Fights - How do I beat this fight?

[Mykan]

Do you think it was worth the loss of lives, time, and supplies spent? Would it have been cheaper overall to negotiate that instead?

Time is the other factor. 10 or 11 rounds sounds like more than a 5 minute fight.

 

[DeletedUser43]

Negotiating costs...I don't know. They are getting so high now that if I can win even one battle I will take it. But I think it is close.

Time wise....oh it was slow. I think it took me around 20 minutes. Mind you, it could have been done a little quicker, but I was ducking and dodging so much that most of the fight I wasn't firing a shot. Just running and trying not to be cornered.

I have done hundreds of hours of fights around here and for sure I would call it expert level. And I don't know if I can win other kinds of fights. That was a plank fight, and the orc generals are slow.

 

[DeletedUser594]

I had one of those ducking and dodging fights against sme orc general- two archers against two orc generals in the end and it went on forever. Even after it was down to one on one it went something like 17 rounds with a nearly dead archer that couldn't hurt the orc but could spite shoot him. I'm shifting my thinking on province fights from semi-regular occurences to rare happenings that I have to stock up troops for.
Even if you get the win it's thousands of lost troops that could've carried me through 3 or 4 days of tournies

 

[DeletedUser43]

Well, that is exactly the problem. Either I get through a whole tournament with the troops or one or two province fights. The losses are HUGE.

 

[DeletedUser43]

Don't even bother. I tried this battle and had no chance at all. They have the steinling and the enchantress that have 5 stars against my troops that have 4 stars as the strongest unit. I tried archers which are supposed to be good against mages and the heavy melee. I didn't reach any of them on the first turn and they reached me. I was crushed. This is also a level 12 fight. By only the third round they had killed most of my troops and I surrendered.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

How about this one?

 

[Mykan]

I tried archers which are supposed to be good against mages and the heavy melee. I didn't reach any of them on the first turn and they reached me.

I wonder if the change in range on mages is to help archers. sadly they seem to have forgotten what it does in other areas.

 

[DeletedUser43]

So what is supposed to work in the crystal tournament?

FREAKING SERIOUSLY? The first battle in the first province and I lost???? The dogs can take 5 hits from my elder treants????? I have a level 15 martial monestary and my troops are paper dolls!

This sucks! The enchantress ran across the field to crush the golem I tried to use. The dogs then rushed my treants that are useless against them. The cannoneer took out the archers before they could get a shot off.

I haven't hit them once and I am down one full squad and 3/4 of all my other squads.

 

[DeletedUser3696]

So what is supposed to work in the crystal tournament?

FREAKING SERIOUSLY? The first battle and I lost????

This sucks! The enchantress ran across the field to crush the golem I tried to use. The dogs then rushed my treants that are useless against them. The cannoneer took out the archers before they could get a shot off.

I haven't hit them once and I am down one full squad and 3/4 of all my other squads.

I'm locked out of the tourney!!

I just went to start and apparently I have 1938 points in my first province and hvae hit the first 2 checkpoints. It says I have zero neighbours helping, it has no timer on it and it hasn't opened up a 2nd province for me. All the battles are phased out so I cannot do any of them myself.

Anyone else ever notice this or know what my options are?

 

[DeletedUser43]

The tournaments are all jacked up. 500 points for the first province? Look at the scores.

 

[Mykan]

I tried treants and they weren't good but could have been tourny bug. Paladins however were good. Can explore better once they fix the issues.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

Elves have no defense against the dogs. They just run over any unit an elvenplayer can field

 

[DeletedUser3087]

I believe the golums are good against them.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

For the very first time, I was defeated twice against the same army, one that's within my "supposed" limit.

Magic Dust, Rank 7
76 steinlings II
76 enchantresses
76x6 abbots II
My Squad Size: 321
Enemy Squad Size: 303

Damn those abbots. I definitely think Inno should rethink their battle system.

