Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Military Tweeks
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedMilitary Tweeks
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Anjire View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 14:28
The biggest  change I would like to see would love to see walls(at max level) provide double the current defense, both militarily and diplomatically: ~350% defense at level 20 to military units and diplomatic units.  Abandoned/suspended accounts should have their walls decline over time (-1 level a day) or rendered non-existent.

Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 14:45
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:

Would be harder to break siege camps with cav.  On the other hand, it would be harder to use cav to clear the city of troops, either to prevent sally forth or in preparation for storm to raze or capture.

Obviously it could change the outcome assuming the participants already had armies that favoured one or another type of troops, but given that people would account for this in planning their armies, I'm interested in hearing more about how this would specifically favor prosecuting sieges as opposed to defending against them.  Keep in mind that I have limited experience with prosecuting sieges of active players or actively defending against siege, so I imagine there are many factors of which I am not aware.

It seems like this change would possibly change the relative weight of the importance of defending troops in a city vs. defending through attacking a siege camp.  Right now it seems like by the time a city is stormed it is all but lost, and I guess questions raised by this thread include 1) what would it take to make this not be so? and 2) would that outcome be desirable in terms of game balance and overall fun factor?

I think it would only be harder to break siege camps with cav on certain terrain, as it honestly should be.  You would see swords and possibly archers being used more as attacking armies under the right circumstances as well.  I have no problem with cavalry getting a much higher defensive bonus on plains as well.  After all, they should rule on plains and rightly so.

I also think Rill is in the right on this second point.  As it stands, the best option to defend against a siege is to attack the siege camp and NOT reinforce the town.  With a much better bonus behind the walls like Anjire made mention, it would change the strategy of sieges but they would make much more sense.  I also do not believe 8k cavalry should be able to clear a town behind a lvl 20 wall of 20k archers like they can currently.  
Back to Top
Albatross View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 16:23
Originally posted by Anjire Anjire wrote:

The biggest  change I would like to see would love to see walls(at max level) provide double the current defense, both militarily and diplomatically: ~350% defense at level 20 to military units and diplomatic units.  Abandoned/suspended accounts should have their walls decline over time (-1 level a day) or rendered non-existent.
I see your points. About the abandoned cities, I'd like to see them lose 30% population immediately (because the city is without its administrative and figurehead leader - the player - so people lose faith and leave) and a random building de-levelling every hour (due to reduced maintenance, disorganisation, and a general feeling of neglect). It would also make them less worthwhile and more difficult to siege, and give less time for theft (esp if the Warehouse declines). This would resemble an abandoned city.
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:24
Or we could just have the cities disappear at the 90 day mark or so.  Which is a little easier to keep track of than adding the new city falls apart mechanic.  

And I agree that the current game mechanic makes cavalry the all around best unit on any terrain when attacking.  But thats already set, if you add something to the game it should be along the lines of new terrain or perhaps units can build moats/spikes in the ground to boost defense against cav.  But not something as simple as just changing the numbers so that cav are less effective.  That would be unfair to the people who already built huge cav armies.  
Back to Top
KillerPoodle View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:28
Originally posted by Rill Rill wrote:



Would be harder to break siege camps with cav.  On the other hand, it would be harder to use cav to clear the city of troops, either to prevent sally forth or in preparation for storm to raze or capture.



The probable outcome is that one would just leave the siege in place (since it's harder to kill) until the city is at zero pop and then move on.  The player being sieged gets to keep their research but has the grind of building from nothing again.
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM

"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:34
Hehehe... I agree with much of what is written here on both sides of the fence.

What is odd to me however (from an RP standpoint - which in truth is one reason most pick the character they do) is that none of the races excel on a given terrain, but in fact excel at what would be, technically, the opposite terrain.. lol.

Ok.. here is my LONG standing rant.........

Examples:
Dwarven Stalwarts (best infantry in the game) excel in the forests and not in the mountains or hills. (offensive)

Elven Longbowmen (best bowmen in the game) excel in the mountains, not the forest (defensive).


Don't get me wrong here either, in a practical sense, both should be good in either terrain, but since they born to and live in a particular natural environment, they would be 'better' due this fact, especially defending it. Even the game 'births', you so to speak, on certain tiles based on your race. But I mean heck, you wouldn't dare want to use a Stalwart in the mountains defending unless it was all you got left.. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

I also agree that it is silly to have Cav as powerful as it is on EVERY terrain. Cav being as good as they currently are on mountain terrain is to my mind, silly. There should be some more logical bonuses and negatives regarding terrain. 

I think they aught to introduce RACE Bonuses and more specifically toward the natural terrain. This could possibly help with some of the discontent and give a more natural balance.. somewhat :)

~~~~~~~~

But again, It is my LONG STANDING rant in the game.. you can go back to ignoring me again :)



Edited by belargyle - 29 Jan 2013 at 17:37
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:37
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:

As for spearmen, I think the base training time on them needs some adjustment.  When deciding whether to train spears or archers, the archers usually win because of the superior defense rating and that they train at the same speed. 

Agreed, also T2 orcish spearmen cost more in T2 equips than T2 elfish archers. So the choice betwen an Elf and an Orc is quicly done. 

I saw speamen (mostly for Orcs) as weak but largely outnumbering soliers. Keeping their higher weapons costs (in the case of Orcs) but decreasing their production times would have more sense, and would create more balance Cav/spears, and give more disadvantage to CAv on forests or Mountains. 

So +1

Side effect would be to motivate people to build more infantry to counter siege and such and to be more territorial as Inf is slower than cav, which would be a bit less used. Archers would be less produced as they fear more Inf than Cav on mountains. All Balanced™ 


Edited by Mandarins31 - 29 Jan 2013 at 17:49
Back to Top
Bonaparta View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:55
Spearmen should train much faster for all the races and that would keep cavalry in check. Trueshots should cost 2 leather armour. Why are they the only t2 special unit that have reduced training cost? All other races must pay the same + 1 beer for their t2 special troops.

Back to Top
Elmindra View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:58
I hear you on the elf/dwarf thing Belargyle.  It is completely opposite in my mind (Elf best in mountains, dwarves best in forests).  That being said, I would be ok with keeping that the same if some of the discussed changes were made.  At least you would see those other troops more useful than currently implemented.

As for changing things on the fly, get used to it because things change in Illy all the time.  Magic is going to force people to completely change some of their established cities and no one will complain.

Leaving a siege in place and just reducing a town to 0 is an option, but what if a raze or capture attempt took all reinforcing troops along with it just like Sally Forth does?  That to me would make perfect sense, and would be another good reason to have infantry as a viable troop type outside of dwarves.
Back to Top
Mandarins31 View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 18:08
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:

Leaving a siege in place and just reducing a town to 0 is an option, but what if a raze or capture attempt took all reinforcing troops along with it just like Sally Forth does?  That to me would make perfect sense, and would be another good reason to have infantry as a viable troop type outside of dwarves.

Non-sense. Infantry wont be more produced to attack cities, mostly with your "all attack in final assault" idea, as cities are made on plain: almost the only terrain to get 7 food tiles. (having 7 food mountains... is that an other idea for more balance?)


Edited by Mandarins31 - 29 Jan 2013 at 18:09
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.