yet another siege change thread
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=1151
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 03:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: yet another siege change thread
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Subject: yet another siege change thread
Date Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 23:06
|
I think siege needs three major changes One - You need to be able to defend from inside. This is generally agreed upon, with the primary means being anti-siege siege weaponry. I support that, but I don't think its enough. You should be able to assassinate siege leaders (relying on the commanders assassination avoidance to make a siege last, and also giving said ability a reasonable use), and you should be able to to send out sabs and the like in an attempt to disable the enemy siege weapons. Basically, siege weapons and diplos can do a lot to disable a siege. Two - To counterbalance how much HARDER that would make sieges, sieged cities aren't allowed to collect resources, or utilize any building that appears outside the "city wall" during the siege (if we end up getting additional plots outside the wall at some point). This means sieges without siege weapons can still hurt even if they can't conquer a city, and creates a strong incentive to actually USE blockades (and to try and overcome them) since they will be a cities lifeline. A sieged city should NOT be able to continue to produce at the same exact rate while under siege! Three (counter-counter) - there needs to be a way to eliminate enemy diplomats so they can't simply repeatedly spam your siege camp with assassins and sabs. I'd suggest giving assassins the ability to target diplomats (as mentioned in previous threads), and maybe even a successfull military victory in the city damaging the cities diplomatic reserves. In addition, because infilitrating an active and on guard army camp is a lot more difficult than a infilitrating a city full of unknown civilians, diplomats have a much higher chance of getting caught on these missions, bordering on 90 or 70% (basic and advanced) and a relatively low chance of success, say, 35% and 50% (basic and advanced). |
Replies:
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 02:24
For that idea, diplomatic units need to be able to reinforce siege camps/ cities. And that will be a really big game-change. And I don't think it will be a positive game change.
Sieges are allraidy very hard to beat if they are set up with enough troops to survive the first few Sally Forth's. If the sieged city can't collect the resources from resources tiles anymore it will only be much more unballanced..
Diplomatic attacks won't effect siege camps. Else it would be far too easy to kill all commanders in the camp with asassins. |
Noryasha Grunk wrote:Posted By: Zangi
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 10:05
|
Combine change one and three with your suggestion to 'reinforce' siege camp with diplos. A serious siege becomes an even more massive affair of logistics. I support that. It is still the final solution that is too easy to use. |
Posted By: Noryasha Grunk
Date Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 13:56
|
CranK, did you actually read the post, or just skim and respond? That is one suggestion with three parts, meant to balance each other. None of your comments make any sense at all unless you ignore the other two components. Its just confusing. So let me address each of your concerns. "For that idea, diplomatic units need to be able to reinforce siege camps/ cities. And that will be a really big game-change. And I don't think it will be a positive game change." -No, they don't. See (3)
|
Posted By: Torn Sky
Date Posted: 17 Oct 2010 at 23:56
|
what about adding more defensive structures to take the brunt of a sieges attack be able to build towers, garrisons, etc that when destroyed you can storm a city these buildings along with the wall will be the main targets of siege equipment but stray shots will land in the city and hit other buildings this will make cities more profitable/fun to capture and recapture allowing ppl to fight over territory since now once a city is taken your down 1/4 your original pop so recapturing 1/8 just isnt worth it if you are quick enough in taking a city you could capture 80-90% of it and retaking it would be worth the effort if you want to raze a city you still need to knock out 3/4 of the cities population, or we could raise it 4/5 |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2010 at 01:18
Srry, I misread your post there. Makes alot more sence now.. I guess I was just a bit tipsy when reading (Posted: 11 Oct 2010 at 03:24)  |
Posted By: G0DsDestroyer
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2010 at 04:26
i agree with you  ------------- http://live.xbox.com/en-US/MyXbox/Profile?gamertag=G0DsDestroyer" rel="nofollow - Tia mi aven Moridin isainde vadin |
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 18 Oct 2010 at 05:58
|
I like the idea of knocking down the wall before capturing a city as well as catapaults to defend a city but I also still like my idea of making a siege camp attack the city as one.
Basically rather than a siege camp setting up outside the walls and waiting I think it'd be cool if 1/3 or more realistically 1/9 of the camp attacked the city each hour in order to bring down the walls. Siege hooks would certainly need to get into archer range to be effective.
so yeah each siege volley against the city effectively works as a raid which damages the city (as well as kills troops on both sides)
This would make the wall a far more integral part of the siege.
Also the sieging player has the option to temporarily hold of the raids for a couple of hours so that re-inforcments can arrive
|