cRPG
cRPG => Suggestions Corner => Topic started by: Kreczor on August 02, 2013, 04:49:30 pm
-
Hi, welcome to this strategus suggestion thing.
So, sieging stupidly sized castles. It sucks ass when the enemy has like a dumb amount of troops in a castle. No one wants to get like, 6000 troops to attack a castle when they'll lose 4000 just to the timer. It's boring, and wastes troops as well as peoples time. So, here's my suggestion.
Add a siege option to the list:
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
Note: just an example, don't you dare take offense to that you dirty mike
Siege works like this:
1. Click Siege button
2. When you get to the castle you are positioned as if attacking the enemy castle
3. The siege lasts a day to happen.
4. After that day, the castle loses 20% of its troops whereas the siege army loses 5%.
5. The siege army can be attacked at any time during this phase, except for any army who has left a castle, town or city within the past 12 hours. EDIT: now 5 hours because 12 would be dumb as heck.
6. Siege army loses roughly 15% of its siege supplies each successful siege.
7. If the siege army fails, they lose 50% of their siege supplies and 20% of their troops.
8. Siege success rate would be something the castle would have to improve much like weapons. Each upgrade would decrease the chance of a siege succeeding.
9. Sieges can be reinforced only when they are not in the act of a siege against a castle. You must wait until the siege ends to re-supply them with more equipment etc.
I think it's a much needed implementation. I won't comment about your numbers (they seem relatively on point), but I think it would be a mistake to not allow an army to attack the besieging army who has just left a fief. I think the whole point for the defenders is, you either sally out, or you get starved out, or you get rescued (by an ally attacking the besieging army). I also like the idea of armies not being able to reinforce a fief when it's being besieged (I don't think anyone should be allowed to enter the fief during this time).
Now at least the besiegers are going to be able to fight on open ground.
Yea, I see your point. The reason why I set the (what was it? 5 hours?) time limit on people leaving the castle was so they couldn't harbor 28k troops and 40 officers ready to attack as soon as a siege begins. I was also thinking of a weakness that the sieging army would have to attacking armies. Say, 5% troop and supply reduction. It would ultimately lead to higher amounts of turtling. With the 5 hour interval, it allows any armies on the siege team to be able to intercept possible threats to the sieging army.
So you have a castle with 7k troops, someone sieges you and you can't pull some troops out to attack them, you have to sit there waiting for them to remove 20% of you tickets, then they do it over and over until a different member of your faction (or you get troops from somewhere else) attacks them.
You can pull troops out before the 20% is deducted, that's the point. I don't understand how you don't see the "A member of the faction which resides in the castle cannot attack the sieging army for 5 hours after the siege has been launched". That leaves you 19 hours to attack him. So yes, it makes sense.
To me that seems a bit stupid.
15% of siege supplies seems wrong, it would have to be a set number like 20 construction sites and 300 material (or you would just take very small amounts of siege supplies)
15% would force the attacking army to be careful as to how much they should reinforce the siege party. Another idea for this setback against the attackers is:
1. Random amount taken off.
2. Percentage based (my suggestion)
3. Set amount based on a cluster grouping of troop sizes and siege equipment.
However there would be a required amount of siege equipment required to even siege the castle in the first place. In this case, you wouldn't have everyone knocking down your door every day.
If castles can be protected from this, than this is a very short term solution. I don't know about NA but most EU fiefs are well established with their equipment. So all PP from now on could be used towards this (at least in castles/towns where the problem exists).
This suggestion would require an insane amount of PP to upgrade at this stage of strat 4. My idea is to have it implemented in a figurative strat 5.
Let me also note here that you would only be able to siege a castle over a certain (unkown at this time) number of troops.
This is just an idea, but throw in some other ideas here and hopefully we can get rid of castles that have 28k troops on the field.
-
I think it's a much needed implementation. I won't comment about your numbers (they seem relatively on point), but I think it would be a mistake to not allow an army to attack the besieging army who has just left a fief. I think the whole point for the defenders is, you either sally out, or you get starved out, or you get rescued (by an ally attacking the besieging army). I also like the idea of armies not being able to reinforce a fief when it's being besieged (I don't think anyone should be allowed to enter the fief during this time).
Now at least the besiegers are going to be able to fight on open ground.
-
Yeah, I agree with the overall idea here Kreczor.
- Siege should be more of a situation where the besieged castle will be starved out unless they sally out, or someone from outside comes to attack the sieging army.
- Huseby is right, if a castle is being sieged, no one can enter or exit that castle (except to sally out to attack the sieging army)
- Perhaps each castle/town needs a "STOCKS" value (representing food stocks, water supply etc) that allows them to last longer or shorter in a siege. This value could be based on the population and prosperity or something in some equation. But basically the more troops/population you have the more stocks it takes, and you get more stocks by having more prosperity and stocks would be incurred over time based on your prosperity value.
