| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Truth 
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
 Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 16:09 |
|
In a game, realism can only go so far before it takes the fun away.
The defensive side can have siege catapults that attack the siege engines and offensive siege catapults.
Towers would have archers that shoot out flame arrows which weaken the siege engines and catapults along with hot oil dumped on the enemy siege engines.
Stronger walls can delay bombardments as long as the defender has enough wall buildings built to stop such attacks. This makes me think that in order for a player to have this option, they will have to make perhaps 5 of these buildings to hold their own at a cost of production in food or gold etc...
Sabs or assassins can be used to destroy catapults and commanders in siege encampments. Maybe the offensive side can send diplomats to defend against such attacks.
Bombardments should take a bit longer to start, perhaps 48 hours or longer.
A stronger sally forth that can attack sieges every 4 hours would help.
Basically, give this game a place for the defensive minded. Let the little player facing big odds stand a chance. Rid us of this zerg mentality.
|
 |
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 05:47 |
|
Even then, the idea of destroying a wall from range is rather unrealistic. The most you could hope for is a breach, which is still going to be a pile of rubble and obscure the siege engines view of the city. Perhaps a maximum change in level of 5?
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 12 Oct 2011 at 00:33 |
 Erik Dirk wrote:
I like the idea of making walls drastically affect the hit chance of siege weapons and therefore the time of a siege. However I'd suggest that battering rams/siege towers and other wall destroying units shouldn't be able to be used in a siege camp. Or if they can then only if the siege camp chooses to attack the walls in a sally forth sort of mechanic.
how can battering rams destroy a wall outside of bow range???
Oh also less of an issue, but assassins shouldn't target re-inforcing commanders, at least until siege camps can be diplomatically targeted as well.
|
battering rams cant ballistas etc can
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 23:54 |
I like the idea of making walls drastically affect the hit chance of siege weapons and therefore the time of a siege. However I'd suggest that battering rams/siege towers and other wall destroying units shouldn't be able to be used in a siege camp. Or if they can then only if the siege camp chooses to attack the walls in a sally forth sort of mechanic.
how can battering rams destroy a wall outside of bow range???
Oh also less of an issue, but assassins shouldn't target re-inforcing commanders, at least until siege camps can be diplomatically targeted as well.
Edited by Erik Dirk - 11 Oct 2011 at 23:58
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 18:08 |
sieges still should be able to destroy cities, several cities throughout history have been wiped of the map completely. 2nd the resource production i agree on but mainly the food resource cuz afterall it doesnt matter if your city doesnt produce as much clay as it used to you would still be able to train troops etc. the speed of siegengines is fine, the speed at wich they destroy a city however is not it should take longer. sure defensive siegeweapons aslong no more then 5 in a city why not. the walls are good enough. sabs that can damage siege engine no since there would be no defense against them. offense and defence should be balanced. not give a complete edge to the defending side.
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 14:11 |
intor wrote:
What about having several layers of walls, with each layer making the buildings inside it less likely to be hit during bombardment.
Each layer would be added with the proper wall level, which could be like this:
Wall level 1 - 5, inner wall gets upgraded. Building slots in the middle and outer layer would be unprotected.
Wall level 6 - 12, middle wall layer gets upgraded. Buildings in the inner layer are half as likely to get hit. Outer layer is unprotected.
Wall level 13 - 20, the final, outer wall layer appears. Buildings in the inner layer only have a 25% chance of normal to get hit. Middle layer buildings are only half as likely to get hit.
The inner part of the city could have 3 slots, middle part could have 7 slots, which would leave 15 building slots for the outer layer. |
I feel making walls more powerful can definitely allow the defender a better shot at defending. However, the whole siege system needs to be redone in my opinion. ADD: Towers Super walls Defensive siege engines Slower offensive siege engines bombardment time Sabs that can damage siege engines and destroy them.
