Troop Limits within Cities, Castles and villages

[Strudog]

As you can see around the map there are several places that have more than 10000 troops with in the fiefs, Examples such as Sunno (18k troops), Narra (32k troops).

To me this is just a bit ridiculous as it puts off any type of attack from anyone, even the biggest factions. A place like Narra would take close to 50 waves of attack just to beat the defence and im sure no one has the patience to organise that and also the strain on resources would be ridiculous.

This is my proposal so that we can have more of a interesting strat and make it a lot more interesting.

Cities: Max 5k troops
Castles: 3k troops
Villages: 1.5k troops

These are suggestions and must be ammended to what people would think is better.

Pros:

- Smaller factions will have a chance of capturing castles and cities and make strategus more favourable to smaller factions
- Borders would be constantly changing and thus not get stagnated like they are now.
- Wars would be a lot more interesting, in that places would not have to be sieged more than 5 times.
- Less stress on commanders of strat.
- A faster based strat would be alot more fun

Please tell me what you think

[CrazyCracka420]

Now this is something I can fap to!

I've seen it suggested before, and it makes sense that you can't support an infinite amount of people in a fief.  Would be cool if there were limits on garrisons, with some ability to be able to increase the garrisons if the fiefs around the castle/city belong to your faction (aka these villages would be supplying you with food, but at an expense to the amount of troops you can garrison in the village).

You know it's a good suggestion if strudog and me agree on it (cuz that guy sucks balls  , not that there's anything wrong with that)

[Strudog]

Now this is something I can fap to!

I've seen it suggested before, and it makes sense that you can't support an infinite amount of people in a fief.  Would be cool if there were limits on garrisons, with some ability to be able to increase the garrisons if the fiefs around the castle/city belong to your faction (aka these villages would be supplying you with food, but at an expense to the amount of troops you can garrison in the village).

You know it's a good suggestion if strudog and me agree on it (cuz that guy sucks balls  , not that there's anything wrong with that)

Haha so true, but i also agree with what you have there

[Tomas]

1) Your PRO for smaller factions is just as much a CON for them.  If its easy to cap, its also easy to lose.
2) If its easy to lose all fiefs then small factions will return to being the whipping boys of large alliances.
3) We'll be back on a more fiefs = more power footing which only benefits large alliances with the organisation to manage a large empire.  Small factions meanwhile will be of no value to larger factions and so become their first target instead.  At least now small neutral factions are useful because they can potentially hold and protect space that is otherwise tactically unimportant.
4) More micromanagement for factions that have no way to stockpile large amounts of troops.
5) Large Factions that can micromanage will just gradually feed troops into fiefs in-between sieges meaning Towns can still take huge numbers of battles to take which is still impractical.  In fact even with the troop cap certain Towns/Castle would still be uncapturable. Take a fief where the attacker can kill of 1000 defenders at most per battle.  At most you are looking at 4 attacks every 5 days so that's 4000 defenders killed every 5 days.  It would only take 17 active troop grinders to replace those losses each day meaning the fief will never run out of troops.  17 is way beyond the potential for a small clan but well within the reach of a large clan and there are fiefs out there where killing 1000 defenders would be an amazing result (Tilbault or Alburg castles for example).

Basically the idea does not address the real issues of strat and merely looks to cure one of the symptoms.  I agree something needs doing but this is not it.

[Turboflex]

^That is nonsense. Terrible logic.

[Strudog]

1) Your PRO for smaller factions is just as much a CON for them.  If its easy to cap, its also easy to lose.
2) If its easy to lose all fiefs then small factions will return to being the whipping boys of large alliances.
3) We'll be back on a more fiefs = more power footing which only benefits large alliances with the organisation to manage a large empire.  Small factions meanwhile will be of no value to larger factions and so become their first target instead.  At least now small neutral factions are useful because they can potentially hold and protect space that is otherwise tactically unimportant.
4) More micromanagement for factions that have no way to stockpile large amounts of troops.
5) Large Factions that can micromanage will just gradually feed troops into fiefs in-between sieges meaning Towns can still take huge numbers of battles to take which is still impractical.  In fact even with the troop cap certain Towns/Castle would still be uncapturable. Take a fief where the attacker can kill of 1000 defenders at most per battle.  At most you are looking at 4 attacks every 5 days so that's 4000 defenders killed every 5 days.  It would only take 17 active troop grinders to replace those losses each day meaning the fief will never run out of troops.  17 is way beyond the potential for a small clan but well within the reach of a large clan and there are fiefs out there where killing 1000 defenders would be an amazing result (Tilbault or Alburg castles for example).

Basically the idea does not address the real issues of strat and merely looks to cure one of the symptoms.  I agree something needs doing but this is not it.

In reference to your last 2 points, if a larger faction is unable to stockpile troops, then it would cost them a lot more to keep the out of the city (is that true?), if it is, then larger factions would have to regulate troop production in order to save them gold in order to buy equipment. With this being said it would make it very nice for the smaller factions who would not need so many troops to defend themselves or attack.

