Why the current battle system needs a fix… (in big battles)

[BASNAK]

To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.

Yes but there was no higher force stopping you from doing it? As long as it's a reasonable attacking force it should be allowed. No matter garrison size.

[Erasmas]

To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.

Maybe so. But in the past you had the battles without time limit, or with multiplicator. I think it should be changed in current circumstances, unless you want to see more and more stalled strat.

Find me the clan ready to spend 100k (or - more likely - 120k) troops to take over one location with 30k. Think of the costs of upkeep and logistics. Besides, how this relates to the general idea of making strat more open for casual players?

(click to show/hide)

Siege issue came up in various threads again, so I decided to make made a short calculation to show why the 1/3 rule is ridiculous and how it makes makes castles/towns unreasonably hard, or impossible to conquer in this stage of Strat.

Narra is a perfect example for this purpose, cause it holds large garrison:

Narra
Population:           3000
Army:                  31029
Total garrison:    34029

Now, lets make some assumptions for this calculation:

• the population dies last
• 1800 troops can be killed in one battle, the rest is lost due to siege time limit (see OP for explanation)
• defender and attacker losses on actual battlefield are equal (1800)
• afaik the 1/3 rule is calculated  basing on the number of the army in town
• no reinforcements of the town are made during the entire process
• the flags are not dropped in any siege

These are very optimistic assumptions. The population actually does not die in the end, usually less than 1800 can be killed (1500 – 1700) in one go; defender’s losses are in fact lower than attacker’s (no catapults, dammit!!!), the reinforcements will surely be made either by defenders or its allies. All these make the situation even worse for attackers.

So lets see how seriously this system is fucked up:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


So:

• 19 sieges is needed to take over the location
• The total loss of defenders is 34029 troops
• The total loss of attackers is 99174 troops; out of that 65145 NEVER FIGHTS on the battlefield, it is just a price to be paid for besieging the location.

19 sieges? 100.000 troops to take 34.000 garrison? WTF???? THIS IS SICK!

The most obvious strategy is to drop large number of troops to the Castle or Town, and if you reach certain critical number, you can be sure that you will never be wiped from the map.

CHANGE THE 1/3 RULE, DAMMIT!!!
(Right after fixing the catapults)

[Kamirane]

To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.

yeah, but there was no timelimit!

what about real sieges. just wait half a year or something like that. the hunger will burn them or they need to fallout. If this happens there is no 1/3 cap needed anyway :p

[Keshian]

Siege issue came up in various threads again, so I decided to make made a short calculation to show why the 1/3 rule is ridiculous and how it makes makes castles/towns unreasonably hard, or impossible to conquer in this stage of Strat.

Narra is a perfect example for this purpose, cause it holds large garrison:

Narra
Population:           3000
Army:                  31029
Total garrison:    34029

Now, lets make some assumptions for this calculation:

• the population dies last
• 1800 troops can be killed in one battle, the rest is lost due to siege time limit (see OP for explanation)
• defender and attacker losses on actual battlefield are equal (1800)
• afaik the 1/3 rule is calculated  basing on the number of the army in town
• no reinforcements of the town are made during the entire process
• the flags are not dropped in any siege

These are very optimistic assumptions. The population actually does not die in the end, usually less than 1800 can be killed (1500 – 1700) in one go; defender’s losses are in fact lower than attacker’s (no catapults, dammit!!!), the reinforcements will surely be made either by defenders or its allies. All these make the situation even worse for attackers.

So lets see how seriously this system is fucked up:

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


So:

• 19 sieges is needed to take over the location
• The total loss of defenders is 34029 troops
• The total loss of attackers is 99174 troops; out of that 65145 NEVER FIGHTS on the battlefield, it is just a price to be paid for besieging the location.

19 sieges? 100.000 troops to take 34.000 garrison? WTF???? THIS IS SICK!

The most obvious strategy is to drop large number of troops to the Castle or Town, and if you reach certain critical number, you can be sure that you will never be wiped from the map.

