 col0005 wrote:
I would still like to see sally forth removed from the game and replaced with hourly Assaults from the siegeing army. It would make a lot more sense from a gameplay point of view. |
HonoredMule wrote:
It really wouldn't. The whole point of siege is not to waste your troops against fortifications--in the game every bit as much as offline. If you don't want to be a victim, exercise higher level strategy and strike first (politically as well as militarily) so you can choose the operational parameters. You're not supposed to be safe in your complacency. And your not going to actively choose disadvantage either, so why then should your enemy? Removing even more attacking advantage is just asking for stalemate and atrophy.
Attack-favoring mechanics work and work very well. Whether cold war or actual conflict, stuff happens in this game, and that's the whole point. It's really quite unworthy of our time and effort when that is not the case.
|
Well perhaps making a siege increadibly slow if you just sit back and wait. Ie leave sally forth as it is and make the hourly assaults by the attacking force optional. However the normal volly's from a siege camp will only take place every 6 hrs if assaults are not used and basic siege engines are unable to be used as they can't get close enough to the walls.
This would make far more sense as it would mean that walls will play a large role in a siege, either because of the defence bonus or by causing the siege to take 6 times as long.
Tweet
Siege again.
Topic Options