This takes away the advantage that bigger factions had within the amount of troops they can turn out rather than a small faction, making it more even.

[Butan]

What was also suggested is that :

- ARMY are supported by POPULATION
- X POPULATION can support Y TROOPS in a fief

(the X to Y formula should be decided by a higher authority, but the idea is here)



It would be both realistic and efficient gameplay-wise :

- POPULATION would virtually "feed" the ARMY
- you would need to convert TROOPS to POPULATION to increase the ARMY cap in your fiefs (this would decrease tickets substantially)
- each fiefs has already a POPULATION cap that cant be increased, then each fiefs would have an ARMY cap that cant be stacked more (troops stacked over the limit should instantly perish)
- the added troops would need to be : equally distributed (incite proper defense), transported on players (cost tons of gold, some would starves, others would have missions), or used for WARRRRRRRRR



To summarize we would use the already in place POPULATION cap to :

- link it to ARMY
- decreases stacking potential (less impossible to attack fiefs)
- encourage battles

also, but secondary :
- increase gold consumption (less plates)
- encourage giving players missions (less AFK troops cows)

[Tomas]

In reference to your last 2 points, if a larger faction is unable to stockpile troops, then it would cost them a lot more to keep the out of the city (is that true?), if it is, then larger factions would have to regulate troop production in order to save them gold in order to buy equipment. With this being said it would make it very nice for the smaller factions who would not need so many troops to defend themselves or attack.

This takes away the advantage that bigger factions had within the amount of troops they can turn out rather than a small faction, making it more even.

Take 2 clans - Clan A (10 members) and Clan B (100 members)

Both have 1 Town and therefore 5k troops in it and then generate enough gold per day to support 1000 troops per player (after buying equipment).

So Clan A has 15,000 troops on 10 players and Clan B has 105,000 troops on 100 players whilst both clans have to mess about ensuring each individual player doesn't run out of gold.

Clearly Clan B already has an advantage here however If either clan wants to increase the troops they have further they have 4 choices

1) Generate more gold from trade - easier for Clan B since they have more members to make trade runs, protect S&D and raid.
2) Capture more fiefs for the garrison space - easier for Clan B since they have more troops to start with
3) Capture more fiefs to gain the trade tax - easier for Clan B since they have more troops to start with
4) Get better discounts on gear - easier for Clan B who can cap more fiefs but it could also be done via trade deals

Under your system as Clan B I would simply stomp Clan A.  It would probably cost me 10k tickets since some of Clan A's members will be online at the right times to reinforce the Town, but it potentially satisfies all 4 of the above choices.  I get more garrison capacity, more S&D, more tax and more PP to spend on gear discounts.

So what exactly is the benefit to Clan A here?  Attacking Clan B is probably not practical as Clan B have more members to reinforce the fief in between attacks.  Meanwhile Clan A has to keep more players inside or near their fief in case they get attacked so that's less traders as well.  Its lose, lose!

At least now small clans are too much effort to kill for too little reward.  Its also pretty easy for them to build up troops/gold and then whenever they go over 10k in their fiefs they can send the excess out for a battle or 2, safe in the knowledge that its unlikely they will be attacked back. 

I agree its a bit boring now that most clans have built up so many troops they can't be touched, but there are better things to do about this.  Incentives for using troops such as a time limit on strat and a proper scoreboard to decide the winner could work.  Whilst reduced troop production rates based on renown, so that the more your clan fights the quicker you replace troops, might also have merit. Although i'm not 100% sure on that yet.

[Turboflex]

There's not much to stop a mega clan from steamrolling a small clan if they really want. The only things is for a small clan to find friends to help it out, and manage its armies well so the attacker can expect hard fights and heavy losses to make the conquest less appealing.

In history, corruption, economic/administrative inefficiency, and factionalism generally weakened any nation that expanded very quickly. These impediments are not really a factor in strategus.

Trying to protect small clans by having them stack 10,000 troops into a city to give them an invincibility aura is absurd and poor gameplay.

[Strudog]

Take 2 clans - Clan A (10 members) and Clan B (100 members)

Both have 1 Town and therefore 5k troops in it and then generate enough gold per day to support 1000 troops per player (after buying equipment).

So Clan A has 15,000 troops on 10 players and Clan B has 105,000 troops on 100 players whilst both clans have to mess about ensuring each individual player doesn't run out of gold.

Clearly Clan B already has an advantage here however If either clan wants to increase the troops they have further they have 4 choices

1) Generate more gold from trade - easier for Clan B since they have more members to make trade runs, protect S&D and raid.
2) Capture more fiefs for the garrison space - easier for Clan B since they have more troops to start with
3) Capture more fiefs to gain the trade tax - easier for Clan B since they have more troops to start with
4) Get better discounts on gear - easier for Clan B who can cap more fiefs but it could also be done via trade deals

Under your system as Clan B I would simply stomp Clan A.  It would probably cost me 10k tickets since some of Clan A's members will be online at the right times to reinforce the Town, but it potentially satisfies all 4 of the above choices.  I get more garrison capacity, more S&D, more tax and more PP to spend on gear discounts.

