cRPG

Strategus => Strategus General Discussion => Topic started by: Lt_Anders on August 20, 2012, 12:41:53 am

Title: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Lt_Anders on August 20, 2012, 12:41:53 am
Right now a Siege is what is historically called an assault.

Perhaps we can have a new system. You can siege a castle locking it down just like normal, but you don't have to risk an assault. This would cause a 5% losses of defenders to a 2% loss of attackers per (hour?)(day?). Defenders could "sally" and turn it into a field battle.

Of course attackers could just assault it, but with the new spawn timer, this would be very very risky and you'd have to be careful how you did it.

Opinions, Critiques?
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on August 20, 2012, 05:45:16 pm
Like the idea. Had some quick thoughts about it:

Sieging a castle would lock it down so noone can get in or out.

With the new building system Castles could get the option to build up stuff like:

-Dig out wells: increases siege suppply by x days
-Stock up food:increases siege supply by x days
-Hidden side gate: reduces the % of siege-army you have to fight in a sally out.
-etc.

If the supplys of a castle run out it looses x% troops per x houres.
Castle gets the opinion to sally out: The army of the Castle attacks a certain % of the siege-army.
Sending a relief force: If a army attacks the siegeing army the castle' troops have the option to join in and support attackers in the attempt to free the castle.

Attackers would get x% increased upkeep for every x houres the siege goes on and have the option to initiate attacks as they wish.
Maybe even the option to build siege equipment while they siege so they can use those in attacks (?).


I think this would make it harder for people to hold castles since they would have to have troops outside a castle in case of a siege ( or allys that send backup etc.).
Makes sence to me since holding a castle atm is just like holding a village only with a bigger wall around it.
So holding a castle with a system like thsi would actually give you a certain need to have some power for backup.

Edit: Additional ideas:
Attackers decide who leaves the castle
Quote from: Moncho on August 20, 2012, 05:58:44 pm
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Moncho on August 20, 2012, 05:58:44 pm
Great idea, would need some more thought, but yes.
Also, what about letting the attackers choose if they want to let certain person out of the castle? I mean, if the castle is under siege, and someone wants to leave, the defenders see what he has and then decide, can leave, or not.
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on August 20, 2012, 06:02:04 pm
Quote from: Moncho on August 20, 2012, 05:58:44 pm
(click to show/hide)
Like it, stole it and put it in my post so ppl can see all ideas in 1 post ;)
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: chadz on August 20, 2012, 06:04:38 pm
So far, it has not been necessary because it was not really that hard to conquer an enemy castle. Maybe The respawn timer does change things, and then this could be a valid addition. For now, I'll just wait and see.
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on August 20, 2012, 06:06:49 pm
Well in my eyes its not about makeing it more easy to TAKE a castle but makeing it harder to HOLD a  castle: you need some power outside of the castles walls to back up your claim on the castle.
Especiqally with the upcomming fief-voteing system everyone can get a castle. Makeing it actually harder to hold a castle by itself without anything else would add some prestige to haveing a castle. At this moment a castle is still only a village-with-walls for trooprecruiting.

Didnt even think about that respawn timer...have heard horrible things about it and still hope it gets tweaked in some way :P
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Lt_Anders on August 21, 2012, 04:07:50 am
Quote from: Mike_of_Kingswell on August 20, 2012, 05:45:16 pm
Like the idea. Had some quick thoughts about it:

Sieging a castle would lock it down so noone can get in or out.

With the new building system Castles could get the option to build up stuff like:

-Dig out wells: increases siege suppply by x days
-Stock up food:increases siege supply by x days
-Hidden side gate: reduces the % of siege-army you have to fight in a sally out.
-etc.

If the supplys of a castle run out it looses x% troops per x houres.
Castle gets the opinion to sally out: The army of the Castle attacks a certain % of the siege-army.
Sending a relief force: If a army attacks the siegeing army the castle' troops have the option to join in and support attackers in the attempt to free the castle.

Attackers would get x% increased upkeep for every x houres the siege goes on and have the option to initiate attacks as they wish.
Maybe even the option to build siege equipment while they siege so they can use those in attacks (?).


I think this would make it harder for people to hold castles since they would have to have troops outside a castle in case of a siege ( or allys that send backup etc.).
Makes sence to me since holding a castle atm is just like holding a village only with a bigger wall around it.
So holding a castle with a system like thsi would actually give you a certain need to have some power for backup.

Edit: Additional ideas:
Attackers decide who leaves the castle

Yea I originally had that kind of an Idea, but went with a slightly simpler version for easy use and implementation. Good thing this MAY be looked at. Medieval warfare wasn't all about assaults. It was about positioning and singeing the correct targets. By adding in something like this you introduce a very high level tactical choice. DO you risk a pitched battle and all it's outcomes, or do you go safer and try to starve the defenders but at risk of them bringing in reinforcements.(and thereby making battles Open field instead of siege based).
Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on August 22, 2012, 10:16:05 am
I get the feeling the UIF would have a field day. Rolling out siege armies backed up by their endless trade routes and piles of cash, never attacking things and just QMRing when ever anyone sallies out at them, waiting a day and then sieging again. Then once the troops are gone raiding it, stealing all the gear and then taking it out in an assault.

...not saying it's exploitable just saying that the UIF will use it to grind everyone else out based on their numbers alone.

Title: Re: Sieges versus assaults
Post by: Mike_of_Kingswell on August 22, 2012, 01:34:54 pm
Quote from: FRANK_THE_TANK on August 22, 2012, 10:16:05 am
Then once the troops are gone raiding it, stealing all the gear and then taking it out in an assault.

Yeah thought about that aswell...raiding would have to be changed in some way then i guess to prevent something like that.
Never knew why the population of a place wouldnt fight raiders anyway :D

Maybe something like: raiding forces have to be < 500 tickets and only fight x% of the army + y% of the population depending on the fiefs buildings like:
watchtower: increases % of troops fighting in a raid against this village


(you might notice i see great potetial in this new building system :D!)