Take over anothers city

Parennis wrote: The imbalance is that the Sieging army has all the benefits of stacked defenses on a square whilst simultaneously having the ability to demolish a city without risk to the Siege Engines or the army.

That what was i trying to say.

But we shall see what the future will bring.

Parennis wrote: The imbalance is that the Sieging army has all the benefits of stacked defenses on a square whilst simultaneously having the ability to demolish a city without risk to the Siege Engines or the army. HonoredMule wrote: If there's a balance change to be made, it's this:  instead of automatically bombarding the city every hour, the besieging party should be allowed to manually bombard the city up to once every two hours with each siege engine firing two or three times, and make the bombarding army accompany that with a preceding assault against the towns' defenders. Unless I'm missing something this would actually penalise the attackers much more than having the defenders allowed to counterattack as one? ie, requiring a bombarding army to assault the city's defenders after the siege engines fire would mean that the bombarding army was unsupported by the reinforcements accompanying it on the siege square during an attack against the full might of the defenders' troops, engaging on the defenders' choice of terrain, with the possibility that the defenders might still have a city wall up (even if you take out rune recasting).

Actually, I do not think it's nearly as crippling to siege mechanics as facing a combined counterattack.  Besiegers have the benefit of making the first move.  They can clear the city before they arrive and then work together to keep it cleared, or simply deal with that afterward.  It then becomes a complicated and delicate situation for the besiegers to manage, but at least they have some control of their strategy, and continuing ability to influence the situation.  And this is the way it should be.  Victory should be decided more by teamwork, strategy, and skill than just raw numbers.

In the combined counter-assault, it is far more troubling that alliances can gather a vast quantity of small armies that will spread the cost of a successful counterattack very thin (and this is the part that has proven a little troubling for the besieged attacking the siege camp--this being the actual problem, it is what should be directly addressed).

In a combined counterattack defenders have the benefit of constant scout reports on the camp, and know exactly when they have enough to counterattack and win (or at least decimate the siege capability).  They can then do so within a matter of minutes and can see on the world map that no reinforcements will be arriving when they do.  Defenders would have complete power to end the siege the moment they are ready to succeed, and could only be defeated by having alliance/confederation-wide power within a roughly 500 tile radius that is insufficient to destroy what the besieging camp could gather.  The defenders don't even have any guesswork involved.  Just watch the camp and attack it as soon as you're strong enough to overpower it.

Basically, with storming the city's defenses regularly (and I suggested before the bombardment, though this is a flexible point for tweaking balance), besiegers must carefully manage the situation on an ongoing basis.  With mass counterassault, they're just waiting for the hammer to drop, or continually stacking all they've got in a vain hope of staying ahead...the only possible successful siege becomes one on which you bet the whole alliance and every friend you've got.

HonoredMule wrote: In a combined counterattack defenders have the benefit of constant scout reports on the camp, and know exactly when they have enough to counterattack and win (or at least decimate the siege capability).  They can then do so within a matter of minutes and can see on the world map that no reinforcements will be arriving when they do.  Defenders would have complete power to end the siege the moment they are ready to succeed, and could only be defeated by having alliance/confederation-wide power within a roughly 500 tile radius that is insufficient to destroy what the besieging camp could gather.  The defenders don't even have any guesswork involved.  Just watch the camp and attack it as soon as you're strong enough to overpower it. Basically, with storming the city's defenses regularly (and I suggested before the bombardment, though this is a flexible point for tweaking balance), besiegers must carefully manage the situation on an ongoing basis.  With mass counterassault, they're just waiting for the hammer to drop, or continually stacking all they've got in a vain hope of staying ahead...the only possible successful siege becomes one on which you bet the whole alliance and every friend you've got.

So...  you're in favour of testing the total strength of the sieging army on its own versus whatever the defenders have managed to get in place to reinforce the city, coming from the perspective that you'll be able to "manage" the besieged city by keeping it clear of defenders via regular attacks.

