Fortress troops

[żyd]

Fortress defense is too strong against warriors.

Archers, mages, and warriors have the same stats which are:




source:https://en.4m7.de/sammelalbum/festung.php

but we have also fortifications:


As we know, at the same lvl archers are slightly better than warriors, mages are even better against warriors than archers and lvl 20 fortification is hard to beat even for 10 warriors at 150lvl.

It seems that number of troops and their stats are equal:

45 warriors against 30 archers, 15 mages and fortification.

And fortification here is used like: "we don't let you lose your resources if you maxed out your defense" but -

45 warriors 150lvl vs 30 archers 150lvl and 10 mages 150lvl = sure win for a defender as well, even without fortification warriors have no chance.

What do I suggest to do?

1. Increase warriors hp by 15% (then stats change won't be necessary)
2. Add additional troops in barracks: catapults, siege weapon or something like that.

Catapults max number = 5
Catapults will be a class mage and count like mages from mage tower but they would be offensive units.

Situation after those changes will look like this :

45 warriors + 15%hp + 5 catapults vs 30 archers + 10 mages + fortification

And I guarantee you, even then the defender will win a battle if maxed out.

What will change for attacker is that he would be able to have troops against lvl 200 fortification which is overpowered.

Catapults max number would be like this:

barracks lvl 1 - max 1 catapult
barracks lvl 5 - max 2 catapult
barracks lvl 10 - max 3 catapult
barracks lvl 15 - max 4 catapult
barracks lvl 20 - max 5 catapult

There will be an additional bar in send troops option to send catapults. If you send catapult then it will fight against enemy fortifications first.

Fights will be more balanced, defenders still will have an advantage but attackers will gain a bit more punching force.

Now when you fight against maxed defender you will lose all your warriors and defender will have like 10-15 archers after a battle (if not more) and still 10 mages, his fortification will take off 10 or more of your warriors.

After this change attacker should be able to break more than a half of defender troops - that will give him a possibility to win after the second try if the defender is afk.

That will force defenders to care more about their resources because now situation looks like this: if you have maxed out your defense then some attackers sometimes (very rarely) will attack you losing all his troops and you will lose like 10% of your defensive troops, you just rebuild them and you are safe even if 2-3 players will attack you one by one.

My change will bring this: after 2-3 attacks, you will be in danger of losing your resources or meaby (but I don't think it would happen even with suggested buffs: after second attack you may lose all of your remained defense).

[Bortas]

I absolutely disagree. Imho players who worked hard to finish their fortresses should be rewarded at least with certainty, that they cannot be conquered by single player. If you need to conquer players with completed fortreses so much, you still can find some friend to help. From my experience, 2x45 fully upgraded warriors can easily break through full defense.

[żyd]

Originally Posted by Bortas

I absolutely disagree. Imho players who worked hard to finish their fortresses should be rewarded at least with certainty, that they cannot be conquered by single player. If you need to conquer players with completed fortreses so much, you still can find some friend to help. From my experience, 2x45 fully upgraded warriors can easily break through full defense.

Just make a screenshot of fight where you fight using 45 warriors at lvl 150 against full upgraded fortress defender. This will show the truth. Btw., You can simply make your fortress invincible by not attacking and not gaining honor points. Then you will have unvincible defense at your honor points range. I fully upgraded my fortress this way playing eco-style and I've been never ever defeated for more than a year now. Meaby 15% buff would be too strong but 10%?

[Bortas]

I will not destroy all my warriors just to prove me right. Use logic and you will see Im right. As you said 10 warriors can get through 200 lvl wall (9 with luck, 11 are certainty). Then, even with archers little stronger, remaining warriors should be able to wipe them all (+-few). And for second attacker, 35 warriors against 15 mages and maybe few archers, in what universe they could possilby lose?

And to second part, that is usable strategy on new server but not on old where almost all active players can reach each other (around 200 players). And it would be too boring. I played actively since fortress was introduced, suffered many defeats, achieved many victories and it was awesome but now I deserve a little peace.

I just think system is just ok right now, with 2 players with same progress, deffender has advantage so attacker must look for someone weaker, someone who doesnt play regularly and lags behind the others. You should be rewarded for active gameplay, otherwise the game would be frustrating. And this principle goes through all game, you play often and effectively, you are stronger than player who dont a mostly you beat him (btw, with this, pet system is incomparably more broken than fortress). A thats how it should be (ofc different matter with shrooms but its necessary evil).

