Is there a specific way to suggest something be added to the game? Or do you just posted on the board and hope someone sees it?

My ideas were:

Flanking bonus: if a territory is attacked from more than one adjacent territory, then the attacking territory(ies) (excluding the one with the most soldiers) get(s) a temporary kill rate boost.
If all of them have the same amount of soldiers, then a random one doesn't get the boost (this would be the army attacking head on).

Massive Army vs Tiny Army bonus: The kill rate of army A increases if the ratio of soldiers in army A to the number of soldiers in Army B exceeds a certain proportion. Every ratio that it breaks provides a bigger bonus.

For example: If the ratio is 1:5, then you get a +5%, but if it's 1:15 you get a +20%

I really like these ideas and think both of them make sense, although I have some misgivings about MATA bonus; I just can't really see the problem. If you think about it, a huge army would finish off a small army more quickly and with less losses than two equal armies. So the smaller army should not have the capability of doing the same amount of damage to an immense army as it would to an equal army.

Uservoice Forum

http://warlight.uservoice.com/forums/77051-warlight-features

Though, the only link I can find is in the wiki. It used to be somewhere on the Forum tab.

|> So the smaller army should not have the capability of doing the same amount of damage to an immense army as it would to an equal army.

That's were guerilla warfare comes in.

Besides, what's the point? If I do an attack where I outnumber the opponent 15 to 1, I honestly don't care about dropping their defence kill rate a few percent points; my losses will be minimal either way...

I agree it would be more realistic. But this is a game, not a military wargame used to train officers; I think there's something to be said for keeping it simple, whenever possible.

Agreed with RvW. If this were supposed to be realistic then it would be possible for a smaller force to defeat a larger force and should occur at a decent frequency. How often has one army defeated another that is twice it's side through superior tactics/leadership?

I guess the second one is more useful in real risk, but what about the flanking idea?

I'm not sure whether that would even be possible. For instance, on most Europe / World maps, there are separate territories for Croatia and Bosnia. Because of their shape (Croatia resembling a, rotated, capital letter "V", with Bosnia "caught between"), it would be perfectly possible to perform a flanking attack which only shows up as a single attack in WL. On the other hand, if we take [Troll's Europe](http://warlight.net/SinglePlayer.aspx?PreviewMap=10895) as example, on the German / Polish border there's quite a few combinations of two attacking territories versus one defending territory (one example: Pomorze Zachodnie and Wielkopolska versus Brandenburg) which, to me, would not "feel" like a flank attack.

So, let's assume we ignore what the map looks like exactly and simply stick to the definition: two different territories attacking the same target.

This would still cause major problems. If we go with your original idea (everything except the "main assault" gets a bonus) then we immediately run into problems: what if the main assault does not occur first? Let's consider two attack (let's call them A and B, just because it's easy). Attack A happens first, with 10 armies, attack B takes place a while later with 20 armies. So attack A should get a bonus, right? But wait, what if attack B never happens? Between A and B another (counter) attack could occur, destroying all armies which would have taken part in attack B. Or even more fun, what should happen if B still takes place, but with far fewer armies; what if 15 armies were destroyed, so B becomes a five-army attack? Then all of a sudden A is the main attack and should not have gotten a bonus.

On the one hand, we could change the rule to "every territory which has already been attacked this round will receive a flank attack penalty on all subsequent attacks", that's a workable solution (it respects causality and is easy enough to code). However, from the other hand, it's a horrible solution because it's far too easy to abuse: first do a 1-army attack on everything you're going to attack this turn, then do all your "real" attacks. Unless you only have one of your territories bordering on an enemy, all your attacks now get the flank attack bonus.

Now, in theory there is a solution (I think... just because I can't quickly find a problem doesn't mean there isn't one!). You could make the rule "any attack which takes place *after* an earlier attack with more armies, will get flank attack bonus". (If we remember the biggest attack so far on each territory, this is still easy to implement.) However, in practice, I'm afraid nobody would be able to really work with this. Just think about it, how often did you plan an attack which, when it finally took place, used a completely different number of armies than originally planned? Or which didn't happen at all? I'm afraid it will feel like some attacks randomly getting a bonus, which would be a pretty bad game mechanic...

i agree with rvw

i think adding the OPTION to decrease the offensive/defense ratios of an army on a teritory that got attacked is pretty good, someone can sacrifice a few armies to accomplish better results for the main-army that is attacking.
Off course, for different maps different settings should be used, bigger maps with even more connections should possibly start decreasing o/d-ratios on a territory after the second attack(and/or very little on after the second attack)

the problem with MATA is that the larger army already destroys the smaller army quicker.. you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist...
and if anything it should be reversed.. guirella warfare has proven that eliminating a small force is significantly harder then eliminating a large or equal force.. when the enemy is outnumbered 1:15 then they are more likely to conceal themselves and attempt to reduce their losses, resulting in lowered kill rates for *both sides*

flanking bonus being based on army size would be illogical, considering how the turns are taken... if a flanking bonus of this style would be implemented, it would have to ignore the *first attacking army* for that would be the army that is initiating, while the subsequent armies attacking would indeed be *flanking* this would easily lead to manipulation.. attacking with 1 army quickly prior to attacking with a huge army for your bonus..

btw, I typed this /\ quite a while ago, but left the browser up and forgot to send it so...