Wolves vs Tazjunat v2

[kinngrimm]

i dont say that our tactics were good.
We had 8 Archers and i wanted them to take positions on left and right hill.
We had a small flancing/skirmisher unit of 3 guys, to disturb you so you wouldn't feel too save leaving the village and we had 2 disconnects. That left us with about 17 Infantry facing about 40 Infantry. As i didn't just want the main force to suicide charge, witch it would be, the plan was to face incoming charges while they got shot. The village was pretty close to our spawn as well compared to other maps, at the time defenders started continusly charging we missed to get closer to them but instead fought too close to our spawn so 10 min into the game we got spawn raped.

I say there is no balance. Why would you reduce possible participation in such an event in the first place? Telling 30 players to bugger of and do something else is nothing i especially enjoy!

So next time there wont be archers at all, sry guys but you have no place in a suicide charge which only tries to grind down the enemy.Tactics? you can expect tactics in a fight of equals otherwise it is just grind tickets down over the cost of loosing more as attackers.
With the current economic system i don't see superior gear any soon, so we are left to low tear gear which would be ok, even to loose many more tickets then defender has but, the inequality in numbers just sucks.

[SeQuel]

Not gonna comment on this until I play in the FCC siege.

[bredeus]

I was one of that 30 ready for service and unable to aid the attacker because this unfair for attacker ppl limit.

[Keshian]

We might not even have enough room for all our clan members that want to fight and we are only an average sized clan.  This really low limit on number of mercenaries combined with drastically reduced gold and massively increased upkeep and item prices make it so there are very few battles and even those battles not all our clan members can fight in.  For random pubbies there is very little chance to get involved in more than a couple strategus fights. 

What sucks about turning this into a trading simulator instead of tactical wartime game is that fewer and fewer people ever get the chance to participate in organized, fun battles unlike the battle and siege servers.

[Thovex]

We might not even have enough room for all our clan members that want to fight and we are only an average sized clan.  This really low limit on number of mercenaries combined with drastically reduced gold and massively increased upkeep and item prices make it so there are very few battles and even those battles not all our clan members can fight in.  For random pubbies there is very little chance to get involved in more than a couple strategus fights. 

What sucks about turning this into a trading simulator instead of tactical wartime game is that fewer and fewer people ever get the chance to participate in organized, fun battles unlike the battle and siege servers.

Exactly, which is simply just bullshit since last time we had 2-3 battles where we had not had enough slots for all of us, and now it's even worse. 

[Corwin]

It seems to me that there is clear intention of chadz and other devs not to allow easy taking of any fiefs atm. It seems that they want to force clans to trade, grind and craft. Because the only possible way to win with 30 against 60 is to have fucking great equipment and great balance in troops.

[RiPLeY_II]

C'mon guys, you're talking about tactics, etc etc. when the real point is that:

AN ATTACKING ARMY OF DOUBLE THE NUMBERS THAN A DEFENDING ONE, HAD TO FIGHT WITH HALF THE ACTIVE EFFECTIVES, while it should be the opposite...

It just doesn't make sense at all. And we are just talking about villages, which should be the hardest to defend. I can't imagine a castle. It is said by historians that to be safe that you could take a castle, you should attack with triple the men the defenders had (inverse logic that we are using now). With this system it's nearly impossible to take a city, while you have more respawns, defenders will keep on trying to take the attackers ONLY (yes, while defenders have many) spawn using its superior number, thats ... REVERTING THE ROLES OF ATTACKERS AND DEFENDERS.

Is an attacking army with double the size of the defending one supposed to be taking the MULTIPLE spawn points of the defenders DOUBLE ACTIVE roster?.. shit man, it should be the opposite.

Your roster size should be directly proportional to the advantage ratio of troops between armies.

If devs want fiefs to be difficult to take, they should do it in a logical way ... allowing fiefs to have better equipment, raising the numer of troops on fiefs, or modifying maps for them to have clear advantage spots. What we have now is an "easy way taken" that isclearly not logical, realistic or satisfactory for players.

