You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.
This topic contains 130 replies, has 38 voices, and was last updated by 
Brother JO 8 years, 8 months ago.
-
Posts
-
There’s nothing ever saying that the player on the defensive can’t have chosen to attack instead. If they’re defending, they’ve either been ambushed (kudos to the attacker for outmaneuvering them on the strategic map) or they’ve chosen to take advantage of a defensive position.
Specifically in the case of sieges, they already have the benefit of the city defenses. Do they need a special the-attacker-is-a-moron bonus too? No.Having the attacker start at longer range and, optionally, spread out still gives the defender benefits. They have the opportunity to cast the same spell – and even if that isn’t an AoE that catches the entire enemy army in one blast, it’s still an advantage. They get the ability to set up their force before the attacker gets to them. They have the option to wait and force the attacker to come to them, possibly through city walls and other obstacles. And if there are such obstacles outside the walls hampering and channeling the attacker… then put them on the map and force the attacker to deal with them, not have them be something that justifies forcing the attacker to adopt what local tabletop RPG players refer to as the ‘fireball formation’ regardless of how tactically unwise this is.
Totally agree, defender has already walls, and they can block the gates with soldiers so you have to break multiple gates(they can still block other gates with soldiers if they have enough melee) and this gives them extra turn or two to shoot’n kill everything.
I think defender has enough advantage already.
This is why i said i half agree =P But i also only half agree with you guys.
Walls are not enough to balance out a siege, in straight up 50/50 fights, sure the scales are tipped in the defenders favor immensely.
But !!
The attacker is not an idiot, he is going to take more units so he can take the walls.
And, as i said before, the terms of the battle are decided by the attacker, no mater how much planning the defender does its the attacker than chooses when, where and how to go about it.
If done correctly, the attacker can take the right counter units and win very quickly. This would make for very boring games with the attacker always winning. Defending becoming more of a chore than anything else.
Think about it, how often do you lose when you lay a siege or battle? You are usually sure you will achieve victory, either by out classing, specing or teching your opponent.
Starting further apart, spread out, gives the attacker another boon to his attack. Taking that initial damage gives the defender some chances and options. Weakening the attacker on turn 1 if only for balance reasons.
Starting spread out or in close formation is the only option that should be available, not starting out of range. (that is the siege part, not the invasion – which has its own separate set of mechanics which should be talked about separately.)
You’re forgetting something, something I also forgot to mention… 😛
Shooters,archers,farters,muskeeters are all now buffed.They do not miss anymore.
In AoW2 even Cannons missed A LOT. They missed that much and when they didn’t miss, they went full troll by dealing 1 damage or 2 damage when they could deal 16 damage 😛
What I mean is battles are more accurate and more about skill than luck.Because when it came to luck, shooters were always unlucky compared to melee units.
But in AoW3 shooters are trolling no more 😀
ouuu i suppose so .. yea i guess the walls mean a lot more now then – think walls could block 90-100% of the dmg? priests literally on their bellies wouldn’t get hit by a halfling pebble 😛
In the video it only blocked a %, i would of liked to see some areas of the walls be more defensive (gatehouse or something) but also not as good for the defender (smaller range arc in the gatehouse etc)
Another consideration is that for the “the attacker will always bring a force they’re confident will win” argument – if this argument does indeed hold, it will always apply however strong the defender advantage is. Meanwhile, the defender is – unless they’ve been thoroughly outmaneuvered – just as free to send reinforcements as the attacker is.
it will always apply however strong the defender advantage is
Of course, but just like the tower guard and other defensive buildings, the defender needs something just to add that little bit of extra kick making defenses more interesting and worth while.
No extra boons would make for “w/e ive lost this with little chance of hurting the attacking army” situations. This is what the attacker is always aiming for, but it shouldn’t be a common situation.
If defenders need extra boons, they should come in the form of actual, physical and magical defenses. Not a totally artificial game mechanic that forces the attacking force to be morons and clump up into fireball formation when they KNOW they’re going to be hit by fireballs (or the equivalent).
Having to approach combats in fireball formation and starting within bowshot of the walls when you have siege engines doesn’t make sieges more interesting to me. Instead, it a) feels unrealistic, and b) in AoW2 at least, what it did was encourage me to simply engage in sieges with flying, teleporting, or just plain heavy melee troops and just rushing them. When you can confidently expect fragile siege engines to be targeted and destroyed before you get to act – which happened to me a LOT in AoW2 before I stopped bothering to bring them – then you learn to, well, stop bothering to bring them.
I never said they should clump up, no idea why you keep bringing this up lol
Same comments apply to setting up within bowshot of the walls when you have longer-range siege pieces, really. Both come under the qualification of “the attacker is being a moron”.
Possibly there could be another defense that can be built, the effect of which is to prevent the attacker from being able to effectively fire on the walls from outside of bowshot, but that should be something that has an ingame reason for happening, rather than the attacker being forced to do something stupid because reasons.
Same comments apply to setting up within bowshot of the walls when you have longer-range siege pieces, really. Both come under the qualification of “the attacker is being a moron”.
Possibly there could be another defense that can be built, the effect of which is to prevent the attacker from being able to effectively fire on the walls from outside of bowshot, but that should be something that has an ingame reason for happening, rather than the attacker being forced to do something stupid because reasons.
No dude, that is why we have the new siege mechanic – you dont have to attack now and can wait them out. Long range attacks such as cannons should be used during that stage (for what your talking about at least).
No dude, that is why we have the new siege mechanic – you dont have to attack now and can wait them out. Long range attacks such as cannons should be used during that stage (for what your talking about at least).
Still, even before charging in you have some sort of plan, you don’t just jump into enemy arrows bro.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.