Goblin Squad Member
|
re: vulnerability window
Just thinking, but if a settlement wishes to have walss it would have to build them, and if they want the gate guarded the settlement should have to pay guards for the duty. The nightwatch should be more expensive. Guards who remain vigilent should be paid better than guards who are lax. Walls that can be walked by more guards should require more extensive construction. Stockade walls are less durable than stone. Moats must be maintained.
In short if your settlement is wealthy and populated you will reduce your vulnerability. Settlements that are underpopulated with poor serfs will be quite vulnerable.
Poorly paid NPCs guards off-duty should be seen quaffing cheap beer in low light hovels or drunken in public. Highly paid guards would have nice homes and a family life. Any observant traveller should be able to determine whether and when attacking a settlement is an acceptible risk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one mechanical function for taking over a settlement would be to have the attackers build a "seige camp" within the same hex as the settlement being attacked. The "seige camp" is immune to attacks by npc guards and has it's own npc guards, defences and schedule, etc. The seige camp requires it's own resources to build and maintain (much less then a full settlement, obviously). It's required size (i.e. how many resources it took) could vary depending upon the level of fortification the defending settlement has.
The mechanical function of a "seige camp" is to "overcome" the "fortifications" of the target settlement and indicate the attacks on it were to "capture" rather then simply to "raid". This matches the way things worked historicaly pretty well. Very rarely was a fortified settlement able to be captured in a mobile raid, the aim of those was usualy to devestate the countryside, damage the economy and accumulate wealth for the raiders, what the English called a chivauchee. Typicaly when a force wanted to actualy capture a fortified settlement, they first set up a seige camp near it. This was done even when the intent was to assault rather then seige the settlement. The reason for this was that in order to successfully assault fortifications you needed specialized equipment... things like scaling ladders, seige towers, catapults, rams, etc. These were rarely, if ever, carried with an attacking army as they made movement too slow and cumbersome. Usualy they were constructed from materials foraged on site (i.e. timber) and in order to securely do that, the attackers needed to setup a camp themselves. It really wasn't until the advent of cannon, that artillery actualy became mobile and moved as part of an army.
The advantages of this system are that I think it accomplishes the goal of making settlement conquest (as opposed to simple raiding) require a significant investment in time and resources for the attacking party and combined with the capturing in stages system I suggested earlier allows it not to be a simple...oops, we got raided on the day eveyone had to work and we lost our settlement....while still allowing conquest to happen.
It also utilizes systems that will already exist mechanicaly for other purposes (so should be easier to build)... camps (resource gathering), construction (of buildings) and npc guards and schedules (for settlements) all exist. So what you would do is modify those systems slightly to account for this new system and add 2 new fields for the settlement object....one would account for damage to the outlying areas of a settlement caused by "raids" and one would account for control over the interior portions of a settlement caused by "assaults".
When folks are "raiding" they are simply going for economic damage to the settlement and getting some wealth in return (which also makes it more difficult for the settlement to afford to maintain it's current defences). When folks are going for "assault" they are going to take over the settlement it'self. The presence or absence of a seige camp in the area can determine which is occuring. In an "assault" attackers interacting with the settlement object (remember, settlements won't be initialy 3d fully rendered buildings at start) will push the control meter onto thier side, but there is a saturation level...it can only be pushed so much in any period of time...adding additional attackers won't push it more. The control meter will drop back down on it's own gradualy over time...but not at a rate which will do anything compared to a sustained series of attacks.... if at any point there are no "seige camps" in the hex (i.e. the defenders have destroyed them) then the control meter automaticaly goes to 0.
That would be my suggestion. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think one mechanical function for taking over a settlement would be to have the attackers build a "seige camp" within the same hex as the settlement being attacked. The "seige camp" is immune to attacks by npc guards and has it's own npc guards, defences and schedule, etc. The seige camp requires it's own resources to build and maintain (much less then a full settlement, obviously). It's required size (i.e. how many resources it took) could vary depending upon the level of fortification the defending settlement has.
The mechanical function of a "seige camp" is to "overcome" the "fortifications" of the target settlement and indicate the attacks on it were to "capture" rather then simply to "raid". This matches the way things worked historicaly pretty well. Very rarely was a fortified settlement able to be captured in a mobile raid, the aim of those was usualy to devestate the countryside, damage the economy and accumulate wealth for the raiders, what the English called a chivauchee. Typicaly when a force wanted to actualy capture a fortified settlement, they first set up a seige camp near it. This was done even when the intent was to assault rather then seige the settlement. The reason for this was that in order to successfully assault fortifications you needed specialized equipment... things like scaling ladders, seige towers, catapults, rams, etc. These were rarely, if ever, carried with an attacking army as they made movement too slow and cumbersome. Usualy they were constructed from materials foraged on site (i.e. timber) and in order to securely do that, the attackers needed to setup a camp themselves. It really wasn't until the advent of cannon, that artillery actualy became mobile and moved as part of an army.
