Take over anothers city
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=588
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 18:56
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Take over anothers city
Posted By: jnewbs07
Subject: Take over anothers city
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 23:11
| so can i not take over another persons city? |
Replies:
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 23:19
|
yes you can.. when you have lvl 20 barracks and research siege encampment. |
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 31 May 2010 at 23:20
|
Read this.. will give you ALL the info you need about sieges. http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/release-weekend-2124may10-release-1-of-3_topic525.html |
Posted By: theoracle09
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 14:53
| Take a look at the world map, 17 | -7. There you will see a successful siege in action. Gay Paris (Diablitio's capital city) started with something like 5200 population. It is now down significantly. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:38
Thank you for letting us know. ------------- 
|
theoracle09 wrote:Posted By: theoracle09
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 17:07
| Just needed to show the people the siege mechanics are working nicely. No harm done. :-) |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 17:16
|
Why wouldnt they work nicely?
-------------
|
Posted By: theoracle09
Date Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 17:32
This is the first time Sieging is being taken for a test drive by players. When the NPC update was released there were a handful of bugs that were unforeseen until players themselves tried it out on UK1. I may also be bragging a teeny tiny bit on H?'s behalf. This is allowable, especially put up against the massive migraines Diablilililililto caused in the beginning of Illyriad's conception. All that smack talk.
|
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 01:05
|
Siege Encampments came about 2 weeks ago. If the siege wasnt working nicely, there would be bugfixes in the Herald. H? siege isnt the first siege in the game. I have seen multiple others. -------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 02:40
| Not to interrupt the chest beating, but there actually has been a bug. I would assume it means H? was the first to successfully conclude a siege, but the bug itself is the more pertinent piece of information. KillerPoodle had to raze the city because the capture option was nonfunctional. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 03:01
|
I believe i saw a siege being concluded like 1,5 week after the update. I forgot what town. I was just looking around the map and saw a siege army sieging a town. I believe the town was gone after i watch again. SC may prove me wrong otherwise. Maybe i looked at the wrong spot. SC was looking into the bug and getting it fixed. So it will be working as intended soon. -------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 03:11
| You may be correct, as razing does work. For all I know capturing works sometimes as well. I do wish we could have captured the city from our alliance's first siege, but I suppose it's not that big a deal in the long run. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 03:20
|
Well after this, you noticed you got a bug. And all of us noticed that sieging this way is imbalanced. If you read the global chat now, you can see that siege is getting more balanced. The defending party can control ALL the reinforcements in his town and attack the sieging army as one army. -------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 16:46
|
I did read it, and I'm not convinced that there's a real balance problem. But there will be if sieges that have to sit in place for days will consistently face the full might of every friend in Illyriad in a single massive attack. That not only makes siege a no-go without first utterly dominating hundreds of players, it also completely voids the requirement for real human cooperation and coordination, letting a single player completely direct such a massive operation on his own. Siege is already an operation that requires massive commitment and widespread collaboration, all of which is very vulnerable to meta-game interference, poor execution, and asymmetric retaliation. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 17:10
|
Well the GM's / Developers think it needs balance. And i agree with them. Defend as 1 group and attack as 1 group sounds fine to me. -------------
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 19:57
Given how well you guys did out of the mechanic when defending Gay Paris against single player attacks the previous two times, the tears this time when you were on the receiving end are pretty pathetic. I assume you have a similar petition in about being able to coordinate a massive multi player attack against a city as well. But oh wait, you only complain about stuff when it's not working in your favor so I guess not. The whines on this forum about our commanders being high level are particularly ironic given the boasting from Diablito about his commanders being the best in game in global chat only 48 hours earlier. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2010 at 20:32
|
First of all, i didnt petition it neither did anyone of White petition