So what exactly is the benefit to Clan A here?  Attacking Clan B is probably not practical as Clan B have more members to reinforce the fief in between attacks.  Meanwhile Clan A has to keep more players inside or near their fief in case they get attacked so that's less traders as well.  Its lose, lose!

At least now small clans are too much effort to kill for too little reward.  Its also pretty easy for them to build up troops/gold and then whenever they go over 10k in their fiefs they can send the excess out for a battle or 2, safe in the knowledge that its unlikely they will be attacked back. 

I agree its a bit boring now that most clans have built up so many troops they can't be touched, but there are better things to do about this.  Incentives for using troops such as a time limit on strat and a proper scoreboard to decide the winner could work.  Whilst reduced troop production rates based on renown, so that the more your clan fights the quicker you replace troops, might also have merit. Although i'm not 100% sure on that yet.

Of course there will always be that notion that a bigger clan will always be able to do more than a smaller clan, but how do you get rid of that, you cant. Im just proposing a small nerf to bigger factions and the amount of troops that they stack in fiefs and which are safe from heavy gold loss. Just think if you were unable to have those troops in the city then you would be unable to support them out on the map thus equalin less troops and more strategically planned battles and thus more battles that will become decisive in a war

[Tomas]

There's not much to stop a mega clan from steamrolling a small clan if they really want. The only things is for a small clan to find friends to help it out, and manage its armies well so the attacker can expect hard fights and heavy losses to make the conquest less appealing.

In history, corruption, economic/administrative inefficiency, and factionalism generally weakened any nation that expanded very quickly. These impediments are not really a factor in strategus.

Trying to protect small clans by having them stack 10,000 troops into a city to give them an invincibility aura is absurd and poor gameplay.

My point isn't that small clans have it great now or are deliberately protected somehow.  My point is that the suggestion will make it worse for small clans not better.

Of course there will always be that notion that a bigger clan will always be able to do more than a smaller clan, but how do you get rid of that, you cant. Im just proposing a small nerf to bigger factions and the amount of troops that they stack in fiefs and which are safe from heavy gold loss. Just think if you were unable to have those troops in the city then you would be unable to support them out on the map thus equalin less troops and more strategically planned battles and thus more battles that will become decisive in a war

It really isn't a nerf to large clans though it is just an extra layer of micro-management that only the large clans are set up to handle.

[Vovka]

What was also suggested is that :

- ARMY are supported by POPULATION
- X POPULATION can support Y TROOPS in a fief

(the X to Y formula should be decided by a higher authority, but the idea is here)



It would be both realistic and efficient gameplay-wise :

- POPULATION would virtually "feed" the ARMY
- you would need to convert TROOPS to POPULATION to increase the ARMY cap in your fiefs (this would decrease tickets substantially)
- each fiefs has already a POPULATION cap that cant be increased, then each fiefs would have an ARMY cap that cant be stacked more (troops stacked over the limit should instantly perish)
- the added troops would need to be : equally distributed (incite proper defense), transported on players (cost tons of gold, some would starves, others would have missions), or used for WARRRRRRRRR



To summarize we would use the already in place POPULATION cap to :

- link it to ARMY
- decreases stacking potential (less impossible to attack fiefs)
- encourage battles

also, but secondary :
- increase gold consumption (less plates)
- encourage giving players missions (less AFK troops cows)

good solution 

but only for 2-3 mounths after that all fiefs will have same cap this 20k troops )))
and small clans again will be suck but to honest small clans always suck XD

[deVada]

maybe a historical attempt?

1. food stores (and transports) in the cities/castles (those could be produced by villages)
2. the more garrisoned troops the sooner food is being consumed and the more expensive would be too keep huge garrisons
3. siege option = blockade of men/food/equip reinforcements / withdrawals from a location, siege lasts long time (like a week or 2 to starve the garrison)
4. assault, counterattacks and siege lift attempts from outside

also what I think is totally unhistorical (and even ridiculous) that attackers have the same amount of slots as defenders,
I don't suppose anyone would sturm a castle with 1:1 troops balance, standard Warband troop balance shall be aplied

not much coding imho

regards
Odi

[Butan]

That would need a completely  new ressource type : food

If they would code it it would be good but it would be less likely to happen in the current strat.
Still your idea is the best for a new strat round (or EPIC).

[Artyem]

I don't think there should be a limit for fiefs, but a much more lax rule on attacking force compared to the defending force.  I mean, a small faction with one village can either:

A. Keep their troops on their members and burn a shit ton of gold.

B. Stack troops in the village, don't burn tickets.

Organizing a clan with one fief is surprisingly difficult compared to organizing a clan with several.