Strategus Battles - when time runs out

[Boss_Awesome]

Remove the retreat command to avoid someone locking down and retreating.  And if attackers are going to hug spawn then that sounds like a legitimate tactic.  In this situation the attackers are engaging with caution rather than throwing everything they have into the fray, a tactic that has been used in siege warfare historically.

[Tomas]

Remove the retreat command to avoid someone locking down and retreating.  And if attackers are going to hug spawn then that sounds like a legitimate tactic.  In this situation the attackers are engaging with caution rather than throwing everything they have into the fray, a tactic that has been used in siege warfare historically.

You want to spend 2 hours in a battle where neither side actually attacks?

[Kanclerz]

Time is end = attacker lost and losses all eq and tickets.


P.S.
Real, fresh material as it was!
UIF is always better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_zAZxUEses

[CrazyCracka420]

I honestly think there's good sides to both arguments.  And although I've always held Kesh's opinion (doesn't have to be all or nothing) what Tomas points out is very real concerns that would have to be addressed in order to make it work.

I don't know what the answer is, I really do wish there was an easy way to make it possible to retreat from a SIEGE as the attacker (not a battle) and still keep some troops and gear.  But it could be easily abused as Tomas points out.

I think attacking in waves is what needs to continue to happen.

[Keshian]

You want to spend 2 hours in a battle where neither side actually attacks?

1) Still far less likely to be abused then the current setup where defenders just overstock fiefs with troops knowing about the ridiculous retreat setup for attackers, which means attacks are far more rare in general.

2) If attackers go defensive it actually would be a legitimate tactic similar to real battle - sudden reinforcements or underestimating the egar setup makes them realize the defenders have them outmanned.  Defenders would need to go offensive for once in order to bleed more tickets offf the opposing side with their superior numbers and gear.  And Boss_Awesome is right - i just threw 25% out there - 1/3rd rule might be better. Also, no battles last 2 hour anymore unless you have 3000+ troops on each side and that was 1 hr. 42 minutes last time.  No one is just going to lose 1000 troops and 1/3rd their gear just to "tie" up some fief or person. when they could bleed the enemy side of tickets with those 1000 troops.

3) Also, retreats should take 1/3rd - 1/2 your gold, unlike normal losses.

4) I don't know about other people but i would prefer a few rare battles where some attackers are just delaying (and it has to be with real gear - otherwise the defenders would just destroy them and cap flags) over having massive stalemates with nothing happening on both maps because its so ridiculous to attack right now.

5)  If flags are capped they lose everything (we should be able to distinguish between end of time/retreat call over enemy capping flags), which means atatckers playing defensive run the real risk of losing everything versus bleeding enemy tickets before they lose by charging.

6) Frankly, its worth a try - strat 2 was a lot more fun and dynamic under the old system even with several delaying battles mixed among the many many battles that went on.

[CrazyCracka420]

I'm not sure if it was ever done either, but having a sally port and/or a main portcullis would be great on every castle and city map.  I know some castles I've fought have had them, but not sure if they all do.

This would enable the defenders to sally out easier to take out attackers who were trying to delay.

Also being able to win gold from battles would be nice (but that may be for another suggestion thread). 

I personally don't like how it's really a "defensive" game to lose right now.  It hurts people who are defending their homelands as well, because you can't easily sally out an army and attack an invader, because now they enjoy the benefits of being the defender in the battle.  When in reality, it should be pretty much even on the open field. 

There's gotta be an answer that solves the issue with running out of time and still having troops/gear left (or even retreating) and not being easily exploitable.  Maybe the answer is to not let people keep stuff when they retreat, but allow them to keep some of their troops and gear if time runs out?  I think 1/3 sounds like a good # to me...who's going to throw away 2/3 of their troops and equipment to lock down a fief for 24 hours?  And even if they think that it's worth it to do, wouldn't the defenders be okay with taking out 2/3's of an attacking force?  If you want to take out 100% then sally out and take their flags.

[Kanclerz]

The attacker always has the right to retreat.
During the siege of the same, only he can.
Let's be realistic, enough already, these modified 2h swords, faster than 1h.
In a normal battle, both parties have the right to retreat.

Is good as it is, does not change anything.

[Arathian]

historically, how it worked, was that the attacker would cut off the enemy city and start sieging it with waves of attacks.

IMO, the game should be like this: attacker can keep attacking, when he retreats/time runs out, he loses a small % of his army, no more than 10% preferably 5%, and defender gets gear loot.

Defender can't reinforce, attacker can. What that means is that defenders, like historically, would be forced to bring over reinforcements to try to break through the siege or even rout the enemy. See battle of Vienna, for example.

