Update 29 MAY
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: News & Announcements
Forum Name: News & Announcements
Forum Description: Changes, patch release dates, server launch dates, downtime notifications etc.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=578
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 21:31 Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Update 29 MAY
Posted By: GM ThunderCat
Subject: Update 29 MAY
Date Posted: 29 May 2010 at 22:45
|
Updates (29 MAY):
Army orders Army orders have now been alphabetised. This will mean even if you have the "Raid" strategem "Attack" will be the default option. Of course you can still choose "Raid", but this should reduce the number of accidental raids.
Sending armies - extra info When sending armies, in the move army page, the map to show the area you are sending your army to; in addition to terrain and cities; now displays army encampments, resources and harvesting caravans. It also correctly allows you to send armies to impassable terrain - although you cannot siege or blockade from these squares. Also with reference to the earlier clarification - you cannot siege or blockade from square that has an occupying, sieging or blockading army already on it (or impassable terrain, or city squares). We hope you appreciate this additional info.
Clicking on army encampments on the map now summaries what they are doing differently. If your army is on the square; its current activity takes priority. Next blockade, siege, occupy and then reinforce. Previously sieging armies with reinforcements sometimes showed up as "Reinforcing" which did not communicate the full depth of their hostile intent. This should now be clearer.
Stacking Armies on squares A clarification to the rule on stacking armies is as follows: whilst you may stack as many reinforcing armies as you wish on a square using the Occupy order, only one army may be on the square using the Siege or Blockade order; and the first army to arrive under these orders takes precedence over later arrivals. If you want to carry out 2 Sieges and 1 Blockade on an enemy city, you will need to occupy 3 squares. You may, of course, reinforce these squares as you wish - with other armies under the Occupying order. This emphasises terrain advantages around a city (preventing the attackers from simply occupying a single open square for all their needs) and is working as intended. We apologise if the rule was previously unclear.
|
Replies:
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 30 May 2010 at 00:54
|
Yay no more accidental raids!
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 30 May 2010 at 00:59
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 30 May 2010 at 02:24
hey just wondering, given that you can't combine to players army's for an attack doesn't that mean that reinforced siege encampments have a large advantage?
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 30 May 2010 at 03:25
Yes, the same advantage every defending city has against other attack forms, minus the wall. I wouldn't call it a large advantage though. Assaults less than 10 percent of our encampment's size are destroying as much as 8% of our encampment size...only the really small "spamming everything your alliance will sacrifice" attacks are accomplishing next to nothing.
(I'm referring to the siege taking place at 17|-7.)
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 08:37
ok thats fair enough but what about a very large, concentrated alliance. 100 members occupying say 3 squares in siege and you have 33 armies reinforcing each square, more if you include second cities. I doubt it would come to that but an opposition facing it would have no chance to break the siege as all armies will be far less then 10%.
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 15:25
col0005 wrote:
ok thats fair enough but what about a very large, concentrated alliance. 100 members occupying say 3 squares in siege and you have 33 armies reinforcing each square, more if you include second cities. I doubt it would come to that but an opposition facing it would have no chance to break the siege as all armies will be far less then 10%.
|
Doubt it will even come to that... Something similair is happening now, on 1 square. 
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 16:05
Your army has to be more like 2-5% of camp size to do little damage, and that is a little less likely. But if you're facing 100 well-coordinated combatants working in unison, why shouldn't you fail, unless you are equally large and equally well-coordinated? In that case, you should be able to take full advantage of knowing the terrain and enemy composition, choosing your units, attacking with the largest armies first, etc.
And don't forget, there's combat schools of magic yet to come against which camps will likely be vulnerable, either more so than cities or maybe even exclusively.
|
Posted By: col0005
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 23:55
the fact is that if an alliance was well co-ordinated enough to set it up then it doesn't matter how well co-ordinated the defending army is as attacking army's can't be well co-ordinated. 100 large players so probbably atleast 3 towns each, the largest player is likely to be well below 5%
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:04
That's not true, col. Harmless just broke a siege by White against MalMal, and to give you a picture of the involvement, there were 46 commanders defending that camp. With tighter coordination on our part, I estimate that we could have
defeated them with somewhere between 20 and 40 percent fewer attacking
casualties.
It certainly can be done, and attacker coordination is equally important to defender coordination, whether fighting in a camp or city. In that regard, Illyriad is little different from the many browser-based strategy games that have come before, and relies on proven reliable game mechanics.
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:33
You have to mention it was a small camp HM.
-------------
|
Posted By: MrPhobos
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:53
|
46 commanders mean nothing if you sent 3 commanders with 50 troops ^^
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 20:40
Wuzzel, the amount of power (meaning army strength, not siege weapons) we destroyed at MalMal's siege is about the same as the amount remaining at Diablito's siege, which is currently the strongest it has ever been. I haven't crunched the numbers, but the amount of our power you destroyed at our siege is somewhere around half to two-thirds that, and our losses were all inflicted while we were around three quarters our current strength.
We (I) also spent over a quarter of that amount clearing the city prior to our siege.
I could point out some of the mistakes White made, but I'm rather hoping White makes them again. 
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 01:01
We used your tool to calculate the numbers. Our strenght was way below yours.
Everybody makes mistakes. Its human.
-------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 02:56
Your siege started at about 200k points (according to our earliest scout report) and received another 250k points over
the course of its execution (somewhere around 50k of which arrived before our first counterattack), but never reached more than about 250k at
any one time. Nevertheless the total commitment was 450k.
Our siege started at around 350k points (I think that's where we were before the first counterattack) and fluctuated between 300 and 450,
where it sits now. I don't have the most careful accounting of our losses, but I would estimate them around 150k, putting our total commitment at 600k.
I wouldn't consider this a huge difference considering we both had more firepower to spend on the first siege.
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 03:13
As you said, we had around 250k points at a square at a time but no more 250k. You had 350k and it went to 450k at a time on a square. I am talking about strenght at a time, not the commitment.
For example i could have 1000k points as commitments, but it doesnt help if its only 1 point at a time (1000 armies of 1 point). It will get defeated everytime by someone way smaller.
Do you get my point?
And are those points attack or defense points again? I guess defense, just want to be sure.
You also forget the commanders levels you were gaining rapidly. And you had way better commanders in the sieging army at all times.
Also the square you were on gave better defense bonusses more then the
one we were on.
Just saying. You won, and we lost this battle thats the truth.
-------------
|
Posted By: Larry
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 12:50
|
And more to the point: The reason we didn't have as significant force to defend the siege on malmal was because we had been smashing all our troops on Diablito's siege for a bit which, because of the bonuses of massive stacks vs armies gave a definite loss ratio to us.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 16:41
I do get your point, Wuzzel. My point was that the difference was greater in execution (focused use of power, choice of region and tile type) than total power available to deliver.
The "single number score" I use most is the overall score, which is total attack plus total (per-unit-type average) defense plus total upkeep.
I'm sure we both gained a lot of commander experience in the sieges, but I don't think it was a major factor. We gained experience first in defense, but then most of it stayed tied in our defense while we sent (mostly) less leveled commanders against your defense.
Of course being victorious wasn't about us being perfect either. Harmless leadership had the benefit of past experience with a web-based strategy game--Eve for the most part doesn't really count, as it doesn't rely on the same kind of coordination. Yet we learned a few things in this encounter as well.
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 16:49
HonoredMule wrote:
Yet we learned a few things in this encounter as well.
|
On both sides 
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 17:06
This is my first web based strategy game that i tried. Never played IK / Travian / Evony etc. As you know i am an EvE player too, and you are right about the coordination part. And this game got my attention through EvE contacts.
-------------
|
|