I ) troop count(click to show/hide)
Well, we couldn't attack Yalen with less than 2400 troops. So maybe that refers to castles/towns only. The issue is still standing though.time for grind
EXCEPT, when attacking a fief, you don't need 1/3 of the defenders. I can point a 6k defenders(2k garrison) versus 1.5k attacking army. that's WAY less than 1/3 but was still doable.only the army counts, pop doesnt matter in order to allow raids.
Agree.
There is also third possible solution - set limits for garrisons in fiefs. Like 5k for cities, 3k for castles and 1500 for villages
This would forbid factions to keep many troops in fiefs and force them to make battles.
just slightly modify the rule "u need equal or higher than 1/3 of the defenders army but not more than 1600"Mayby even less than 1600 would still be fine
So if owners want safe gold from upkeep huge armies in 1 fiefs he risky to loose all army if attackers take flags
At least 600-800 tickets will inevitably go down the drain in that battle.
[/i]
isnt it just ridiculous that there can be 10 times more army as population? Where do they sleep? What do they eat and drink? What about the care of health? No realism in my opinion.that could work its acctually a good idea. That way you could limit the number of troops much easier and thus make the number of troops counting to the 1/3 rule much less......
A caplimit to population x2 for all fiefs would be more realistic.
Battle Multiplier was the best solution. You could take 50k army & strike 30k Narra. Fight for about 1.5h-2h & get 10kk XP. No need to attack one fief 9000 times.
110k(Pub Crawl) vs 70k(UIF) battle for some uif city was one of the brightest battles this game ever had. Even since we had equip for only 10-20k :(
I did like the multiplier system (where you would have every death 10 troops die or scaled for the amount of troops you attacked with). I think that put a larger emphasis on troop numbers versus actual gear for the troops though. Wouldn't a very heavily armed army of 10,000 troops get demolished if they were attacked by a medium armed army of 100,000 troops due to the way the scaling/ratio worked? Also, how the hell would you know exactly how many troops to equip? Wouldn't you have a lot of wasted gear?yeah thats why we dont have that system anymore, especially siege gear didn't work to well with that.
Try this nut:Our Narra is a good example, it has buttloads of troops inside. But what you can't see is that there are 8 players inside as well, each with an army of 1500 troops. Should Narra ever become under siege, we could always reinforce that Town with the armies our players have already in the fief. This gives us the element of surprise, those 30k tickets would need 60k tickets from the attacker.... but then we reinforce it with 12k more troops at TA-DAH, attacker is really fucked.
Narra
Population: 3000
Owner: Franke_HRE
Army: 30633
Gold: 3030316
Price: 15
S&D: 64
Attack Narra!
Enter Narra
:rolleyes:
...not anymore
Another thing that came to my mind. Our Narra is a good example, it has buttloads of troops inside. But what you can't see is that there are 8 players inside as well, each with an army of 1500 troops. Should Narra ever become under siege, we could always reinforce that Town with the armies our players have already in the fief. This gives us the element of surprise, those 30k tickets would need 60k tickets from the attacker.... but then we reinforce it with 12k more troops at TA-DAH, attacker is really fucked.
I made up the numbers
To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.
To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.
To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.
Siege issue came up in various threads again, so I decided to make made a short calculation to show why the 1/3 rule is ridiculous and how it makes makes castles/towns unreasonably hard, or impossible to conquer in this stage of Strat.
Narra is a perfect example for this purpose, cause it holds large garrison:
Narra
Population: 3000
Army: 31029
Total garrison: 34029
Now, lets make some assumptions for this calculation:These are very optimistic assumptions. The population actually does not die in the end, usually less than 1800 can be killed (1500 – 1700) in one go; defender’s losses are in fact lower than attacker’s (no catapults, dammit!!!), the reinforcements will surely be made either by defenders or its allies. All these make the situation even worse for attackers.
- the population dies last
- 1800 troops can be killed in one battle, the rest is lost due to siege time limit (see OP for explanation)
- defender and attacker losses on actual battlefield are equal (1800)
- afaik the 1/3 rule is calculated basing on the number of the army in town
- no reinforcements of the town are made during the entire process
- the flags are not dropped in any siege
So lets see how seriously this system is fucked up:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
So:
- 19 sieges is needed to take over the location
- The total loss of defenders is 34029 troops
- The total loss of attackers is 99174 troops; out of that 65145 NEVER FIGHTS on the battlefield, it is just a price to be paid for besieging the location.
19 sieges? 100.000 troops to take 34.000 garrison? WTF???? THIS IS SICK!
The most obvious strategy is to drop large number of troops to the Castle or Town, and if you reach certain critical number, you can be sure that you will never be wiped from the map.CHANGE THE 1/3 RULE, DAMMIT!!!
(Right after fixing the catapults)
Attack other fiefs to draw those troops out of the city to help hold them, but you havent attacked any of their other fiefs so it just stockpiles in one.
I think a simple increase to the timer is by far the easiest thing to implement and is 100% worth trying out.I remember 4-7 hours battles during Strat 1. was fun :?
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesupcoming#!?page=battledetail&id=2744
Like your signature, may the Dragon ride again on the winds of time
To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.
Im a bit out of the loop with strat seeing as I havent played for some time, but why was this rule introduced in the first place?
Was it because clans were just locking towns (with their own forces) basically abusing the mechanics?
If changes are made, they better be "abuse" proof because there are lots of clans who will just do anything they can to win, fair or not.
Harald: Skip 1/3 rule if attacker has at least 1800 troops.