Forum: empire-en
Board: [590] Ideas, Suggestions & Feedback
[-74651]
OhJay [None]
:: April 23, 2012, 7:18 p.m.
Instead of directly attacking a castle, you and your alliance could send troops to surround a castle.
As an attacker.
You can pick a side(s) of the castle to focus your blockade ie: N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NW.
You would have to spend more money to keep your army stationed outside a castle, and you’d get to decide how long to have keep the blockade going. After the original time paid for, a general will send you a message asking if you want to A. Attack B. Send more money to continue the blockade or C. end blockade and return to castle. If you do not respond to the message, you run the risk of your troops deserting and possibly joining the castle.
As a defender
Depending on which side is getting blocking, the castle cannot send out Market Barrows out to get supplies from Outposts ie. If your South side is heavily blocked and your outpost to the south is inaccessible, but you can still attempt to get supplies from your outpost in the North . They can attempt to send out a Market Barrows out on an alternate path which would be longer and cost more money and will have the ricks of getting caught and resources lost.
If your castle is under a Blockade, your Food. Stone and Wood production is cut down to 1/3. You cannot collect tax money from your outposts.
If you are under siege, you can choose to outlast the blockade, exit your castle (in a determined N/E/S/W direction) and fight but lose the advantage of having your strong defenses, or you can end the blockade if you surrender half of your resources and they are divided up proportionately to the army(s) surrounding you.
You can also have your alliance come to your aid. Players with stronger troops and tools will win. There are no “ castle defenses” advantage in the battle.
Obviously, if you are under siege and run out of food, you run the risk of your farmers and Troops deserting you.
Having this option will open up new strategies for players and alliances. The weaker player(s) will win Honor/Glory for every successful day of a siege and the stronger player(s) will lose Honor/Glory. It can help weaker players team up on a stronger player and give players a chance to defeat a player who have built up strong defenses and would otherwise be unbeatable. Plus, stronger players wouldn’t siege weaker players because they “profit” wouldn’t be worth the cost.
As an attacker.
You can pick a side(s) of the castle to focus your blockade ie: N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NW.
You would have to spend more money to keep your army stationed outside a castle, and you’d get to decide how long to have keep the blockade going. After the original time paid for, a general will send you a message asking if you want to A. Attack B. Send more money to continue the blockade or C. end blockade and return to castle. If you do not respond to the message, you run the risk of your troops deserting and possibly joining the castle.
As a defender
Depending on which side is getting blocking, the castle cannot send out Market Barrows out to get supplies from Outposts ie. If your South side is heavily blocked and your outpost to the south is inaccessible, but you can still attempt to get supplies from your outpost in the North . They can attempt to send out a Market Barrows out on an alternate path which would be longer and cost more money and will have the ricks of getting caught and resources lost.
If your castle is under a Blockade, your Food. Stone and Wood production is cut down to 1/3. You cannot collect tax money from your outposts.
If you are under siege, you can choose to outlast the blockade, exit your castle (in a determined N/E/S/W direction) and fight but lose the advantage of having your strong defenses, or you can end the blockade if you surrender half of your resources and they are divided up proportionately to the army(s) surrounding you.
You can also have your alliance come to your aid. Players with stronger troops and tools will win. There are no “ castle defenses” advantage in the battle.
Obviously, if you are under siege and run out of food, you run the risk of your farmers and Troops deserting you.
Having this option will open up new strategies for players and alliances. The weaker player(s) will win Honor/Glory for every successful day of a siege and the stronger player(s) will lose Honor/Glory. It can help weaker players team up on a stronger player and give players a chance to defeat a player who have built up strong defenses and would otherwise be unbeatable. Plus, stronger players wouldn’t siege weaker players because they “profit” wouldn’t be worth the cost.
[1356007]
Gamma13 [None]
:: April 23, 2012, 9:15 p.m.
good ideas
but how can the defender fight back. using your methods would mean that some opponents can get lots of coins from travelling merchants. and hold a siege until the enemy is weakened and then attack. this is being a coward and is downright unfair. however if some plans of how the defense can fight back to protect the castle is clear i would support the idea.
but how can the defender fight back. using your methods would mean that some opponents can get lots of coins from travelling merchants. and hold a siege until the enemy is weakened and then attack. this is being a coward and is downright unfair. however if some plans of how the defense can fight back to protect the castle is clear i would support the idea.
[1356022]
OhJay [None]
:: April 23, 2012, 11:27 p.m.
My thinking is that a Defender has two options on fighting.
They can either exit the castle and take the siege head on. There will be no (or very little) advantage from having good defensive weapons.
or
He can come out and attack one flank and punch a hole open in the siege so he can get a temporary boost in resource production and open a path to an outpost so they can get supplies in.
This way is supposed to give weaker players to have a chance when attacking stronger players. Even if it is a temporary hold on stronger players who are bullying weaker players.
They can either exit the castle and take the siege head on. There will be no (or very little) advantage from having good defensive weapons.
or
He can come out and attack one flank and punch a hole open in the siege so he can get a temporary boost in resource production and open a path to an outpost so they can get supplies in.
