| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Zork2012 
Wordsmith
Joined: 16 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 135
|
 Topic: whaever
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 16:12 |
also, a successful sally will hold up the siege engines for 6 hrs, the same amount of time it takes to sally again, you could hold a siege to just 4 attacks a day. And if your sally kills some engines the siege is weakened each time until you have the ability to wipe out the siege. The idea of anti siege towers could work like the wall does for defence. the better the towers the better the Sally.
|
 |
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 05:28 |
 Erik Dirk wrote:
But doesn't the sally forth only take the engines down for 4 hrs, therefore the attackers get 8 bombardments in per day so it only holds up the siege by 66%. Surely it'd be better to make a successful sally hold up a siege for 10 hrs.
This would mean a successful sally could hold up a single siege indefinitely. However 2 or more siege camps on a single city would become far more effective, and create opportunity for more diverse siege strategy.
Oh and sally forth while the siege is setting up to re-set the timer would also be a fairer system.
Also at the moment sally forth can never break a siege, sally forth should be able to break a siege. One possibility is if the sally forth army takes less than 50% casualties then the same army immediately attacks 1/3 of the remaining siege camp. If the sally forth army again takes less than 50% casualties then the siege camp breaks and flees.
|
No... When you sally, the engines you kill are dead. so if you kill enough to render the siege ineffective, it doesn't matter how many troops they have there or are landing... they won't take your city!
Now I fully support the idea of a "Full Siege Forth" option where you gamble everything on a foray... That would make it even harder for besieging armies. I also support the option of further defensive structures one can build on one's walls or further fortifications (at ongoing cost, of course) to defend against sieges.
But, at the end of the day... even today it is possible to defeat a siege with an army that is a LOT smaller than the one attacking it (I have seen it happen to me). People just aren't being smart about it. And I wish folks would stop claiming that there is no counterpoint to siege!
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 05:08 |
But doesn't the sally forth only take the engines down for 4 hrs, therefore the attackers get 8 bombardments in per day so it only holds up the siege by 66%. Surely it'd be better to make a successful sally hold up a siege for 10 hrs. This would mean a successful sally could hold up a single siege indefinitely. However 2 or more siege camps on a single city would become far more effective, and create opportunity for more diverse siege strategy. Oh and sally forth while the siege is setting up to re-set the timer would also be a fairer system.
Also at the moment sally forth can never break a siege, sally forth should be able to break a siege. One possibility is if the sally forth army takes less than 50% casualties then the same army immediately attacks 1/3 of the remaining siege camp. If the sally forth army again takes less than 50% casualties then the siege camp breaks and flees.
Edited by Erik Dirk - 08 Oct 2011 at 05:22
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 04:22 |
|
What most people haven't experienced is a successful sally forth...
I was on the receiving end of one in the White war & it's damn effective... All you need to do is get the siege engines down, not the attacking forces... (probably giving away tactical advice now... But folks need to know)
It works if folks can even have some sort of semblance of organization...
Edited by Kumomoto - 08 Oct 2011 at 04:24
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 03:59 |
|
Lorre my post was a balance issue only. If the tower requires upkeep it needs to be that good because it can't be used to defend another town. Where as cav can help break a siege on any town. I certainly DON'T think archer towers should be 50 000% better for upkeep that's why my defensive suggestions involved Dyadin mess halls or illy trade council guard house, or in the case of towers make them free, but the units using them are free to move towns.
|
|
lorre
Forum Warrior
Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 03:19 |
Erik Dirk wrote:
Again the problem with this ballistic tower idea is that it would have to be EPIC!!! against sieges, as in the order of 50 000% better than cav in breaking a siege. Otherwise an alliance built for defence would be pointless as they wouldn't be effective at defending each other. |
reallife fact walls werent awesome archery towers inflicted minor casualties the real battle if a breach was attempted was fought on the walls and the city streets not the massive thousands of casualties that is like to thaught of.
|
|
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
|
|
Erik Dirk
Wordsmith
Joined: 01 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 158
|
Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 03:12 |
|
Again the problem with this ballistic tower idea is that it would have to be EPIC!!! against sieges, as in the order of 50 000% better than cav in breaking a siege. Otherwise an alliance built for defence would be pointless as they wouldn't be effective at defending each other.
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:00 |
Kurfist wrote:
There already was a kurf vs stjude battle. In the EoQ vs KT skirmishes.
a siege tower like idea rill?
|
I was thinking like wall fortifications that would have the power to attack sieging forces. So like towers with archers to shoot flaming arrows. (With the "archers" being a built-in component of the unit.)
|
|
Kurfist
Postmaster
Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 824
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 18:34 |
|
There already was a kurf vs stjude battle. In the EoQ vs KT skirmishes.
a siege tower like idea rill?
|
|
Patience is a virtue, resource giving is a sin
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
|
Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 17:37 |
Kurfist wrote:
Hey look I see my name from here! No one?
aww
Because Jane, For the past...8 months ive been whispering, and biding, and "dying" for my cause. Illy has already been globally dominated and i'd love to see an illy revolution sprak upin the next few years. That doesn't make me a troll, it makes me a player who's willing to risk himself and his friends "who will do so on their own accord" for the future of illy. and it brings a hefty war to anyone still here in 1-2 years.
Back to topic.
A saboteur that can destroy siege engines would be cool, how to make it so the attacking army has a chance to defend itself though..
|
Kurf, I don't think Jane was calling anyone a troll or being sarcastic. I think she was probably trying to make a helpful suggestion that was germane to the topic of the thread, although not perhaps exactly where you wanted to go with it.
I also happen to think a Kurf vs. StJude match would be lots of fun to watch.
Saboteurs to destroy siege engines would be interesting, or possibly town features (like defensive towers) that could throw fire at the siege engines. This would increase the potential for defensively minded players such as myself. I'm picturing towers that would have upkeeplike troops but not be mobile, sort of like the scribes you get from the mysteries. Maybe something to bring up in the suggestions forum.
|
|
Tweet
whaever