I see where you are coming from but lets use that last city fight, FCC vs. Hospis. If FCC would have attacked with say 5k vs their 6k, assuming you didn't knock down all the flags, that is going to be one hell of a long fight. I might be in the minority but grinding down that many tickets for either side for a few hours does not appeal to me as fun.
The waves Egan talked about to me is more fun and doable since you are not relegated to poopsocker status just to win a city.
Never understood why retreating with men (when attacking a castle or city) lost you all your men and a majority of your gear. They should change the wording to "surrender" (and really think about implementing a retreat option).
The system had to discourage attackers from instantly retreating, encourage attackers to actually attack and reward defenders for actually defending.
The only addition that needs to happen is a system whereby walls stay destroyed for at least 24 hours after a battle, as right now there is a bit too much defender advantage.
I must have written the opening post poorly, let me clarify. I want the battle times to remain the same, just when it is over it ends where defender is still in control of the fief. Lets say Kesh attacks a city with 5000 troops. He fails and runs out of time with 3k troops left. The defender retains control of the fief and gets a portion of the gear used in the fight. Kesh keeps his 3000 troops and whatever gear was not used. Then Kesh can schedule another battle 24 hours out. No poop socks required and more fights!!!!
But what in that system stops Kesh from simply sitting at the battle and not actually attacking? He could lock a fief down for 24 hours, including all the troops in it and then retreat for minimal and calculable losses. Retreating becomes a strategy again and one that encourages boring battles. As it stands the attacker is forced to attack and is forced to try their absolute hardest to kill off the defenders as quickly and as efficiently as possible which makes for a fun battle.
What you ask for Boss_Awesome can easily be achieved by Kesh simply giving 3k troops to someone else stood nearby and only attacking with 2k. This is what everybody else does and we then send the attacks in waves.
The system was changed to prevent entire factions falling in the space of a few days as they did in Strat 3. It has gone a little too far in the defenders favour imo and made the strat map tactics too defensive but better that than defensive tactics in the actual strat battles.
It doesnt have to be black or white - all or nothing. Make it a a minimum 25% of troops/remaining gear lost, with a sliding scale going up to 50 or 75% the earlier you retreat so if you use them to tie up someone's army you lose 75% but if you really fight you only lose 25% of what remains at the end of a real battle. problem solved and makes strat map more active. Currently its too much of a stalemate in eu and na side where attackers always get all the risks and defenders barely get any and favors the inactive turtlish clans that like to sit around all strat doing nothing over active vibrant clans that attack and play it as a war simulator instead of a simcity simulator.
So what actually forces you to attack in that system? You can start a battle and then hug your spawn until the end for just 25% losses.
Remove the retreat command to avoid someone locking down and retreating. And if attackers are going to hug spawn then that sounds like a legitimate tactic. In this situation the attackers are engaging with caution rather than throwing everything they have into the fray, a tactic that has been used in siege warfare historically.
You want to spend 2 hours in a battle where neither side actually attacks?
Hugging a spawn as attacker is very risky imo
IMO, the game should be like this: attacker can keep attacking, when he retreats/time runs out, he loses a small % of his army, no more than 10% preferably 5%, and defender gets gear loot. + Defender can't reinforce, attacker can.
The one restriction I would put is that the attacker, to be able to siege a city, would have to have equal or more amount of troops (not population) than the defending city as to avoid 50 troops locking down cities for days on end.
The thing is butan, if this was the problem, then attackers would try to lock down the city for days on end, that is why I said this restriction.Why not just allow the city to sally forth and attack the attacking lockdown army at any time?
Also, because it makes sense. Just more troops is logical, else one could just raid the place and get all gear anyway.
Castle walls and City walls must pay to be repaired? BullshitStupid is a matter of perspective. For instance i can argue about something if it is realistic and/or adds benefits to the game play, i can't argue about someone finding something ... stupid .. that then would be stupid to talk about.
The Defender does not have the money to pay for the repairs as is?
He fighting in Castle with broken walls? Stupid idea Kingrimm.
I think that it is too big a change for this version of strategus.
Maybe in new strategus developers add this option.
In Total War series this option is good you pay, you wait a X time and walls are repaired.
If you have to pay for it you must add the castle walls/city also the option to upgrade this stronghold.
Build new Towers, thicker walls and Ballista for defenders :).