|
|
|
 |

January 18th, 2004, 09:00 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 500km from Ulm
Posts: 2,279
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 12 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
Don't forget - there are still those build-in garrison archers manning the walls, or to be more precise, one or more towers only.
A.
__________________
As for AI the most effective work around to this problem so far is to simply use an American instead, they tend to put up a bit more of a fight than your average Artificial Idiot.
... James McGuigan on rec.games.computer.stars somewhen back in 1998 ...
|

January 18th, 2004, 09:53 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: twilight zone
Posts: 2,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
Quote:
Originally posted by Arralen:
Don't forget - there are still those build-in garrison archers manning the walls, or to be more precise, one or more towers only.
|
Which are inconsequential:
- They are still there, even after you breach the door and are allowed to storm the keep, so it's not like you must "knock out the pillbox first, so they stop resisting"
- They don't do enough damage to the type of attacker I sent in for that to be much of a concern.
I think the devs either don't want flyers to easily ransack empty castles, or they just overlooked the idea of the flyers-only attack. As such, a castle attack will always take at least 2 months, and thus risks the enemy having time to bring troops from nearby to relieve the siege. So much for the airborne blitz ... 
|

January 18th, 2004, 10:11 AM
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
Flying already has a huge numbers of advantage over walking troops (the primary ones being able to strike past domains not through them, like even hightly mobile land armies). Being able to circumvent the Siege phase of a castle would be too much.
All flying troops would have to be dramatically rebalanced to account for this, making them overall much weaker.
Even though it's illogical, I prefer it this way so that having a castle is an effective speedbump for invasions.
|

January 18th, 2004, 10:35 AM
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 201
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
How about this :
The Vastness flies in, lands in the courtyard. Nobody challenges it. Good ? Wait...
"All right, I'm in the courtyard, no enemies, let's raid the treasury while I'm at it..."
"Damn ! Somebody locked all the gates !! And where are all the servants ?"
Meanwhile, inside :
"Quick, bring another table here ! And put that wardrobe against the window !
- Is it gone yet ?
- No, hush...
- What do we do ?
- We've got about three years worth of food, and the well under the dungeon, we'll wait it out..."
|

January 18th, 2004, 10:49 AM
|
 |
Major General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: twilight zone
Posts: 2,247
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
ROTFLMAO. That was precious. Thanks!
|

January 18th, 2004, 11:05 AM
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 54
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
Quote:
Originally posted by General Tacticus:
How about this :
Meanwhile, inside :
"Quick, bring another table here ! And put that wardrobe against the window !
- Is it gone yet ?
- No, hush...
- What do we do ?
- We've got about three years worth of food, and the well under the dungeon, we'll wait it out..."
|
Good idea lets just ignore the vastness and it will leave 
__________________
All is ONE and no one is TWO
|

January 18th, 2004, 11:14 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4,463
Thanks: 25
Thanked 92 Times in 43 Posts
|
|
Re: Flying siege?
Flying units are more effective when breaking down the walls in a siege, so there is something.
As most sieges involves a grounded army it is only a bonus. The fliers are supposed to wait for their grounded friends 
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|