[Feedback] Cooperation adventures - First insights

[BenFranklin]

Yes with blocking you can save a lot of troops on different adv. but it has never been the intend of the develepors and therefor it is nad never have been a supported part of the game, thats why its a kind of "bug".
That the playes have invented this as a part of the game and that its allowed to inform about it in guides on forum is very different story.

I kind of have to jump in on this,... In battle if you defeat an amies leadership, you defeat the army. This is a normal part of military strategy, cut off the head. Intentional or not, it only seems logical that settler combat should be the same way. If you defeat the leader, the rest of his units lay down their arms. Which is exactly what blocking is all about, getting to and defeating the leader quickly enough to avoid massive casualties.

How do people have a problem with this?

[TotoMok]

, getting to and defeating the leader quickly enough to avoid massive casualties.

How do people have a problem with this?

The problem (at least I have) here is tipped off by your use of the terms 'massive casualties'.

If you kill the leader camp before the blocked camps battles are over, you suffer *NO* casualties. In other words:
Blocked Camp 1: 200 Soldiers Fighting.
If Leader Camp defeated, all 200 soldiers live.
If Leader Camp not defeated, all 200 soldiers die.

While battle is waging on in Leader Camp *presumably* there is fighting going on in the Blocked Camp (and they are not just eye-balling each other). In which case there should be casualties. The casualties should be the # of people who die until such time that the leader Camp is defeated.

But what we have here with blocking is, once the leader dies, all those people who were fighting in the blocked camp get magicked back to life. *THAT* is not realistic, *THAT* does not make sense, and *THAT* is the problem.

Now, if they modify it so that the battle is cancelled when the leader is killed, and whoever died WHILE the battle was going on until the leader is killed, is kept dead, than that would be okey.

But who would do blocking if they had to sacrifice so many soldiers at that point?

[Wreckless-]

In real combat, delaying the enemies allies from rushing to his rescue can be done in several ways that really wouldn't cost many casualties. You can ambush his scouts, threaten his flanks, cut of his supply lines.

[Sharpielein]

But what we have here with blocking is, once the leader dies, all those people who were fighting in the blocked camp get magicked back to life. *THAT* is not realistic, *THAT* does not make sense, and *THAT* is the problem.

Talking about realistic?
- Bring a single assassin, poison the king, take the kingdom while the soldiers are mourning.
- Bring a massive army with more and better troops than the opponent, let them surrender in peace.
- Technology (Neutron bomb versus flint knives pretty please?)
- Allow enemy fighters to join your ranks after defeating their liege.
- Take hostages to weaken the enemy (men typically don't fight as long as their families die if they do)
- Pay money and grant safe passage to deserters
- Destroy enemy morale with Propaganda / Terrorism
- Cut off supply lines, poison water supplies, bring in diseases
- Stealth commandos, destroying supplies and/or weaponry

^--- tons of ways to win a battle WITHOUT a single casualty.

Realistic? You want realistic, go tell Bluebyte.
I want the method "Bring an army of 10000 to the Bandit's Nest and let them surrender" version implemented, pretty please.

What is NOT realistic is that a ruler can just put up a couple horse riders in front of his castle and his entire premise is protected from pillaging (taking loot home).

Also, it's NOT a realistic tactic that you just send 200 Bowmen to die in a cave of Wolves and Foxes, just so that later, you can send in some recruits with cannoneers to flush out the remaining wolves.
In any real world scenario, the cannoneers would be placed safely outside the premises and bombard the cave while the animals are in there, then when the animals run out in panic, let the archers snipe them from safe distance.
I doubt that in a real world scenario 100 Foxes and 100 Wolves in a cave would manage to cause any casualties to an army of 10000 fighters with platebodies, crossbows and cannons ...

[Faststriker]

I kind of have to jump in on this,... In battle if you defeat an amies leadership, you defeat the army. This is a normal part of military strategy, cut off the head. Intentional or not, it only seems logical that settler combat should be the same way. If you defeat the leader, the rest of his units lay down their arms. Which is exactly what blocking is all about, getting to and defeating the leader quickly enough to avoid massive casualties.

How do people have a problem with this?

Sure you have a point in that, but then you have to bring in the time to bring the news of there leaders defeat to the different combat areas.

But that´s not the point i´m making, the point is that it isn´t a supportet part of the game and it, for severel playes lossing troops on block gone wrong due to varies sort of lag, has been made clear from support that it isn´t an intended part of the game.

I´m all for using blocking in doing adv. but if BB is trying to remove this from coming adv. then thats really nothing we can do about it other than try to explain that we will always try to get around it.

[JessieSun]

I bought The Whirlwind because I saw here that can get bone church: http://www.settlersonlinewiki.eu/adv...the-whirlwind/
Now I see here something else, no bone church in rewards: http://thesettlersonline.wikia.com/wiki/Whirlwind
So, what is that, is bone chuch in rewards of that adv or not? And on the second guide it says it is for 3 players, not 4 (?!)

[JessieSun]

Ok, I got this on help chat from someone:


so it IS bone church in that adv, yeeeee!

[Thejollyone]

these are good, but blocking is most likely a big no due to lag. But the advs are fun to share atm