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
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 03:31
for opposing armies to pass through zones they have to defeat the camping army...as how it can be used for strategy just image
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 03:24
Originally posted by gameplayer gameplayer wrote:

if camping armies could have a zone of control of surrounding squares the military part of this game would be much more strategy, many pc strategy games have this and it would make this one of the best browser games out there, it wouldnt take much coding to put this into the game

Um you care to elaborate?  At the current moment 'zone of control' is just that you didn't explain at all if it would do anything to benefit either side in any way.  Other than just saying these troops control that zone, woopdie do. 

Also the multi-wall thing would also allow the T1 siege engines to be more effective in combat.  Which atm they normally tear down the wall of a city with no troops in it to begin with and then just sit there.  


Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 03:08
Ummm... isn't that what Sally forth and the final seige battle are for?

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not see how you feel there is no point in defending cities under seige, the only problem with it is fighting off clearance attacks, which is what I think you are actually arguing for.

However, simply weakening cav and strengthening all other troop types as you have suggested seems pretty naff in my opinion for the reasons I have mentioned above, which I can only guess you have not read, as you keep saying I am wrong, yet agreeing with the opposing points that I have made and trying to fit them into your side of the discussion.

And yes using cav in offense most of the time (and I am sorry but if you throw cav at forests and mountains then you should rework your tactics) is a strategy.  When attacking, use the attack troops, seems a pretty simplistic one but it works.

Basically from what you have written, it seems that you find it unfair that cav are so effective when attacking your cities, despite the fact that you have seen fit to construct all your cities on plains squares ( most likely for the advantage of high food resources) as most people tend to do, however this is not always the best strategy in account building, your city walls would be very effective if your city were on a mountain and full of archers, or on a forest and full of swords.

Despite this, it does nothing to help in breaking seiges, as breaking a seige is an offensive measure and as you say the best troops for that are cav.  This makes perfect sense in my opinion, as why would you send defensive troops to attack a camp outside your city, or how would you city walls help you in that attack?

As Kumo pointed out, your whole argument for weakening cav to aid in city defence, makes no sense when you consider that you need to break seige camps.  What you are actually arguing for would make seiges far more difficult to defend against.
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 02:59
if camping armies could have a zone of control of surrounding squares the military part of this game would be much more strategy, many pc strategy games have this and it would make this one of the best browser games out there, it wouldnt take much coding to put this into the game
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: 30 Jan 2013 at 02:19
You did not listen to a word I said.  Tell me again how cavalry should be able to kill defenders in a city behind a lvl 20 wall at over a 2:1 cost ratio?  How exactly is massing cavalry and sending them against anything in any terrain strategic?  As it stands now, cavalry are absolutely the best defense for a city.  All you need is cavalry to break sieges.  Defensive units such as archers are best used on offense to defend a siege camp.

Many dwarven players build swords, but they are at a disadvantage compared to cavalry in almost all respects.  I have participated in tournament and have seen all troop types and battle reports in this war.  I have used cavalry to their advantage and use troops in the best way the game allows.  All I am saying, and it seems that most but you agree, that there are some slight imbalances with some of the units with certain terrain types and with cities in particular.  When the best city defense strategy is to keep your troops out of the town and simply attack the siege camp when it comes there is something wrong with the mechanics.  There should actually be a reason to use different troop types more often, and city walls should actually mean something.  There should be a real reason for allies to reinforce the town itself.
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 00:44
Originally posted by DeathDealer89 DeathDealer89 wrote:

How bout your allowed to build different types of walls? 

You can have the standard wall, and then you can build a T2 wall that is strong against a certain type of unit.  This would support anjire's idea indirectly of just having a better wall.  But then you still have the unit triangle of what wall you should build.  Most likely everyone will build cav walls making infantry more effective.  


Not a bad idea and of course you would need to scout a city to discover what type of wall it had.
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 00:40
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:



Not exactly.  You need to apply the strength to cost (most people use upkeep) ratio in order to truly judge a unit.  Cavalry has the best attack to cost ratio of any unit by far.

