To dodge, or not to dodge?
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=5221
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 20:32
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: To dodge, or not to dodge?
Posted By: abstractdream
Subject: To dodge, or not to dodge?
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 18:32
|
From the Myr Player Spotlight interview (16 August, 2013): What area of the game do you think needs the most improvement?
I agree with Myr's assertion. She stated that allowing attacking armies to do REAL damage to cities (IE: reducing population) would cut down on some of the "bitterness" currently associated with war. I believe this would result because currently, the only way to cause damage in any meaningful way is to use catapults. When a siege with catapults gets going, especially on a large city, some MAJOR damage can be done in short order. Conversely, if an army could march into an undefended city, set fires, kill innocent civilians, along with the usual pillaging before returning home, the "victim" of this attack would be more likely to keep their army stationed inside the walls of their city to defend it rather than sending them on bivouac outside the city for a few minutes while the attack takes place. I believe this would reduce the number of catapult sieges being launched during wartime, thus overall reducing serious damage. It would also add new strategies and dynamics to warfare, therefore increasing the enjoyment of the participants. I believe that neither shortening build times nor increasing siege times is a viable option. If (high level) buildings were quicker to build it would considerably reduce the challenge and prestige associated with becoming a large, veteran player. If sieges were made more difficult by lengthening the time required, a major element of battle in Illyriad would virtually disappear. Ok, so cast your vote and if you like, make your case: ------------- |
Myr wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 19:33
|
I voted NO. Mostly because it can already be done by sending siege engines to attack directly, something that Myr knows already :) so attacking army can make some real damage with some effort invested in preparation (producing siege engines, paying its upkeep and sending it to the target) If for some strange reasons devs decide to consider that option of allowing attacking army to reduce pop of targeted city without siege engines than maybe there should be some special order for that army other than Attack (Pillage sounds ok) but it should also result in reducing attacking army attack points by 50% at least (write it off for exmpl as lack of formation while troops run around city with torches stealing stuff and killing civilians) |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 20:12
|
I voted no. Population in Illyriad is tied directly to building levels. It's an abstraction--it might not make logical sense, but the simplification makes the game playable. I'm comfortable with requiring players to invest their effort in a siege to do permanent city damage. I would, however, like to see unopposed armies carry off valuables. It seems silly that your infantry would haul back 200,000 stone when they could have looted 500 pikes from the armory. Maybe we could get a Plunder setting that would set soldiers to haul off 1/10th their usual capacity in items instead of resources? And I also want a Rustle option for taking their herds of cows and horses. And a Pillage option for stunning or damaging sov structures outside the city (I'd resolve it like a direct siege, vs. the defending army inside the city, but inflicting harm to a specific sov structure within 6 squares of the city). There should be negative aspects to your army abandoning the city when it gets attacked. I just don't think building damage is appropriate due to the game mechanics, no matter how realistic it might seem. I mean really, if your army marched into a city and attacked, why couldn't it just capture the city right then? At the very least, the home army and/or commander should suffer a penalty to morale and its defense stats, for abandoning their homes against the enemy. |
Posted By: Aha
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 22:21
| I have only simple cavalry dudes and no tanks. |
Posted By: ickyfritz
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2013 at 23:07
|
I voted no. I agree with what Sloter said about an existing mechanism. However... I think there should be a consequence. The population should at a minimum be rendered ineffective for a period of time (no production, no builds, no research for X amount of time). It is unrealistic to think they would continue to be productive little drones when their world is crashing around them. and/or... give the attacker a temporary boost to production for a fixed amount of time based on the production/build/research of the undefended town. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 00:00
|
it's worth remembering that a part of the penalty imposed on an army for doing population damage is paid in speed. allowing an all-cavalry army to do so with no additional rules changes will rebalance the military game far(ther) to the favour of humans and elves. Myr's comment appeals to realism, but how is realism served if a cavalry army is allowed to loot and pillage a town with a lvl 20 wall without the service of siege engines? are we to assume the horses are stackable? i do not think the builders of the community will have a more positive attitude about the loss of population after a change that makes the loss both more likely and more abrupt. i would counter that what illyriad actually lacks is a mechanism for credible defensive strategy. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 01:58
| That's true. If building damage were allowed for attacking armies, the attacking armies should be 100% blocked by the city wall. Cavalry would be unrealistic, but perhaps ground troops could use ladders or something. |
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 05:35
|
I like the plunder option idea as well as the population being rendered useless to work for a period of time. I just think that there should be some additional penalty to leaving your helpless citizens at the mercy of an enemy army. What if an army hit an undefended city and did one of several random things such as burning food storage which would wipe out any food in the city? Maybe rustle cows or horses? Or poison the wells and make the population unable to work for a period of time? It would also add a challenge to troop balance since it would be beneficial for each town to have defensive troops in the city.
