[Suggestion] Hardcap on garrison size + campment at fiefs.

[Haboe]

Suggestion that might help the current state of stacking in fiefs a bit.

First, each fief gets a garrison size. You only have a limited amount of barracks/ bed that you can fill with soldiers, so you can't put more in them.


Second, you have camps around the fief, where the rest of your soldiers can sleep. This means you get a map with tents and perhaps some wooden spikes, that doesn't have the advantage of high walls, unbreakable gates and that kind of shit. All troops that don't fit in the fief will station there, to a higher upkeep rate then fiefs, but lower then open field. If you attack a fief that has one of these camps, you first have to fight the camp obv. To prevent abuse (1 man camp to gain time), a camp has to be at least 1k? troops.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Things to prevent abuse:
Max camp size, 3000 troops, if you cross that line, a second camp will be made and the 2 of them can be attacked simultaneously.



Is there something to this idea?

Should prevent:

Narra
Army: 31853

So in the case of Narra, it would be:
Garrison of town
8-9 camps of 3000 men, that can be attacked at the same time. Upkeeps will go up in those camps. Makes it less usefull to build up troops in a castle/ town.

[CrazyCracka420]

I think it's a good idea, what would the garrison limits be?

5000 for cities?
2500 for castles?
500 for villages?

[Haboe]

Not sure, depends on whats balanced.

5k for a town means you gotta bring 1667 troops for the assault, sound doable.

500 for a village is maybe a bit low, but population adds to that... i'd say 1k for a village.

[Lt_Anders]

Instead of that, why not make it like this:

1 Pop allows 5 army. So that Large armies would need large populations.(this would also mean pops should be uncapped or it could only be applicable to castles/cities)

It would balance out with the fact that pop only can be raided and loose it's gear. Therefore you'd either have to spread your troops around(and no stockpiling) or you'd have to convert troops to pop so you CAN have those insane garrisons.

[Visconti]

i like it! +1

[Jack1]

I was also thinking of the usage of capitals, being that if you loose your capital feif you loose half your recruitment speed for the faction.

Or desease affects, being the higher the population, the higher the chance desease breaks out. All lords(players) in the feif carry the desease to any feif they travel to.

But I do like the idea of army camps. It would keep people from turtleing so hard

[Tactical_One]

So now it's impossible to attack city that have 30 k soldiers ? (since attackers need to at least 1/3 of force)

[DUKE DICKBUTT]

Just go by PP production x 1000.  7000, 5000, 1000.

Villages are supposed to be susceptible to raids, anyway.

[ArysOakheart]

(anders is a neckbeard hold quote)

[Moncho]

How about adding a hard cap to the attacker numbers needed instead?
As in, you need 1/3 of the troops, or 2k (or something that gets balanced) troops, whichever is lower. This way you can attack those huge towns a little bit at a time, you do not go over the time limit, and it would not be abusable because these amounts of troops take quite a while to achieve, so noone wants to  lose them just for lols and abusing.

[Chris_the_Animal]

Fix Siege equip first...

but +1 

[Erasmas]

So now it's impossible to attack city that have 30 k soldiers ? (since attackers need to at least 1/3 of force)

How about adding a hard cap to the attacker numbers needed instead?
As in, you need 1/3 of the troops, or 2k (or something that gets balanced) troops, whichever is lower. This way you can attack those huge towns a little bit at a time, you do not go over the time limit, and it would not be abusable because these amounts of troops take quite a while to achieve, so noone wants to  lose them just for lols and abusing.

See:

http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-general-discussion/why-the-current-battle-system-needs-a-fix-%28in-big-battles%29/

FIX CATAPULTS!!!!

[Casimir]

This would work nicely, but i dont think it would discourage defensive play enough.

Attackers need to be less disadvantaged against defenders.  A camp system as suggested, and then a besieging mechanic would be IMO the best sollution.

[Haboe]

Explain besieging system the way you imagined it please 

[Casimir]

The battle is initiated, 'besieging is selected' and the besieging army and the fief are now locked down with everything they have.  The defenders suffer from attrition of troops as each day passes (e.g. 15% of troop + pop total per day) population is not affected.  After an allotted time (e.g. 5 days), or if the troop count reaches 0, the siege will end and the attackers will take the fortification.  The attacking army may be attacked at any time by another force, initiating an open field / camp battle (besiegers as defenders). If the besiegers are attacked the siege is 'suspended' and besieged forces no longer suffer attrition nor are locked down, allowing them to 'sally forth'.

I feel a system similar to this would allow for much greater offensive play, would be more balanced that the current system of multiple assaults, and would help to make strategus more rewarding for aggressive and active factions.  (plus its much more historically accurate)