Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - To dodge, or not to dodge?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTo dodge, or not to dodge?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Poll Question: Allow unopposed armies to reduce population?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
13 [34.21%]
25 [65.79%]
This topic is closed, no new votes accepted

Author
Redfist View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Location: Duraz Karag
Status: Offline
Points: 91
Direct Link To This Post Topic: To dodge, or not to dodge?
    Posted: 07 Oct 2013 at 10:13
interesting Smile
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2013 at 21:32
Building terrain in cities (perhaps)... plus the wall disadvantage of 50%... with spears defending...

I wouldn't like to be a runerider in this battle...
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2013 at 01:54
Its because the enemy units have to come through the gate.  Since its a giant choke point they get a major disadvantage.
Back to Top
Brandmeister View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 Oct 2013 at 00:39
Originally posted by Epidemic Epidemic wrote:

If someone can explain how attacking armies of cavalry can jump over a L20 wall to wipe out the defensive troops standing behind it i'll explain how cities are left untouched when their troops decide to go for a walk to dodge the incoming attacks.

It's because video games require certain abstractions to make the rules easier to learn and the games more enjoyable to play. Do I win?

Back to Top
Epidemic View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2012
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 768
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 22:47
If someone can explain how attacking armies of cavalry can jump over a L20 wall to wipe out the defensive troops standing behind it i'll explain how cities are left untouched when their troops decide to go for a walk to dodge the incoming attacks.
Back to Top
Hora View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 21:43
/me has enough gold... and most hidden in hubs...

Perhaps occupying armies don't send stuff home as in tribute, but simply block the town from producing items besides food to sustain the population? Perhaps add the possibility to take some already produced stuff from the warehouse (weapons, etc...)?

If any big alliance would do this for too long, that would be bad PR, thus won't happen outside of conflicts...


Edited by Hora - 04 Oct 2013 at 21:43
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 21:34
Taxation would result in a lot of people just being perma taxed.  Doesn't pass the fun test devs already said so.

I do agree that attacking should have more incentive though.  
 I think troops should be able to grab gold.  I think this would be easy to implement, and large forces could take 1M gold.  Would at least be a detriment to the dodging player.

Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 20:52
The city wall is the incentive to leave your army to defend a direct attack against your city. It is effective. The fear of 40K Spearmen behind a city wall, even on plains, is enough to keep a 20K cavalry from wanting to attack. Throw in potential terrain and prestige bonuses and it gets worse. 

Defending an attack is doable. The big problem is that there isn't that great of an incentive to attack a city. If I declare war on Sloter(sorry, using you as an example), why would I want to direct attack his city? At the most i would be sending my men to die in an attempt to steal basic resources. The only time I would want to do that is if Sloter has no allies and I can "blockade" him and cut him off from resources by constantly stealing his basic resources. 

So stealing resources can be effective, but not if it cost me 4 months worth of military units and all the resources to make them. There isn't a very good trade off at all. Especially if you consider using crafted weapons and armor. hours and hours of gathering spent just to steal 200,000 iron? 

I propose a different model. One that no one is going to like: Taxation. If I send an army to Sloter's town and kill all of his men in a bloody battle worthy of remembrance in the Jedi archives,  I should be able to leave my army there and force his town to pay me taxes. 1/10 of all gold produced gets sent to me. 1/10 of all military created gets sent to me. 1/10 of all resources gathered gets sent to me. And lastly 1/10 of all resource crafted gets sent to me. 

If Sloter doesn't like it, he can try to remove my troops from his town. 

This Marshall Law/taxation would result in a new tactic to be used for war. New strategic targets (instead of plains cities with a neighboring large mountain) when attacking enemies. Large incentives to not let enemy troops into your city. Allow more strategy instead of stacking the largest army. Now a small army can be just as big of a nuisance as a large army. 



Back to Top
Thexion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 258
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Oct 2013 at 19:00
I think population and building decoupling would be good development for the game. 
Back to Top
Rhino70 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 10 Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Oct 2013 at 00:56
I have to agree with Angrim. Until this game has better defensive mechanics, it seems like a waste to keep troops in a city while an army attacks. Our past tourneys have been a prime example. Players would send larger clearing armies and then hold with smaller elite armies so the losses were easier to swallow (Especially on Cav squares- which so happen to be where most players settled due to needing a 7 food plot). Nobody was really leaving a large army there to take a beating unless the terrain allowed a better defense. I remember when this game used to give the defending army the advantage, then mid tourney, it was completely shifted to the attackers that had the advantage. Maybe meeting in the middle would be a better compromise. Then you might see more players keeping troops at home/on tourney squares and engaging in a more "fair" fight. Just my two cents on the matter. Smile 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.