-
Yeah stocks is a good idea, would probably want to somehow tie it to surrounding fiefs your faction controls (especially referring to villages). You continually gain stock for your castle/city based on these villages production, at least up until the point of castle/city being besieged, then your stocks start depleting. I think that would be better than having to spend PP inside the castle/city on increasing stocks (or at least an alternative option).
Obviously these are suggestions that wouldn't be implemented until Strat 5 comes out (if ever). So don't hold your breath
-
Bbuuut all the exp :/
-
Bbuuut all the exp :/
you dont get anymore exp if the battles all last the same amount of time(90mins), whether they are 500k troops, or 2k troops.
-
I think it's a much needed implementation. I won't comment about your numbers (they seem relatively on point), but I think it would be a mistake to not allow an army to attack the besieging army who has just left a fief. I think the whole point for the defenders is, you either sally out, or you get starved out, or you get rescued (by an ally attacking the besieging army). I also like the idea of armies not being able to reinforce a fief when it's being besieged (I don't think anyone should be allowed to enter the fief during this time).
Now at least the besiegers are going to be able to fight on open ground.
Yea, I see your point. The reason why I set the (what was it? 5 hours?) time limit on people leaving the castle was so they couldn't harbor 28k troops and 40 officers ready to attack as soon as a siege begins. I was also thinking of a weakness that the sieging army would have to attacking armies. Say, 5% troop and supply reduction. It would ultimately lead to higher amounts of turtling. With the 5 hour interval, it allows any armies on the siege team to be able to intercept possible threats to the sieging army.
-
3. The siege lasts a day to happen.
4. After that day, the castle loses 20% of its troops whereas the siege army loses 5%.
5. The siege army can be attacked at any time during this phase, except for any army who has left a castle, town or city within the past 12 hours.
6. Siege army loses roughly 15% of its siege supplies each successful siege.
7. If the siege army fails, they lose 50% of their siege supplies and 20% of their troops.
8. Siege success rate would be something the castle would have to improve much like weapons. Each upgrade would decrease the chance of a siege succeeding.
9. Sieges can be reinforced only when they are not in the act of a siege against a castle. You must wait until the siege ends to re-supply them with more equipment etc.
So you have a castle with 7k troops, someone sieges you and you can't pull some troops out to attack them, you have to sit there waiting for them to remove 20% of you tickets, then they do it over and over until a different member of your faction (or you get troops from somewhere else) attacks them.
To me that seems a bit stupid.
6. Siege army loses roughly 15% of its siege supplies each successful siege.
7. If the siege army fails, they lose 50% of their siege supplies and 20% of their troops.
8. Siege success rate would be something the castle would have to improve much like weapons. Each upgrade would decrease the chance of a siege succeeding.
15% of siege supplies seems wrong, it would have to be a set number like 20 construction sites and 300 material (or you would just take very small amounts of siege supplies)
If castles can be protected from this, than this is a very short term solution. I don't know about NA but most EU fiefs are well established with their equipment. So all PP from now on could be used towards this (at least in castles/towns where the problem exists).
My suggestion -
If you wanted to do something like this (instead of just removing the 1/3 rule over (3k troops defending or however much))
What I think would work a lot better is you 'call out' a percentage of the garrison, the faction being attacked has a period of time to respond which they can choose between 'ride out' and 'stay in castle'.
If they ride out they get an equal percentage (to that of the amount of troops) of the equipment inside the fief and 24 hours later you have an open field battle. (troops riding out of the castle get defenders advantage)
If they choose to stay in the castle they loose a small percentage of (troops, equipment, silver, SD, whatever), due to the blockade outside the castle (killing farmers, stealing, whatever). This can then not be repeated until (24 hours after, or how ever long appropriate).
(I don't know how that will work with amount of troops required to do a 'siege' but if that's what it takes to get around the 1/3 rule, it sounds good to me)
This is based on native where sometimes when you attack a castle/town a lord within comes out to attack you
-
So you have a castle with 7k troops, someone sieges you and you can't pull some troops out to attack them, you have to sit there waiting for them to remove 20% of you tickets, then they do it over and over until a different member of your faction (or you get troops from somewhere else) attacks them.
You can pull troops out before the 20% is deducted, that's the point. I don't understand how you don't see the "A member of the faction which resides in the castle cannot attack the sieging army for 5 hours after the siege has been launched". That leaves you 19 hours to attack him. So yes, it makes sense.
To me that seems a bit stupid.
15% of siege supplies seems wrong, it would have to be a set number like 20 construction sites and 300 material (or you would just take very small amounts of siege supplies)
15% would force the attacking army to be careful as to how much they should reinforce the siege party. Another idea for this setback against the attackers is:
1. Random amount taken off.
2. Percentage based (my suggestion)
3. Set amount based on a cluster grouping of troop sizes and siege equipment.
However there would be a required amount of siege equipment required to even siege the castle in the first place. In this case, you wouldn't have everyone knocking down your door every day.
