War!

[Death]

That really depends. A Mage will pretty much aaalways have more Wizards or Spys or whatever than an Indy, and if one is dedicated to messing with someone who is Indy there isn't really much they can do. STDing them won't bother them much because the main point is that they are using spells instead of troops, and getting hit low takes very few turns to recover from if you know what you're doing. So the Indy is left with one real option (if the Mage is not a complete pussy and tags up), which is kill. The Indy will lose mucho troops because they're left with that option, when they never did anything wrong. So you're left with a Mage who just wants to be an (Profanity is a sign of Maturity) who is right where (Profanity is a sign of Maturity)s belong, the Graveyard, and an Indy who did nothing wrong who has had to deal with all the spell, then the huge losses from killing.

Does the terminology I use confuse anyone? I'm too used to other games.

[Shadow I]

Au contraire. When attacking someone with 0 troops you take 0 losses. A mage that has been wasting turns being a jerk will start out with very low troops that will die very quickly to an indy, who can minimize losses by starting out with standards to kill the enemy's army before the low land forces losses up.

Indy has an advantage there.

[Death]

Which would mean you need to use STDs for more than the last hits, which makes it a pain in the ass.

I think things through, trust me man. *laughs*

[Shadow I]

yes, but you would be using standards while they still had a lot of land, and losses would be much lower. I am not sure of losses equations for this game - how many standards would it take to ruin a comparitively small army? The way I see it, if you kill their army while at high land (more losses for the defender at high land) then when it comes time to standard them at low land they will have no army, and losses will be a nonissue

[Ruddertail]

Just a little history in case it sheds some light on the discussion -

The reason the standards were implemented in the first place is so that a group of (or even, back in the day, a single) players could not go around killing off established accounts. The idea behind standards to kill is that you have to be as powerful as your opponent, and can't just kill coming off having been killed or out of protection or from the very low ranks.

Shadow - Why would having the defenders more concentrated allow them to inflict higher losses? I'd think it'd be just the opposite - they're even more constrained in their movement. Further, while the attacker wouldn't be able to bring as many soldiers to bear, their excess soldiers could rest while the defenders had to be constantly fighting, and thus getting tired.

[Shadow I]

Small forces always look for a bottleneck where they can force the attacker to take them on "even" terms. A small force defending a bottleneck will inflict far more damage than a small force on an open plain. Thermopylae, to draw on a reference you used earlier, is a perfect example.

[Death]

If you want to make Promisance realistic, then you should have added something along the lines of needing some T1 to use other types of units. *laughs*

[Ruddertail]

If you had such a bottleneck, you'd have used it before your country got warn down to nothing and your military was hammered down to nothing. Thermopylae was in a strategic location - the Persians had to move through that area, so it was handy for the Greeks to stand there.

If the Persians could have gone around them, they would have. Given that FAF has no concept of geography, it makes no sense for there to be natural formations that give defenders an advantage. Even if there were some, and if you make the assumption that they're all located in the land that hasn't been taken, they would have to be geographical bottlenecks that could not be bypassed, and if you're using a standard and can beat your opponents ships, you should be able to bypass pretty much any bottleneck.