain

disturbed you may have missed TR. I will stick with rex, seems to be what he signs off with anyways

Last Edited : Sunday, 27 September 2009 - 04:04

"its attack power will be randomized whenever you attack and you get 3 attacks"-Yang
Yes, basicly that with possible variations like I mentioned concerning moving the unit

and I think that as long as the unit is not moved for example more than half of it's full first phase movement it should still get 3 attacks would be a good condition ...
if more than half the unit could be made to get only two attacks.

Yes random is basicly the luck of the draw, but there is always a certain amount of luck in everything we do
and the diference in the hitpoint spread is small
and don't forget that everyone would have the same chances.

Also the technique could lend itself to upgrades (i.e. random chances can be narrowed with upgrades (i.e. e.g. an upgrade could assign a hitpoint spread from 30 to 35 instead of from 25 to 35)).

Anyway a little luck makes the game more fun imho.

rex

Hmmm, the thing is, that makes it looks like the way it used to be. Movement and attack point. I like the MP and AP that we used to have and what you suggested sort of reflect that and of course, apparently, req doesn't want it. And if it were to be implemented to range unit or marksmen alone, i would also think it would strengthen the unit instead of making it less powerful. With this system, i can probably wipe out 2 lesser unit instead of the current one.

With the current system, a marksmen would still be quite vulnerable if i get 4 basic units to pin you down, and then a master unit to attack you. Because you can only wipe out one basic unit at a time. That is why i think marksmen is not as powerful as ballista(because you can produce more melee units) if you cannot protect your marksmen.

i would love things to go back to old school... too much change has ruined this game in my opinion... and it seems the more it is changed... the more that needs to be tweeked in some other aspect of the game...

cats are too powerful so barracks health is upgraded...barrack and outpost costs inflated...today you can build ten palisides with one comm...tomorrow you can't!...the movement of comms today will change tomorrow!tuesday you need to be 6 or more spaces away to build...etc etc etc...
this is just what has changed during one clanwar...
i almost feel like i should come here to read the forums before taking my turn...just incase something drastic has changed in the middle of my game... its seriously annoying...

seeing this is in suggestions...i suggest old school rules and leave the game be!

Last Edited : Sunday, 27 September 2009 - 21:14

if you don't check the forums in any game you should not expect that someone else won't have a leg up on you. I always check the forums and my messages before making my turn

Apparently if this were at all acceptable,
it would be preferred that three attacks be given to a ranged unit that is moved into close range to attack instead of a ranged unit that is kept at full distance which could instead be penalized with only two attacks.

My logic for the opposite was exhaustion due to movement
and lack of time due to close proximity to pursuing enemies
and although I still think I'm right,
et.

PS:
"it would strengthen the unit instead of making it less powerful."-Yang

Yang, you are missing that all three attack damage would equal less than one full attack damage
and you are also not realising that assigned damage can be much less than my examples.

rex

Last Edited : Monday, 28 September 2009 - 01:18