@Russio: Treants and golems are supposed to be good against light melee but sheer numbers and/or power will overwhelm you. I've used treants and golems against dogs a number of times and it was a close call each time and those were against Rings 5 and 6. The treant is more like kindling or an ant now. In my situation above, I should be able to defeat that squad size which is smaller than mine (although 8 squads does make it harder, I've fought many of those and won against armies more than twice my number) but I was still soundly defeated, so much so that even the last squad upgrade for the chapter I'm in won't help me.

EDIT: I have been defeated three times now against the same army. The reduced range of the sorceress has just made them into cannon fodder. Golems/Treants are no good against bandits/thieves that outnumber them by the sheer hundreds or even thousands no matter what the squad size is. Thornrose Mages now have a strikeback against range attacks. I can no longer fight anything. I will probably sell my armories soon and replace them with factories. It makes no sense to maintain an army just for tournaments when I can earn more goods per day with more factories.

 

[DeletedUser684]

Any territories discovered before you unlock the advanced scout will have tougher fights (more squads, higher squad size) than territories scouted after you unlock adv scouts.

I did not realize this. It may be a "fix" for a lot of people having problems to put the Advanced Scouts BEFORE the chest that you have to scout and fight for in each Era.

I know that this isn't the right thread for this comment, but my personal opinion is that if it costs you more to replace the troops than it costs to negotiate a province, then you have already lost the battle. Before the change, my margin of victory was somewhere around a half of a stack lost, or about 10% of my troops per encounter (or less, sometimes a perfect victory). I have fought all but about a dozen provinces up through Orc Era. Now, like most people, I lose as many as I "win", and the margin of victory is not cost effective. Making the enemy equal to or better than the player is not a good combat system. If I cannot have a decisive victory in a province "at my level," then the system is broken. That is to say, if it costs me more than half as much to replace the troops than it does to negotiate, then it is no longer worth my time to fight. Yes, there should be a point where (if you negotiate beyond the limits of your army) it becomes impossible to fight or negotiate further. That point should not be equal to your level.

EDIT: to be fair, I have fought a little farther than my "level" and I already have enough provinces to unlock the Tree Elves. However, I do not know if I could have done that if I did not acquire them before the change. As it stands, my only good option is to negotiate, which means like most people I will end up negotiating myself to the point that I will not be able to fight again, ever. I need 30 more provinces just to have room for the Training Grounds and Mercenary Camp, and I have no intention to fight for any of them now. My opinion: with the current troop stats, the enemy squad size needs to be halved at all levels. Either that or make the AI a little dumber. You used to be able to use your swordsmen as a shield/cannon fodder. The AI now recognizes where it will do the most damage and will bypass easy targets in order to do the most damage. There needs to still be "threat" assigned to certain targets to draw fire away. If all things are equal, the players have already lost.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

I couldn't agree with you more, @Omidawn. Battle is no longer cost effective for me which is why I've turned trader. When - and I'm expecting it to be a when and not an "if" - they nerf trading, I will probably quit. I've requested that they put Advanced Scouts before the chest and for any advanced scouts research to apply retroactively to unsolved encounters but it seems to not have even been noticed by the mods. Oh well, I'll keep trying.

 

[DeletedUser3696]

I did not realize this. It may be a "fix" for a lot of people having problems to put the Advanced Scouts BEFORE the chest that you have to scout and fight for in each Era.

I know that this isn't the right thread for this comment, but my personal opinion is that if it costs you more to replace the troops than it costs to negotiate a province, then you have already lost the battle. Before the change, my margin of victory was somewhere around a half of a stack lost, or about 10% of my troops per encounter (or less, sometimes a perfect victory). I have fought all but about a dozen provinces up through Orc Era. Now, like most people, I lose as many as I "win", and the margin of victory is not cost effective. Making the enemy equal to or better than the player is not a good combat system. If I cannot have a decisive victory in a province "at my level," then the system is broken. That is to say, if it costs me more than half as much to replace the troops than it does to negotiate, then it is no longer worth my time to fight. Yes, there should be a point where (if you negotiate beyond the limits of your army) it becomes impossible to fight or negotiate further. That point should not be equal to your level.