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 07:33
to put things on a firmer basis, unwalled cities would have to be immediately raidable while walled cities were not; t1 and t2 siege engines would need to be collapsed together (because really, there are siege engines that only affect walls and others that only affect buildings?); siege attacks would attempt to focus on walls and some number of "misses" would hit buildings; and once walls were reduced (or sapped by engineers, or gate security infiltrated by spies in place) the raid/razing/conquest could occur. cities would need to take population damage in a raid based somehow on the amount of goods taken. and why stop there? sieges without engines should still be effective, because the food production is not really "in the city", it's in the surrounding countryside, outside the walls. so a siege in progress should disrupt growing, mining, etc., hindering or preventing the generation of resources. at that point, a patient player without siege engines could fairly well starve a village in the same way we currently reduce population with siege engines...just like they did in the "good old days" of real siege warfare. defenders, of course, ought to be doing more than sallying forth from within a sieged city. why not allow their own siege engines to fire on the besieger's engines (with similar collateral damage for misses)? what about a sovereignty building representing additional fortifications, whose purpose would be to increase the bonus awarded by the wall? might the long-awaited battle magic help to even the contest, since the defenders would be so much closer to their mana than the attacker? i don't have the depth in illy combat that a lot of you in this thread do, but from what i have seen making it "realistic" would require more work than a point fix or two. i can only speak for myself, but the reason my defensive garrisons leave a city under attack is that defending is a fool's errand in illyriad. if my troops had some way to sell their lives more dearly in defence, with cover behind a thick stone wall, than attacking without any such advantage, that would be enough to keep them in town. |
Posted By: Nalleen
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 09:23
Some good points here especially regarding cav having the advantage even if walls are lvl 20. I have two ideas to add to Myr's that offer a compromise. One, the amount of damage to population troops would do should be considerably less than that a catapult could do and maybe even have % chance ratio in order with the catapult/ram hit & miss ratio. Two, should wall levels begin to affect troop units' ability to "get into" a city to attack maybe based on a % chance also? This would, in effect, offer more of the realism Myr is looking for as well as give walls more of a role in the game and increasing their defensive worth. An alternate method of bringing realism to wall defenses is to implement the building and use of wall defense "units" such as spiked barricades and wall top crossbow engines within the wall tab. These could be limited to so many per wall level & wall level requirements for the building of each type unit if more than one. This would add many new dimensions to the war mechanics of Illy. Instead of dodging being your only option facing a set of troops outweighing yours, you would have more options for defending your city. Let's face it, a loss is a loss  and Myr's idea reflects this.-------------    |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 14:31
|
Hmm.... I would like to OCCUPY an enemy city plus forcing the population to produce stuff for me while sitting there... (something like tribute...) If anyone would dodge the attack at first, he would have to climb his own walls when returning to take back the city  Oh... and I voted no, as reducing pop is work for siege troups... I'd like more to have a tribute option...
|
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 15:19
That pretty much sums it up. There is currently nothing to be gained from keeping your troops there to defend. If my troops show up at a city with a wall but there are no troops on it they might spend a little energy while they start a fire to burn down the door but they can't be kept out entirely. As someone said above, they can also use ladders and go over the wall if there are no troops there to stop them. A wall is only as good as the troops on it, with no troops it's just a wall that will slow down the attackers without stopping them.
