Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is referred to as a siege in most games is actually an assault.
A siege is a military blockade of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by attrition or assault. The term derives from sedere, Latin for "to sit". Generally speaking, siege warfare is a form of constant, low-intensity conflict characterized by one party holding a strong, static defensive position.
So how would that look if we translated that into PFO? I would say in 99% of cases a direct assault against a city with high development indexes should be a lesson in futility, while an assault against a point of interest (though costly and lengthy) should be the primary way to take them.
When you control a hex adjacent to a settlement you should be able to set it to siege mode. While in seige mode the outposts stop producing resources and become quarters for troops. The troops from those outposts are constantly opperating massive trebuchets that slowly do damage to the cities structures and development indexes. Raiding the outposts slows down the trebuchets for awhile and brings them to a complete halt if all outposts are put out of action.
If a settlement becomes entirely surrounded by hexes in siege mode it's development indexes can no longer be raised unless cosuming emergency supplies that have been stored away. Additional emergency supplies can't be brought in unless one of the surrounding hexes is knocked out of siege mode.
The point is a large vibrant settlement that took months or years to construct can't be lost in hours. It's a long drawn out process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't know how much of the outpost production is needed for new settlement construction and how much of it is for upkeep. If the settlement has no stores of wood or other fuel, the forges will stop running, for example.
I like the idea of long term sieges. But it all depends on the settlement. If Smallville has a 10-15' wall or palisade all of the way around, we're not talking some crusader fort that took 10 years to build. It will keep out small raids, but might still be vulnerable to assault.
Having said that, there should be a way to park a force on an outlying hex and shut down production. Eventually the defender needs to run of the force or come to terms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
+1 for sieges in some way or shape. I worry, however, that such protracted engagements would boil down to whoever has more people online at the time, resulting in a lot of back and forth capturing which wouldn't feel much like a "strong static defensive position" at all. Anybody who can brainstorm ideas for making sieging a fun, interesting, and tactically viable option? (not dismissing your ideas on it entirely, Andius, but I think some additional nuance should be added, and the idea can be built upon some more)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
+1 for sieges in some way or shape. I worry, however, that such protracted engagements would boil down to whoever has more people online at the time, resulting in a lot of back and forth capturing which wouldn't feel much like a "strong static defensive position" at all. Anybody who can brainstorm ideas for making sieging a fun, interesting, and tactically viable option? (not dismissing your ideas on it entirely, Andius, but I think some additional nuance should be added, and the idea can be built upon some more)
There are two solutions for this IMO.
1. PvP windows. I would say being in seige mode should require a 3 hour PvP window at minimum but they should still get to set one. This would make it very difficult to break a siege outside that window without overwhelming force and make it so they can set those windows to their most active hours.
2. You could do raise the barrier to taking a POI a bit by adding some conditions that make it harder to assault if not dealt with first such as a bonus to defenses granted by operational outposts. We know during traditional seiges the besieging force often built their own fortifications.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea but I believe it needs to be refined. For one, I don't like taking the action out of the player's hands.
Some things that I think need revisiting:
1) Hex control should not equal total domination. What would be the point of smugglers and blockade runners?
2) Auto siege weapons are a horrible idea. Leave it to a player to build AND operate the siege weapons. I don't want NpCs handling my strategies and tactics.
3) Assaults are viable in every age. From the first generation of warfare through the "fourth", there have been generals who, through heavily detailed and thought out processes were able to besiege and then assault major settlements. The fall of Constantinople would serve a key here. During its time, it was the most heavily fortified city in the world, and it fell to superior planning and operations. ((And one insanely skilled general))
I agree that a hasty or poorly planned assault (Often referred to as a Hasty Attack) should end disastrously for those that attempt it without the proper openings.
The point being: I don't want to see player actions skinned from the game. Players should be the planners, operators, and achievers within Pathfinder Online, not the nameless NpCs.
((Ninja correction: Traditional Sieges brought what equipment they could with them, but would normally take what they needed from the land they were occupying. Very rarely did they construct fortifications to perform a siege. And a correction to myself in the same: This also heavily depends on the Era of warfare as well.))
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The siege window would probably tie defending players too much to their settlement when the window is not open. Which is in a way realistic, but is it good for the game. I understand if your at war with the neighboring settlement you have to watch your back, but if you can't leave your settlement because of enemy npcs are surrounding it, it doesn't sound meaningful. And what faction would those npcs even represent?
I hope that with big settlements, even if the settlement siege "only" lasts hours in real time, the preparatory warfare could go on forever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Automation is a tool primarily used to remove tedium and address the fact that a game is not real life.
