| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Aha 
New Poster
Joined: 12 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 22
|
 Posted: 10 Mar 2013 at 18:16 |
|
Whether you find sieges too easy or too difficult is an opinion. I understand that people think about making sieges more interesting. I can't see for the defending party more options than sending direct cav attacks and dodging cav attacks. So that I'm happy about suggestions.
Since adding def options will (theoretically) make sieges more difficult, one could also think about the attacking side. For example, why are only the few with the siege engines going for the final assault.
|
 |
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2013 at 12:27 |
 Sloter wrote:
gameplayer it is amazing how you managed to be part of the war for so long and you still have not noticed how some battles were fought and what things determen which city will be defended and with what effort.We did lost many cities in war but i think that siege mechanics works just fine.It is exremly hard to siege a city, it takes so much planing and coordinating to siege a city even against opoenent that is heavily outnumbered.If you think it is easy just remember all those troops lost in several failed sieges against VIC player in DARK hub in the west when war started.If player is activ and notices incoming attack in time and is wiling to be online during the siege chanses that his/hers city will be defended with succes are huge. |
exactly. some lessons are best learnt through economics like what Sloter is speaking aboot.
|
|
Sloter
Forum Warrior
Joined: 14 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 304
|
Posted: 10 Mar 2013 at 09:39 |
|
gameplayer it is amazing how you managed to be part of the war for so long and you still have not noticed how some battles were fought and what things determen which city will be defended and with what effort.We did lost many cities in war but i think that siege mechanics works just fine.It is exremly hard to siege a city, it takes so much planing and coordinating to siege a city even against opoenent that is heavily outnumbered.If you think it is easy just remember all those troops lost in several failed sieges against VIC player in DARK hub in the west when war started.If player is activ and notices incoming attack in time and is wiling to be online during the siege chanses that his/hers city will be defended with succes are huge.
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 22:13 |
|
we razed a castle in the mists of the vic stronghold, yes that was too easy and if the proper amount of siege machines would have been used in the beginning it would have be completed rather quickly. next time the same mistake will not be made again. gosh it took troops from our area 5 days to get there going right past fully build vic castles. not saying that this game is bad but think of zones of control and the strategy that would bring to the game. it would provide an awesome chess game affecting all aspects of the game. just hope when factions come alive the game provides this. alot people outside the game are waiting with baited breath for the launch and soon the players are going to have so much fun playing the total game with a different player type. epi come join us, ur a war gamer even though u dont want to admit it and everyone please learn how to play military so these wars are not so onesided.
|
|
Sisren
Forum Warrior
Joined: 03 Feb 2012
Location: PA, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 21:42 |
Epidemic wrote:
I agree with your first statement, its way too easy to siege and raze cities on this game. Taking a year or two to build your town only to have some players come along and group up on you to raze that town in a day or two is pathetic.As for your last statement, this game is by far the worst war game on the net because of the above stated facts. Most war games you can get to 10 towns and millions of troops in a month or so, making for competitiveness and no big deal when a few towns are razed. Without protection for towns increased 1000 fold this will continue to be the worst war game out there.On the positive side, this is the best non military, interactive, multifaceted mmorts game on the net.
|
Or, and let's just take another possibility... You don't know how to appreciate the community that's here, nor that the player base prefers the slower pace of the fight. For the military aspect, the slower time allows for a better, more in depth approach to handle the incoming attacks. Multi-faceted responses, with several levels of depth. A response can include: military, diplomatic, social, and magic responses.
This is not madness, this is Illyriad.
Edited by Sisren - 09 Mar 2013 at 21:43
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 21:23 |
What Gameplayer may not have noticed is that in our recent siege on Rustbowl, it took us two attempts to do it. We had 1 and a half million troops on the square. We needed two attempts. You really think it's that easy to siege?
|
|
Rorgash
Postmaster
Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 20:18 |
|
i woudnt mind zone of control to be added to towns and army camps, it would create frontlines. woudnt be so bad, but except for that the OP is all wrong :P
|
|
Brandmeister
Postmaster General
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 20:10 |
|
The only major flaw I see in Illy's siege mechanics is that the defenders don't fire their own siege weapons. It's rather absurd that a city with 100 ballistas would let them stand idle while enemies smash down the walls and buildings.
On the other hand, it's also a little odd that you can't see, spy or assault an opponent's sov structures. It seems reasonable that your besieger would put every farm, armory and cattle yard outside your walls to the torch.
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 19:12 |
|
I could not disagree with you more strongly, Epi. It requires vast resources to remove an enemy city which is even half heartedly defended. The balance is so incredibly in favor of Knights And siege weapons are so easily killed that it takes many times the effort to take a city rather than defend it. And it takes majorly large quantities of troops defend even one siege square well.
Look at the most recent battle of Rustbowl. The Coalition had to burn through 1.3 Million troops to take that city. And that had great siege camp spots that were high mountains! God help you if you are setting up on the plains! Granted, Vic did a good job hitting us with over a million of their troops, but this is a good data point... It is really not easy to raze defended cities in this game...
|
|
Epidemic
Postmaster
Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
|
Posted: 09 Mar 2013 at 17:45 |
I agree with your first statement, its way too easy to siege and raze cities on this game. Taking a year or two to build your town only to have some players come along and group up on you to raze that town in a day or two is pathetic. As for your last statement, this game is by far the worst war game on the net because of the above stated facts. Most war games you can get to 10 towns and millions of troops in a month or so, making for competitiveness and no big deal when a few towns are razed. Without protection for towns increased 1000 fold this will continue to be the worst war game out there. On the positive side, this is the best non military, interactive, multifaceted mmorts game on the net.
Edited by Epidemic - 09 Mar 2013 at 17:46
|
|
Tweet
siege