New army unit (propagandist)

    I actually made a suggestion about a bigger battlefield: Suggestion: Increase the battle field size - Discussions and Feedback - Ikariam (gameforge.com)


    3 months ago.


    And i agree, we should have a much bigger battlefield than our current situation, but if this has to be done there should be some balances too.


    Number 1: And the most obvious is more / higher levels to the walls. Cause otherwise a bigger field = the defender would loose in fewer rounds


    Number 2: More upgrades to units for attack, health, defence and accuracy, ammo capacity, less troops space on field (So more units can be placed).

    Quote from LaChDaNaN

    Imagine the battles in lord of the rings (the movie) or the game of thrones (the series) you don't see people stay in reserve..

    Each army tries to create the biggest and stroggest first line...

    Yes, or remember the Movie 300, oh wait... ;)


    It's only the bigger army that tries to have a huge frontline (out of obv. reasons) and especially in terms of sieging a City the fronline is limited compared to a fight on an open field.


    The more advantage you give to the bigger army, the more you make tactics irrelevant, since mass wins then.

    In 300.. the defending size was less than the garisson limit.. thus the troops were fighting in the small battlefields..

    They didnt go in an open field to face the enemy...


    I understand the tactic.. it will still plays a role.. for battles that take place behind the city walls..


    When one alliance gather 10,000 steam giants.. it is stupid to watch only 114 of them to fight..

    Ok i misunderstood your suggestion about bigger battlefieldsize.


    And it way better compared to mine. The one i made 3 months ago (Link in this comment section). So i like it.


    The battlefield should be according to the guy / side with the biggest army. Much thanks!

    Quote from LaChDaNaN

    in the allied battles, there will be a round 0, in which allied forces can join the battle... the duration of the round could be shorter,, 5 min or even less.. in that round neither the defender or the attacher could see the each other amry... it should be somehting like the troup movement before the battle begins..


    You lost me on this one, this one it would esp suck in wars when typically battles arent' planned out in coordination like that.

    It's very common for people to show up after one has started.

    And if we're going to use your logic the attackers would benefit from more people as they coudl show up behind the attacking force.

    Where as in ikariam the defenders would logically be penalized.. think about it if we're using your logic here.

    Your back is to the sea, the rest is surrounded by attackers, how is the defenders getting in any other way but the sea port?

    Nah hard pass on this one.. bigger battlefield fine but cutting out allies on either side no way.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    [ Donoso ][ KofG ] [ Alpha US ]
    Kingdom of God Alliance's General

    [ Clausewitz] [ XTi } [ Alpha US ]

    [En-Es]

    [ " Por la razón o la fuerza " ]

    Quote from Draxo
    Quote from LaChDaNaN

    When one alliance gather 10,000 steam giants.. it is stupid to watch only 114 of them to fight..

    How long are you playing this game? The battles have been never supposed to be one-two-three-finished here because for this game people do not have to be constantly online.

    October 2008... more than 15 years.... It would not be 1-2-3... but as you said.. we have normal lifes.. we can't be constantly online.. you can't stay 8 hours.. for one battle... In order just to give the defender a chance to get online and activate the vacation mode... The battle will not finished in 1-2-3.. (as it was done in the first versions of ikariam, when the battles were at most 3-4 rounds MAX).. It wil take 10-12 rounds.. but it wont go to 40 rounds either..


    The biggest problem of the previous battle system.. (the one before version 3) was that one alliance could send their army in one city... and none attacker could stand even one round.. this way.. The were unbeatable..


    Since the battlefield will be decided by the biggest side (if the size of the defenders army is bigger than garisson limit) the could go in one city create a huge army.... and then since none could survive the first round due to the increased battlefield.. they will be invisible again..


    In order to give attackers a chance. you should give a period of time, that allied forces can join the battle.. and then the battle should start... but the same time.. you have the battles against the inactives.. farming etc.. in which you don't want to become longer that they are already... And you don't have the need of ally support... Thus, if you choose to go alone.. there will be no extra round in beggining... (since there will be no joining allies...).. ally battles will begin with the extra round.. which will give attackers enough time to join the battle.. and face the defenders...

    musta been before my time, I been playing since late 08 and never remmeber instant battles like that.. further more I've been in battles since that have raged for a month in a war.

