Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - City Subjugation
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedCity Subjugation

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
Author
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Topic: City Subjugation
    Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 16:42
I have been disappointing for a while now at the lack of incentive offered for attacking a city directly. What one gets is basically just basic res if one succeeds, and is nowhere near a reasonable reimbursement for loosing a large chunk of ones army (even with a small garrison a LvL 20 wall can cause serious grief for an attacking army)

The only real options for city warfare are either Blockading the city (only affects caravans and so on) or sieging. Sieging might be a great mechanic and all, but it enables one to inflict TOO MUCH damage on another person, who spent MONTHS working on that city every chance he/she got. The investment is too big and the loss is too easy to sustain, even with the restrictions on the siege encampment.

What i propose is a form of city occupation, where one can attack a city and "take over" the city for a while. Your army is parked in the city and enjoys the defense benefits from it's wall. Also you get 25% to 50% (may have to rely on research here to determine the level) of the various incomes from this city, as in basic res, tax income, mana and research (would be transferred to the city where the occupation army originates). If there was advanced res being created, 1 in 5 of these would be siezed upon completion by the occupying army (if he has caravans parked in the city with the army).
Crafting items would not be affected (too precious, would be squirreled away in underground vaults upon completion or something)

Now, in order to NOT make this too overpowered, this SUBJUGATION of a city would only succeed  for 1 in 4 attacks (25% chance of it occurring) when employing this specific method of attack. Also, troop production in the subjugated city would still be allowed (underground resistance of a sort) and you'd be able to make troops in 2 ways, 1) the troops being produced are normal but take 3X as long, or 2) the troops take their normal time to produce but are only 1/3 as good as normal troops. Also, you can attack the subjugating army with these produced troops, and seeing as these troops are already inside the city and attacking, this would negate the wall defensive bonus for the players city troops only.

This stratagem would, in any case, only last the 15 days of any other "stay on this ground here" stratagem
Back to Top
R88 View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Location: South Africa
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 16:50
i think this is a great idea but the stratagem must have an adverse effect on the occupying army as well e.g if you are busy SUBJUGATING a city the city that originated the attack must have an increased vulnerability to Subjugation due to (lets say) "city officials"  being required in the Occupied city and not there to defend their city.
Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 16:54
"Now, in order to NOT make this too overpowered, this SUBJUGATION of a city would only succeed  for 1 in 4 attacks (25% chance of it occurring)"

If i send in 40.000 spear units to a town of 2000 pop if my troops returned and said that they weren't able to take the town i would need to execute every last one of them...
Back to Top
Innoble View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 06 Dec 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 141
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 16:57
Pretty sure you took this idea from astro empires. People were perma-occed (permanently occupied) there until they abandoned their account. I know this, because I did it several times. Cleaning out a  galaxy for myself. Would exodus be allowed under these conditions?

I think this change can be pretty harsh as well. Not saying i necessarily disagree with this, but don't we first have to ask ourselves: Do we *want* war to be less costly? Your post assumes this is a generally accepted view, but I doubt that.
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 16:58
Good point. Make it some kind of calculation of troop count versus city population (and make smaller cities immune, say under 2K pop your commanders refuse because it's dishonorable)
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 17:00
I did say that the occupation would only last as long as you set the period, to a max of 15 day like any other "stay here on this tile" stratagem"

And yes, wars ARE too costly. The devs want conflict, but they're not getting it because ppl are hesitant to attack each others A) because it could be too costly and B) people who loose cities entirely due to siege usually just quit the game out of frustration (due to months of effort lost)
Back to Top
TomBombadil View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 78
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 17:17
This, I say, is a most excellent idea!

At the moment we can either completely destroy a city (which is highly undesirable unless you just want to see the whole world burn)... Or we can blockade/raid/annoy someone's city with high risk to our troops and minimal gain.

Being able to invade and occupy a city, demanding it to pay tributes or agreeing to certain terms, can be a very effective tool. Until of course the natives drive out your troops or you start taking too much attrition... or someone sends a relief force of thousands of poisonous crawlers.


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

Joined: 05 Oct 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 418
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 17:55
Originally posted by Smoking GNU Smoking GNU wrote:

The devs want conflict, but they're not getting it because ppl are hesitant to attack each others A) because it could be too costly and B) people who loose cities entirely due to siege usually just quit the game out of frustration (due to months of effort lost)

I have not seen the devs say they wanted more conflict. (They might have and I just missed it) But I have heard them say they wanted more opportunities for friction. But this is totally not the same thing as what you said.

I am not saying I disagree with your proposal (I have not decided yet), but I think it is important to keep this distinction.
Back to Top
DeathDealer89 View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster


Joined: 04 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 944
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 18:04
I like this idea, maybe some work with the exact way it is implemented.  For example, I would say subugate a city and you get a certain amount of gold (maybe even allow the subjugater to choose the tax rate)  Something that would hurt the player being occupied but not simply make those people who mass farm the best in the game (this is the main problem if I have with this).   

For now i think the devs have enough to come up with but I do like this idea.   Also how come attacking doesn't bring back gold?   Attacking NPC's brings back gold attacking a city does not??
Back to Top
Smoking GNU View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Location: Windhoek
Status: Offline
Points: 313
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 Aug 2012 at 18:09
I would also like to add:

The devs have mentioned that the battle when attacking the city, takes place in front of the walls, and the basic res taken is that which is outside the walls and the enemy army never actually makes it into the city.

What i'm suggesting is some sort of "trojan horse" stratagem (as mentioned above, only has a certain probability of working, perhaps depending on population levels and/or troop counts) for the army to slip in a back way or someone opening the gates for them.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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