Edited by Truth - 11 Oct 2011 at 14:12
|
|
intor
Greenhorn
Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 82
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 13:28 |
What about having several layers of walls, with each layer making the buildings inside it less likely to be hit during bombardment.
Each layer would be added with the proper wall level, which could be like this:
Wall level 1 - 5, inner wall gets upgraded. Building slots in the middle and outer layer would be unprotected.
Wall level 6 - 12, middle wall layer gets upgraded. Buildings in the inner layer are half as likely to get hit. Outer layer is unprotected.
Wall level 13 - 20, the final, outer wall layer appears. Buildings in the inner layer only have a 25% chance of normal to get hit. Middle layer buildings are only half as likely to get hit.
The inner part of the city could have 3 slots, middle part could have 7 slots, which would leave 15 building slots for the outer layer.
|
|
Truth
Greenhorn
Joined: 07 Oct 2011
Location: Truth
Status: Offline
Points: 57
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 12:38 |
|
Players seem to differ on whether the siege mechanic is OP or not based on if they are the big player or the little player. The big player is perfectly happy destroying towns without any worry of it happening to him or her. While the little player needs better defensive options to defend against overwhelming troops and siege engines that will destroy their towns in 3 days.
The big player likes the way things are now because they are in power and would hate for such a new game mechanic to take that power away and put it more for the little player.
I feel this game needs better defensive options. Players have mentioned defensive siege weapons, towers, and a more powerful sally forth. All of these are great ideas.
A defensive siege weapon should be a cheaper option due to the fact these can be destroyed by enemy troops rather quick since everyone in this game likes to gang up on each other. Like a bombardment, these defensive siege engines will attack in much the same way a siege engine does.
Towers also would be a great addition also. A building inside the town that can be made more than once to increase defensive strength against troops and against siege engines. Like a bombardment, these towers will attack in much the same way a siege engine does.
A more powerful sally forth can make a smaller player stand a chance, but I also believe this game needs more defensive options like a defensive siege engine and a tower.
There needs to be a place for the defensive player in this game. Not everyone will be lucky enough to be the aggressor and have overwhelming odds to win battles and destroy a town.
I do believe it should take longer for a siege engine to destroy towns. The first week the siege engines will basically starve the city of resources and the second week the siege engines can destroy the town in 7 days.
I will be sure to add more to this topic since I feel it is the most needed addition in the game.
|
|
Thexion
Forum Warrior
Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 10:06 |
|
I like the current siege speed but Id like idea of defending players be able to build structures to make it slower. With "over wall" for example that would have to be taken down first. Also back attacking defensive siege engines is good idea. One option might be building fortresses in to sovereign squares. That attacker has to take before they can use that place to siege or fortresses could also have defensive siege weapons that can also attack siege army.
Game is fairly peaceful because war is horrible and realistic in that sense at least. Because of that I don't like ideas that makes siege impossible or limit siege only against "aggressive" players. Since what is a aggressive player? Player that sieges your city? attacks constantly your city? sends constant waves of hostile spells/diplomats? There is more than one way of driving people away from the game you don't need siege to do that. But siege is only way to make constant diplomatic or spell attacking stop.
Anyhow one option to make siege bit less demoralizing could be that all cities that are razed or captured would send out refugee settler that you could use to build next city with some of the old city's science and perhaps some buildings already in place.
|
|
Aurordan
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
Posted: 11 Oct 2011 at 08:08 |
It think sieges should be less about bombardment and more about starving the enemy out. Sieges themselves shouldn't destroy buildings, they should just slowly choke off resource production. I definitely think a siege should take a fairly long time (like a week), just by the very nature of the process. This would also let less militant players "play" during a siege, for example by aiding the defender with food or using blights or assassins to soften them up. What seems to exist now is more a prolonged bombardment that doesn't really feel like a siege.
Now be aware this is from somebody who has only heard of sieges secondhand, so take it with a bit of salt, but I felt the need to post this because it feels so very much like what a siege should be.
|
|
Tweet
Limiting siege damage