|
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 15:29
|
Nalleen and Hora both have interesting ideas as well. Especially the idea of occupying a city and having access to what the people produce while you're there. If you go in with attack troops and occupy you will have the disadvantage of trying to defend with those troops when you're hosts troops come home. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 16:55
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 18:52
|
the war function in this game needs to become more strategy and less slug fest...having an attack doing nothing but taking simple resources which the game is overfilled with just makes the slugfest siege mechanic the only worthwhile war function....lets make this more of a thinking game than whoever is the biggest wins..i would love pathfinding, i would love battle magic and i would love an attack to cause more damage if the defender wimps out...this could be such an awesome war game with a few adjustments and we are seeing what is happening to the game with its outdated game mechanics and current game play...sory i have to get back to clicking |
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 09:55
|
I'm not really sure where I can put my vote in this poll, but I do know precisely what I believe should happen. An army without siege engines cannot get inside the walls of a city. This is logic. Otherwise the wall would be pretty useless. I always thought that the battle took place outside of the city gates rather than inside the city, which explained why my victorious forces never killed the mobs of civilians inside the gates. Either that or my troops have an Illy equivalent to the Geneva Convention. Anyway, this theory does have some flaws in itself, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a reasonable explanation yet. However, what I always thought was ridiculous was this. My army would charge at a city, eagerly awaiting an army to fight. They find nobody to fight. They go up to the walls, turn around and come back..... through the farmyards, quarries and lumberjacks. And leave these people, who are feeding the city, alone. That is the ridiculous thing. I think that instead of the city losing population randomly, I think that the army should have the ability to deal damage to the outlying basic res buildings in the city.
|
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 11:16
| it should not be too hard to open the gates of a city if noone is defending it. You don't have to jump over the walls, you just need to find someone to open it for you and i am sure someone will do it especially when the city is left defenseless.. |
Posted By: Albatross
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 14:53
|
Don't underestimate the power of simple folk with torches and pitchforks... -------------  |
Posted By: Auraya
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 16:13
QFT. If a city has walls up, an army cannot get at the general population without laying siege to the city. Therefore, everything within that city is safe. Perfectly realistic and I don't really understand why that would be an issue for anyone. They don't kill the people working in the quarries etc because presumably a warning bell is sounded and everyone runs inside the city walls. What idiot would sit outside harvesting crops whilst a hostile army was charging at them with no defending army? If the city was undefended, they probably would raze to the ground any food production and try to starve the people inside.. but isn't that what they are doing by grabbing basics? So again, realistic. The adv res would be stored inside the city which is why we don't get those although.. there's an interesting point regarding cows and horses. You could argue that the horses would be kept in a stable within the city walls but do farmers really keep their livestock in cities? One suspects they are out in the fields grazing.
|
Posted By: Arakamis
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 23:01
|
All you need is one person to open the gates of an undefended city. While we are at being realistic, leaving a city undefended just because it has walls has nothing to do with being realistic. Walls cannot fight for you and gates are easy to open especially when the city is left defenseless. |
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 01:38
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 04:55
|
Considering realistically your population wouldn't increase by the blacksmith being slightly better at his job. Also as it turns out building a 'mage tower' doesn't in produce mana in RL. So lets stop worrying about realistic and worry about whats entertaining. Lest the new cathedral will take 20 years to build.
|
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 05:12
| I think Nok's idea bears merit... You can torch the buildings outside the city, namely food, iron stone, wood and clay. The longer you remain in "occupation" with your siegeless army, the more levels those buildings lose. Eventually, lack of food will crush the city (provided you have a blockade up and they aren't bringing food in)... New tactic to "starve them out"! |
Posted By: Yhina
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2013 at 09:23
|
In short, what you guys want is to make cavalry even more OP by allowing to "fast raze". If they were to destroy res plots, same thing would happen, as t2 buildings would colapse and once farms are touched, any other building aswell. It would be even faster than a siege with siege weapons. All in the name of realisim... Realisim that is only applied "partially". When a army goes on a simple attack just carries some food and some limited logistic, they are not meant to camp the countryside creating havoc. I always thought walls to be fences, as even at their max level, they still allow cavalry to get in, as if an armoured warhorse could jump them, and just grant defenders the benefit of "matching in stats" to the attackers ( 1 to 1, give or take). Maybe a modified Raid could be used to set terror in the countryside, but it should have penalties aswell. Time consuming, something like an encapment, where defenders can bring reinforcements to destroy the happy raiders around their lands. And that's not even considering that as the army scatters around the land they become more vulnerable, to both regulars and just regular folks... |
Posted By: Grego
Date Posted: 02 Oct 2013 at 10:20
|
Direct attacks without siege engines can already decrease population in cities which have resource production in red. |
Posted By: Rhino70
Date Posted: 03 Oct 2013 at 00:56
I have to agree with Angrim. Until this game has better defensive mechanics, it seems like a waste to keep troops in a city while an army attacks. Our past tourneys have been a prime example. Players would send larger clearing armies and then hold with smaller elite armies so the losses were easier to swallow (Especially on Cav squares- which so happen to be where most players settled due to needing a 7 food plot). Nobody was really leaving a large army there to take a beating unless the terrain allowed a better defense. I remember when this game used to give the defending army the advantage, then mid tourney, it was completely shifted to the attackers that had the advantage. Maybe meeting in the middle would be a better compromise. Then you might see more players keeping troops at home/on tourney squares and engaging in a more "fair" fight. Just my two cents on the matter. 