The advantages of this system are that I think it accomplishes the goal of making settlement conquest (as opposed to simple raiding) require a significant investment in time and resources for the attacking party and combined with the capturing in stages system I suggested earlier allows it...
I like this. +1
re: vulnerability window
Just thinking, but if a settlement wishes to have walss it would have to build them, and if they want the gate guarded the settlement should have to pay guards for the duty. The nightwatch should be more expensive. Guards who remain vigilent should be paid better than guards who are lax. Walls that can be walked by more guards should require more extensive construction. Stockade walls are less durable than stone. Moats must be maintained.
In short if your settlement is wealthy and populated you will reduce your vulnerability. Settlements that are underpopulated with poor serfs will be quite vulnerable.
Poorly paid NPCs guards off-duty should be seen quaffing cheap beer in low light hovels or drunken in public. Highly paid guards would have nice homes and a family life. Any observant traveller should be able to determine whether and when attacking a settlement is an acceptible risk.
An easy way to incorporate this into the game would be to have settlement upkeep fees that are paid each week or month, whatever.
Under the settlement upkeep menu could be a Defense menu, where you could choose the level (number) of NPC guards. Say you choose 20 Guards, it. Cost XX gold added onto the settlement upkeep fee. And for whatever reason, all or part of the settlement upkeep fee goes unpaid., well some, or all of the guards would say "screw you, I don't work for free!" And they would just quit showing up.
The problem is how to structure the settlement fees to where they are fair, but aren't just 5 gold when characters have several million in the bank. Nor would it be fair to price the fees at say 50 gold a week when new players, or beginning players don't make 50 gold in a month. I guess a structured system with resource camps, hamlets, villages, towns and cities might solve that issue. Settlement levels that you can grow into if enough people join your settlement.
I like the siege camp idea. Would also allow construction of siege engines?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the siege camp idea. Would also allow construction of siege engines?
From GrumpyMel's statement:
Typicaly when a force wanted to actualy capture a fortified settlement, they first set up a seige camp near it. This was done even when the intent was to assault rather then seige the settlement. The reason for this was that in order to successfully assault fortifications you needed specialized equipment... things like scaling ladders, seige towers, catapults, rams, etc. These were rarely, if ever, carried with an attacking army as they made movement too slow and cumbersome. Usualy they were constructed from materials foraged on site (i.e. timber) and in order to securely do that, the attackers needed to setup a camp themselves.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cases that it is most important to avoid are where a major shift happens before the players can mobilize, and the case where an attacker can force the defenders to be online for long periods of time without costing the attackers much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Attrition and Surprise are both valid strategies in war but the idea is that you want to represent them as IN GAME attrition and surprise not out of game. So I think they happen more in the context of..
Attrition - I expect fighting a full scale war whether on offense or defense will cost ALOT of resources (weapons, consumables, gold, etc) so an organization that has put together a larger war-chest can try to drain an opponents coffers (hence reduce it's combat effectiveness) assuming battles end up fairly even in resolution.
Surprise - It's likely less about being surprised a fight was going to happen and more about being surprised as to what the enemy was bringing to that fight and how they perpared.. (e.g. You were getting ready for a mostly melee engagement and the enemy brought a whole company of mercenary fire mages to the battle. You made a ton of "strength" potions but zero "protection from fire"...going to be a rough day).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Siege Camp idea is a really good one!
So, let's play it out a bit.
1) Will Siege Camps also have "PVP Windows", or do they always have their full, but weaker, number of NPC guards? Maybe the Siege Camp 'windows' automatically are matched to the Settlements windows? That kind of sets the 'normal hours of battle' for this siege so that people can plan to participate.
2) So Siege Camps can only be set up once all other defense buildings have been eliminated from the hex?
3) Can the defender run ops to deny the Siege Camp resupply?
4) Can the defender or attacker place bounties on heads of the opponent players within the hex (so that opportunity seekers come to the hex to enjoy the warzone?)Or would mercenaries have to take an actual commission from one side or the other?
5) How do you ensure that the attacker's resources/defenses at home are strained by the attack? Maybe it opens the attacker's PVP windows by 25% on either side of their current windows? Something else?
Have any of the Dev's commented on how they envision this might work?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Siege Camp idea is a really good one!
So, let's play it out a bit.