it. Someone passed me the petition info, since i chat alot on the Global Chat. I didnt even think about petitioning it. And where do you see me complaining in this thread KP? I only stated it was imbalanced and the GM's / Devs are agreeing with it. Otherwise they wouldnt say in the petition that there is a change coming. You call that whining? I am stating the facts about the commander levels. Is that whining, then this forum is full of whine. Maybe you should get your own facts right and stop assuming things KP. I stated in the other thread you won and even congratulated you with it in the Global Chat. And you flame me for whine? Nice.... I am not speaking for Diablito. I am speaking for myself here. Yes Diablito boasted on the Global Chat. And theoracle09 was also bragging in this thread about the siege. I would say the derailing of this thread began there after Crank supplied the needed info to the original poster. -------------
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 00:11
I would have a problem with both attacking as one and defending as one...currently it is neither. Camps maintain defense as one once it is established, but so do cities. - Direct attacks are piecemeal, and counterattacks on camps are piecemeal. - Sieges arrive piecemeal in close proximity to the target, which has ample opportunity to provide a quick reaction before the siege can be established or had to be cleared at great expense beforehand (and without the town owner dodging the attacks either in reaction or by already occupying friendly territory elsewhere). With a little spying, there's a good chance of being able to occupy the territory in strength before the siege arrives, destroying it as it arrives piecemeal. - Only one party actually performs the bombardment and subsequent final assault. Defenders who maintain good intel and realize they cannot win can instead stack the city against the final assault. The town may be decimated, but it and its research and commanders remain intact and the siege is broken without facing that huge camp. There's another tactic that's greatly useful here and elsewhere, but I'm not going to mention it since so far White doesn't seem to have discovered it. - Sieges are able to damage cities without actually attacking (and this is the only part that may be a balance issue), but sit without any rune or wall defenses and thus require enough military force to maintain that a group must rely on either tighter coordination, greater strength than the combined enemy, or both in order to succeed. Meanwhile that force is stranded for days, while the defending party can bide its time for a coordinated assault after gathering more troops. Here there's a very good tradeoff between quick response and suffering damage while waiting for a much more powerful response...both tactics with merits. Letting besieged troops rally from all around into the city and then counterattack as one does not makes sense from a realistic standpoint nor one of balance. There may be a balance issue, but allowing a massive combined attack or counterattack in any form of battle mechanic is not only a disproportionate response but also a huge imbalance that will increase game volatility to unmanageable levels. It would ultimately press all but one or a few alliances back to the stone age if used offensively, and pull the server to a halt if used defensively, as meaningful offensive actions become far too costly a gambit. If there's a balance change to be made, it's this: instead of automatically bombarding the city every hour, the besieging party should be allowed to manually bombard the city up to once every two hours with each siege engine firing two or three times, and make the bombarding army accompany that with a preceding assault against the towns' defenders. That way reliance on teamwork and coordination is increased rather than decreased, and sieges have to be strong enough to defend themselves while still leaving enough strength to keep the city cleared. In order to prevent this tweak from being a large overcompensation, however, cities under siege should not be allowed to erect new runes. (You could say the mages can't get out in front of the walls.) It's going to be hard enough for sieges to deal with the split front they would then face already, without runes in the equation. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 00:22
| Reviewing the chatlog, it doesn't appear that the "combined counter-assault" idea was set in stone, nor that the ramifications of such had yet been fully explored. I trust that the GM's will be thoroughly considering the matter, and believe they will find the potential for far greater imbalance as great a concern as do I. |
Posted By: theoracle09
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 06:24
Wuzzel, do you honestly believe my boasting on this thread can possibly out-weigh D's smack talk in the global chat COMBINED with his useless forum posts? I admit, my postings may have been a little brash at first, but now, you're trying to prove a point that is non-existant. My original intention was to show the OP that siege mechanics were working nicely regardless of Herald postings. Like I said, people were having problems with the NPC upgrades even after release...maybe you missed that forum post. None-the-less, I admitted my post to be a little out there, but, my singular post was on topic, especially compared to D's sh*t talking in other parts of this forum. |
Posted By: Parennis
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 08:03
The imbalance is that the Sieging army has all the benefits of
stacked defenses on a square whilst simultaneously having the ability to
demolish a city without risk to the Siege Engines or the army.