[SeQuel]

FCC won the siege, I do admit it's pretty difficult to do - but not impossible. We won by a hefty amount.

[Visconti]

C'mon guys, you're talking about tactics, etc etc. when the real point is that:

AN ATTACKING ARMY OF DOUBLE THE NUMBERS THAN A DEFENDING ONE, HAD TO FIGHT WITH HALF THE ACTIVE EFFECTIVES, while it should be the opposite...

It just doesn't make sense at all. And we are just talking about villages, which should be the hardest to defend. I can't imagine a castle. It is said by historians that to be safe that you could take a castle, you should attack with triple the men the defenders had (inverse logic that we are using now). With this system it's nearly impossible to take a city, while you have more respawns, defenders will keep on trying to take the attackers ONLY (yes, while defenders have many) spawn using its superior number, thats ... REVERTING THE ROLES OF ATTACKERS AND DEFENDERS.

Is an attacking army with double the size of the defending one supposed to be taking the MULTIPLE spawn points of the defenders DOUBLE ACTIVE roster?.. shit man, it should be the opposite.

Your roster size should be directly proportional to the advantage ratio of troops between armies.

If devs want fiefs to be difficult to take, they should do it in a logical way ... allowing fiefs to have better equipment, raising the numer of troops on fiefs, or modifying maps for them to have clear advantage spots. What we have now is an "easy way taken" that isclearly not logical, realistic or satisfactory for players.

Exaclty...... i understand that it needs to be harder to take villages, but this solution makes it so that clans cant even have all their members participate in a battle, which is some bullshit.

[kinngrimm]

FCC won the siege, I do admit it's pretty difficult to do - but not impossible. We won by a hefty amount.

what was it? 30 attackers against 40 defenders? wonder why 20 guys didn't show. Anyways if in our fight there would have been 20 less defenders my guess is that we would have taken it.

@Shodanius
not sure about Castles and Towns, as far as i know this 30vs60 counts only for "NPC villages", still your point is valid, if an army 2-3 times the defending forces, either the defenders give up and opened the gates freely or they were slaughtered.

So give the defenders better gear and in the case of our village attack the defenders had well organized ts on nditions, but reducing the attackers by half is just silly. Yes sooner or later we will take the village and i am looking forward to what others will say after their first attempts.

[Tears of Destiny]

wonder why 20 guys didn't show

I payed them not to show. Interesting what a couple of 10K drops of gold will do.

Keep on rocking, FCC!

[SeQuel]

what was it? 30 attackers against 40 defenders? wonder why 20 guys didn't show. Anyways if in our fight there would have been 20 less defenders my guess is that we would have taken it.

@Shodanius
not sure about Castles and Towns, as far as i know this 30vs60 counts only for "NPC villages", still your point is valid, if an army 2-3 times the defending forces, either the defenders give up and opened the gates freely or they were slaughtered.

So give the defenders better gear and in the case of our village attack the defenders had well organized ts on nditions, but reducing the attackers by half is just silly. Yes sooner or later we will take the village and i am looking forward to what others will say after their first attempts.

They also has gear 4x better then ours body armor wise, we fought a constant up hill battle (literally), and they had 12 extra players.

[Nihtgenga]

what about the bows and swords? : ))

[Have_At_Thee]

I actually frapsed the whole match but I can't upload untill the start of next month or my isp will cut me off 

[KaMiKaZe_JoE]

I might point out that for much of the battle FCC was actually defending. We spawned down hill from the village, and the attackers kept pushing us back down the hill towards our spawn. Probably because they had more players, and better equipment (not sure about the bows and xbows, though).

Defenders suffered heavy casualties when they forsook the cover of their village.

That they could push us back so far, practically to our spawn, is kind of bad. I mean, we were the attackers, shouldn't we be forcing the defenders to desperately... defend?