Military Tweeks

Mandarins31 wrote: Elmindra wrote: Leaving a siege in place and just reducing a town to 0 is an option, but what if a raze or capture attempt took all reinforcing troops along with it just like Sally Forth does?  That to me would make perfect sense, and would be another good reason to have infantry as a viable troop type outside of dwarves. Non-sense. Infantry wont be more produced to attack cities, mostly with your "all attack in final assault" idea, as cities are made on plain: almost the only terrain to get 7 food tiles. (having 7 food mountains... is that an other idea for more balance?)

Elmindra wrote: Magic is going to force people to completely change some of their established cities and no one will complain.

Not a chance...lol

castles should be classed as buildings not as terrain tile that would negate cav in a seige, which is only correct

How bout your allowed to build different types of walls? 

Elmindra wrote: Not exactly.  You need to apply the strength to cost (most people use upkeep) ratio in order to truly judge a unit.  Cavalry has the best attack to cost ratio of any unit by far.

Yes that is 'exactly' what I said.

Elmindra wrote:   Even in unfavorable terrain, they are still superior (with the exception of buildings).

And again you agree with me...

Elmindra wrote: Bows have the best defense to cost ratio, except for vs cavalry.  The problem being is that the cavalry power ratio is so much that you can still attack any terrain (except buildings) and have the advantage.

And 'exactly' how does this differ from what I said?

 

Elmindra wrote:  Attacking a town with a lvl 20 wall on plains with just 7k T2 cavalry will completely wipe 20k T2 archers.  This should not be allowed to happen no matter what.  That is a major disparity of power vs upkeep, with the 7k T2 cav costing 28kgph and the 20k T2 archers costing 60kgph.

If you are unstrategic enough to defend a plains square with archers and then get hit by someone strategic enough to use the best troops for that terrain you deserve much harsher losses if you ask me.

 

Elmindra wrote: My entire point is that there is absolutely no call to build swords if you are not a dwarf, and that while spears are still useful, their training time vs power ratio is not equivalent to bows so spears are not a viable choice as well.  Yes spears are useful vs cavalry, but why train them when you can get more bang in the same amount of time with archers.  We don't need massive changes, just tweeks to terrain and training times.

I would completely disagree with you, I am human and I build swords and I know many dwarven players that do so, they are very good if you have the brains to use them properly, from what I can tell, you want an even playing field between all troop types, and therefore all need for strategic thought or planning removed from the game.

Why not just say we should have just one unit type called soldier and its defence ranking is the same and its attack?

Yes cavalry are great in attack, they are the attack troop after all.  But the other troop types also have their benefits, perhaps you should look at some tourney stats to see the evidence of which are most used.

You base your claim on the idea that cav are the only troops worth producing, try doing that and see how well you can defend your cities?