Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Siege Engines and Camps

kandorius
This whole thing feels like something being forced, which, in my experience, is never a good idea.
Smitty
Some more thoughts about the current outpost/holding warfare, and some changes that I think you should look at..
I do not understand why an attacking company only has 24 hours after the outpost is taken to conquer the holding.
I also feel there be damage to outpost after they are overrun and not just do damage to them if the holding is overrun.
With sieges using these same mechanics, I think it may be time to look at how/when things are vulnerable.. Give the people that are supposed to be defending these structures a reason to be there.
How long is are holdings(engines) vulnerable would be the question-

My suggestion would be take the 2 outpost in the hex(add up the + values) and get the average with the min amount being 1 day..

So if you have 2 +3 camps(outpost) and both are overrun.. the engine(holding) would be vulnerable for 3 days.. those camps would also both loose a + and go down to +2 even if the holding(engine) was not overrun.
It just feels the group who owns the outpost/ holdings are given too much credit for just creating them and putting them down. They should have to worry about them more and be mindful of them during conflicts( feuds or sieges)…
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smitty
Some more thoughts about the current outpost/holding warfare, and some changes that I think you should look at..
I do not understand why an attacking company only has 24 hours after the outpost is taken to conquer the holding.
I also feel there be damage to outpost after they are overrun and not just do damage to them if the holding is overrun.
With sieges using these same mechanics, I think it may be time to look at how/when things are vulnerable.. Give the people that are supposed to be defending these structures a reason to be there.
How long is are holdings(engines) vulnerable would be the question-

My suggestion would be take the 2 outpost in the hex(add up the + values) and get the average with the min amount being 1 day..

So if you have 2 +3 camps(outpost) and both are overrun.. the engine(holding) would be vulnerable for 3 days.. those camps would also both loose a + and go down to +2 even if the holding(engine) was not overrun.
It just feels the group who owns the outpost/ holdings are given too much credit for just creating them and putting them down. They should have to worry about them more and be mindful of them during conflicts( feuds or sieges)…

I may be wrong but my impression was the whole two day thing was to give a chance at scheduling a defense instead of making every defense a matter of being vigilant everyday. If overrunning an outpost damaged it surprise attacks could be used to nuke outposts without much chance of a defense. Which when you tie into infinite feuding makes the whole thing an even bigger mess if that was how it worked.
Smitty
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smitty
Some more thoughts about the current outpost/holding warfare, and some changes that I think you should look at..
I do not understand why an attacking company only has 24 hours after the outpost is taken to conquer the holding.
I also feel there be damage to outpost after they are overrun and not just do damage to them if the holding is overrun.
With sieges using these same mechanics, I think it may be time to look at how/when things are vulnerable.. Give the people that are supposed to be defending these structures a reason to be there.
How long is are holdings(engines) vulnerable would be the question-

My suggestion would be take the 2 outpost in the hex(add up the + values) and get the average with the min amount being 1 day..

So if you have 2 +3 camps(outpost) and both are overrun.. the engine(holding) would be vulnerable for 3 days.. those camps would also both loose a + and go down to +2 even if the holding(engine) was not overrun.
It just feels the group who owns the outpost/ holdings are given too much credit for just creating them and putting them down. They should have to worry about them more and be mindful of them during conflicts( feuds or sieges)…

I may be wrong but my impression was the whole two day thing was to give a chance at scheduling a defense instead of making every defense a matter of being vigilant everyday. If overrunning an outpost damaged it surprise attacks could be used to nuke outposts without much chance of a defense. Which when you tie into infinite feuding makes the whole thing an even bigger mess if that was how it worked.
Except they are removing infinite feuding or GM mandating it not to be a thing right? …

If someone surprise attacks you, and overruns your outpost , you have 1 day to mount a defense ( i feel if its a 5 day feud and they are +3 outpost.. you should have to defend it for 3 days), Right now you only have to defend it 24 hours later… and unless the holding is taken then nothing really happens ..

You get surprised..
you defend the holding the following day..
and then you are safe.. for ____ no infinite feud rule..
Then at least 24 hours after outpost are taken again..
repeat the process..
Smitty
Also adding this ..

