Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > Utopia Discussions > Utopia Suggestions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 199/207
(13-Jan-2007 at 13:49)
Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

I suggest the raze attack should be removed. The reason is that it is an impossible attack.

When you do a traditional attack you capture land, which doesnt mean that your soldiers pick up the land and carry it back to you, but that you claim it for your own.
But when you do a raze attack, the land is destroyed. How can that be? Do they blow it up with a couple of thousand tons of DNT?

So either the atack shoudl be removed because of being logically impossible, or it should be made to cost a lot, bceause of all the dynamite you have to buy.

to be a bit serious, I think it could be good for the game to not have a raze attack. Furthermore the gains you get on trad marches should be lowered, which would follow of an overall lowering of land in the game. Then instead you make buildings more important, and the raze attack could destroy buildings.

well this was just a fun thought, but I think there is somethign to it. the amount of land you can get has increased a lot over the ages, I think that is one raeson why utopia is going down the drain, a coupel of kingdoms just get to damn powerful. if you lower the amount of land, and instead make buildings more important, you couldnt outgrow other provinces as much but you could get better provinces in other ways, like being more advanced and pumped. maybe.

-I always get criticized. If I could walk on water some people would say I cant swim.
#1  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Skywise Add Skywise to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4/30
(13-Jan-2007 at 14:05)


How is razeing not logical?
raze [reiz] verb
to destroy completely, especially by fire

Seems perfectly possible to me
Maybe the army took along a fire mage or something

Heaven sent
Hell bent
#2  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Angry Angel Add Angry Angel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 20/26
(13-Jan-2007 at 17:03)
Or the army that attacked just made the land uninhabitable, for instance using salt in the fields so they don't want it, and you can't use it for anything.

To be honest, I'd like to see the Raze attack become a bit stronger, or Trad Marches not drop off as drastically if you need to hit someone smaller than you (especially in war).
#3  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Abrial Add Abrial to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1485/2515
(13-Jan-2007 at 17:26)


Theoretically, razing the ground is to burn everything, making it inhospitable for a short period of time. Kinda like the "Scorched Earth Policy" where you burn the land so the invaders cannot use it. Mehul took it further and got rid of the land completely.

AFAIK razes are already more powerful than traditional marches, and shouldn't be stronger because well, they are strong. They have their place in the game (to use upon the enemy who is too small to gain much off of using trads.

Last edited by Acadian9, 13-Jan-2007 at 17:27.
#4  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1335/1424
Donated $1.24
(13-Jan-2007 at 18:14)


Honestly, I think that's just a series of bad ideas.

Raze is far more logical than landgrabs. What, are we supposed to believe that after winning a battle, the opposing army retreats while your army shovels terrain into wheelbarrows and levitates across the water to bring them to your island? Come on. Give me a break. Besides the fact that razing land would simply make it uninhabitable, even the TNT theory would have more credence than the wheelbarrow landgrabs.

We already have methods to destroy buildings from other provinces. And although you bring up an interesting point about inflated land-values by top kingdoms and "making the most of the land you have," your solution is completely counter-productive. If people need to work on "stacking" their land with good buildings and other ways of becoming "pumped," the great players and kingdoms will retain their advantage of untouchability by the layman, and will also gain a NEW advantage in that they will no longer have to pick on people their own size because land and networth will become far closer among every province. That way they can dominate people: keep picking on them without any fear of retaliation. Which would not be good for the game.

"A smile is the perfect gift--personal and encouraging."--one Dove Chocolate wrapper
"Love is always the perfect gift."--another Dove Chocolate wrapper
"A loving smile is the perfect personal gift of encouragement" -SaSi
Eh... I'll go with the Dove wrappers.
#5  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Wavelength Add Wavelength to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1488/2515
(13-Jan-2007 at 18:31)


Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Wavelength: View Post
Honestly, I think that's just a series of bad ideas.

Raze is far more logical than landgrabs. What, are we supposed to believe that after winning a battle, the opposing army retreats while your army shovels terrain into wheelbarrows and levitates across the water to bring them to your island? Come on. Give me a break. Besides the fact that razing land would simply make it uninhabitable, even the TNT theory would have more credence than the wheelbarrow landgrabs.