That way, defending is still advantageous (battle time still on your favor, you get gear, fortifications) but attacking is perfectly feasible and becomes more about tactics and less about battling time with, in the overall scheme of things, time being on your hand, ergo, exactly as it was historically.

The one restriction I would put is that the attacker, to be able to siege a city, would have to have equal or more amount of troops (not population) than the defending city as to avoid 50 troops locking down cities for days on end.

I really can't see how this can be exploited. Attackers could lock down cities until help would come, like they did historically, defenders would have home advantage, like they did historically, but a city left to its fate would eventually fall.....like they did historically.

[KaMiKaZe_JoE]

Hugging a spawn as attacker is very risky imo

You're damn right it is. After maybe ten minutes I'd start tking our leadership because they're acting like big, fucking pussies.

This would start an unstoppable TK war in our spawn, and everyone would die.

So, that solves the camping problem for attackers.

[Butan]

IMO, the game should be like this: attacker can keep attacking, when he retreats/time runs out, he loses a small % of his army, no more than 10% preferably 5%, and defender gets gear loot.  + Defender can't reinforce, attacker can.

Dat would be awesome and balanced me thinks. BIG BIG +1 for "defenders cant reinforce" : it would really give a "siege" feeling of a city, if you can still attack per waves with a big ass army, until time runs out, then you retreat and attack again later with the remnant... BUT the defenders cant "break through" the besiegers without ATTACKING THE ATTACKERS !

IMO that would be enough to fix the defense/attack balance because a sieged city would require external help to kill off the besieging party, and not only "sneak past" it all and give all kind of gear and troops to the besieged city like nothing is happening every time a new attack is set and you have 5 fucking hours to act like a dick.

I know that if you have "intercepting" forces near the besieged fief you can prevent it but its fucking hard to have one guy "monitor" the situation on his computer for that long a time, just give the attacker a better chance to win.

The one restriction I would put is that the attacker, to be able to siege a city, would have to have equal or more amount of troops (not population) than the defending city as to avoid 50 troops locking down cities for days on end.

It would only be feasible if they gave the possibility to retreat without losing everything, and if they didnt, actually you can siege a city with something like 1/3 of the troops inside (thats what some testing from me and my mates told me).

[Arathian]

The thing is butan, if this was the problem, then attackers would try to lock down the city for days on end, that is why I said this restriction.

Also, because it makes sense. Just more troops is logical, else one could just raid the place and get all gear anyway.

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

The thing is butan, if this was the problem, then attackers would try to lock down the city for days on end, that is why I said this restriction.

Also, because it makes sense. Just more troops is logical, else one could just raid the place and get all gear anyway.

Why not just allow the city to sally forth and attack the attacking lockdown army at any time?

[kinngrimm]

yes to huge army siege and not loosing stuff over it when they retreat or run out of time, while the attacker gets some loot from the battle field. Sieged castles/towns are locked down and cant be reinforced, but the besieging army could be attacked.

Also when an army with like 5k attacks, and afterwards runs out of time or retreats, please get them the same battle time reserved for the next attacks then those before, so that over the days the battle time doesn't change to enormous late night battles.

also +9000 to walls which need to be repaired by PP and gold

[Kanclerz]

Castle walls and City walls must pay to be repaired? Bullshit
The Defender does not have the money to pay for the repairs as is?
He fighting in Castle with broken walls? Stupid idea Kingrimm.
I think that it is too big a change for this version of strategus.

Maybe in new strategus developers add this option.
In Total War series this option is good you pay, you wait a X time and walls are repaired.

If you have to pay for it you must add the castle walls/city also the option to upgrade this stronghold.
Build new Towers, thicker walls and Ballista for defenders .

[kinngrimm]

Castle walls and City walls must pay to be repaired? Bullshit
The Defender does not have the money to pay for the repairs as is?
He fighting in Castle with broken walls? Stupid idea Kingrimm.
I think that it is too big a change for this version of strategus.

Maybe in new strategus developers add this option.
In Total War series this option is good you pay, you wait a X time and walls are repaired.

If you have to pay for it you must add the castle walls/city also the option to upgrade this stronghold.
Build new Towers, thicker walls and Ballista for defenders .

Stupid is a matter of perspective. For instance i can argue about something if it is realistic and/or adds benefits to the game play, i can't argue about someone finding something ... stupid .. that then would be stupid to talk about.

So Defenders who get a lot of leftover gear after defending, which they can sell, gives them gold. Having 7k gold to repair walls and investing the daily income of Production Points +1 to keep the walls repaired is also doable.

If i you want to wait for the new game so that you can play a more enjoyable game, then you shouldn't participate in this discussion, as out of your perspective it is already a waist of time. Perhaps we get some information at some point of devs, if they intend to further develop this mod and also bring it to M&B2, as an own game still is a different pair of shoes as we say in germany.