If castles can be protected from this, than this is a very short term solution. I don't know about NA but most EU fiefs are well established with their equipment. So all PP from now on could be used towards this (at least in castles/towns where the problem exists).
This suggestion would require an insane amount of PP to upgrade at this stage of strat 4. My idea is to have it implemented in a figurative strat 5.
Let me also note here that you would only be able to siege a castle over a certain (unkown at this time) number of troops.
-
Shit idea, defenders should always be able to sally forth
-
Shit idea, defenders should always be able to sally forth
Yea, I see your point. The reason why I set the (what was it? 5 hours?) time limit on people leaving the castle was so they couldn't harbor 28k troops and 40 officers ready to attack as soon as a siege begins. I was also thinking of a weakness that the sieging army would have to attacking armies. Say, 5% troop and supply reduction. It would ultimately lead to higher amounts of turtling. With the 5 hour interval, it allows any armies on the siege team to be able to intercept possible threats to the sieging army.
I mean, I see your point Zilsch but unless you want turtlefest 2013, keep the 5 hours.
-
You can pull troops out before the 20% is deducted, that's the point. I don't understand how you don't see the "A member of the faction which resides in the castle cannot attack the sieging army for 5 hours after the siege has been launched". That leaves you 17 hours to attack him. So yes, it makes sense.
5. The siege army can be attacked at any time during this phase, except for any army who has left a castle, town or city within the past 12 hours.
WHAT? These two points conflict.
You said there is a 12 hour gap between leaving the castle and being able to attack them, now you're saying you can attack after 5?
And 12 hours is stupid, if they siege at a normal time then defenders will have to attack in the middle of the night/early morning.
Also if you can pull the troops out this is pointless, it will be like raids where you just remove all your troops and gear, then put them back after. (no loss, just a waste of 24 hours)
Where did the 17 hours come from? What a random period of time, why remove the current 24 hour cycle?
(5 + 17 = 22, there are 24 hours between attack and battle in the current system.)
-
love how devs still haven't fixed this problem, i'd be willing to bet money that cmp/chadz could fix this entire issue in 15 minutes by changing a few numbers on a few spreadsheets
btw as to the OP, it's a good idea, sort of, would need some roughing out. main thing about it is that it's too complicated.
-
Way too complicated
Just do the following 2 things
1) Amend 1/3 rule so that armies over 1499 can always attack
2) Prevent transfer of troops to a fief for 48 hours after an attack on that fief.
Notes
- Troops can still be taken out but just can't be put back in. This allows sallying.
- Equipment is not effected by #2, as this is the easiest way to make sure the item bombing isn't an issue.
- Reinforcing armies have to break the siege first which is realistic. To do this they have to prevent another attack being launched within the 48 hour window - which means more field battles.
- Attackers have to be committed enough to launch successive attacks but if they miss a day to get an earlier time this is fine.
- The advantage is still with defenders as it should be, but capturing a Castle/Town never becomes impossible and tickets never have to be wasted.
- Factions can still stockpile troops in fiefs to reduce micromanagement
-
WHAT? These two points conflict.
You said there is a 12 hour gap between leaving the castle and being able to attack them, now you're saying you can attack after 5?
And 12 hours is stupid, if they siege at a normal time then defenders will have to attack in the middle of the night/early morning.
Also if you can pull the troops out this is pointless, it will be like raids where you just remove all your troops and gear, then put them back after. (no loss, just a waste of 24 hours)
Where did the 17 hours come from? What a random period of time, why remove the current 24 hour cycle?
(5 + 17 = 22, there are 24 hours between attack and battle in the current system.)
My numbers conflict because when I started typing it I was drunk, I'll go fix the numbers now.
Also, shit that makes a lot of sense. How about, if said troops don't engage within 24 hours they are lost? :lol:
-
In war times, as well as in peace, Cities and Castles stock great amount of food. Let it be for any unforeseen shortages or for a possible attack / siege. Such stockpile may provide the necessary nutrition for the garrison and its population. Thus, it may take some good amount of time for a Castle or City fall, due to its population and garrison, starving. Plus - in areas that are hit by enemy forces, where the fields are burned down or in steppes / hills / mountains / snow plains, it is really hard for the attacker to gather enough food for its army - unless there is a continuous trade from other Cities / Castles to the army that sieges the fief.
Apart from the possible trade, the fief loses nothing. Every property that is important to the fief itself is inside its wall.
Also I don't understand why would you lose your equipment. Would you eat a bastard sword? Siege ladder?
If this should have any actual purpose while being realistic, there should be an additional stock line. Only thing you should the Siege effect is that and that only.