Losing leaders

[Sharptooh]

I attacked someone with 200'000 leaders and I had around 5.5 mil, this is what happened:
Missions: Success
Your Leaders battle it out with Taek's...
...and you are successful in defeating your opponent's Leaders!
Your Leaders penetrated Taek's defense and captured 1209 Acres of Land!.
You also killed 8606 Leaders, losing 199257 of your Leaders in the process!

  How come I lose so many leaders when I outnumber them so much?
  I noticed this in the past but was never to bothered to put it on here, probably not a bug but can I have an explanation?

[The Obliterator]

For a successful attack you lose 5% of your leaders and they lose 9%
For an unsuccessful attack you lose 10% of your leaders and they lose 5%
(Lets hope thats right can i get a confirmation please)

[CobyCopper]

That's about right, The Oblit. I don't have the exact numbers myself as of this moment, but it's just a disadvantage of those leadering. Remember that you cannot successfully pull off an Attack or Take City with less than a 50 leaders/huts ratio. You may have seen it, the message is similar, but says you gain no land.

[Alazar is Back]

For a successful attack you lose 5% of your leaders and they lose 9%
For an unsuccessful attack you lose 10% of your leaders and they lose 5%
(Lets hope thats right can i get a confirmation please)

Thats close, but there is a few more variables in there i believe.

[Sharptooh]

  Ok I thought it wasn't a bug, I just found it a bit stupid that I lost so many leadrsd whilst outnumbering them more than 10:1

[taekwondokid42]

For a successful attack you lose 5% of your leaders and they lose 9%
For an unsuccessful attack you lose 10% of your leaders and they lose 5%

Thats close, but there is a few more variables in there i believe.

That's what I've always heard, but I know that there is a random variable in there somewhere.

[Shadow]

For a successful attack you lose 5% of your leaders and they lose 9%
For an unsuccessful attack you lose 10% of your leaders and they lose 5%

Thats close, but there is a few more variables in there i believe.

That's what I've always heard, but I know that there is a random variable in there somewhere.

Those values represent average leader losses over a sufficient number of attacks./

[Firetooth]

That's stupid, if you attacked someone with 10mil skiffs and they had 1 you wouldn't lose 10k so why should it be any different with leader attacks?

[Sharptooh]

  I competely agre with you, that's half the reason I posted this.

[Shadow]

Because leaders and troops have very different functions

[Firetooth]

I understand that, but it just seems unrealisticly large losses, at least could they be minimized?

[Shadow]

losses for troops are even higher if the defender has troops as well. The only reason it isn't comparable is because people usually leave troop holes, which is not how prom was designed to be played.

[Firetooth]

I suppose. But then this is about weak leader defences giving ridiculious losses, on low troop numbers troops dont, so why exactly should leaders?

[taekwondokid42]

Because leaders and troops have very different functions

I couldn't agree more.



But now that I think about it, I am realizing that having such great losses from attacking with leaders is slightly unrealistic, because not only does that ruin your ratio, but you cannot even capture to bring it back up. Attacking with leaders also takes a ton of loyalty.

I'll have to think about this more, but it almost looks as though the time for change has rolled around.

On the other hand, if attacking with leaders becomes easier, then emping will become significantly harder, unless we were to change several things that would free up land more, and keep emping the same difficulty (which is of course by no means an easy task).


edit: thought things through

IF we were to change the way the attack function goes, all that would be changed is how many leaders you lose when you win the battle. The amount of leaders that you lose would be based on your leader/land ratio to their leader/land ratio. If your ratio is barely high enough to break them, you would lose something like 7-15% of your leaders. Every 10 points from there you gain over their ratio would drop your losses by 1%. The least you could lose (if your ratio was 60 points over what you'd need to break them) is 1-5% of your leaders.

If anybody is concerned that this might make emping too hard, we could also consider increasing the ratio you need to break someone for land with leaders.

[CobyCopper]

I don't think it's outright a horrible idea, but the advantage of leadering is having another way to break someone wide open. Quite often I've stumbled upon indy'ers with more troops than I myself care to buy and plenty of land, so usually it's either resort to a boatload of rats or leader them open.