Capturable spawn point.

[Warcat]

Maybe its just me, but I find it odd that with the current system, a well armed group of 100 soldiers could easily defeat an unorganized garrison of 500,000 people. A unconquerable spawn point with a increased respawn time might work well. If nothing else I think the amount of spawn points needs to be increased and put at decent distances apart.

[Bulzur]

Maybe its just me, but I find it odd that with the current system, a well armed group of 100 soldiers could easily defeat an unorganized garrison of 500,000 people. A unconquerable spawn point with a increased respawn time might work well. If nothing else I think the amount of spawn points needs to be increased and put at decent distances apart.

I thought that the respawn time is based on the number of tickets. I saw chadz suggesting that on the Talesworld forum, but i don't remember if it was ever implemented.

And it's kind of normal/realistic that villagers surrounders themselves to a better equiped organized force. I mean... they're peasants right ? Why throw away your life when you can just drop your weapon and continue leaving the way you were before. Just with a new lord. 

I'm all for taking villages with speeches, diplomacy and... bride (the money hey, not the woman). But seems a maul is all you need to bump thoses ideas in a peasant head.

[Warcat]

You don't seem to be considering that this system isn't just for peasants. As it is now, it could be a well trained balanced army fighting. All it takes is a massive group of well armored shielders to rush the spawn and they'll win. It no longer matters if your army outnumbers the other side by hundreds or thousands, its all about the first hundred troops. The 500+ men on each side battles are lasting 5 minutes with 20-30 casualties for the attack. In general I think any type of capturable spawn points would be something mainly good for city, and maybe castle battles.

[[ptx]]

Afaik, it doesnt make you lose all your troops, if your spawn gets captured.

[Dezilagel]

Battles are now about holding your ground rather than running away? What an outrage! 

Afaik, it doesnt make you lose all your troops, if your spawn gets captured.

Also this.

[Warcat]

Afaik, it doesnt make you lose all your troops, if your spawn gets captured.

Battles are now about holding your ground rather than running away? What an outrage! 

You don't get any more troops, therefore you lose how ever many hundreds of troops you can't get into the fight. It would be one thing if every village had one obvious spot where all defense should be set up, but this system requires you to hold your ground on an arbitrary pile of wood, so yeah, that is an outrage. At least if there were a few points then defenders could choose where they want to hold their ground.

[[ptx]]

By not losing troops i was referring to field battles - your army does not get destroyed, only routed.
In sieges and village battles, it makes sense that the rest of the troops surrender, if the enemy successfully capture the center of the village.

[Elerion]

While the mechanic is fun, I think it is too powerful right now. Against AI enemies at least, capturing their spawn gives you all their remaining tickets after the battle. If this also happens in PvP combat, it will be a major issue.

If someone is defeated in PvP by having their spawn captured, I would like to see them teleported to an allied town or a random spot on map - with all their remaining troops and gold.

[[ptx]]

Yeah, that is called routing.

[Digglez]

single point of failure is a pretty stupid mechanic.  if theres going to be a single spawn, let defenders move it where they want, to someplace actually defenseable

[Preacher]

Maybe its just me, but I find it odd that with the current system, a well armed group of 100 soldiers could easily defeat an unorganized garrison of 500,000 people.

This is actually not so odd. Throughout the history of warfare ,prior to firearms, one can find numerous accounts of small bands, or even single soldiers, overcoming many hundreds and even thousands of enemies.

[PhantomZero]

Maybe its just me, but I find it odd that with the current system, a well armed group of 100 soldiers could easily defeat an unorganized garrison of 500,000 people. A unconquerable spawn point with a increased respawn time might work well. If nothing else I think the amount of spawn points needs to be increased and put at decent distances apart.

This is impossible. To attack a garrison of 500,000 you would need to be at least 1/3 the size. If you attacked with only 100, you would automatically be defeated and hand over all equipment to them.

However, the reverse is not true. A garrison of 300 could fight an army of 500,000 and it would be metal as fuck! (see the Emerin fight for details)

A simple solution could be to have an extra spawn point for every 200 troops you bring to the battle or something like that.

[Digglez]

A simple solution could be to have an extra spawn point for every 200 troops you bring to the battle or something like that.

Good idea

[Warcat]

Don't think that would be very simple to code, what is (more or less) simple is what's in the works. About 10 well located spawn points throughout the villages.