    I don't see why your limited reinforcements needs to be added in now, even if you do expand the battlefield.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    Quote from Rastan

    musta been before my time, I been playing since late 08 and never remmeber instant battles like that.. further more I've been in battles since that have raged for a month in a war.

    I don't see why your limited reinforcements needs to be added in now, even if you do expand the battlefield.

    You haven't get it right...
    There will be no limited reinforcements...The battle mechanics appart from the dynamic size for the battles in open field.. Will be exact the same.. reinforcements could be added in any time.. in both sides..


    But.. imagine that one aliance has gather a huge army in one city...

    Someone begins the attack in that city.. since it will be 1 vs a lot of people... his army will not last for one round...he will loose and his allies will not have the ability to join...


    In order to bypass this.. and allow an alliance to hit another alliance.. an zero round should be added.. in which attackers could join forces and hit the enemy alliance... In the other rounds people from both sides are allowed to bring reinforcements.. or to remove waves... as they do it already..

    Although, this will have a disandvantage that one extra round is added (round zero..) so some battles that you win instantly (for example attacking inactives) will take more time.. To avoid this... if you choose to go alone in the battle there will be no round zero... so these battles will not be slower than they are now.

    I must misunderstand what you want to do with the battlefield then, it's impossible to win a battle in 1 round.. all I need is a lv1 wall and 1 speer and there will be a 2nd round.

    I thought you just wanted to add a bigger battlefield with more formation slots and higher troop counts.. I guess I misunderstood what you was suggesting.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    You still not get it..


    lets say that a small alliance decides for protection to gather all their army in one city... random numers

    20,000 Steam Giants... and 20,000 hoplites..

    based on this army.. since the size of the army is greater than the garrison limit.. the battlefield will have

    80000/35=2284

    thus..
    1st line 7x2284 (so there will be deployed 2284 hoplites in each cell 15988 total)
    flags 6x1836 (so there will be deployed 1836 Swordsmans in each cell 9180 total)

    2nd row 7x2284 (so there will be deployed 456 Sulphur Carabineers in each cell 2280 total)

    3rd row 5x1371 (so there will be deployed 274 in each cell 1370 total)

    ballons 2x1371 (so there will be deployed 685 in each cell 1370 total)

    gyrocopters 2x1371(so there will be deployed 685 n each cell . 1370 total)


    In order not to loose instantly.. you have to have a very strong army yourself basically aproximatelly these numbers.. if not.. then your whole army will be eliminated... and your allies wond be able to join...


    PS. i managed to find a screenshot on internet.. how battles were before 3.0

    [Ikariam4.JPG]

    there was only attacking power and defence power..


    So randomly the system was detucting life points from the defenting units.. in some units reached zero life (heart..) then they died..

    ok I get it, if the town is over garrison limit you want every available unit to fight all at once.


    meaning you don't want limitations on the battlefield if over garrison.. nah that's a bit much if you ask me.


    I could get on board adding a larger expanded battlefield then their currently is.. but i can't support an unlimited battlefield.

    Diplomat for Raging Kings [RK] - Eurydike (US)

    How did the idea evolve from bigger (according to the attackers side), to unlimitted??


    Thats a no as well here.


    also i remember this version. Which was the first version of Ikariam. After which (Shortly after), they introduced the battle system we know today!

    If I'm being honest, I don't like any of the ideas here... :D


    If I had to comment on the new Unit suggestion "Propagandist", I'd say that most of the times I'm fighting, I'm wishing for the enemy units NOT to run out of morale and flee...


    Other than that, at some point eveyone would have 50-100-150 "Propagandists" and the only difference in the game would be for battles to just be more expensive.

    It would probably make cooks useless too.

    A different language is a different vision of life.


    To have another language is to possess a second soul.

    cooks are useless if you only have 40, then no point of building lots of them.


    real fights cooks and doctors die too. They are not immortal. And in real life they also run out of supplies.

    Quote from Steam Engine

    real fights cooks and doctors die too. They are not immortal. And in real life they also run out of supplies.

    Ikariam isn't a real war simulation... It's a strategy game that has to do with a lot of math (among other things).

    It follows specific patterns and people enjoy that. I don't think the idea was to ever become more "realistic"!

    A different language is a different vision of life.


    To have another language is to possess a second soul.

    Yes i get its not a war game. But lately there has been lots of non-war related updates to improve this game. Which is fine, no debate here!


    But i think its time for the developers to focus on wars now.