1) Will Siege Camps also have "PVP Windows", or do they always have their full, but weaker, number of NPC guards? Maybe the Siege Camp 'windows' automatically are matched to the Settlements windows? That kind of sets the 'normal hours of battle' for this siege so that people can plan to participate.
2) So Siege Camps can only be set up once all other defense buildings have been eliminated from the hex?
3) Can the defender run ops to deny the Siege Camp resupply?
4) Can the defender or attacker place bounties on heads of the opponent players within the hex (so that opportunity seekers come to the hex to enjoy the warzone?)Or would mercenaries have to take an actual commission from one side or the other?
5) How do you ensure that the attacker's resources/defenses at home are strained by the attack? Maybe it opens the attacker's PVP windows by 25% on either side of their current windows? Something else?
1) I'm guessing that Seige Camps should probably be able to set thier own "PvP Window" just like settlements do. Number of NPC Guards should probably be dependant upon the resources poured into a camp, but should probably be significantly more expensive then settlements as settlements have a long term expense while the seige camps only need to fund it long enough for the attackers to knock out the settlement.
2) If defense buildings (e.g. Watchtowers) are seperate from the settlement then, yes. If GW decides to simply make them a function of the settlement object then no.
3) Yes, I would say that's absolutely a viable option.
4) I think it would get a little wonky with adding bounties...I'm guessing the seige/conquest thing would require a declared state of war between the attacker/defender... and probably the hex itself should be a free fire zone (e.g. anyone that enters it is subject to attack) ....while other settled hexes that are not part of the conflict would still retain thier own laws...making it still a crime to murder someone in that hex who might be a supplier.
That would avoid the situation where the attackers/defenders game the system by simply paying (or using alts) that were not party to the conflict to deliver supplies and making anyone attacking them a "criminal" with all the negatives that implies....yet at the same time it wouldn't let the conflict cause bedlam across the entire map.
Basicaly it'd work a bit like wars and trade/supply routes did in real life. Violating a 3rd party flagged trader in a neutral countries territory even if you suspected they might be supplying the country you are at war with was an illegal action...however you could legaly declare the territory of the country you were fighting as a "War Zone" which meant that any ship (whatever the nationality) entering that zone was considered to be carrying supplies to the enemy and thus a legitimate target.
5) I think the simple act of building/maintaining and manning the seige camp along with it's own territories defenses (assuming it had some) would be pretty straining, especialy if you got the resource costs for the seige camp right. It's always (and should be) a much more expensive endevour to try to project power rather then simply maintain that power at home.
4) I think it would get a little wonky with adding bounties...I'm guessing the seige/conquest thing would require a declared state of war between the attacker/defender... and probably the hex itself should be a free fire zone (e.g. anyone that enters it is subject to attack) ....while other settled hexes that are not part of the conflict would still retain thier own laws...making it still a crime to murder someone in that hex who might be a supplier.
That would avoid the situation where the attackers/defenders game the system by simply paying (or using alts) that were not party to the conflict to deliver supplies and making anyone attacking them a "criminal" with all the negatives that implies....yet at the same time it wouldn't let the conflict cause bedlam across the entire map.
Basicaly it'd work a bit like wars and trade/supply routes did in real life. Violating a 3rd party flagged trader in a neutral countries territory even if you suspected they might be supplying the country you are at war with was an illegal action...however you could legaly declare the territory of the country you were fighting as a "War Zone" which meant that any ship (whatever the nationality) entering that zone was considered to be carrying supplies to the enemy and thus a legitimate target.
Lets say I, along with a force, came up to a town and began construction of a siege camp. Perhaps a countdown timer could start hex-wide counting down the time until construction is complete. If a completed siege camp makes the hex a free fire zone, a state of war as it were. Then visitors, traders and those with no desire to take part in the conflict would have until the timer ran out to vacate the hex. This would actually be similar to how things were in ancient times with lines of people streaming from a city about to go to war.
Kinda neat if you ask me, certainly more realistic.
Of course that pretty much jacks anyone who logged off in that area prior to the attacking forces appearance. But it's how conflict zones (can't recall what Eve is calling them) work in Eve. Guess you would log in, go "oh $&)@!" And try to escape where the fighting is not. That or throw your lot in with either the defenders, or the attackers.
That brings up another point. How would you, as an outsider, go about joining in on the "war" without being some 3ed party that gets killed by friendly fire?
Do we know how friendly fire works yet?
Interesting things to ponder! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do we know how friendly fire works yet?
Nope. The closest we have to an official discussion of it so far was Stephen Cheney's post, which I highly recommend you read and then add your own thoughts in that thread.
:D I understand. Thanks for pointing out this thread, I didn't see it.