Proposal: More realistic city defense

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Proposal: More realistic city defense

This topic contains 100 replies, has 19 voices, and was last updated by  Hatmage 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 11 posts - 91 through 101 (of 101 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #218802

    NINJEW
    Member

    \
    Agreed, and the same thing that I said above. Ninjew would not have any problems with crows taking over cities Bird(emic) style if he left at least 1-2 irregulars to defend the town (possibly armed with coathangers).

    if those bird can kill the trained soldiers put in place to defend the city i don’t know why it would be unbelievable that they couldn’t threaten the untrained, unarmed populace

    but beyond that the idea that abstract game mechanics like city capture should bow down to your ~immersion~ is somewhat silly, since this is a game first and foremost, and a life simulator uh, probably last? there’s not much here that’s realistic

    #218854

    Gloweye
    Member

    Moreover, if you don’t want your cities to be taken that easily, why don’t you build a garrison?

    Heck, I’d like it if you’d get unhappiness penalties for not garrisoning cities. How is your populace supposed to feel safe?

    The ONLY part of this train of thought that I like would be to build a couple of units (max 2/3/4/5/6 depending on city size?), which don’t occupy a city hex, cost half upkeep, and cannot leave the city. That way, you could force a defense of 4 stacks, regardless of attack angle. Removes some bother, but it SHOULD require you to actually spend time and resources to build it.

    Oh, and it should of course be visibly from a distance. Don’t know how to do that, though…

    #218855

    NINJEW
    Member

    giving the side with walls also a guaranteed 4stack defense seems like it could be an issue

    please don’t encourage turtle strategies, if you really want that dread already does it fairly well and it just makes the game go by so much slower when you force the attacker to build up an absolutely ridiculous advantage over the defender to have any hope of gaining ground

    #219046

    Zepheyr
    Member

    People who play these kinds of video games are playing mostly singleplayer, and solo players tend to prefer turtle strategies. I don’t think encouraging or discouraging them here is going to change anyone’s mind.

    I know it’s annoying for the people facing them, but you should know by now that a lot of people enjoy playing defensively.

    #219110

    NINJEW
    Member

    aow3 provides a lot of options for turtlers though, they don’t need more

    there’s the towers, stone walls, wall enchantments, and the entire dreadnought class

    like the defender in a city seige already has a massive advantage (unless the defender isn’t a dreadnought and the attacker is a dreadnought), i don’t understand these calls for more to that. i think the current state is an excellent balance between “attacker needs to bring more units than the defender has” and “defender can’t win 3 to 1, and thus needs to invest properly in its turtlewall”

    #219111

    NINJEW
    Member

    like having 3 stacks sitting on a supercity require like 9 stacks of one-after-the-other seiging doesn’t sound fun for anyone. certainly not for MP, and the SP guys have to leave their shells sometme to conquer anoher city, where the AI will have the exact same thing

    #219159

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    My bad, I thought you started this thread but I see now some dude called Apopov did. At any rate, grimbeak crows are terribly weak and the AI doesn’t scout with a horde of 6, usually just 1-2. They can be killed easily even by Tier I defenders. No-one should have problems against them if they leave a few defenders in every town.

    #219171

    Hatmage
    Member

    The ONLY part of this train of thought that I like would be to build a couple of units (max 2/3/4/5/6 depending on city size?), which don’t occupy a city hex, cost half upkeep, and cannot leave the city. That way, you could force a defense of 4 stacks, regardless of attack angle. Removes some bother, but it SHOULD require you to actually spend time and resources to build it.

    Hey, I was going to suggest more or less this – the way I see it, something similar to dominions’ province defence – soldiers without upkeep who cannot be moved in any way – might not be too bad if payed for up front, though they’d be terrible if recieved freely & automatically everywhere, and if free on throne cities migh speed up the early game if that was seen as desirable.

    That being said, I am inclined to agree with Ninjew’s point that the current strength of ranged troops on walls is really quite good relative to attacker strength. A garrison of solely T1 melee troops might be the easiest thing to balance if a change was made, but any change is likely to have unwanted balance ramifications. If some change should come about in the future that makes the current defensive options less worthwhile, though, garrisons might then become a much better idea.

    Lastly, if garrisons are ever available they should probably be limited to 3 units, and concealed armies should be able to bypass them, as Ericridge suggested, though his “mayor assassination” idea seems like a very complicated solution tacked onto a simple one.

    #219198

    BB Shockwave
    Member

    To add to this – I suggested this in the Ballista revival topic too, considering how in the previous games this unit was basically mass-produced by both AI and human players for town defense, it could be added maybe as a defensive unit to cities that is built in cities but doesn’t appear on the overland map, except for sieges. Of course, realistically there should be only one of it, maybe two for a Metropolis, to not to make it overpowered.

    #219199

    NINJEW
    Member

    the advantage of an additional powerful ranged unit on walls is kind of exactly the thing i mean when i say “please don’t add more powerful defensive options, being able to gain ground once a century is cool and fun”

    #219206

    Hatmage
    Member

    Trebuchets already make decent garrison units with a semi-dependence on the city to heal, and by the time the counterweight trebuchets seen in game were widely used ballistae weren’t. Which makes the development siege missile weapons kind of opposite to that of the man portable variety, which started with slings and moved toward crossbows.

    The sheer synergy between ranged units and walls is why I think garrisons, if added, should be melee only. Not only does this avoid giving too much of an edge to a defender, it provides them with the troops they’re least likely to have several of in the city already.

    I’d love a really good game that focused on sieges, where you managed not just troops but bucket brigades to control fires, engineers and surveyors to attack walls, tried to strike a balance between conserving supplies and conserving morale et cetera, but Aow3 is not that game, and really can’t be. Druids would just cheat and magically grow food in their cities.

Viewing 11 posts - 91 through 101 (of 101 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.