| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 17:28 |
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
|
 |
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
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.
|
 |
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 16:23 |
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.
|
|
|
 |
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 14:45 |
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.
|
 |
Anjire
Postmaster
Joined: 18 Sep 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 688
|
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.
|
|
|
 |
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 13:59 |
Elmindra wrote:
I understand what you are saying Darkwords, but changing terrain bonuses does nothing to change the fact that cavalry are still horrible at defense. The problem in the game as I see it is there is very little reason to be diversified with all 4 troop types. An elf rarely makes spears since the Trueshot can be trained at the same speed and is an all around better defender. Since cavalry is still king on almost any terrain type other than buildings, it is still the primary offensive unit. Honestly, T2 spears should kill cavalry at a 1:1 ratio or better in mountains and forests. Swordsmen should be a better attack option than cavalry when attacking forests. Problem is that they are not. Most elves are pure trueshots with a few cav towns. This I see as a problem, because the units are neither balanced properly or powerful enough in certain circumstances.
And as for changing things, that is something that constantly happens in Illy. The game isn't the same since I joined, and I doubt it will be the same once the new magic update is implemented. |
This^^
Not much call to train the other unit types if the few such as Cavalry excel in nearly all fields.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
 |
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 08:25 |
KillerPoodle wrote:
Improving Bows and Spears by reducing cav effectiveness would make sieges easier to prosecute which will make a whole section of the game's population throw up their hands in despair and threaten to quit.
Not saying it's a bad idea - just predicting the response.
|
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?
Edited by Rill - 29 Jan 2013 at 08:26
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 06:42 |
|
FWIW - making a small change to T2 spears so they produce a bit faster than bows would be about all you would need to do.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
KillerPoodle
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1853
|
Posted: 29 Jan 2013 at 06:41 |
|
Improving Bows and Spears by reducing cav effectiveness would make sieges easier to prosecute which will make a whole section of the game's population throw up their hands in despair and threaten to quit.
Not saying it's a bad idea - just predicting the response.
|
|
"This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM
"a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill
|
 |
Elmindra
Forum Warrior
Joined: 10 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 464
|
Posted: 28 Jan 2013 at 23:30 |
I understand what you are saying Darkwords, but changing terrain bonuses does nothing to change the fact that cavalry are still horrible at defense. The problem in the game as I see it is there is very little reason to be diversified with all 4 troop types. An elf rarely makes spears since the Trueshot can be trained at the same speed and is an all around better defender. Since cavalry is still king on almost any terrain type other than buildings, it is still the primary offensive unit. Honestly, T2 spears should kill cavalry at a 1:1 ratio or better in mountains and forests. Swordsmen should be a better attack option than cavalry when attacking forests. Problem is that they are not. Most elves are pure trueshots with a few cav towns. This I see as a problem, because the units are neither balanced properly or powerful enough in certain circumstances.
And as for changing things, that is something that constantly happens in Illy. The game isn't the same since I joined, and I doubt it will be the same once the new magic update is implemented.
Edited by Elmindra - 28 Jan 2013 at 23:31
|
 |