If the counterattack thing happens, why can't you just "manage" the besieged city's forces anyway?  ie Stop them getting enough troops together to counterattack your sieging army successfully?

Either way we're talking about incredibly overwhelming force on the part of the sieging army.

I haven't been involved in siege yet.  But I have heard frustration from players at what is essentially an impotence - of having a potentially overwhelming force based in the city, but unable to strike against the sieging army+reinforcements in the next door square because the mechanics don't let the armies be combined; whilst the Sieging army lays waste to the city by bombardment. That seems wrong to them, and to me also.

The thing that seems to have changed all of this was SC's announcement that reinforcements could be stacked on squares.  Looking through the release notes and searching the forum, I don't see that this change was mentioned anywhere earlier as something we were going to get.

So why don't we just return to the way we all thought it was going to be?  ie One army - the sieging army - on a square on its own without reinforcements.  Then we don't need counterattacks at all.

One more thing i want to add to this.
It isnt about attack or defending though.
Its about a sieging army though.

Since armies can be on squares for days far far away.
What are they running on ?
Are they chewing on grass?

I know they need gold as upkeep, and with the gold they can buy food to eat IN THE CITY.
But outside, far from the city?

What about implementing something like when they are out there occupying/sieging/reinforcing a square for days, that they need food to be sent to them?
Offcourse armies bring rations with them, so maybe after 1 day they need food supplied to them with caravans?

Just an idea that sprang out of my mind after reading the above posts.


Edited by Wuzzel - 03 Jun 2010 at 20:51

I'm not completely opposed to developing limitations around "funding the away missions," but besides being more complicated and requiring considerable development, it has its own set of inherent problems:
 - Military capability becomes more closely tied to economic output (shifts importance toward raw numbers--even partially mitigating the effort of saving strength for larger operations--and away from strategy and by extension teamwork).
 - The mechanics of sending support (regular caravans) impacts viability of long-range support in a way that restricts operations to more local focus (promotes solo efforts and small gang wars over imperialism--punishes choices based on common values or natural kinship rather than locality and ultimately limits players' diplomatic options).
 - The complexity required for such is quite elaborate...if for example the besieged are able to "blockade" the siege camp, then parties in the siege camp should be able to counterattack the blockade.  On the long term this may be viable, but can't come quickly enough for an immediate solution provided there is one needed.

I still stand unconvinced that there's a problem at all.  Of course people are going to complain about feeling helpless, for two major reasons:  until siege was implemented no one was really capable of experiencing real loss many have become accustomed to a sim city attitude where the most feverish war is little more than temporary stalled growth; and, many will just be unable to accept that when they are outmatched they should lose and face real loss of investment.  This is a strategy game and those are the stakes.

It was Diablito who took an "all's fair because it's a game" attitude, and myself who has said from the beginning that people in this game are investing real effort and emotion and their losses are real, therefore should not be incurred lightly.  But then if no one faces real loses, then no one can achieve real gains either...unless you enjoy playing a lifelong game of keeping up with the Joneses.

Besides which, siege is the last stage of a conflict--the final blow.  When a real siege is properly executed, the defender will be helpless regardless of mechanics, because the attacker wouldn't be sieging if he hadn't already won a safe level of control over the situation.  The defender's loss began not when a siege camp showed up, but when said defender fell behind in military strength, or made too many enemies at once, or didn't ally himself with the right people, etc.  In some cases, it takes a lot of data, analysis, and perception to even recognize when you've already started losing.  Those who approach the game with simpler attitudes won't even be able to tell how long ago they lost, and will blame their misfortune on the first harbinger they recognize:  the siege camp.

I am not suggesting this is White's position, I am instead thinking of the players that did petition this issue.  And I'm not downplaying their talent either.  How does one know when he is pursuing diplomacy enough, or when he is insufficiently aware of the threats around him, or when he's consorting with the wrong people, or when he and his friends are outnumbered by his enemies?  Sometimes you can be actively making enemies without even knowing about it.  It's all as complicated as life itself.

I'm rambling.  Sorry.