EDIT: to be fair, I have fought a little farther than my "level" and I already have enough provinces to unlock the Tree Elves. However, I do not know if I could have done that if I did not acquire them before the change. As it stands, my only good option is to negotiate, which means like most people I will end up negotiating myself to the point that I will not be able to fight again, ever. I need 30 more provinces just to have room for the Training Grounds and Mercenary Camp, and I have no intention to fight for any of them now. My opinion: with the current troop stats, the enemy squad size needs to be halved at all levels. Either that or make the AI a little dumber. You used to be able to use your swordsmen as a shield/cannon fodder. The AI now recognizes where it will do the most damage and will bypass easy targets in order to do the most damage. There needs to still be "threat" assigned to certain targets to draw fire away. If all things are equal, the players have already lost.

Nice post

My personal opinion would be a game where some of the battles in a province are simple enough with the right troops, some battles are very very hard and would be better off catered, and the rest would fall in the middle. It would be these middle of the road battles that would give the astute fighters the challenge. Most would win them, but the goal would be to minimize losses, thus making them efficient wins when you compare the costs of re-training vs. catering costs.
The variable in the favour of the dev team would be # of stacks the enemy has, mix of enemy troops and terrain. By not making those random you could set up battles so that 2 of the 8 could be rather simple, 2 could be near impossible and 4 would be fun and challenging.
The last thing to coordinate this is to make sure each ring of provinces escalated in difficulty as compared to where they think players should be based on their advancement in the tech tree chapters. So if a player is behind the curve the fights would be even easier, and a player ahead would just have all the battles be harder. Making a province difficulty set by when someone scouts it is stupid imo. There are better ways to slow a player down.

 

[DeletedUser594]

Nice post

My personal opinion would be a game where some of the battles in a province are simple enough with the right troops, some battles are very very hard and would be better off catered, and the rest would fall in the middle. It would be these middle of the road battles that would give the astute fighters the challenge. Most would win them, but the goal would be to minimize losses, thus making them efficient wins when you compare the costs of re-training vs. catering costs.
The variable in the favour of the dev team would be # of stacks the enemy has, mix of enemy troops and terrain. By not making those random you could set up battles so that 2 of the 8 could be rather simple, 2 could be near impossible and 4 would be fun and challenging.
The last thing to coordinate this is to make sure each ring of provinces escalated in difficulty as compared to where they think players should be based on their advancement in the tech tree chapters. So if a player is behind the curve the fights would be even easier, and a player ahead would just have all the battles be harder. Making a province difficulty set by when someone scouts it is stupid imo. There are better ways to slow a player down.

I think the new fight system has too steep a curve with too few fights in that middle- midhigh level where you get pushed and challenged but can still win with a well executed plan. The enemy strength jumping up so much from one differential to the next level is just crushing. I've gotten through fights where I've felt in command in the 3rd round, only to get knocked down to two fighters in the 4th and have to surrender or continue on a suicide mission. This would be in fights well under 1.5 differential which should be winnable with the thought and effort I am putting into them.
The current set up just leaves me feeling like there's no middle...fights are easy, easy+, hard, forget it)
They need to stretch that middle out bcs it is not fun winning a bunch with no challenge, having one or two good ones, then being slaughtered. It feels like being cheated.
Speaking of which....Cerbs get a range of 5 and hellhounds 6? I feel like they slipped a $20 out of my pocket and left a $10.

 

[DeletedUser4778]

I'm with you, @TSmack and @varron, but it seems that Inno doesn't believe in the golden mean, just gold gold gold.

 

[DeletedUser2191]

I'm with you, @TSmack and @varron, but it seems that Inno doesn't believe in the golden mean, just gold gold gold.

Think you meant to say Money Money Money (from our pocket to theirs)