In real life if you attempt a midnight assault you may have the cover of darkness but everyone will still be waking up the moment the sentries sound the alarm.
Running supplies into town in the middle of the night because most of the besieging force is logged off, or assaulting your enemy's settlement on Christmas Day isn't PvP, it's PvE. And for those who advocate the idea of "You have what you hold" I would remind them that it only pertains to robbers who face their opponents. Quick ninja seiges are the exact opposite of what that freedom promotes.
Seiging should be a long period of automation filled with many, many opportunities for the players to help advance their cause and set their opponents back. Nobody wants to log on and find that their settlement which took months to build and wasn't under threat when they went to bed was taken while they were at work.
Beyond that, it's more fun that way. It turns sieges from a giant lag-fest that lasts an hour or two and if you missed it then too bad, into something that both sides will have ample opprotunity to participate in where raiding and countering raids on outposts can be as big of a deal as the gaint lagocalypse assaults.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think GW is planning a lot of preparatory warfare before a siege can even begin and many steps to be taken before the main hall changes owners. That would give the settlement owners a cause for worry before an actual siege.
If the development index changes are delayed in respect to the actual taking of a POI that might set a rhythm for warfare that is more reasonable than just taking a whole hex or two during a night. I wouldn't want to give too much power to npc when it comes to attacking and slaying people who are defending their settlement.
Also the settlement inhabitants should know their pvp window and react according to it, after all they have set it. But I hope the pvp window isn't something that can be used as a counter measure to react to an invading force, though as the DI decreases it is only natural to close the pvp window to match that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a great topic Andius. The way that sieges play out in-game is going to be just as important to the game's success as formation field battles.
Can high lvls of Corruption in a settlement's index affect it's NPC guard force or further the success of sabotage?
Should there be a formula of steps that need to be followed? Each step having a counter that could possibly be used to set back the timetable? Thus making sieges not a necessary "24hr play situation"?
Should it not be possible for a well planned assault against a poorly planned defense to succeed relatively swiftly? In other words should there not be tragedy for getting caught with your pants down?
All interesting questions. It has to be remembered that it is a game and not real life. The most successful settlements will likely be full of players that have real lives too. It will be exceedingly difficult, IMO, for allies to support each other in-game if the process is too swift, let alone defend their own ground.
Would love some more details from GW, but I know that sieges are not priority one at this time.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about having a successful siege blockade drop the defender's DI gradually, with control changing once DI reaches zero (a period of weeks or months), with the option for the defenders to sally out and break the siege, smuggle around it, or for the attackers to assault the location?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One tough part about designing a siege is that neither side should lose a ton of progress in a very short amount of time. If the defenders can get days or weeks before the siege wins out, but the attackers can be overtaken in less than a day, then people won't siege. If it's the other way around, then settlements will be trading hands left and right.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To encourage actual conflict in the siege and both sides actually coming into serious conflict, it might be worth having the siege camps PVP window synchronize with the settlements PVP window. It kind of ensures that any major engagement sees a maximum of actual PVP conflict.
Siege camps building their own defenses would be pretty important to. A siege camps biggest weakness isn't in the defenders performing a counter attack and destroying the siege camp. The greatest weakness is their allies coming in from behind and smashing the siege camp. Any long term siege build is going to see regular attacks by outside forces. Stuff will be to close in the game for it not to happen, so the siege camp will need its own solid defenses or a siege will not be a practical exercise.
A siege camp should also require its own supplies delivered to it. If you can't feed your soldiers and get fresh troops to replace your loses your siege will eventually wear down the same way that a defenders city will. To this end it is probably worth allowing defenders to perform raids on the siege camp to resupply their city, obviously with greater risk than a normal raid on a POI.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about having a successful siege blockade drop the defender's DI gradually, with control changing once DI reaches zero (a period of weeks or months), with the option for the defenders to sally out and break the siege, smuggle around it, or for the attackers to assault the location?
To encourage actual conflict in the siege and both sides actually coming into serious conflict, it might be worth having the siege camps PVP window synchronize with the settlements PVP window. It kind of ensures that any major engagement sees a maximum of actual PVP conflict.
Adding to these two ideas:
- Say a settlement has up to 100 units of stores. That's just space; they actually have to build up stores through trade or harvest from outposts. (And maybe max stores is upgradable or has varying cost depending on population.)
- When an outside force or forces have companies in temporary control of the 6 surrounding hexes, the outside force can declare a siege. The siege camps set a pvp window, just like the settlement does, but all camps have the same window.
- Each hour that the camp's PvP window is open, the settlement's stores decrement by 1 unit. Wagon trains can try to get through to replenish supplies, but only during the siege camp's PvP window. Sallies from inside or relief forces from outside likewise are restricted (or encouraged, somehow) to attacking during that window.