We already have methods to destroy buildings from other provinces. And although you bring up an interesting point about inflated land-values by top kingdoms and "making the most of the land you have," your solution is completely counter-productive. If people need to work on "stacking" their land with good buildings and other ways of becoming "pumped," the great players and kingdoms will retain their advantage of untouchability by the layman, and will also gain a NEW advantage in that they will no longer have to pick on people their own size because land and networth will become far closer among every province. That way they can dominate people: keep picking on them without any fear of retaliation. Which would not be good for the game.
Perhaps you own the land that is in their kingdom? Kinda like a colony?
#6  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1338/1424
Donated $1.24
(14-Jan-2007 at 03:19)


Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Acadian9: View Post
Perhaps you own the land that is in their kingdom? Kinda like a colony?
Please let me register a strong, strong hope that you are merely joking around when you say that.

"A smile is the perfect gift--personal and encouraging."--one Dove Chocolate wrapper
"Love is always the perfect gift."--another Dove Chocolate wrapper
"A loving smile is the perfect personal gift of encouragement" -SaSi
Eh... I'll go with the Dove wrappers.
#7  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Wavelength Add Wavelength to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Global Moderator
Research Group
Posts: 3914/4241
Donated $0.60
(14-Jan-2007 at 12:53)


Raze attack is tactically strong attack when used correctly. It has always been part of the game and I think removing raze attack would disturb game play a lot. As then warring KD with big provinces can't do more than 1 to 14 acre trads and they would be useless for war.

If you grow big and would have no raze, all you can do is to take pounding from T/M's. Raze has always been good tactical weapon and eventually only choice for big provinces who could not otherwise participate war, except making very small trads for few acres and would then be danger to become dead weight.

Raze is tactical attack and very important part of the game play and warring in Utopia. Without raze, it would be too easy for smaller KD to just sit back and expect larger KD to exhaust and withdraw giving them a war win without doing anything that would deserve them to have that win.

Generalization is rhetorics of simpletons.
"Sages learn from history... idiots learn from experience" -Fairy Tail manga

Last edited by Lord Menchalior, 14-Jan-2007 at 12:54.
#8  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Lord Menchalior Add Lord Menchalior to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 131/188
(14-Jan-2007 at 14:16)
Exactly. Instead raze should have lesser attack times.

Raze is a non benefit attack.
You lose troops in the process
You gain no land
You gain no resources
You gain no honour

Whats so overpowered in razes?? In a recent war, I lost 9k specs in an hour from 3 T/M's NS. Thats IMBA.

If there was no raze, i would need to do 30 acres TM and wait for 14hours for my army to return. Mathematically, they could break me with their non offensive leets in due time.
#9  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MeatStick Add MeatStick to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 138/206
(14-Jan-2007 at 15:13)
Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Skywise: View Post
to be a bit serious, I think it could be good for the game to not have a raze attack. Furthermore the gains you get on trad marches should be lowered, which would follow of an overall lowering of land in the game. Then instead you make buildings more important, and the raze attack could destroy buildings.
To understand your argument:
step 1: remove raze
step 2: lower trad gains
step 3: ????
step 4: less land in game!

Removing raze.. which eliminates land from the game... will not lead to their being less land in the game, nor will lowering trad gains, since trad doesn't create land out of nothing.
Quote:
well this was just a fun thought, but I think there is somethign to it. the amount of land you can get has increased a lot over the ages, I think that is one raeson why utopia is going down the drain, a coupel of kingdoms just get to damn powerful. if you lower the amount of land, and instead make buildings more important, you couldnt outgrow other provinces as much but you could get better provinces in other ways, like being more advanced and pumped. maybe.
It hasn't increased because of raze, but for a variety of other reasons.

In an effort to make Zauper look cool I have edited his sig -SaSi
halp wats a SaSi?
Serenity
#10  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Zauper Add Zauper to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 219/259
(14-Jan-2007 at 17:03)


Raze is important because it's the trade-off for adding bottom-feeding penalties. As someone mentioned above, eliminating the ability for large provinces to damage small ones by eliminating raze would necessitate also eliminating bottom-feeding penalties, which I don't think anyone wants.