Unless I'm missing something this would actually penalise the attackers much more than having the defenders allowed to counterattack as one? ie, requiring a bombarding army to assault the city's defenders after the siege engines fire would mean that the bombarding army was unsupported by the reinforcements accompanying it on the siege square during an attack against the full might of the defenders' troops, engaging on the defenders' choice of terrain, with the possibility that the defenders might still have a city wall up (even if you take out rune recasting). |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 12:27
That what was i trying to say.  But we shall see what the future will bring. -------------
|
Posted By: bow locks
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 17:15
|
what i posted on our forums, after the victory, was that there did seem some imbalance. The inability to coordinate an attack on the sieging army is an obvious case. Piecemeal attacks where just being wiped out when the sieging army was considerably larger. Since coordination is impossible this did seem unfair. My solution was to allow some benefit from being close together - so armies attacking withiin a certain time of each other would have some benefit from this - the confusion of the preceding attack (since i do agree that attackng overwhelming forces = dead). Look at midway. the US didnt coordinate their attacks and each one got wiped out. But the defenders got lower, ran out of fuel, ammo etc so that the final piecemeal attacks, although nominally against a much larger foe, found the carriers undefended and struck a killer blow. Bow |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 17:27
Actually, I do not think it's nearly as crippling to siege mechanics as facing a combined counterattack. Besiegers have the benefit of making the first move. They can clear the city before they arrive and then work together to keep it cleared, or simply deal with that afterward. It then becomes a complicated and delicate situation for the besiegers to manage, but at least they have some control of their strategy, and continuing ability to influence the situation. And this is the way it should be. Victory should be decided more by teamwork, strategy, and skill than just raw numbers. In the combined counter-assault, it is far more troubling that alliances can gather a vast quantity of small armies that will spread the cost of a successful counterattack very thin (and this is the part that has proven a little troubling for the besieged attacking the siege camp--this being the actual problem, it is what should be directly addressed). In a combined counterattack defenders have the benefit of constant scout reports on the camp, and know exactly when they have enough to counterattack and win (or at least decimate the siege capability). They can then do so within a matter of minutes and can see on the world map that no reinforcements will be arriving when they do. Defenders would have complete power to end the siege the moment they are ready to succeed, and could only be defeated by having alliance/confederation-wide power within a roughly 500 tile radius that is insufficient to destroy what the besieging camp could gather. The defenders don't even have any guesswork involved. Just watch the camp and attack it as soon as you're strong enough to overpower it. Basically, with storming the city's defenses regularly (and I suggested before the bombardment, though this is a flexible point for tweaking balance), besiegers must carefully manage the situation on an ongoing basis. With mass counterassault, they're just waiting for the hammer to drop, or continually stacking all they've got in a vain hope of staying ahead...the only possible successful siege becomes one on which you bet the whole alliance and every friend you've got. |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 17:39
|
Also, while it's true that besiegers could just try to keep the city cleared anyway, it's far too difficult to have to do that on an ongoing basis when one must also face the runes and walls. I'd gladly give up the automatic hits in return for a more manageable version of the divided front besiegers face. Also, the increased requirement of involvement would ensure siege is a game for serious players who are likely to have issue with other serious players. More casual players would then find their fun more manageable. |
Posted By: Parennis
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 18:33
So... you're in favour of testing the total strength of the sieging army on its own versus whatever the defenders have managed to get in place to reinforce the city, coming from the perspective that you'll be able to "manage" the besieged city by keeping it clear of defenders via regular attacks. If the counterattack thing happens, why can't you just "manage" the besieged city's forces anyway? ie Stop them getting enough troops together to counterattack your sieging army successfully? Either way we're talking about incredibly overwhelming force on the part of the sieging army. I haven't been involved in siege yet. But I have heard frustration from players at what is essentially an impotence - of having a potentially overwhelming force based in the city, but unable to strike against the sieging army+reinforcements in the next door square because the mechanics don't let the armies be combined; whilst the Sieging army lays waste to the city by bombardment. That seems wrong to them, and to me also. The thing that seems to have changed all of this was SC's announcement that reinforcements could be stacked on squares. Looking through the release notes and searching the forum, I don't see that this change was mentioned anywhere earlier as something we were going to get. So why don't we just return to the way we all thought it was going to be? ie One army - the sieging army - on a square on its own without reinforcements. Then we don't need counterattacks at all. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 19:45
