The current strategus battle (or rather siege) system has a flaw that should be fixed.As you all know the attacker needs to have the army
equal or higher than 1/3 of the defenders army. You also all know that with the current time limit of the battle it makes no sense
to run the battles with the armies larger than 1600 troops. Let me quote our Strategus mastermind on that topic:
I ) troop count
as attacker you should have always a bit more(20%) troops then the defenders. Exception is depending on the time limit for strat fights. 1.5k(1500) - 1.6k(1600) troops for attacks on fiefs is what we have seen as usual army size in this strat to attack fiefs as maximum.
If you go above that you may face loosing troops and gear if the time runs out before you would be able to kill all defenders or take their flags.
Usually it is not a big deal, cause the battles are kept within this limits, but now we can see sieges of castles and towns with large garrisons. It is impossible to take them in one go, unless you are
very, very lucky and take the flags.
Simple mathematics shows that if the castle or town has the army of 4800 or higher, the attacker will have to pay with tickets solely for the pleasure of besieging the location. If you look at the map, you will see a lot of castles and towns with the armies larger than 4800. Let me give you a neutral example: Reindi Castle has the army of 6363. You will need 2121 tickets just to attack it. Considering that the army of 1600 is a reasonable number for the time of the battle, ca. 500 tickets (even with fully filled rosters) will be lost by the attacker due to lapse of time.
It does not make any sense. It is a waste of resources and the (unfair) advantage for the large army owners kept in castles/towns. It “by definition” makes the siege costs higher for the attacker than for the defender, and I do not see any justification for that. (In fact it already is more expensive for the attacker - the upkeep of the army in field is higher than in garrison). The castles and towns are not supposed to be invincible.
Proposed solutions:1.
Increase the time limit for the sieges with large numbers of defending troops. If both parties want (and are able) to have such a big and long battles – let them have it.
or
2.
Modify the “1/3” rule for the battles with the defenders armies larger than 4800, so that it is possible to attack such army with only 1600 troops. If the attacker wish to have several battles with lower numbers, and lose some of them (losing troops and gear,
and giving the defender the advantage of the loot) – why not? But at least the attacker will not lose the troops without actually using the them at the battle.
PS.
And before you start whining, yes, a very particular example lead me to make this post:
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesupcoming#!?page=battledetail&id=2744
At least 600-800 tickets will inevitably go down the drain in that battle. Just imagine the battlefield where after few hours of fights generals shout "stop" and the soldiers of the attacking army are neatly lined up and shot in the heads, despite the will of both defenders and attackers to fight. This is ridiculous.