CanWe
L O T U S
#11  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Glitterdown Add Glitterdown to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Thrinniti)
Posts: 509/666
(15-Jan-2007 at 02:52)


frankly i disagree with anything you've suggested skywise. A raze is a way of destroying everything, logical enough. You hurt them more but don't gain anything yourself. Just like it is easier to nuke a city instead of conquering it.

A raze attack is used as a serious attacking strat that has effect on the outcome of wars, so it's far from useless. I also disagree that the decrease in players is partly because of increased gains which form SKDs. Reasons for it are a whole different discussion, but be sure that newbies don't quite because they are bullied by SKDs or something.

Im curious to hear from you if you've changed on your thoughts!

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids , we'd all be running around in darkened rooms munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electron ic music ."
Kristian Wilson , Nintendo Inc 1989
#12  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Skrix Add Skrix to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6/30
(15-Jan-2007 at 16:11)


Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Wavelength: View Post
Raze is far more logical than landgrabs. What, are we supposed to believe that after winning a battle, the opposing army retreats while your army shovels terrain into wheelbarrows and levitates across the water to bring them to your island? Come on. Give me a break. Besides the fact that razing land would simply make it uninhabitable, even the TNT theory would have more credence than the wheelbarrow landgrabs.
I for one always thought it was wheelbarrows to waiting ships, they muct have done something with boats when they took them out of play.

Though I have to say that no honor always in RAs is a bit silly IMO

Heaven sent
Hell bent

Last edited by Saint Sinner, 18-Jan-2007 at 19:34.
Edit reason: fixed quote tags
#13  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Angry Angel Add Angry Angel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4451/4986
(16-Jan-2007 at 13:48)


Arguing changes in Utopia based on realism is never a good idea. Most of Utopia isn't realistic, so a lot should be removed if you start like this. Think about Propaganda. A Human uses Propaganda successfully on a Dwarf, and takes the Dwarves elites. Instantly they're Human elites? Same goes for Kidnappings etc.

To confine the above argument to the topic:

Quote:
When you do a traditional attack you capture land, which doesnt mean that your soldiers pick up the land and carry it back to you, but that you claim it for your own.
So you capture land. How are you going to defend 50 acres of land on the other side of the world, 75 acres on the next island, 100 acres yet again somewhere else etc.?

Quote:
So either the atack shoudl be removed because of being logically impossible, or it should be made to cost a lot, bceause of all the dynamite you have to buy.
A lot of other stuff is illogical and according to you should thus be removed. Take a raze simply as making land entirely uninhabitable. It's all burned and chopped up, rocks and boulders are put down all across it, evil spells make it unusable etc.

Quote:
to be a bit serious, I think it could be good for the game to not have a raze attack. Furthermore the gains you get on trad marches should be lowered, which would follow of an overall lowering of land in the game. Then instead you make buildings more important, and the raze attack could destroy buildings.
I'd favour a new type of attack to destroy buildings specifically.

Removing Raze is not a good idea. In fact, it should be made stronger. It used to have +10% offense automatically. That was a good idea.
#14  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1500/2515
(16-Jan-2007 at 15:09)


Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Wavelength: View Post
Please let me register a strong, strong hope that you are merely joking around when you say that.

No I am not joking. That (to me) is the most logical idea. Look at the real world. When a country attacks and captures a far away place (like a little isaldn in the mddle of nowhere) do they ship that soil back to their home? No, they would colonise it. That makes a lot more sense than shippign soil.

Apeiron, I realize it sounds wierd to have 50 acres in one island, 75 in another and basically all your land in other places, but we are also using races such as orcs and avians in a fantasy game lol. Not much is real hehe.
#15  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Acadian9 Add Acadian9 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1347/1424
Donated $1.24
(16-Jan-2007 at 17:10)


Re: Remove the raze attack, or make it expensive

Originally Posted by Acadian9: View Post
No I am not joking. That (to me) is the most logical idea. Look at the real world. When a country attacks and captures a far away place (like a little isaldn in the mddle of nowhere) do they ship that soil back to their home? No, they would colonise it. That makes a lot more sense than shippign soil.