CHANGE THE 1/3 RULE, DAMMIT!!!
(Right after fixing the catapults)

Attack other fiefs to draw those troops out of the city to help hold them, but you havent attacked any of their other fiefs so it just stockpiles in one.

[Erasmas]

Attack other fiefs to draw those troops out of the city to help hold them, but you havent attacked any of their other fiefs so it just stockpiles in one.

Kesh, if you face a massive war and lose your fiefs one after another, what do you do in the end? You stockpile troops in the keep not to get wiped... Besides, this is only one location, there is more like that on the map. Cities and castles are not supposed to be invincible, there should be a reasonable way to take them after all, at high cost, I agree, but this is just outrageous...

[Keshian]

Something else- stockpiling all your troops in a  cityr ather than a very defensible castle - atatckers can cap flags if they do well and actuallys teal 30k troops from the defenders which is a huge risk compared to just leaving them in the city as attacker approaches.  As far as I know no grey order army has come even remotely close to the Narra area so no reason to take troops out.

[Erasmas]

Geeee.. it is not a question of Narra. The problem refers to every single town and castle on the map. The rule itself is wrong, Narra acts as an example here...

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

Wow that was all far too complicated...

Don't worry I can fix it because I'm awesome and shit, no need to clap
------

Just jack the timer up by 3 hours for cities and castles.

So both cities and castle start with a default attack time of 3 hours + what ever the army size will add to the clock. If the amount of time for the battle is ramped up then the total amount of usable tickets is increased there for allowing larger armies to attack with out issue + bigger, longer more tactical battles would follow suit... hopefully.

I think a simple increase to the timer is by far the easiest thing to implement and is 100% worth trying out.

[Segd]

I think a simple increase to the timer is by far the easiest thing to implement and is 100% worth trying out.

I remember 4-7 hours battles during Strat 1. was fun 

[kinngrimm]

If it would be a continious fight , where people who need to go then also could be swapped with new once who want to join in then it would be ok with a prolonged time.

[Akhooey]

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesupcoming#!?page=battledetail&id=2744

Like your signature, may the Dragon ride again on the winds of time

[Tactical_One]

To be honest its really historical rule. Never start a siege with 1 to 3 advantage.

There was no historical Timer. Or it works against defender (city besieged)

[RandomDude]

Im a bit out of the loop with strat seeing as I havent played for some time, but why was this rule introduced in the first place?

Was it because clans were just locking towns (with their own forces) basically abusing the mechanics?

If changes are made, they better be "abuse" proof because there are lots of clans who will just do anything they can to win, fair or not.

[Bohannon]

I see and raise.

They should change that 1/3 rule for Sieges.

After 4500 army inside the fiefs, army upkeep should be same like traveller army. As an example, you have to pay 5232 golds for 4500 troops in a fief and 4176 golds for 1500 troops who are on field. If you had 6000 troops in a fief, you had to pay 5232+4176=9408 golds.

Now, if you have 6000 troops army in a fief, you should pay 7056. 2400 golds are between them. More you have after 4500, more you pay. It hasn't to be so basic to upkeep troops at fiefs.

[CrazyCracka420]

Im a bit out of the loop with strat seeing as I havent played for some time, but why was this rule introduced in the first place?

Was it because clans were just locking towns (with their own forces) basically abusing the mechanics?

If changes are made, they better be "abuse" proof because there are lots of clans who will just do anything they can to win, fair or not.

The change was implemented so that you couldn't attack a city with 1 troop, and essentially "lock" the fief from being useable.  It also prevented people with 1 troop flying across the map and stopping a 3000 man army. Can you imagine having your 3000 man army stopped for over 24 hours because one guy attacked you?  It also allowed you to catch up to someone, and stop them in place with hardly any troops, and then send reinforcements (even if they couldn't make it there in the 2 hour reinforcement window, you could have the army waiting there for when the battle was over).