| Author |
|
Aurordan 
Postmaster
Player Council - Ambassador
Joined: 21 Sep 2011
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 982
|
 Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 09:20 |
|
If you've reduced the population enough it will let your siege camp rush the town. There's also no reason you can't send additional units to attack it and kill defenders. I think giving the sally forth option to the defender is a balance thing that's not going to change. Proper planning would also have left your siege army with enough units to defeat at least a token force, and this wouldn't be an issue. From a realism standpoint, your allies don't want to do your fighting for you if you're leading the siege against a city, you have to at least finish it yourself.
|
 |
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 08:11 |
you seem to be missing the point, holding a sq is up to timing of arriving armies, and ofcourse thats how its supposed to be, attacking and detroying a camp before it fully forms is the best way to deal with it, the problem is this
After our camp with 80k troops had sent the town down to 0 pop after short of 2 days we had to leave it because the 2k troops the enemy had left after our attacks was still there somehow holding the gate against our raze button.
what i want is for the RAZE button to allow a charge against the walls, pitting our army against the defending army just like any assult and if we win we raze the town, not that hard to understand that this is how its supposed to be, or have people NO understanding about how this kind of warfare worked/work?
bomb the city if you dont want it use rams to smash the gate so you can get in with troops take the city
what we can do in this game is:
bomb the city use ram to smash walls leave a husk of a city because our billion troops cant fight against the village fool and his spoon
Edited by Calico_Jack - 18 Mar 2012 at 08:12
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 03:20 |
Sieging someone far away does indeed take a lot of advance planning. I think that's a good thing -- sieging someone is serious, and sieging someone who is far away and therefore generally less likely to interfere in one's plans should be a difficult undertaking. It would of course be equally difficult for that distant person to siege you.
There are tactics being used in the current tournament that demonstrate that attacking from a distance is difficult but can be quite successful. More than half of HUGcr is two or more days distant from the Taomist tournament square, yet they've managed to hold the square against significantly larger armies through the use of tactics and timing.
If it were easy, it wouldn't be nearly as much fun.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 01:02 |
as it stands i could, and while i only need one for you not to raze it i have all the time in the world to get reinforced and then sally forth and destroy your camp as i want, and even if a sally forth doesnt succeed i wont lose all my troops in such an attack, letting me build up and do it over and over while it could take you days to get any reinforcement when you find that it wasnt so easy to defend the camp while it will only take me tops 2 days to get a massive army together to crush your camp like its nothing
adding to all this if the attackers doesnt coordinate so good that all armies arrive within a few minutes of each other the defenders can clear the camps as they come and so totally blow the entire attack with minimal loses.
That defense needs bonuses is nothing strange seeing as how costly towns are, but when it can be abused and makes no logical sense its wrong and should be fixed. and as said unless the attackers can gather a 60-100k army on a sq within half an hour or really better be within 15 min on a sq 8 days away, the defense has a absolute and totally over powered advantage already and doesn't need the game mechanics to help them abuse this advantage that they are given by an defense natural advantage
Edited by Calico_Jack - 18 Mar 2012 at 01:16
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 18 Mar 2012 at 00:51 |
|
Calico I'd be happy to send a siege army your way if you'd like to prove that 1 kobold can in fact stop my siege army...
|
|
|
|
misterchris
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 23:39 |
So if a powerful alliance can gather a strong force of troops it shouldn't be able to use them effectively? Granted the offensive sally forth could be manipulated by adding forces at the last minute to just attack a town.
Ok here is a option then. All the forces that are in place at the start of bombardment are available for use in attacking the town. This at least will force the attacker to assign his or her large group of forces to be stuck in one spot for an extended period of time.
Just because someone that is powerful can better use a tactic doesn't mean that said tactic shouldn't be available in the game. Allowing a alliance to group troops that can attack together makes as much sense as allowing a alliance to gather troops to defend together the ability to do so.
