siege

actually siege units travel very slow. sally forth would have best results early in siege setup and then it would just be death for all incoming troops.  we didnt see anyone using this strategy in this last limited conflict. in this game alot of the castles are poorly placed for warfare but if an alliance place their teams castles correctly warfare would be much more strategy than slugfest war like evony. i always say a good defense is a good offense and like wise a good offense is a good defense. seldom did the defensive castle that was being siege have good offensive support against the attacking castles. this military strategy spelled doom to the siege castles. i personally urge people to join the several military training alliances that are being set up to make future military conflicts more fun and competitive! we need to attract and retain more military minded people to illyriad and play the game to its full potential. it is one of the best free military war games being offered and it just got sidetracked by not being played properly.

u can stack dips on the square also, in fact the attackers get no combat information or troop information unless the other side provides it to them which often happens when friends are on opposing sides. what is interesting is the ease of moving troops and commanders from far distances right pass the opposing sides strong points to the siege square. it makes it a slugfest with the main strategy of who can mindlessly place the most troops. it would be nice to see a way of blocking troops from returning to their home castles or forcing them into some sort of combat going to or back from the siege square and like wise the same to the other sides armies when moving back and forth

gameplayer wrote: hopefully the devs are watching the current siege happening in the war. stacking millions of troops and hundreds of commanders on one square makes a one army attack from the other side a constant defeat. there are people sending 50k armies that take months to make and not making a dent.

Edited by Halcyon - 03 Mar 2013 at 15:58

There is simply no need for this.  

Create an Army order called "Guard."When a siege or blockade is about to land, the army set to"Guard" would intercept them. The siege/blockade force must defeat the Guarding army before landing on the square. The Guarding army would use defense, and the siege/blockade force would use offense.

In addition, the Guarding army would be the first to combat an enemy attack or raid on a city. If the Guarding army falls, the remaining Defending armies and unit pool would then defend.

Pros for using "Guard:"
- It would take the guesswork out of sending armies to occupy squares and intercept sieges.
- If a player is going to be inactive for a time, they could set all their units to Guard in a single army, offering them protection from attacks while inactive.
- Against attacks and raids, the Guard Army would defend first, allowing you to minimize or even eliminate damage to other commanders/units.
- Would add an element of choice and risk/reward, since using Guard has both its advantages, and its disadvantages (outlined next).

Cons for using "Guard":
- An Army would require time to set up for a guard. Anywhere between 12-24 hours seems fair.
- Only one Army could be set to "Guard" a city at once.
- While in Guard, that Army could not receive other orders, nor could it add/remove/equip units from its divisions.
- When intercepting a siege or blockade, the Guarding Army would not receive added defense from a City Wall.
- An Army that has just set up to Guard would not attack sieges or blockades that have already landed.
- An Army in Guard will not participate in Sally Forth.