| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Thordor 
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
 Topic: Military base.
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 03:35 |
Come one and all to listen to the tales of Thordor and his idea of stuff.
Basically the idea of this is like, a temporary city. One problems I've found with armies is you send them out to fight a war, and it takes ages to get there, then ages back, and it's all very slow.
The plan: If you could set up a temporary headquarters for military units, a large camp where they all gather.
This would be the plan. You send army X to occupy where your camp is placed. Once there, you can control that army from that camp site, send it to attack, raid, occupy, and once it's finished, it returns to that camp for further orders. That way if you're at war you could keep your troops close to the front line to be deployed quickly. But also at the added risk of that camp being attacked and destroyed, the troops with it. (As it wouldn't have the benefit of city walls, but perhaps sentry towers, and a light defensive bonus as apposed to regular camped armies).
I think this would be a great addition to the game and really pep up military movements. Thanks for reading. Ciao.
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7116
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 03:39 |
|
interesting idea!
|
|
Bair
New Poster
Joined: 30 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 29
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 03:41 |
Some thoughts from GC:
[02:41]<Athain> There should be some sort of balance, though, for stationing armies in "fake" cities. Like an extra hourly food cost to simulate the supply trains
[02:42]<Thordor> Makes 20 caravans unusable to maintain supply lines or something. [02:42]<Deathe> Have the number of vans relative to the number and type of troops sent. [02:43]<T'Shay Silverbow> use magic to maintain it as an other costly option
Perhaps have an added cost of supplies sent to build the defensive structures.
|
|
Gaia Nutella Tulips
Greenhorn
Joined: 22 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 62
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 04:16 |
I like this idea! It is actually really good.. But you would need a minimum amount of troops to maintain this camp right? It should cost a load of wood and gold if this is implemented.
+1 for the idea though :D
|
|
Nilock
Greenhorn
Joined: 08 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 73
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 05:56 |
|
so it would be kind of like a fort right? this sound very cool
|
|
SunStorm
Postmaster
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Location: "Look Up"
Status: Offline
Points: 979
|
Posted: 26 Mar 2012 at 15:41 |
I also LOVE this idea, but fear that it would become too powerful rather quickly. Rather than 1 attack on a player with an extended warning period (during the march), the aggressor would be able to set up a "sneak" attack similar to the one I objected to in another forum thread. For this reason, I would like to comment on the following:
 Thordor wrote:
it wouldn't have the benefit of city walls, but perhaps sentry towers, and a light defensive bonus as apposed to regular camped armies |
Because of the strong military advantage this allows the attacker (to be able to set up a base right out side another's city), I would only be inclined to support this if the encampment had a penalty on defense rather than any added bonuses. Perhaps even -25% to defense while inside the camp. With high leveled commanders and prestige, this would about level the playing field while also giving them the ability to raid repeatedly. Additional guidelines might be: - Siege are not allowed to travel with the army, but once there they could be manufactured at the regular rate (provided the resources are sent with a caravan with the army).
- This encampment cannot be set up within 5 squares of another city.
- etc.
Again, I love the idea, but fear it would become way too powerful.
|
"Side? I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" ~LoTR
|
|
Thordor
Greenhorn
Joined: 14 Jul 2011
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 44
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 10:48 |
I don't think a minus defense bonus would make much sense in game. But I can see how it might need certain features in place to balance it.
The thought behind it was, you set up the military HQ area (At some kind of cost, give it resources, money etc) and then when you commit an army to the post you can control it from that post it rests there etc. And if the post is destroyed when an army is out, when the army returns to find it in ruins, they return to the city that sent them there.
I think the minus to defense would be that the troops occupying the post will often be sent off to raid / attack cities or camps. So while the armies are away it's going to be slightly more vulnerable. And the cost of them (gold or resources p/h) would insure they don't remain there long anyway, it would me more of a short term usage to take the fight to the enemy for a small amount of time, to do quite a bit of damage quickly, but not sustainably, if you see what I mean.
Perhaps it could work on some kind of cooldown system. You can only send one command out, for a certain amount of time (depending on building / sov level) once every so often.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 23:18 |
|
+1 a good idea and well needed
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 27 Mar 2012 at 23:50 |
|
Good idea, however, I beleive the number of troops that sucha structure could hold should be limited, therefore making it a risky frontier type outpost as it should be.
Obviously a commander would also need to be commited for the management of such a camp. And you should not be able to build one within a certain range on non-confederate or NAP'd cities.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 28 Mar 2012 at 08:40 |
number of troop limitations, i really hope you dont limit it to below 100k tho...
But depending on the use,
If like siege camps they cant be stacked meaning only one player can have a camp at the location, but he can atleast put all HIS troops in it, but this would be the minimum of keeping it even a little useful.
I do not think players will place them close to enemy towns since if the enemy finds it they will attack it heavily and for those that has seen heavy warfare that means a minimum of 60k troops heading towards your camp
And to follow on that, any nerfs to the defense of the camp is a bad and wierd idea, it should get maybe a 10% increase to it instead since the camp is closer it is easier for enemies to attack it.
On another note those calling against sieges being able to be sent from there, as a first attack upon declaring war this might be a "bad" thing for some, adding some kind of downtime on this, some here says no siege engines sent to the camp but can be built in the camp, that sounds cool, but the speed would need to be lvl 20 barracks me thinks.
Another way would be to just restrict their movement for a few days before they can be sent out again after arriving.
Edited by Calico_Jack - 28 Mar 2012 at 08:48
|
|
Tweet
Military base.