|
Posted By: Thexion
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 19:00
| I think population and building decoupling would be good development for the game. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 20:52
|
The city wall is the incentive to leave your army to defend a direct attack against your city. It is effective. The fear of 40K Spearmen behind a city wall, even on plains, is enough to keep a 20K cavalry from wanting to attack. Throw in potential terrain and prestige bonuses and it gets worse. Defending an attack is doable. The big problem is that there isn't that great of an incentive to attack a city. If I declare war on Sloter(sorry, using you as an example), why would I want to direct attack his city? At the most i would be sending my men to die in an attempt to steal basic resources. The only time I would want to do that is if Sloter has no allies and I can "blockade" him and cut him off from resources by constantly stealing his basic resources. So stealing resources can be effective, but not if it cost me 4 months worth of military units and all the resources to make them. There isn't a very good trade off at all. Especially if you consider using crafted weapons and armor. hours and hours of gathering spent just to steal 200,000 iron? I propose a different model. One that no one is going to like: Taxation. If I send an army to Sloter's town and kill all of his men in a bloody battle worthy of remembrance in the Jedi archives, I should be able to leave my army there and force his town to pay me taxes. 1/10 of all gold produced gets sent to me. 1/10 of all military created gets sent to me. 1/10 of all resources gathered gets sent to me. And lastly 1/10 of all resource crafted gets sent to me. If Sloter doesn't like it, he can try to remove my troops from his town. This Marshall Law/taxation would result in a new tactic to be used for war. New strategic targets (instead of plains cities with a neighboring large mountain) when attacking enemies. Large incentives to not let enemy troops into your city. Allow more strategy instead of stacking the largest army. Now a small army can be just as big of a nuisance as a large army. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/45534" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 21:34
|
Taxation would result in a lot of people just being perma taxed. Doesn't pass the fun test devs already said so. I do agree that attacking should have more incentive though. I think troops should be able to grab gold. I think this would be easy to implement, and large forces could take 1M gold. Would at least be a detriment to the dodging player. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 21:43
|
/me has enough gold... and most hidden in hubs... Perhaps occupying armies don't send stuff home as in tribute, but simply block the town from producing items besides food to sustain the population? Perhaps add the possibility to take some already produced stuff from the warehouse (weapons, etc...)? If any big alliance would do this for too long, that would be bad PR, thus won't happen outside of conflicts...
|
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 22:47
| If someone can explain how attacking armies of cavalry can jump over a L20 wall to wipe out the defensive troops standing behind it i'll explain how cities are left untouched when their troops decide to go for a walk to dodge the incoming attacks. |
Posted By: Brandmeister
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2013 at 00:39
It's because video games require certain abstractions to make the rules easier to learn and the games more enjoyable to play. Do I win?
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 05 Oct 2013 at 01:54
| Its because the enemy units have to come through the gate. Since its a giant choke point they get a major disadvantage. |
Posted By: Hora
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2013 at 21:32
|
Building terrain in cities (perhaps)... plus the wall disadvantage of 50%... with spears defending... I wouldn't like to be a runerider in this battle...
|
Posted By: Redfist
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 10:13
|
interesting
|