Based on the current vote:
Damage taken when attacking weaker opponents should be A LOT LESS. 4 57%
Damage taken when attacking weaker opponents should be A LITTLE LESS. 2 29%
Damage taken when attacking weaker opponents should be THE SAME. 1 14%
Damage taken when attacking weaker opponents should be A LITTLE MORE. 0 0%
Damage taken when attacking weaker opponents should be A LOT MORE. 0 0%
It seems the majority wish less damage (to whatever extent) when attacking weaker opponents (thus making having a strong attack more viable)
I voted for "A LITTLE LESS", so if we take my vote out (I shouldn't have that much of a say imo), it becomes about 2/3rds wish alot less, and the rest are for a little less, and same.
I now ask, HOW should it be less . This was sorta discussed in another thread: viewtopic.php?p=2503660#p2503660
My initial suggestion:
Sarevok wrote:Hmm, seems perhaps a scale based on defenders defence is needed?
The weaker the defenders defence, the less losses/damage you take. Something like:
90-100% = 100% normal weapon damage
40-90% = 50-100% normal weapon damage respectively.
0-40% = 50% normal weapon damage
Hope that made sense (it did in my head). So if you take someone on who has a defence 65% of yours, you take 75% of the losses you would have, had you engaged someone with 90+% of your attack.
Lower limit is 50% of what you would loose at the moment.
Note: Those % are of what you would take NOW. And not % of your offensive army/weapons
What are other people's thoughts?
Edit: Description updated for the scaling, I used losses, not damage.