Totally broken Conquest formula

[Primal Redemption]

The penalty for land gains for expanded conquests is way, way too steep.

As an example for those who haven't used it yet, against a 130% sized prov a conquest yielded a whopping 26 acres.

50 would have been lame enough, 35 or 40 quite depressing, but 26?!?

This is enough to make it totally useless for a normal player, and only encourages abuse by "<people>" with stupid kingdom poetry creating a 25 warrior cow killer grief machine. That is the only use this will get with this broken formula.

[Palem]

It allows you to take acres from provinces that you can't break. Complaining that it gives you acres at all is crazy

Also, no locs

Also, don't brag about banks on the forum if you don't want them in the spotlight.

[Primal Redemption]

It was only 10k away from a trad, which is only a small fraction of the total military power of the prov being attacked. The formulas obviously need to be reworked and based around those other factors.

If a 160 pound fighter knocks out a 208 pound bully wouldnt you expect huge gains of reputation? Ok, it was a technical knockout and not a full knockout, doesnt justify the penalty.

The only justification is preventing abuse, and like i said that will happen anyway.

And those weren't locs, it was a random number expressing the sheer quantity of a certain alliance that plagues the game.

And I did not post anything about a bank. Don't make assumptions

[Bishop]

Conquest is about 6.8% gains assuming you break fully. Its not designed to give you lots of acres and performs its role quite well.

[Primal Redemption]

Conquest is about 6.8% gains assuming you break fully. Its not designed to give you lots of acres and performs its role quite well.

You mean 68%? Regular conquest is fine, i'm referring to the unlimited range warriors have. The formula involving the rate of decay is way too steep and needs to include other factors like total military power.

[SillyRabbit]

No, he means 6.8%. Check the guide. Base land taken on a trad march is 12%. Science, race, and relative kd networth will affect this though. Base conquest gains is 6.8%. Maybe you are not factoring in relative kd size, stance, or GBP. Conquest works as it should

[Elit]

As an example for those who haven't used it yet, against a 130% sized prov a conquest yielded a whopping 26 acres.

50 would have been lame enough, 35 or 40 quite depressing, but 26?!?

Warrior gave you no range restriction for CQ but its don't give you better gains. Normal CQ range is 5% and you hit in 30% range. If they are bad target for you look for other target.

If you need any help or advices feel free to ask me ;)

[Primal Redemption]

What I'm saying is that the original scaling factor for land gain penalties against larger provs was never forseeing an unlimited conquest range implemented in the future.

The combination of the prov size penalty along with the linear reduction of 6.8/12 of a trad is too much at the relative higher points along the slope.

For example, if i have 1200 hamburgers and you penalize me down to 680, i would grumble a bit, then stuff my face and be full. If however I have .12 of a hamburger and you cut it to .068, you are vastly increasing my starvation.

There needs to be a curve instead of a blunt slope.

[Elit]

What I'm saying is that the original scaling factor for land gain penalties against larger provs was never forseeing an unlimited conquest range implemented in the future.

The combination of the prov size penalty along with the linear reduction of 6.8/12 of a trad is too much at the relative higher points along the slope.

For example, if i have 1200 hamburgers and you penalize me down to 680, i would grumble a bit, then stuff my face and be full. If however I have .12 of a hamburger and you cut it to .068, you are vastly increasing my starvation.

There needs to be a curve instead of a blunt slope.

Your view is complete wrong. Game is made to favor hits in relative close nw range. Around +/- 15%. Expect to gain with CQ on 30% bigger target when you cant break it don't make sense.

Its like to want 1200 hamburgers when you don't have money to pay for one and complain when some one purchase for you 3.

[DHaran]

Stop hitting outside your NW range, nothing is wrong with conquest.

[idiocy]

topfeeding penalties on conquest is a pretty bad idea, since the point of conquest is to hit targets that are typically outside of nw range. it defeats most of the point of having conquest attacks in the first place, and why kingdoms use bouncewaves instead of conquests to take down highly defended provinces.
fixing conquest would go a long way towards rehabilitating warrior as an actually useful personality.

although - if you send the minimum on conquest, you're going to get terrible gains regardless of range. better to send 70-80% to make it worthwhile

[Elit]

CQ range iis 5%, good range for gains is 15 max 20%. There is not penalize on it. But hit over 25-30% don't matter if its TM or CQ gains go down alot and its don't make sense to ask for "fix" it. Warrior can CQ in 15% range for normal gains, not like rest in 5% nw range.

[Primal Redemption]

If I wanted to hit in my range I would use traditional march. The very fact conquest had a range *cap* implies that it has a usefulness and slight edge for hitting outside of range. Do you follow this?

This usefulness of larger conquest range rightfully should be available for warriors since they are so underpowered OOW, hence the complete removal of range this age. And if you understood any of what I said, you'd see that the formula needs to be adjusted in order to follow in the direction intended with the whole decision to remove the range to begin with.

Remember the hamburger example. At the relative level for reduced gains attacking larger provs, the added conquest penalty is too steep to make it useful beyond cow killing or griefing. 130% really isn't that big a difference, and it's downright silly that I can hit someone half my size and get more acres in one hit, let alone double or triple hitting that person using the same OP to break the 130%. Would you say the 50% is more "in range" than a 130% sized prov?

[Primal Redemption]

topfeeding penalties on conquest is a pretty bad idea, since the point of conquest is to hit targets that are typically outside of nw range. it defeats most of the point of having conquest attacks in the first place, and why kingdoms use bouncewaves instead of conquests to take down highly defended provinces.
fixing conquest would go a long way towards rehabilitating warrior as an actually useful personality.

although - if you send the minimum on conquest, you're going to get terrible gains regardless of range. better to send 70-80% to make it worthwhile

YES, *THANK YOU*, You should change your name to "geniusness" because out of all these incredibly... bright people you seem to be the only one who gets it.

[American Badass]

I always thought it was there to help you break Big Faeries that are still withing your NW but ones whom you can not break...