| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Brids17 
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
 Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 20:05 |
 ES2 wrote:
You can be quiet,
I don't see my going "wahhahahahahahha they iz being mean to me,
I see me going "You know what for a community that prides themselves on many factors, on of which being a non "pay to win" than this seems like a "pay to win" strategy. Pay attention to what I write crow. |
I know what you wrote. I'm talking about why you wrote it though, which is because you can't drop her city and thus it must be the prestige and the fact that it's a "pay to win". Not, your siege was poorly constructed and you're using bad tactics.
|
|
|
 |
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 17:13 |
|
theres alot more strategy involved than just that, siege should never be focused on one spot..there are so many options, its actually exciting....the devs have done an great job on the many different military functions, personally learning alot from the consone defenders...nice job to everyone actually playing the full game
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 17:00 |
The current tactics seem to focus on direct attacks against siege stacks instead of Sally Forth. This is a result of the change in how battle losses are allocated - originally, siege machines did not share battle losses and would not be destroyed until all the support troops had been eliminated - now with loss sharing, the siege machines will be lost fairly quickly even while the support troops remain. The defender also uses pressie speed builds to prolong the siege. Which is why Blockades have become critical in connection with a siege.
Before the change in battle loss allocation, Sally Forth was helpful in "stunning" the siege machines when the support troops were simply more than could be destroyed during the siege time frame. But now it just makes more sense to direct attack the siege until the siege machines have been eliminated.
So successful sieges require multiple siege stacks each with 60+ T2 siege and multiple blockades followed by direct clearing attacks on the city to remove defenders just before Storming the city.
|
|
Darkwords
Postmaster General
Joined: 23 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1005
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 14:20 |
|
Regarding Sally forth it maybe a more usefull tactic now due to the 'seige fix'.
Due to the devs making the final battle actually happen again, which apparently was not an issue according to the devs during the Valar war (but I guess thats not at issue here). It again makes sense for people to send huge occupations into a seiged town, aslong as they can do so in time.
If you do this, then you may aswell Sally with those troops to at least reduce the size of the seige force.
The only issue with this is that you need defensive forces for the final battle and you would want offensive for a Sally, but I guess this is where infantry would come to play.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 13:54 |
My history is fairly weak, but here's a question: What proportion of sieges (in real history) have been defeated from within the walls of the city/castle? I would guess that friendly reinforcements are the best way to break a siege? ... (thinking of times around Napoleon).
So if that's true, then a siege should be fairly indefensible once the city's troops (or counter-defences - not really in Illy) are exhausted.
|
|
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 550
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 13:54 |
Brids17 wrote:
Perhaps you shouldn't have declared war on an alliance four times the size of your own, rather than complaining that the war isn't going your way and that this must be a "pay to win" game. |
You can be quiet,
I don't see my going "wahhahahahahahha they iz being mean to me,
I see me going "You know what for a community that prides themselves on many factors, on of which being a non "pay to win" than this seems like a "pay to win" strategy. Pay attention to what I write crow.
|
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
Bonaparta
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2011
Location: Milky Way
Status: Offline
Points: 541
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 10:39 |
|
Siege was obviously poorly prepared, if sieged town is able to prestige build back all the losses...
|
|
|
|
dunnoob
Postmaster
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Elijal
Status: Offline
Points: 800
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 08:09 |
Intentionally losing a town in an arranged siege is quite educational, I can only recommend it. My sally forth with one commander and one troop against hundreds of attackers was fun, commander and axman returned alive with a battle report after killing one opponent. One of those odd rounding issues, I didn't report it, because I had already more than enough unopened petitions at this time: Presumably you can't lose a third of one unit, and if this issue was fixed later TC didn't mention it in the release notes.
Another result of this experiment, I can't rebuild hourly destructions of level 1..3 buildings including lots of cottages while I'm sleeping. And desperate rebuilding attempts under fire can fail miserably if the defender erroneously clicks archers field (first in the list) or cavalry parade ground (near cottage) instead of cottage. The arguably best prestige use, fix click errors where the game doesn't offer it directly.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 04:16 |
DeathDealer89 wrote:
[QUOTE=Kumomoto]If anyone can honestly say this is a "pay to win" game with an honest face, then I have a job for you in politics in DC...
|
Which ironically is actually pay to win.
When they come up with spells that kill troops and cost prestige then maybe you can say pay to win. Also if they do i'll prolly quit. It would be likely playing chess where the pawns are provided but you have to buy the other pieces every game.
For the moment I hope lots of people try and keep their cities up with prestige, devs make more money that way. [/QUOTE Which is the entire point, DD.
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 03:55 |
|
Perhaps you shouldn't have declared war on an alliance four times the size of your own, rather than complaining that the war isn't going your way and that this must be a "pay to win" game.
|
|
|
|
Tweet
Possibility this is a pay to win?
