War

HonoredMule wrote: Currently, armies take a long time to build and disappear instantly...there's no satisfaction or confidence in having actually gained the upper hand.  Dragging out battle would certainly drag out the enjoyment of warfare, possibly lend greater weight to the sense of accomplishment from simply killing enemy troops, and just maybe make the proposition of war over non-city resources feel more approachable or worthwhile.  Sovereignty looked like something that might be interesting enough over which to do battle, but so far there doesn't seem to be any point significant enough to draw troops. Certainly any battle that takes place over things other than cities will be more pragmatic and not require dire offense or extreme conviction.

I was just thinking about more battles outside of citiy walls

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.

My thread has officially become too complicated for me to understand what you guys are talking about...O_o

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

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.