Apeiron, I realize it sounds wierd to have 50 acres in one island, 75 in another and basically all your land in other places, but we are also using races such as orcs and avians in a fantasy game lol. Not much is real hehe.
Like you said, not much is real. It's absurd to think that your army could make it 10 islands away on war horses alone, or that a spearman would be any use in a naval battle. It's ridiculous to think that a province that attacks another province of the same size would capture lots of land, whereas a province that attacks a tiny province with no resistance could only manage to capture a few acres. It's lunacy to think that a "kingdom" would own land that's almost equally dispersed throughout the whole world, and be able to govern it easily. It's also kind of funny to think that your alchemy studies would help you in no other way besides increasing your gold production by a bit.

You know, I've recently been a fan of "Your landmass magically grows/shrinks in attacks," supported by the fact that that was the way to prevent rising sea levels from eating your lands in StandThere--oops, I mean Standoff. When I need a funny image, I do think of my troops loading the land into wheelbarrows, politely waving good-bye, and then walking across the seafloor with the wheelbarrows, where they dump it back onto my island.

But the real point here is that, as we've stated many times before in other threads, logic isn't necessarily important for Utopia. Gameplay balance is far more important for suggestions, as is overall fun factor.

"A smile is the perfect gift--personal and encouraging."--one Dove Chocolate wrapper
"Love is always the perfect gift."--another Dove Chocolate wrapper
"A loving smile is the perfect personal gift of encouragement" -SaSi
Eh... I'll go with the Dove wrappers.
#16  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Wavelength Add Wavelength to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 10/25
(07-Feb-2007 at 01:33)
In fact I think raze attack must be a bit stronger. At least in some cases: 1) Intra kd conflict: Razing an inactive will destroy only 15 land acres at some point. 2) War situation: Same as IKD inactives. At some point the minor land you must be able to destroy should not be 15 but 50 or so... This way this attack will be much more useful yet and not overpowered.
#17  
View Public Profile Find more posts by A lonely ranger Add A lonely ranger to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6/6
(20-Mar-2007 at 10:21)
we are so dead

removing raze was the worst thing ever. now we are in a war for a week. we beat the hell out of that guys, all of them under 400 acres and we are all over 700 acres now. when we wanted the win they said they got more honor and that is what they wanted and matters to them, but still didn't withdraw. we want war wins, they want honor and MP. then we started taking all that honor back and they still don't want to withdraw. WHY IN THE NAME OF GOT WAS THE RAZE ATTACK ELIMINATED from the game. it seems this war will last the whole age

i hate the guy that even had the ideea ...
#18  
View Public Profile Find more posts by tedybear Add tedybear to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 154/188
(20-Mar-2007 at 10:24)
There is something called massacres to compensate for the removal of razes.

And its much more demoralizing to see 20 massacres on your provinces then 20 raze.

Wow everyone under 400 acres!! big deal, its the start of the age, what were they 600 acres to start with?
#19  
View Public Profile Find more posts by MeatStick Add MeatStick to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 182/209
Donated $2.08
(20-Mar-2007 at 11:23)


Re: we are so dead

Originally Posted by tedybear: View Post
removing raze was the worst thing ever. now we are in a war for a week. we beat the hell out of that guys, all of them under 400 acres and we are all over 700 acres now. when we wanted the win they said they got more honor and that is what they wanted and matters to them, but still didn't withdraw. we want war wins, they want honor and MP. then we started taking all that honor back and they still don't want to withdraw. WHY IN THE NAME OF GOT WAS THE RAZE ATTACK ELIMINATED from the game. it seems this war will last the whole age

i hate the guy that even had the ideea ...
Raze attack is ONLY available outside war which means there is still raze attack type. It was never eliminated from the game. Read the guide.
#20  
View Public Profile Find more posts by DiamondSpear Add DiamondSpear to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASYLUM (ASY) vs. Shire of Secrecy (SoS) Alliance War Mercyful Fate Alliances Discussions 540 04-May-2004 00:44
Jokes ... Iris Hope The Lunatic Asylum 76 28-Oct-2001 18:13
How do I make it NOT remove the offense? Larry Lakebridge Options Discussions and Suggestions 1 10-Sep-2001 03:49
Jokes Shales The Lunatic Asylum 53 02-Jul-2001 21:42
Utopian History liebs19 The Lunatic Asylum 5 27-Jun-2001 11:21


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 11:24.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.