- To encourage the besiegers to synchronize their PvP window with the settlements, each hour that both windows are open together, the settlement's stores decrement by 2. While the settlement might try to limit their window, that risks a loss of DI...
- When the settlement's stores decrement to 0, the settlement falls to the besieging force. What the PCs inside do is open for gameplay, but the commoners accept the siege force as their new overlords. Ownership is transferred.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What about having a successful siege blockade drop the defender's DI gradually, with control changing once DI reaches zero (a period of weeks or months), with the option for the defenders to sally out and break the siege, smuggle around it, or for the attackers to assault the location?To encourage actual conflict in the siege and both sides actually coming into serious conflict, it might be worth having the siege camps PVP window synchronize with the settlements PVP window. It kind of ensures that any major engagement sees a maximum of actual PVP conflict.Adding to these two ideas:
- Say a settlement has up to 100 units of stores. That's just space; they actually have to build up stores through trade or harvest from outposts. (And maybe max stores is upgradable or has varying cost depending on population.)
- When an outside force or forces have companies in temporary control of the 6 surrounding hexes, the outside force can declare a siege. The siege camps set a pvp window, just like the settlement does, but all camps have the same window.
- Each hour that the camp's PvP window is open, the settlement's stores decrement by 1 unit. Wagon trains can try to get through to replenish supplies, but only during the siege camp's PvP window. Sallies from inside or relief forces from outside likewise are restricted (or encouraged, somehow) to attacking during that window.
- To encourage the besiegers to synchronize their PvP window with the settlements, each hour that both windows are open together, the settlement's stores decrement by 2. While the settlement might try to limit their window, that risks a loss of DI...
- When the settlement's stores decrement to 0, the settlement falls to the besieging force. What the PCs inside do is open for gameplay, but the commoners accept the siege force as their new overlords. Ownership is transferred.
I would refine that with only one change- allow any smuggling to occur during either window. A settlement with a larger PvP window will have an easier time resisting a siege, all other things being equal (the siege must defend a larger time-front), but a harder time resisting an assault (the defenders must defend the same time-front.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would refine that with only one change- allow any smuggling to occur during either window. A settlement with a larger PvP window will have an easier time resisting a siege, all other things being equal (the siege must defend a larger time-front), but a harder time resisting an assault (the defenders must defend the same time-front.
That's a good insight and modification.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a deign standpoint, siege warfare has to last a long time, and require a lot of intermediary steps. The value of a Settlement has to be protected else nobody will bother to develop them. Taking down a Settlement needs to represent a campaign of thousands of player hours, and at least days of realtime, and needs to have a system that allows comeback mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with that. I just hope the comebacks are incremental just as the siege itself should be. If a siege is going to last days, the attackers will have 'down-times' with little activity just as the defenders will, so I hope neither side can pull out a quick win.
I would think that, both sides being equally matched for player numbers/skill, the defenders should have a significant edge, in whatever form that would take (not going to make guesses as to how GW would implement sieges), just because I would want attackers to be the ones who must be better prepared.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
100 units of stores, 24 hours in a day, some mix of besieger PvP window and settlement PvP window. My seige outline will last at least several days of real time. :flexes:
Seriously though, I figure GWs siege ideas are well ahead of whatever we might come up with here. They haven't failed to impress yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with that. I just hope the comebacks are incremental just as the siege itself should be. If a siege is going to last days, the attackers will have 'down-times' with little activity just as the defenders will, so I hope neither side can pull out a quick win.
I would think that, both sides being equally matched for player numbers/skill, the defenders should have a significant edge, in whatever form that would take (not going to make guesses as to how GW would implement sieges), just because I would want attackers to be the ones who must be better prepared.
Agreed. I feel the best analogy is that sieging someone should be like trying to push a 5000 lb. brick from point A to point B using your bare hands. To win, all the defender has to do is stop you but what progress you make, should be just as hard for them to unmake unless your resources dry up and you have to call off the siege.
Seriously though, I figure GWs siege ideas are well ahead of whatever we might come up with here. They haven't failed to impress yet.
Maybe. But I've seen a few things be announced that bore strong resemblance to things suggested on the forums. It may just be a "great minds think alike" thing in some scenarios but I have to believe our feedback has greatly affected this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe. But I've seen a few things be announced that bore strong resemblance to things suggested on the forums. It may just be a "great minds think alike" thing in some scenarios but I have to believe our feedback has greatly affected this game.
I'd love to see GW comment on this. They are certainly active on these forums and smart enough to pick up good ideas when they find them. Also, no R&D ignores feedback from future customers.