Suggestion about Troop upkeep/sizes for strat 4

[Matey]

Cap army sizes. maybe 500? maybe 1000? pick a number, balance the spawn timers and such around that number. rather than having hugely increasing upkeep costs on bigger armies, just straight up cap the army sizes. Also, rather than having 10 guys with 500 man armies combine at the last second into a 5000 to attack, you literally have to attack 500 at a time, but the defender only gets 500 as well (unless you want to allow garrisons to have a bit bigger force). The attackers would besiege a fief, have some guys on the prowl for people trying to sneak support in, and have more armies around to continue the siege if the first army cant get it done, so if you REALLY want to defend a fief and you know there are 4 guys with 500 man armies coming, then you best send some of your own 500 man armies to intercept them (thus more field battles). It would still be possible to overwhelm with numbers, but it would take longer as you would have to attack over and over (which is how people are playing now anyways).

[Strudog]

why?, do you not enjoy those epic 1500 vs 1500 battles?

[Tanken]

Not really a fan of this. I think the cap should be maybe 1500 since anything more than that is somewhat pointless when the timers don't allow for huge 4-5 hour battles (with 3000+ troops per side). I also think limiting the defenders' army runs them a bigger chance of losing if it's a heads up battle.


All in all, not in favor, but I would be in favor of an army cap of mobile troops being 1500 simply so no one over-loads themselves with troops, runs dry on gold, and loses troops because the battle doesn't end in a timely manner.

[Visconti]

Not really a fan on putting a cap on the army size, most people attack with 1500-1900 anyway, but it would just make logistics a pain in the ass, + the 1800 vs 1800 battles are pretty fun, and loads of exp 

[Matey]

well, my understanding is strat 4.0 is supposed to encourage a lot more players to run around with troops, but is also supposed to encourage smaller battles; also, the increase in spawn time for each death gets pretty out of hand with really large ticket numbers so once again, smaller battles. i just think that if the goal is smaller battles then it makes sense to have a real cap that cant be circumvented rather than just cranking up the upkeep costs exponentially so as to invalidate armies of larger sizes for all but the richest of clans. if you put a cap on the army sizes and make it not overly difficult to upkeep that sized army then it puts everyone on more balanced footing, the rich clans still have the advantage of better gear, but they wont be able to field larger individual armies. the clans with the most money and the most ACTIVE strat players will have the most troops roaming around doing stuff.

as for liking the big battles... I do, but lately with the spawn timer, the battles usually overstay their welcome and get kind of tedious half-way through as it slows down. the part when attackers start really getting aggressive after getting their siege gear how they want is usually the best part of the fight. maybe cap armies at 1k or 1,500 or even 2,000...

[CrazyCracka420]

I personally like the idea of 500-1000 man armies marching together.  especially for attacking fiefs (sieges).  I think what you suggest is good, but they should also make the change that if the defenders lose a siege battle, the defenders shouldn't get any left over equipment.  It's not like your leaving your siege camp.  Realistically for the defenders to get the attackers goods, they would need to sally out from their castle to get it...it's not like when the attackers temporarily pull back, that they would start throwing all their equipment over the castle walls to the defenders.

That's one thing I never understood about strategus sieges.

[Lt_Anders]

I personally like the idea of 500-1000 man armies marching together.  especially for attacking fiefs (sieges).  I think what you suggest is good, but they should also make the change that if the defenders lose a siege battle, the defenders shouldn't get any left over equipment.  It's not like your leaving your siege camp.  Realistically for the defenders to get the attackers goods, they would need to sally out from their castle to get it...it's not like when the attackers temporarily pull back, that they would start throwing all their equipment over the castle walls to the defenders.

That's one thing I never understood about strategus sieges.

DOOD! You must not know much, but once an army routs they don't do it orderly like today. They ran like they had hell coming for them. Seige camps would be left bare with people taking only what they could and running.

[CrazyCracka420]

DOOD! You must not know much, but once an army routs they don't do it orderly like today. They ran like they had hell coming for them. Seige camps would be left bare with people taking only what they could and running.

What happens when you have two other 1500 man armies at your siege camp waiting for the next assault?   

Sieges/assaults need to be reworked IMO.  You should be able to have 10,000 men at a siege camp, but only attack with 1500 at a time.  If your 1500 man attack is thwarted, you don't abandon all the equipment for the other 8500 troops.

As it stands, it's pointless to send 10,000 troops against an enemy castle.  You won't have nearly enough time to use all your troops up, and if you retreat near the end of the battle, the defenders will get most of your equipment (even if you have 5000 troops left at your siege camp).

The only way I see that defenders should be able to keep most of the attackers gear (if the attackers lose an assault) is if the defending army is able to capture the attackers flags (aka siege camp).

[Blackzilla]

I also think if your flags are all capped you shouldn't be able to retreat, once all of your flags are capped and none of you troops can get them up the army is captured. For ex, at Sumbuja when we capped your flags, you shouldn't have been able to retreat, we should've gained that army's gear  and captured its troops. To stay on topic, I don't think there should be an army cap because big battles are fun, no one ever signs up for the 500 v 500 stuff.