| Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 01 Jun 2010 at 15:04 |
|
That's not true, col. Harmless just broke a siege by White against MalMal, and to give you a picture of the involvement, there were 46 commanders defending that camp. With tighter coordination on our part, I estimate that we could have
defeated them with somewhere between 20 and 40 percent fewer attacking
casualties.
It certainly can be done, and attacker coordination is equally important to defender coordination, whether fighting in a camp or city. In that regard, Illyriad is little different from the many browser-based strategy games that have come before, and relies on proven reliable game mechanics.
Edited by HonoredMule - 01 Jun 2010 at 15:08
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 31 May 2010 at 23:55 |
|
the fact is that if an alliance was well co-ordinated enough to set it up then it doesn't matter how well co-ordinated the defending army is as attacking army's can't be well co-ordinated. 100 large players so probbably atleast 3 towns each, the largest player is likely to be well below 5%
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 31 May 2010 at 16:05 |
|
Your army has to be more like 2-5% of camp size to do little damage, and that is a little less likely. But if you're facing 100 well-coordinated combatants working in unison, why shouldn't you fail, unless you are equally large and equally well-coordinated? In that case, you should be able to take full advantage of knowing the terrain and enemy composition, choosing your units, attacking with the largest armies first, etc.
And don't forget, there's combat schools of magic yet to come against which camps will likely be vulnerable, either more so than cities or maybe even exclusively.
|
 |
CranK
Forum Warrior
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Location: Holland
Status: Offline
Points: 286
|
Posted: 31 May 2010 at 15:25 |
col0005 wrote:
ok thats fair enough but what about a very large, concentrated alliance. 100 members occupying say 3 squares in siege and you have 33 armies reinforcing each square, more if you include second cities. I doubt it would come to that but an opposition facing it would have no chance to break the siege as all armies will be far less then 10%.
|
Doubt it will even come to that... Something similair is happening now, on 1 square.
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 31 May 2010 at 08:37 |
|
ok thats fair enough but what about a very large, concentrated alliance. 100 members occupying say 3 squares in siege and you have 33 armies reinforcing each square, more if you include second cities. I doubt it would come to that but an opposition facing it would have no chance to break the siege as all armies will be far less then 10%.
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 30 May 2010 at 03:25 |
|
Yes, the same advantage every defending city has against other attack forms, minus the wall. I wouldn't call it a large advantage though. Assaults less than 10 percent of our encampment's size are destroying as much as 8% of our encampment size...only the really small "spamming everything your alliance will sacrifice" attacks are accomplishing next to nothing.
(I'm referring to the siege taking place at 17|-7.)
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 30 May 2010 at 02:24 |
|
hey just wondering, given that you can't combine to players army's for an attack doesn't that mean that reinforced siege encampments have a large advantage?
|
 |
Wuzzel
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 605
|
Posted: 30 May 2010 at 00:59 |
|
*Dances*
|
 |
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 30 May 2010 at 00:54 |
|
Yay no more accidental raids!
|
 |
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2157
|
Posted: 29 May 2010 at 22:45 |
Updates (29 MAY):
Army orders Army orders have now been alphabetised. This will mean even if you have the "Raid" strategem "Attack" will be the default option. Of course you can still choose "Raid", but this should reduce the number of accidental raids.
Sending armies - extra info When sending armies, in the move army page, the map to show the area you are sending your army to; in addition to terrain and cities; now displays army encampments, resources and harvesting caravans. It also correctly allows you to send armies to impassable terrain - although you cannot siege or blockade from these squares. Also with reference to the earlier clarification - you cannot siege or blockade from square that has an occupying, sieging or blockading army already on it (or impassable terrain, or city squares). We hope you appreciate this additional info.
Clicking on army encampments on the map now summaries what they are doing differently. If your army is on the square; its current activity takes priority. Next blockade, siege, occupy and then reinforce. Previously sieging armies with reinforcements sometimes showed up as "Reinforcing" which did not communicate the full depth of their hostile intent. This should now be clearer.
Stacking Armies on squares A clarification to the rule on stacking armies is as follows: whilst you may stack as many reinforcing armies as you wish on a square using the Occupy order, only one army may be on the square using the Siege or Blockade order; and the first army to arrive under these orders takes precedence over later arrivals. If you want to carry out 2 Sieges and 1 Blockade on an enemy city, you will need to occupy 3 squares. You may, of course, reinforce these squares as you wish - with other armies under the Occupying order. This emphasises terrain advantages around a city (preventing the attackers from simply occupying a single open square for all their needs) and is working as intended. We apologise if the rule was previously unclear.
Edited by GM ThunderCat - 30 May 2010 at 00:48
|
 |