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 23:34 |
yes clearly so, but if you like having absolutely no realism then you can start going to war with 1 t1 spear unit and try to win using tactics instead of well reality..
oh and great you can deploy 600k to a sq, oh well as long as i have a kobold you cant take my city so you can shove that army somewhere because its powerless against my godly kobold
if you feel that you because you are sooo powerful that you can do anything, and feel that changing to what i have proposed where so dangerous, then how come that as it is, it clearly favors the ones with huge military force and not those with strategy and coordination? by setting up a huge camp needed to withstand the combined force of a towns sally forth and at the same time have an army big enough to take out the whole of an alliance collected army inside a town.. it clearly favors army might and not tactics
edit: "Allowing a weaker force to survive against tough odds using clever tactics to compensate for inferior strength is the point. "
no what you want is for game mechanics to hinder players from using tactics and strategies, and instead abuse them to their benefit
**mod note: edit for breaking forum rules**
Edited by GM Luna - 06 Apr 2012 at 02:12
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 23:15 |
 Calico_Jack wrote:
or if the attackers are 6-8 days away from it while defenders are between a few hours to 2 days.. you seem to have little idea of what you are talking about. |
If you're attacking someone 8 days away from you, you deserve every hardship and added difficulty the server can throw at you. ...unless of course if you'd rather Harmless ruled the entire server through threat of effective siege capability against targets anywhere in the continent. We recently demonstrated that we can deploy over 600k units to a square (and I assure you we can do far more than that). Are you sure you want to shut down the only way you can possibly protect a city from that kind of force? Maybe just maybe you'll end up hoping Sally Forth isn't your only recourse.
Calico_Jack wrote:
aslong as they can send 10 troops to the town its safe against any
amount of troops in the siege camp, we had around 80k against 2k
defenders, that makes NO sense what so ever, and it has nothing to do
with planning when so little makes it impossible. as i said its stupid
and unrealistic for 1 peasant to stop 1000000000 million troops from
taking a city just because of this
|
Yep. There's definitely no way whatsoever that an attacker could plan
to land direct attacks on a city with offensive units (preferably after the walls are down) while committing
the defensive units to the siege. There's also no way the siege army
itself could be comprised of a large offensive army capable of
handling any final cleanup. Allowing a weaker force to survive against tough odds using clever tactics to compensate for inferior strength is the point. I for one prefer a world where good tactical deployment and responsive
strategy can counter long-distance destruction by clumsy deployment of
dumbfire. You and your enemies may line up in open fields to wave their
members at each other if you wish, but I am happy that the game allows
players to counter with intellect. If everything must boil down to a
pissing contest, I'm in the wrong game. But then again I may not know what I'm talking about. My alliance has very little experience crushing powerful enemies. 
|
|
"Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now."
- HonoredMule
|
|
misterchris
New Poster
Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 21:54 |
I have to agree that having the option to send in the whole of the camp makes very good strategic sense. Having to bundle sufficient offensive defensive and siege engines all in one army in order to take a siege is a bit silly. If the defender can get everyone in the town to attack out why cant then the siegeing player do the same thing?
Siegeing player - "Come on fellows lets us storn the city we have surrrounded and bombarded for days bringing it to the point of ruin. Charge with me to victory!!!"
Other 75000 troops on the square - "You're not the boss of me. Do it yourself"
Edited by misterchris - 17 Mar 2012 at 21:55
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 17 Mar 2012 at 21:04 |
aslong as they can send 10 troops to the town its safe against any amount of troops in the siege camp, we had around 80k against 2k defenders, that makes NO sense what so ever, and it has nothing to do with planning when so little makes it impossible. as i said its stupid and unrealistic for 1 peasant to stop 1000000000 million troops from taking a city just because of this
and to really shove your arguments down and crush them under food, if they defend right they should have enough troops in the city to sally forth and destroy the camp since they use all reinforcement troops in those attacks against a camp giving them a HUGE advantage, which i can see as ok, nothing strange about that, but once the raze button is visible the camp should be able to charge no matter if there are any troops left in the town or not, which is currently not the case, and anyone who has done such a attack knows that this is freaking ridiculous
Edited by Calico_Jack - 17 Mar 2012 at 21:05
|
|
Tweet
Siege Mechanics, change?
Topic Options