My hangover has gone but for some reason i'm pissed (not the drunken pissed!)
Let's start this off with your targets in mind.
Alburq Castle at this present time is of an extreme strategic importance for both sides, that is without a doubt fact. For us Mercs it is standing there as a beacon, an impregnable log that for us has raised our morale and has brought guys back to playing for us and raised activity substantially. Now to us Alburq has now turned into the Bane of the Wolves, for there have been several failed attempts to storm the walls. So for us it is a morale booster for us and our allies, it also temporarily puts your invasion on hold so we can build up other fortifications.
Now Alburq Castle to you is a pain in the arse to put it bluntly. You cannot risk having 6000+ troops threatening your rear if you decide to move onto other conquests because those troops could be used to attack you, your fiefs, or harass your men. So to you, you need it gone and under your control. Furthermore for us it allows us to attack north, east and south so we can cover 3 points of the compass with one castle hence why you need it gone.
As for the OP, catapults should be banned in castle defence. No, catapults/mangonels were used to defend and attack, for us it has worked very well, the only reason you are moaning about it, is because it makes it exceptionally difficult for you to attack the castle, but then any attack would always be costly no matter what you do. We have adapted our tactics to deal with your attacks, and surprisingly it has worked out for us. The thing you should be worried about is that as soon as you decided to attack my castle shit has gotten into gear, the Mercs have suddenly become an organized fighting force, no arguing on TS, no petty discussions, mixed with full concentration with the task in hand. (Minus my karaoke singing which Phase managed to record....) This has then worked in our favour seeing as we can now fight back with efficiency, for example the VVar battle where we were outnumbered 4 to 1 (450 v 1800) and we won because we had a damn good roster, yes the roster wasn't as full as it could have been for you or us but we managed to work together.
The thing that annoys me (aimed at OP) is that as soon as something doesn't go your way you suddenly complain about it and demand that to make it easier for you that we must be banned from using legitimate tactics to make sure our castle is defended. The same was made after the second battle where Kalp said Alburq Castle should be removed.
Now back to you Grandmom, i agree that wooden castle walls should be able to be destroyed, i agree with that wholeheartedly, for i am a player whom likes to play fair and give everyone a chance, being able to destroy the walls would be an advantage to you but it would still lead to a lot of attacks seeing as the terrain is very difficult to utilise. The surrounding hills provide cover for a catapult but the range you would have to shoot would be huge, furthermore we are atop a hill so our archers range and angle would make it difficult for any breaches you make. As soon as you breach the castle you have to run up steep hills peppered by arrows.
Now my solution to you of how to take Alburq would be to adapt your tactics, these last few days i have been planning attacks on Alburq ffrom all directions involving varying scenarios, a few would work if you had come up with them, but i have covered most avenues of attack now so i am ready for most possibilities, you asked for a discussion so let this post be the beginning.
I await your responses.
Thankyou sir Cymro,
I agree that Alburq is of great importance to both sides, to your side because it is and has been as I understand your "holy grail", to us its important because we want you gone from north of the river at Ismirala so we could use the bridge as a chokepoint for incoming attacks. This way, we (northern clans)could stay relatively unharmed in the north and focus on other things than defending villages. But Alburq in perticular isnt more valuable to us than Jeirbe Castle from that point of view, except for the defence value on Alburq then perhaps .
And the risk of having 6000 troops in Alburq and 12000? in Jerbe Castle behind us isnt what we would like if we venture of on new crusades, I agree. However, if we now pause our attacks, you would be just as stuck, since u cant risk of lowering your defence in these castles if we keep our northern armies in the north. So, with that logic Id say you are stuck in the north, in the middle(Ismirala/Tellrog castle) and in Dhirim. And since you cant connect the three without risking being attacked your trade suffers greatly - especially with Wercheg and Rivacheg gone from your hands (most S/D production on the map).
And with the new clans in the north we dont need to defend all of the north alone, so the balance of grinders and naked troops should be pretty balanced there. But, your tactic has been defence from the beginning and it is working now once you have gotten organised. Then we need to adapt to that, and we will.
My concern isnt Alburq castle itself, its wooden castles in general. Like I said before, I could agree to not even siege Alburq IF(read this word Haboe) we would come to an agreement on how to balance these castles a bit. Otherwise, this will be in the way of the game as I see it, you are not the only one with wooden castles. Someone is saying "forbid defenders using catapults" - well perhaps but that would be just making it easier for the attackers and not really be an agreement that both sides would go for - understandably. If we are to come to some sort of agreement it cant be just one side giving something - it never is when negotiating deals.
So, suggestions would look like something in the line of this(and please dont rage the suggestions they are merely there to point out HOW an agreement could be when finished):
- get rid of the catas in wooden castles and the attackers will give up laddering if using towers?
- attacker dont use forward spawn if defenders dont use catas?
Both sides give up something to get the balance back of the wooden castles, and if the devs fix it until next strat great, but why wait for them?
This really is a negotiation for the more experienced guys in this game, on both sides ofc, I am like I have said before pretty much a noob when it comes to battles/sieges. But, a bit of talk and giving and taking on both sides could make it a bit more balanced and by that the game would be more flexible on the map.
Could someone explain to me why noone builds 5 weaponracks as a defender, when its perfectly doable? I was asked by someone to do it when I lead the defence of Curaw but I didnt want to since noone else did - an agreement made by the community I think - and it works to imporve the game for everyone, even if any side could take advantage of the game being "broken" they dont. Same goes for ladders in sieges, how hard would it be to totally spawn ladders in defence so that teh attackers wouldnt be able to? Yet, noone does it.
Thanks for meeting me in this Cymro, perhaps this will lead nowhere and perhaps the devs will restart strat next week and with it - the changes needed. But we could just aswell try and work some things out cause I really dont see why we shouldnt.
Thanks Cymro, for responding in the way you did, and for your time spent even though you have a hangover, hope it will pass soon m8
Poll