| Author |
 Topic Search
 Topic Options
|
Hora 
Postmaster
Joined: 10 May 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 839 |
 Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 14:31 |
Hmm.... I would like to
OCCUPY
an enemy city plus forcing the population to produce stuff for me while sitting there... (something like
tribute...)
If anyone would dodge the attack at first, he would have to climb his own walls when returning to take back the city
Oh... and I voted no, as reducing pop is work for siege troups... I'd like more to have a tribute option...
Edited by Hora - 18 Aug 2013 at 14:33
|
 |
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437 |
Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 15:19 |
 Angrim wrote:
i can only speak for myself, but the reason my defensive garrisons leave a city under attack is that defending is a fool's errand in illyriad. if my troops had some way to sell their lives more dearly in defence, with cover behind a thick stone wall, than attacking without any such advantage, that would be enough to keep them in town.
|
That pretty much sums it up. There is currently nothing to be gained from keeping your troops there to defend. If my troops show up at a city with a wall but there are no troops on it they might spend a little energy while they start a fire to burn down the door but they can't be kept out entirely. As someone said above, they can also use ladders and go over the wall if there are no troops there to stop them. A wall is only as good as the troops on it, with no troops it's just a wall that will slow down the attackers without stopping them.
|
|
Myr
Forum Warrior
Joined: 26 May 2011
Location: Orlando, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 437 |
Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 15:29 |
Nalleen and Hora both have interesting ideas as well. Especially the idea of occupying a city and having access to what the people produce while you're there. If you go in with attack troops and occupy you will have the disadvantage of trying to defend with those troops when you're hosts troops come home.
|
|
Angrim
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Location: Laoshin
Status: Offline
Points: 1173 |
Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 16:55 |
Myr wrote:
If my troops show up at a city with a wall but there are no troops on it they might spend a little energy while they start a fire to burn down the door but they can't be kept out entirely. As someone said above, they can also use ladders and go over the wall if there are no troops there to stop them. A wall is only as good as the troops on it, with no troops it's just a wall that will slow down the attackers without stopping them. |
again, i think we run afoul of the very abstract system illy uses to resolve the conflict. this assumes that the citizenry itself, in the absence of their cowardly military, will sit idly while their defences are penetrated. they can now be killed by the incoming army (new) but cannot defend against them? (at the least, i hope i could be counted on for a pail of boiling oil.) it also assumes that the all-cav army carries ladders with it (without a speed penalty), or creates them from available forage (without time being taken in setup), and manages to overcome the wall and sack the city in the instant illy takes to resolve the battle. i would ask at least that a siege-like setup time be required to accomplish all that, possibly in proportion to the level of the wall.
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915 |
Posted: 18 Aug 2013 at 18:52 |
|
the war function in this game needs to become more strategy and less slug fest...having an attack doing nothing but taking simple resources which the game is overfilled with just makes the slugfest siege mechanic the only worthwhile war function....lets make this more of a thinking game than whoever is the biggest wins..i would love pathfinding, i would love battle magic and i would love an attack to cause more damage if the defender wimps out...this could be such an awesome war game with a few adjustments and we are seeing what is happening to the game with its outdated game mechanics and current game play...sory i have to get back to clicking
|
|
Nokigon
Postmaster General
Player Council - Historian
Joined: 07 Nov 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1452 |
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 09:55 |
I'm not really sure where I can put my vote in this poll, but I do know precisely what I believe should happen.
An army without siege engines cannot get inside the walls of a city. This is logic. Otherwise the wall would be pretty useless. I always thought that the battle took place outside of the city gates rather than inside the city, which explained why my victorious forces never killed the mobs of civilians inside the gates. Either that or my troops have an Illy equivalent to the Geneva Convention. Anyway, this theory does have some flaws in itself, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a reasonable explanation yet.
However, what I always thought was ridiculous was this. My army would charge at a city, eagerly awaiting an army to fight. They find nobody to fight. They go up to the walls, turn around and come back..... through the farmyards, quarries and lumberjacks. And leave these people, who are feeding the city, alone. That is the ridiculous thing.
I think that instead of the city losing population randomly, I think that the army should have the ability to deal damage to the outlying basic res buildings in the city.
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97 |
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 11:16 |
|
it should not be too hard to open the gates of a city if noone is defending it. You don't have to jump over the walls, you just need to find someone to open it for you and i am sure someone will do it especially when the city is left defenseless..
|
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118 |
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 14:53 |
|
Don't underestimate the power of simple folk with torches and pitchforks...
|
|
|
|
Auraya
Postmaster
Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 523 |
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 16:13 |
Nokigon wrote:
An army without siege engines cannot get inside the walls of a city. This is logic. Otherwise the wall would be pretty useless. I always thought that the battle took place outside of the city gates rather than inside the city, which explained why my victorious forces never killed the mobs of civilians inside the gates. Either that or my troops have an Illy equivalent to the Geneva Convention. Anyway, this theory does have some flaws in itself, but it's the closest thing I've seen to a reasonable explanation yet.
However, what I always thought was ridiculous was this. My army would charge at a city, eagerly awaiting an army to fight. They find nobody to fight. They go up to the walls, turn around and come back..... through the farmyards, quarries and lumberjacks. And leave these people, who are feeding the city, alone. That is the ridiculous thing.
I think that instead of the city losing population randomly, I think that the army should have the ability to deal damage to the outlying basic res buildings in the city.
|
QFT.
If a city has walls up, an army cannot get at the general population without laying siege to the city. Therefore, everything within that city is safe. Perfectly realistic and I don't really understand why that would be an issue for anyone. They don't kill the people working in the quarries etc because presumably a warning bell is sounded and everyone runs inside the city walls. What idiot would sit outside harvesting crops whilst a hostile army was charging at them with no defending army?
If the city was undefended, they probably would raze to the ground any food production and try to starve the people inside.. but isn't that what they are doing by grabbing basics? So again, realistic. The adv res would be stored inside the city which is why we don't get those although.. there's an interesting point regarding cows and horses. You could argue that the horses would be kept in a stable within the city walls but do farmers really keep their livestock in cities? One suspects they are out in the fields grazing.
|
|
Arakamis
Greenhorn
Joined: 09 Jul 2012
Location: Waterdeep
Status: Offline
Points: 97 |
Posted: 19 Aug 2013 at 23:01 |
|
All you need is one person to open the gates of an undefended city. While we are at being realistic, leaving a city undefended just because it has walls has nothing to do with being realistic. Walls cannot fight for you and gates are easy to open especially when the city is left defenseless.
|
|
Tweet
To dodge, or not to dodge?