Smallfrog Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 (edited) I attacked a guy, and lost the battle. However, I destroyed 20 infra, took cash, tech etc, yet gave him money in abandoned equipment. I attacked again and the same thing happened. Lost the battle but gained a load of stuff. I'm not complaining, its nice to win battles, but its a bit odd. screenshot EDIT: Love the soldier modifier though, nice work. Edited September 29, 2007 by Smallfrog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shopt Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 That is quite common, you can lose the battle but still take tech, land, and destroy infra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallfrog Posted September 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 I had problems with the "forced to retreat" and "captured 27.346 miles of land" Never happened to me before, seemed a bit strange that I got it twice in a row. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotherington Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 Happens all the time, has done for as long as i can remember, nothing unusual about it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lastr0ce Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 That is quite common, you can lose the battle but still take tech, land, and destroy infra. you don't understand what he was saying, read the OP again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syzygy Posted September 29, 2007 Report Share Posted September 29, 2007 not unusual, but surely something that should removed... stealing land when retreating? come on... in general, loot and damage should be halved when losing a battle, and should be zero when totally defeated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shopt Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 you don't understand what he was saying, read the OP again. I don't see what I have missed. Abandoned equipment always goes loser->winner. But if the attacker loses, they might still hit tech, land, and infra. This is common and intentional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
admin Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I don't see what I have missed.Abandoned equipment always goes loser->winner. But if the attacker loses, they might still hit tech, land, and infra. This is common and intentional. You are correct, it is intentional, but I have gone with the suggestion to halve the raid totals if the outcome was a defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daver Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 You are correct, it is intentional, but I have gone with the suggestion to halve the raid totals if the outcome was a defeat. And what of rewording Retreated but took land? If you don't fix it, you'll be stuck with an old oxymoron that's annoyed me for as long as I've played CN. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abaddonis Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I find it hard to define "defeat" as losing pocket change on the battlefield. Defeats should be based on casualties, not what random money/equipment is left on the war path Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duncan King Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I actually love this message. It's the "I didn't win so I trashed everything." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htl2001 Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 perhaps "razed" land should actually be destroyed in defeat rather than captured. That wording has bothered me for a while as well... also, lol @ trashing everything. Maybe like setting self-destructs on that abandoned equipment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallfrog Posted September 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 I find it hard to define "defeat" as losing pocket change on the battlefield. Defeats should be based on casualties, not what random money/equipment is left on the war path Pocket change? That was a good 10% of my money reserves. lol. I find it hard to define "defeat" as losing pocket change on the battlefield. Defeats should be based on casualties, not what random money/equipment is left on the war path Basing it on casualties is a bad idea. Who won WWI? who sustained more casualties? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der_ko Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 (edited) Basing it on casualties is a bad idea. Who won WWI? who sustained more casualties? GPA? Edited September 30, 2007 by der_ko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallfrog Posted September 30, 2007 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 GPA? The allies But GPA stole the win from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.