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

[Erasmas]

318 tickets wasted for nothing at Yalen in the last battle ...

The next one is finally fairly normal (5392 troops of army in Yalen):

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesupcoming#!?page=battledetail&id=2777

I expect all 1745 to die in regular way    Let's see how it goes. 

[CrazyCracka420]

I agree with the OP and the easiest solution (and best) would be just to allow someone with 1500 or more troops to be able to attack any fief.  I don't like the idea of making battles last more than 2 hours.  And attacking with anything more than 1500 is a very good chance you'll be losing troops to the time limit at the end.

[kinngrimm]

Vovka your suggestion seems the easiest way to do it, whereby i would start with 1400 tickets as due to some locations being very tough on the timer to get anything done.

The way i would like to see it at some point, but would need more coding so it would be similar the way it had been in the medieval times.

• Large siege army of any size possible approaching (need to lower the curve for upkeep)
• Large siege army starting to siege(no not a huge battle, but it reserves the same spot in the battle roster for the next days and everytime the time runs out a new battle the next day at the exact same time happens with remaining tickets)
• Large siege army gets attacked also from the outside(maybe from a large other army therefor those battles also could reserve a timeslot on the battle roster)
• Large Army wins and moves in or gets defeated, only then the spoils would go to either winner or looser, no loot till then.

Now make contracts available to poisen the defenders wells or attackers food stock, give me some more RPG somehow to all these battles as when they drag out it would become rather dull ... you know like atm at times too when you have the 10th siege of such a god forsaken place.

[Keshian]

Easiest solution requires a combination improvement - gear can't be taken out of a fief for 1 hour following a battle and you just lose half your gear used (or a little more if necessary) but gear no longer degrades.

If gear no longer degrades you wont have 6 different types of morningstars screwing up your inventory and causing the item bug with too many items in a battle.  Degradation of items is the most common cause of this problem and it adds so much unnecessary micro-managment (alternative is to allow repairs up to the same level of your highest quality item).

If gear and gold can't just be transferred out immediately after a battle it becomes far more realistic (real sieges you couldn't just transfer all your equipment and gold to one guy and have him leave the besieged castle while waiting 24 hours for the assault by that besieging force and sell all the equipment), it becomes far more viable for attackers to regain their losses through multiple assaults instead of just feeding defenders gear whether they eventually win or lose after multiple waves of attacks.

Right now the only way to profit from assaulting fiefs is to get lucky and teleport the fief owner far away from his fief and having multiple armies with 1 troop ready to intercept as he races back to his fief.  Otherwise the attackers always lose and the defenders always win even if the attackers take the fief, because they got all the expensive gear out from the first 3-20 assaults.  Makes being aggressive far less likely and turtling very common among many many factions.

[Segd]

Battle Multiplier was the best solution. You could take 50k army & strike 30k Narra. Fight for about 1.5h-2h & get 10kk XP. No need to attack one fief 9000 times.
110k(Pub Crawl) vs 70k(UIF) battle for some uif city was one of the brightest battles this game ever had. Even since we had equip for only 10-20k

[Zlisch_The_Butcher]

Bump.

[Kamirane]

isnt it just ridiculous that there can be 10 times more army as population? Where do they sleep? What do they eat and drink? What about the care of health? No realism in my opinion.

A caplimit to population x2 for all fiefs would be more realistic.

[Zaren]

isnt it just ridiculous that there can be 10 times more army as population? Where do they sleep? What do they eat and drink? What about the care of health? No realism in my opinion.

A caplimit to population x2 for all fiefs would be more realistic.

that could work its acctually a good idea. That way you could limit the number of troops much easier and thus make the number of troops counting to the 1/3 rule much less......
 although crpg isnt really the game to go for realism lol

[Smoothrich]

Battle Multiplier was the best solution. You could take 50k army & strike 30k Narra. Fight for about 1.5h-2h & get 10kk XP. No need to attack one fief 9000 times.
110k(Pub Crawl) vs 70k(UIF) battle for some uif city was one of the brightest battles this game ever had. Even since we had equip for only 10-20k

Agreed.  It was elegant and grinded resources super fast in battles with massive amounts of XP.  I think most players get sick of 2 hour + long battles or attacking/defending the same place over and over anyways.

[CrazyCracka420]

I did like the multiplier system (where you would have every death 10 troops die or scaled for the amount of troops you attacked with).  I think that put a larger emphasis on troop numbers versus actual gear for the troops though.  Wouldn't a very heavily armed army of 10,000 troops get demolished if they were attacked by a medium armed army of 100,000 troops due to the way the scaling/ratio worked?  Also, how the hell would you know exactly how many troops to equip?  Wouldn't you have a lot of wasted gear?

[Bjarky]

I did like the multiplier system (where you would have every death 10 troops die or scaled for the amount of troops you attacked with).  I think that put a larger emphasis on troop numbers versus actual gear for the troops though.  Wouldn't a very heavily armed army of 10,000 troops get demolished if they were attacked by a medium armed army of 100,000 troops due to the way the scaling/ratio worked?  Also, how the hell would you know exactly how many troops to equip?  Wouldn't you have a lot of wasted gear?

yeah thats why we dont have that system anymore, especially siege gear didn't work to well with that.

[Lennu]

Maybe increase the upkeep of troops in fiefs once the troop amount gets over, 1000 for Villages, 2000 for Castles and 4000 for Towns? After that limit is reached the upkeep per troop would increase as the amount of troops get higher, maybe by 1% per every 20 tickets that exceed the limit.
The troop softcap ofc can be something else, as the upkeep increase rate. You get the idea.



Another thing that came to my mind.

Try this nut:
Narra
Population: 3000
Owner: Franke_HRE
Army: 30633
Gold: 3030316
Price: 15
S&D: 64
Attack Narra!
Enter Narra
 

Our Narra is a good example, it has buttloads of troops inside. But what you can't see is that there are 8 players inside as well, each with an army of 1500 troops. Should Narra ever become under siege, we could always reinforce that Town with the armies our players have already in the fief. This gives us the element of surprise, those 30k tickets would need 60k tickets from the attacker.... but then we reinforce it with 12k more troops at TA-DAH, attacker is really fucked.
I made up the numbers

[kinngrimm]

...
Another thing that came to my mind. Our Narra is a good example, it has buttloads of troops inside. But what you can't see is that there are 8 players inside as well, each with an army of 1500 troops. Should Narra ever become under siege, we could always reinforce that Town with the armies our players have already in the fief. This gives us the element of surprise, those 30k tickets would need 60k tickets from the attacker.... but then we reinforce it with 12k more troops at TA-DAH, attacker is really fucked.
I made up the numbers

not anymore

[Erasmas]

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)

[bredeus]

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