| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Grego 
Postmaster
Joined: 09 May 2010
Location: Klek
Status: Offline
Points: 729
|
 Posted: 02 Oct 2013 at 10:20 |
|
Direct attacks without siege engines can already decrease population in cities which have resource production in red.
|
 |
Yhina
Greenhorn
Joined: 04 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 61
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2013 at 09:23 |
|
In short, what you guys want is to make cavalry even more OP by allowing to "fast raze". If they were to destroy res plots, same thing would happen, as t2 buildings would colapse and once farms are touched, any other building aswell. It would be even faster than a siege with siege weapons. All in the name of realisim... Realisim that is only applied "partially". When a army goes on a simple attack just carries some food and some limited logistic, they are not meant to camp the countryside creating havoc.
I always thought walls to be fences, as even at their max level, they still allow cavalry to get in, as if an armoured warhorse could jump them, and just grant defenders the benefit of "matching in stats" to the attackers ( 1 to 1, give or take).
Maybe a modified Raid could be used to set terror in the countryside, but it should have penalties aswell. Time consuming, something like an encapment, where defenders can bring reinforcements to destroy the happy raiders around their lands. And that's not even considering that as the army scatters around the land they become more vulnerable, to both regulars and just regular folks...
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 05:12 |
|
I think Nok's idea bears merit... You can torch the buildings outside the city, namely food, iron stone, wood and clay. The longer you remain in "occupation" with your siegeless army, the more levels those buildings lose. Eventually, lack of food will crush the city (provided you have a blockade up and they aren't bringing food in)... New tactic to "starve them out"!
|
|
DeathDealer89
Postmaster
Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
|
Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 04:55 |
Considering realistically your population wouldn't increase by the blacksmith being slightly better at his job. Also as it turns out building a 'mage tower' doesn't in produce mana in RL.
So lets stop worrying about realistic and worry about whats entertaining. Lest the new cathedral will take 20 years to build.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173
|
Posted: 20 Aug 2013 at 01:38 |
 Arakamis wrote:
While we are at being realistic, leaving a city undefended just because it has walls has nothing to do with being realistic. Walls cannot fight for you and gates are easy to open especially when the city is left defenseless.
|
all good, except that i understand that, in an attack on the city, the underlying terrain is used, not the buildings terrain present inside the city. if my infantry were assumed to be defending within the walls, i ought to have the benefit of the buildings terrain for them. that is not the case, and yet i have to evacuate the city to keep my excitable brethren from venturing out to be slaughtered on the plains.
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97
|
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 23:01 |
|
All you need is one person to open the gates of an undefended city. While we are at being realistic, leaving a city undefended just because it has walls has nothing to do with being realistic. Walls cannot fight for you and gates are easy to open especially when the city is left defenseless.
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523
|
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 16:13 |
Nokigon wrote:
An army without siege engines cannot get inside the walls of a city. This is logic. Otherwise the wall would be pretty useless. I always thought that the battle took place outside of the city gates rather than inside the city, which explained why my victorious forces never killed the mobs of civilians inside the gates. Either that or my troops have an Illy equivalent to the Geneva Convention. Anyway, this theory does have some flaws in itself, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a reasonable explanation yet.
However, what I always thought was ridiculous was this. My army would charge at a city, eagerly awaiting an army to fight. They find nobody to fight. They go up to the walls, turn around and come back..... through the farmyards, quarries and lumberjacks. And leave these people, who are feeding the city, alone. That is the ridiculous thing.
I think that instead of the city losing population randomly, I think that the army should have the ability to deal damage to the outlying basic res buildings in the city. |
QFT.
If a city has walls up, an army cannot get at the general population without laying siege to the city. Therefore, everything within that city is safe. Perfectly realistic and I don't really understand why that would be an issue for anyone. They don't kill the people working in the quarries etc because presumably a warning bell is sounded and everyone runs inside the city walls. What idiot would sit outside harvesting crops whilst a hostile army was charging at them with no defending army?
If the city was undefended, they probably would raze to the ground any food production and try to starve the people inside.. but isn't that what they are doing by grabbing basics? So again, realistic. The adv res would be stored inside the city which is why we don't get those although.. there's an interesting point regarding cows and horses. You could argue that the horses would be kept in a stable within the city walls but do farmers really keep their livestock in cities? One suspects they are out in the fields grazing.
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 14:53 |
|
Don't underestimate the power of simple folk with torches and pitchforks...
|
|
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97
|
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 11:16 |
|
it should not be too hard to open the gates of a city if noone is defending it. You don't have to jump over the walls, you just need to find someone to open it for you and i am sure someone will do it especially when the city is left defenseless..
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452
|
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 09:55 |
I'm not really sure where I can put my vote in this poll, but I do know precisely what I believe should happen.
An army without siege engines cannot get inside the walls of a city. This is logic. Otherwise the wall would be pretty useless. I always thought that the battle took place outside of the city gates rather than inside the city, which explained why my victorious forces never killed the mobs of civilians inside the gates. Either that or my troops have an Illy equivalent to the Geneva Convention. Anyway, this theory does have some flaws in itself, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a reasonable explanation yet.
However, what I always thought was ridiculous was this. My army would charge at a city, eagerly awaiting an army to fight. They find nobody to fight. They go up to the walls, turn around and come back..... through the farmyards, quarries and lumberjacks. And leave these people, who are feeding the city, alone. That is the ridiculous thing.
I think that instead of the city losing population randomly, I think that the army should have the ability to deal damage to the outlying basic res buildings in the city.
|
|
Tweet
To dodge, or not to dodge?