If you get a surprise attack, why should it not do any damage?
What is the purpose of the surprise attack if it does no lasting damage?
With Siege camps , you are attacking a settlement, there should be no surprise involved and you should be ready willing and able to defend these things every day.. instead of only showing up on engine vulnerability day..

Meanwhile.. for regular outpost and holdings - if you are surprised, and you many loose a + on your outpost, but over all those are pretty easy to replace, and the aggressor would actually feel like they accomplish something that first night.
Duffy Swiftshadow
Your mixing past with possible new which is confusing things a bit. The old system works the way it does and the new system may change that.

Surprise attacks get you leg up but don't score permanent damage because in this game they didn't want naked and random aggression to guarantee you reward. Otherwise we go back to the standing guard all the time arguments, it's just not fun. Go play a gankbox if that's your thing, they don't seem to want to make one here.

For old style holding fights if you allow outpost capture only to degrade the outpost it's bad because attrition and harassment become the default strategy (which the feud system is already favoring heavily). You cant upgrade outposts so in order to fix the damage you need to tear down the outpost which is the same resource cost as losing it. So now just taking the outposts is almost as good as taking the holding if your goal was to cost them resources. It's just not fun. Add in that winning and losing those fights don't mean much anyways pretty much insures it doesn't matter. Old system is pretty busted all around for both attackers and defenders, but in different ways.

The possible new system may remove some of that issue if they force you to publicly declare your feud and/or sieges and disallow infinite feuding. The idea that taking siege outpost inhibits the siege holding but doesn't degrade it might be interesting to expand to regular holdings; proto raiding basically. Not much value due to current bulk supplies but a possible future concept. Anyways other details are hard to extrapolate until the plan is laid out a bit better.

Honestly if they suddenly want to put more restrictions on feuding it really hints that the system just needs to be redone at some point (may be way out of scope right now), but it's showing how busted, limited, and unfun things are right now. No amount of hand waving is gonna drastically improve any of this.
Smitty
On my way home.. will read in depth later.. but in regards to upgrading outpost I was under the impression the current system let's you up grade if you have the item in your invetory.. then upgrade it to the version you are carrying.
Will verify that later.. but from what I understand that is how it works…

The point of feuds us suppose to be harrowing a target… what is engaging if the target doesn't have to worry about anything for 24 hours.. and then only has to worry about for 2 hours….
Duffy Swiftshadow
Smitty
On my way home.. will read in depth later.. but in regards to upgrading outpost I was under the impression the current system let's you up grade if you have the item in your invetory.. then upgrade it to the version you are carrying.
Will verify that later.. but from what I understand that is how it works…

I'm about 99.99999999999% sure you cannot upgrade anything.

Smitty
The point of feuds us suppose to be harrowing a target… what is engaging if the target doesn't have to worry about anything for 24 hours.. and then only has to worry about for 2 hours….

What's engaging about standing around in case someone feuds you in a two to three hour window every night? What's engaging about randomness? The idea is to get two groups together to actually clash and have the outcome determined by who is the victor of said clash. If I can do meaningful damage to my opponent with no risk to myself by 'surprising them' that is the optimal strategy and I would abuse it. Pursuing that strategy then forces them to be constantly vigilant, which gets old real fast in video game land and is the opposite of the goal of deciding outcomes based on player conflict.
Edam
Currently:
  • if you are not in a feud you can upgrade an outpost or holding one step at a time to the maximum of the current kit.
  • if you want to upgrade higher than the current kit I beleive you can apply a new kit of the same type over the top of the existing holding or outpost without taking the old one down, but in reality there is no difference either way as it cost you a new kit at a higher level either way
  • changing the outpost type requires demolishing the existing outpost
  • changing the holding type requires you to demolish all holdings and outposts

  • I am under the impression you cannot do this while feuded but not sure.
    Duffy Swiftshadow
    Good point, even upgrading it again is technically the full cost of the kit, dunno why I didn't realize that.

    I'll see if I can try the upgrade thing at some point today, but as far as I know that was talked about but never implemented, could be wrong but I have no recollection of anyone mentioning doing it. I would have upgraded some stuff if that was possible.
     
    You must be logged into an enrolled account to post