attacking options..

[brianyoo89]

i think there should be an option for the attacker, too.
Defenders have their option to "retreat" in case of pillage or field battle.
But dont u think attacker has too little option?

what i want to suggest is to have an option for attacker, too. And i'd say this is more realistic way.
I think attacker should have an option to go on to fortress siege if the defender's "retreat" option is enabled. (you do this when you send the army)
So field battle1 (return to home), field battle2 (go on to fortress siege "only if" the defender's "retreat mode is enabled")

I think both attacker and defender has fair options then..

oh and another thing,, i think losing all the siege weapons if we lose the fortress siege is too harsh, and it is too discouraging for a war-based game. Im not sure if this is discussed or not, but i think it is too harsh to do that. Perhaps it is fair make the attacker lose 50% of the siege weapon, and defender gets that 50% of the siege weapon? And it sounds quite realistic.

[tiger]

giving siege weapons to defender when attackers lose was discussed many times before. with always same conclusion. paradise to cheaters. you disband them and get resources + people. and also problem would be how to calculate networth for those siege weapons. add to defender?
i personally think game works just fine with losing siege weapons.

[Polymeron]

i think there should be an option for the attacker, too.
Defenders have their option to "retreat" in case of pillage or field battle.
But dont u think attacker has too little option?

what i want to suggest is to have an option for attacker, too. And i'd say this is more realistic way.
I think attacker should have an option to go on to fortress siege if the defender's "retreat" option is enabled. (you do this when you send the army)
So field battle1 (return to home), field battle2 (go on to fortress siege "only if" the defender's "retreat mode is enabled")

I think both attacker and defender has fair options then..

oh and another thing,, i think losing all the siege weapons if we lose the fortress siege is too harsh, and it is too discouraging for a war-based game. Im not sure if this is discussed or not, but i think it is too harsh to do that. Perhaps it is fair make the attacker lose 50% of the siege weapon, and defender gets that 50% of the siege weapon? And it sounds quite realistic.

Your option doesn't add much... After all, why should I care about the retreat status of the army? In sieges it will fight in any case...

[HerrSchultze]

and if it is in field battle/pillage, you'd take one of the fun facts of the game, and strategy, wich is all the fox hound game btw players  , if yu shoose smt its good that you stick to your choice if it was bad, your bad, instead of asking for easiest ways, you'll be forced to develop your skill as player