| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Hora 
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
 Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 17:09 |
|
what about giving cities the possibility to fire back?
Why not building some ballistas up on the wall to destroy attacking warmachines.
That would make it necessary for the attacker to storm the wall and destroy them to rescue their own machines.
|
 |
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 16:16 |
Oh and another thing that's been bugging me is that the city wall and runes don't play much of a role in siege. I know that pre-clearing cities is supposed to be essential for a well co-ordinated siege. However once the encampment is set up there isn't that great a need to attack the city untill the wall has started to fall.
So I was thinking that it'd make a lot more sense in terms of gameplay as well as realism if sally forth was heavily nerfed, however every volley against a city required something simmilar to a raid. Afterall a siege hook would certainly need to get into archer range to tear down a wall. However siege equipment isn't damaged in the raid and damage is done regardless of a win or loss (perhaps an accuracy penalty for a loss tho)
So a raid style attack would be performed against the target city every hour in a siege. However The siegeing player would be able to command a pause in bombardment (camp does not break up but "raids" and damage to the city cease untill more re-inforcments arrive.
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 14:20 |
I think most people wan't to be able to save something. Perhaps my idea of only destroying barracks, marktetplace etc is a bit too conservative. However I think the best middle ground would be the idea of keeping basic resources. These are the most annoying and time consuming aspect of the game.
However personally i'd be leaning towards these structures being protected. Ie siege weapons cannott hit these structures. This is beacause players could deliberately neglect to raze or capture a city so that the player would be starting at zero.
Edited by col0005 - 02 Oct 2010 at 14:22
|
|
Zangi
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Jul 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 295
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 04:27 |
|
Well, armies can always be rebuilt, in a matter of days... or hours... or weeks... depending on the scale.
Cities though, are exponentially... more time consuming to rebuild.
|
|
G0DsDestroyer
Postmaster
Joined: 16 Sep 2010
Location: Ásgarð/Vanaheim
Status: Offline
Points: 975
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 03:38 |
When i was just starting the game i was attacked and my army was destroyed.
Did i give up and quit, no i was pissed that all my hard work was destroyed.
When i sieged someone with an army half the size of mine and it was destroyed, i didn't give up i just rebuilt. I believe that if you can't take a loss then don't play the game OR find an alliance that will shelter you. The Alliance that i am in will protect u if you really can't defend yourself. I would give my last strength to those whom need the Æsir's protection.
Don't ever give up
|
|
Mandarins31
Forum Warrior
Joined: 05 Jun 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 418
|
Posted: 30 Sep 2010 at 19:54 |
|
And to talk again about the sieges... What if the possibility to erase a city was enable, waiting the city to lose just 25% of his pop to take the city, reduce siege weapons power to keep the same time a siege takes today?
You could take again your city and it would have lost 50% of its pop, not 93% (75% of initial pop + 25% of initial pop * 75/100)
Then more fights, less loses, less problems with guys how lost everything and leave the game?
Also that wouldn't make people buy less prestige to rebuild or to make war, as there would be more battles for the cities.
That is my point but i undertand that GM's are taking this subject with many precautions.
Edited by Mandarins31 - 30 Sep 2010 at 19:55
|
|
Hora
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2010 at 23:22 |
Not complicated, just many good ideas mixed together, would need some sorting out.  Also This topic begins mixing with "Non-insta-battles" (think I read some posts there already?)
|
|
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 29 Sep 2010 at 17:29 |
|
My thread has officially become too complicated for me to understand what you guys are talking about...O_o
|
|
col0005
Forum Warrior
Joined: 20 Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 238
|
Posted: 28 Sep 2010 at 05:11 |
I like the idea that actual numbers decides who recieves the benifits of a location, however splittling a bonus could work too. ie you get 45% of the 5% bonus to mana so you recieve a 2.4% bonus.
With the pvp and player safe zones perhaps cities recieve damage as normal however a successful siege will re-locate the city somewhere in the player safe zone.
Also something I was thinking about is that numbers shouldn't always be a good thing. And military might shouldn't be the only factor in determining casualties. Ie a slaughter should only really be possible on plains. The truth is in a forest casualties should be close to even on both sides as it is difficult to flank the enemy, create a wall of arrows etc 1 spearman hideing in a bush should have a very good chance to take out 1 enemy in an army of 10,000. Skill should play a more important role in close quaters, numbers are more imporatant on open plains.
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
Posted: 28 Sep 2010 at 04:44 |
|
If players are fighting over something outside a city and battle takes time, then the benefit of the thing being contested should also be always going to someone so that the prospect of endless battle doesn't negate the point of fighting. Otherwise, no one's going to bother toppling control of a resource only to be toppled soon after and not even gain benefit in between. During battle, things like passage over a bridge, sovereign output, or control of something vital like a shrine, portal, etc. would go to the warring faction with the most presence on the tile.
And just to throw an extra wrinkle in the mix, make that "presence" being measured a count of units at the square irrespective of total military might or who's actually winning the battle. That way the winner of an ongoing battle is not revealed beforehand and also first-tier units regain some unique situation-specific benefit, adding more strategic nuance to army composition.
|
|
Tweet
War