[żyd]

Originally Posted by Bortas

I will not destroy all my warriors just to prove me right. Use logic and you will see Im right. As you said 10 warriors can get through 200 lvl wall (9 with luck, 11 are certainty). Then, even with archers little stronger, remaining warriors should be able to wipe them all (+-few). And for second attacker, 35 warriors against 15 mages and maybe few archers, in what universe they could possilby lose?

And to second part, that is usable strategy on new server but not on old where almost all active players can reach each other (around 200 players). And it would be too boring. I played actively since fortress was introduced, suffered many defeats, achieved many victories and it was awesome but now I deserve a little peace.

I just think system is just ok right now, with 2 players with same progress, deffender has advantage so attacker must look for someone weaker, someone who doesnt play regularly and lags behind the others. You should be rewarded for active gameplay, otherwise the game would be frustrating. And this principle goes through all game, you play often and effectively, you are stronger than player who dont a mostly you beat him (btw, with this, pet system is incomparably more broken than fortress). A thats how it should be (ofc different matter with shrooms but its necessary evil).

Then meaby you should start playing a single player game? Ogame is the example of a very good strategy game, the best on browser in my opinion in which you can build your defense even 3 years and got destroyed in a single blow. That is what fascinate us in games, I don't like static gameplay where I'm safe all the time "because I play too long and I deserve it".
It is like promoting attack on weaker enemies, on players which started playing on server later than you - that's why I think players with maxed fortress should be at least a bit more careful about their defense.

[Bortas]

Then meaby you should start playing a single player game

Just amazing argument, how long did you thing it up? Probably you are the one who play wrong game. SF was from the beginning invented as simple mindless funny game with just a little competition, something to relax with. And most people like it this way. I dont know how long do you play but when the fortress was introduces, it was far more competition for some people, than they would like and many of them quit playing after many years. So I repeat, the system is just fine how it is now and if its not too competitive for you, maybe you shoud stat to play some megacomplex insane strategy, where you need to be online 24/7 to not be totally destroyed.

[żyd]

Originally Posted by Bortas

Just amazing argument, how long did you thing it up? Probably you are the one who play wrong game. SF was from the beginning invented as simple mindless funny game with just a little competition, something to relax with. And most people like it this way. I dont know how long do you play but when the fortress was introduces, it was far more competition for some people, than they would like and many of them quit playing after many years. So I repeat, the system is just fine how it is now and if its not too competitive for you, maybe you shoud stat to play some megacomplex insane strategy, where you need to be online 24/7 to not be totally destroyed.

I just like strategy games and shakes fidget lacks of this strategy... As I mentioned before - fortress was introduced - I knew from my previous experience of playing bitefight at top1 on server and few other browser games that one and only way of the fastest building up fortress is to go full economy - most important fact is that if you not use warriors to attack you will be at the bottom of ranking which with your high lvl fortifications will give you 100% safe vault - because nobody would be able to attack you. So, this is better than playing full offensive, you will earn more resources but you will not be able to protect them at all because your score will be too high. Now fortress was changed and on new serwer I play full offensive and I noticed, that I don't need to have any defenders because I have 24h protection all the time because many players attack my fortress again and again and I'm losing nearly nothing because I'm protected so I can grap their resources and build fortress quicker, don't need to upgrade mines, fortifications and defensive buildings at all.

[Acclamator]

I'm also a big ogame fan and have played it long time, but you can't compare s&f with it, because it is made for totaly differen't players (the time effort here is much lower, you can play s&f parenthetically and PvP is absolutely not in the focus).

The fortress situation is actualy not that different. You can easily breake any fortress defense with 2 players like Bortas explained. In ogame you also often have to team up to defeat other big fleets or massive bunkers with economical sence (or you need help to gather the debris field, or ..., or ...).

Much more strategic is another fortress strategie thow, where you build no defenses and your partners also do not and than you attack each other with just one tiny soldier and your partner sends you one soldier back with the counterattack and so on. This way you have the shield all the time so nobody can steal your resources and the resources you both win come from the bonus you get for wining, that is not stolen from your partners. This is also the way how the top group of fortress players has this high amounts of honor.

The recent changes (the win bonus is now calculated from your opponents production and not your own) will not break this system in my opinion, but only regulate the players who spend loads of shrooms

[Arturu]

You should never be able to defeat opponents full defense at the same level. Thats how it supposed to work. In early stages people attack all the time, and some have always higher lvl troops, so its not that hard to find an easy target.

Fortress ends at lvl 20 so in the end none of it matters. You might just have to spend more time to get there.