I disagree - reinforcements have always been able to be stacked, either in cities or on squares, it certainly wasn't a surprise to us that it worked that way and it didn't need an announcement to make it clear. What did need clarifying was that each siege or blockade army needs to occupy a separate square (which makes sense I guess) so you have to defend them separately - giving advantage to the defender. As for your second suggestion - that would completely kill sieging unless you remove the ability for the defenders to stack their forces on the besieged city and remove the ability for other players in the defending alliance to attack the siege from their cities. Otherwise a single player would have to be stronger than the entire alliance of the player he was trying to siege - e.g. it would be impossible. If you did remove the ability to stack defenders on cities and the ability to attack sieges from other cities then you have made the game all about solo strength rather than teamwork - another disaster. I'm still confused as to why people think there is a problem. It took the combined efforts of the strongest alliance in the game, a large chunk of our entire military and 3.5 days to successfully siege one medium sized city. Had White been better coordinated or had more friends it would have taken a lot longer and could have been defeated altogether. Again, no-one was complaining about the stacking mechanic while happily slaughtering all incoming single attacks against their cities. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 20:50
|
One more thing i want to add to this. It isnt about attack or defending though. Its about a sieging army though. Since armies can be on squares for days far far away. What are they running on ? Are they chewing on grass? I know they need gold as upkeep, and with the gold they can buy food to eat IN THE CITY. But outside, far from the city? What about implementing something like when they are out there occupying/sieging/reinforcing a square for days, that they need food to be sent to them? Offcourse armies bring rations with them, so maybe after 1 day they need food supplied to them with caravans? Just an idea that sprang out of my mind after reading the above posts. -------------
|
Posted By: CranK
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 21:28
| Sounds like a nice idea Wuzzel :D |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 22:27
|
I'm not completely opposed to developing limitations around "funding the away missions," but besides being more complicated and requiring considerable development, it has its own set of inherent problems: - Military capability becomes more closely tied to economic output (shifts importance toward raw numbers--even partially mitigating the effort of saving strength for larger operations--and away from strategy and by extension teamwork). - The mechanics of sending support (regular caravans) impacts viability of long-range support in a way that restricts operations to more local focus (promotes solo efforts and small gang wars over imperialism--punishes choices based on common values or natural kinship rather than locality and ultimately limits players' diplomatic options). - The complexity required for such is quite elaborate...if for example the besieged are able to "blockade" the siege camp, then parties in the siege camp should be able to counterattack the blockade. On the long term this may be viable, but can't come quickly enough for an immediate solution provided there is one needed. I still stand unconvinced that there's a problem at all. Of course people are going to complain about feeling helpless, for two major reasons: until siege was implemented no one was really capable of experiencing real loss many have become accustomed to a sim city attitude where the most feverish war is little more than temporary stalled growth; and, many will just be unable to accept that when they are outmatched they should lose and face real loss of investment. This is a strategy game and those are the stakes. It was Diablito who took an "all's fair because it's a game" attitude, and myself who has said from the beginning that people in this game are investing real effort and emotion and their losses are real, therefore should not be incurred lightly. But then if no one faces real loses, then no one can achieve real gains either...unless you enjoy playing a lifelong game of keeping up with the Joneses. Besides which, siege is the last stage of a conflict--the final blow. When a real siege is properly executed, the defender will be helpless regardless of mechanics, because the attacker wouldn't be sieging if he hadn't already won a safe level of control over the situation. The defender's loss began not when a siege camp showed up, but when said defender fell behind in military strength, or made too many enemies at once, or didn't ally himself with the right people, etc. In some cases, it takes a lot of data, analysis, and perception to even recognize when you've already started losing. Those who approach the game with simpler attitudes won't even be able to tell how long ago they lost, and will blame their misfortune on the first harbinger they recognize: the siege camp. I am not suggesting this is White's position, I am instead thinking of the players that did petition this issue. And I'm not downplaying their talent either. How does one know when he is pursuing diplomacy enough, or when he is insufficiently aware of the threats around him, or when he's consorting with the wrong people, or when he and his friends are outnumbered by his enemies? Sometimes you can be actively making enemies without even knowing about it. It's all as complicated as life itself. I'm rambling. Sorry. |
Posted By: waylander69
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 22:52
|
2 things i have already asked about...unit upkeep of an army when in a siege situation in that they should be resupplied with food/gold from their home city or as in the city you lose them or they stop working. The defending army should be allowed to try and attack the siege engines as they are large and fixed in place once a siege has started.
|
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2010 at 23:47
I think this is worth exploring...perhaps much higher siege losses for any early attack and after that marginally higher losses for armies matching something like 20% of the defending army. |
Posted By: Wuzzel
Date Posted: 04 Jun 2010 at 00:23
Good idea.  -------------
|