Sieging and Occupying

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   It is a problem...and then Sally Forth is an equally discouraging counter-problem.  The net effect is actually quite balanced, except...

All of the mechanics of late have increased the effort, talent, and precision required--which is good--but have also drastically increased the likelihood that far less effort can effectively counter it so far as reaching an indecisive outcome, which is bad.

The larger the warring forces, the less likely there will be any decisive outcome.  This seems to be the case regardless of marginal differences in sides or intelligence in strategy.  The sieges that were just canceled were the very first in the game that Harmless thought might have a decisive outcome.  Time will tell whether a similar outcome can be yet achieved now that "the cat is out of the bag."

Sovereignty is supposed to be a game-changer, but with substantial differences in participation of warring forces already failing to make progress for either side, I don't see it breaking any stalemates.

Author	Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic
HonoredMule Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Postmaster General Joined: 05 Mar 2010 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 1650	Posted: 17 Jul 2010 at 21:27
	It is a problem...and then Sally Forth is an equally discouraging counter-problem. The net effect is actually quite balanced, except... All of the mechanics of late have increased the effort, talent, and precision required--which is good--but have also drastically increased the likelihood that far less effort can effectively counter it so far as reaching an indecisive outcome, which is bad. The larger the warring forces, the less likely there will be any decisive outcome. This seems to be the case regardless of marginal differences in sides or intelligence in strategy. The sieges that were just canceled were the very first in the game that Harmless thought might have a decisive outcome. Time will tell whether a similar outcome can be yet achieved now that "the cat is out of the bag." Sovereignty is supposed to be a game-changer, but with substantial differences in participation of warring forces already failing to make progress for either side, I don't see it breaking any stalemates.

Larry Members Profile Send Private Message Find Members Posts Add to Buddy List Wordsmith Joined: 10 Mar 2010 Status: Offline Points: 114	Posted: 17 Jul 2010 at 20:45
	The complexity associated with creating a siege has scaled dramatically with the number of players involved, in large part due to the fact that the sieging army must be on the square first. I know from my own experience and I'm sure others who are involved in the siege planning process can testify, it takes an immense number of hours to pick the target, coordinate the clearing forces, sieging army, and reinforcements such that dozens and dozens of individual units from a plethora of locations scattered across the game land on the square all within roughly 30seconds. This isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself, the problem is that if any single reinforcement person (which is like 90% of the people involved) sends their forces too early, the entire operation just got ruined. There's complex, and then there's punishing, and this falls squarely in the latter category. There are plenty of tactical reasons to continue planning sieges to coalesce all within a few minutes, but to have a game mechanic this punishing is, in my opinion, a stagnating and disheartening force in the game. Thus I propose either: siege armies be capable of sieging from a square that already contains friendly troops OR making some "Siege Defense" order that is like occupy but would have troops with that order show up as hostiles to the town and could concievably follow the same movement pattern as the sieging army (as in, it moves to the city in question and is teleported to the square, vs actually traveling to the square itself). Thoughts? other suggestions with respect to this issue? Can we all agree on the problem at least? Edited by Larry - 17 Jul 2010 at 20:46