Yes that is 'exactly' what I said.

Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:


  Even in unfavorable terrain, they are still superior (with the exception of buildings).


And again you agree with me...

Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:


Bows have the best defense to cost ratio, except for vs cavalry.  The problem being is that the cavalry power ratio is so much that you can still attack any terrain (except buildings) and have the advantage.


And 'exactly' how does this differ from what I said?

 
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:


 Attacking a town with a lvl 20 wall on plains with just 7k T2 cavalry will completely wipe 20k T2 archers.  This should not be allowed to happen no matter what.  That is a major disparity of power vs upkeep, with the 7k T2 cav costing 28kgph and the 20k T2 archers costing 60kgph.


If you are unstrategic enough to defend a plains square with archers and then get hit by someone strategic enough to use the best troops for that terrain you deserve much harsher losses if you ask me.

 
Originally posted by Elmindra Elmindra wrote:


My entire point is that there is absolutely no call to build swords if you are not a dwarf, and that while spears are still useful, their training time vs power ratio is not equivalent to bows so spears are not a viable choice as well.  Yes spears are useful vs cavalry, but why train them when you can get more bang in the same amount of time with archers.  We don't need massive changes, just tweeks to terrain and training times.


I would completely disagree with you, I am human and I build swords and I know many dwarven players that do so, they are very good if you have the brains to use them properly, from what I can tell, you want an even playing field between all troop types, and therefore all need for strategic thought or planning removed from the game.

Why not just say we should have just one unit type called soldier and its defence ranking is the same and its attack?

Yes cavalry are great in attack, they are the attack troop after all.  But the other troop types also have their benefits, perhaps you should look at some tourney stats to see the evidence of which are most used.

You base your claim on the idea that cav are the only troops worth producing, try doing that and see how well you can defend your cities?
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: 30 Jan 2013 at 00:12
Originally posted by Darkwords Darkwords wrote:


That is the point though ES2, when it comes to military there are only 3 fields.

1 - Attack strength
2 - Defensive strength
3 - cost ( or numbers sustainable)

Whilst T2 cav clearly excel in one field the are the very worst in the two others.

Bows excel in defence

Spears excell in cost

and Swords are kind of an all rounder ( although best in defence given certain terrain).


There are clearly uses for all troop types, but I beleive people merely concentrate on offense which is really a mistake.

Not exactly.  You need to apply the strength to cost (most people use upkeep) ratio in order to truly judge a unit.  Cavalry has the best attack to cost ratio of any unit by far.  Even in unfavorable terrain, they are still superior (with the exception of buildings).  Bows have the best defense to cost ratio, except for vs cavalry.  The problem being is that the cavalry power ratio is so much that you can still attack any terrain (except buildings) and have the advantage.  Attacking a town with a lvl 20 wall on plains with just 7k T2 cavalry will completely wipe 20k T2 archers.  This should not be allowed to happen no matter what.  That is a major disparity of power vs upkeep, with the 7k T2 cav costing 28kgph and the 20k T2 archers costing 60kgph.

My entire point is that there is absolutely no call to build swords if you are not a dwarf, and that while spears are still useful, their training time vs power ratio is not equivalent to bows so spears are not a viable choice as well.  Yes spears are useful vs cavalry, but why train them when you can get more bang in the same amount of time with archers.  We don't need massive changes, just tweeks to terrain and training times.
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Jan 2013 at 00:09
How bout your allowed to build different types of walls? 

You can have the standard wall, and then you can build a T2 wall that is strong against a certain type of unit.  This would support anjire's idea indirectly of just having a better wall.  But then you still have the unit triangle of what wall you should build.  Most likely everyone will build cav walls making infantry more effective.  
Back to Top
Darkwords View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 23:53
Or you could use strategy as to where to build your cities.

But I guess power gamers want both the advantage of 7 food spots and good cav defense
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.