This way is supposed to give weaker players to have a chance when attacking stronger players. Even if it is a temporary hold on stronger players who are bullying weaker players.
[1356023]
Bossdude [None]
:: April 23, 2012, 11:29 p.m.
so what's the blockade going to do?
[1356025]
OhJay [None]
:: April 23, 2012, 11:50 p.m.
The blockade will either get 50% of the castles resources if the castle surrenders. Or they can hold a blockade for a few days until the castle loses troops (because of lack of food) and then attack a weakened castle.
The player who is holding the blockade can steal any resources that are being sent to the castle from a market barrow.
But the lower ranked player will get good honor/glory for everyday of a the blockade while the stronger player will lose honor/glory.
This gives a lower ranked player a chance to gain points against a stronger player.
The player who is holding the blockade can steal any resources that are being sent to the castle from a market barrow.
But the lower ranked player will get good honor/glory for everyday of a the blockade while the stronger player will lose honor/glory.
This gives a lower ranked player a chance to gain points against a stronger player.
[1356029]
Bossdude [None]
:: April 24, 2012, 1:52 a.m.
sounds pretty good. except i dont get the alliance thing. what happens when the alliance troops arrive at the blockade? will they fight against it and kill some of the men who are doing the blockade?
[1356030]
OhJay [None]
:: April 24, 2012, 2:29 a.m.
I would have it that an Alliance army (or any army who want's to participate) would have the choice to help either side of the blockade.
That way, you could have several low ranking players team up on one higher ranked player. Especially if that player (or his Alliance) has a reputation of being a bully. But there wouldn't be any reason for a high ranking player (or alliance) to block a low ranked player because it would be a waste of time to have a blockade when they could just attack right away and win.
It makes the games more realistic too. In major wars/battles, army's don't go rushing in and attack, but instead they surround a city/fort/castle and weaken them first by cutting off their supplies and lowering the moral of the people and troops.
Mostly it opens up a whole new world in team work and gives lower ranked players a chance against stronger players and gives another reason for building/having a strong alliance.
That way, you could have several low ranking players team up on one higher ranked player. Especially if that player (or his Alliance) has a reputation of being a bully. But there wouldn't be any reason for a high ranking player (or alliance) to block a low ranked player because it would be a waste of time to have a blockade when they could just attack right away and win.
It makes the games more realistic too. In major wars/battles, army's don't go rushing in and attack, but instead they surround a city/fort/castle and weaken them first by cutting off their supplies and lowering the moral of the people and troops.
Mostly it opens up a whole new world in team work and gives lower ranked players a chance against stronger players and gives another reason for building/having a strong alliance.
[1356038]
bobbysbro [None]
:: April 24, 2012, 3:17 p.m.
its a good idea
[1356048]
Doll00 [None]
:: April 24, 2012, 7:07 p.m.
Like the most of idea but strong players cant lose glory and honor for it .
[1356055]
Unknown
:: April 24, 2012, 8:04 p.m.
no it cuts off ur supply compleatly
[1359673]
Noah Lackey [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 7:03 a.m.
This is an awesome idea, though I don't think Goodgame Studios will listen to any of it.
[1359703]
StrongRoddy [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 3:46 p.m.
I would like to see this implemented to the game
[1359707]
DigglyDoo [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 4:13 p.m.
It should be easier to cachet spies and also be able to send spies to disturb the blockade to send out tax collectors,army or an easier attack on the blockade. You should know what army is there because they are right outside your castle.
[1359712]
bobbysbro [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 4:46 p.m.
Instead of directly attacking a castle, you and your alliance could send troops to surround a castle.
As an attacker.
You can pick a side(s) of the castle to focus your blockade ie: N/NE/E/SE/S/SW/W/NW.
You would have to spend more money to keep your army stationed outside a castle, and you’d get to decide how long to have keep the blockade going. After the original time paid for, a general will send you a message asking if you want to A. Attack B. Send more money to continue the blockade or C. end blockade and return to castle. If you do not respond to the message, you run the risk of your troops deserting and possibly joining the castle.
As a defender
Depending on which side is getting blocking, the castle cannot send out Market Barrows out to get supplies from Outposts ie. If your South side is heavily blocked and your outpost to the south is inaccessible, but you can still attempt to get supplies from your outpost in the North . They can attempt to send out a Market Barrows out on an alternate path which would be longer and cost more money and will have the ricks of getting caught and resources lost.
If your castle is under a Blockade, your Food. Stone and Wood production is cut down to 1/3. You cannot collect tax money from your outposts.
If you are under siege, you can choose to outlast the blockade, exit your castle (in a determined N/E/S/W direction) and fight but lose the advantage of having your strong defenses, or you can end the blockade if you surrender half of your resources and they are divided up proportionately to the army(s) surrounding you.
You can also have your alliance come to your aid. Players with stronger troops and tools will win. There are no “ castle defenses” advantage in the battle.
Obviously, if you are under siege and run out of food, you run the risk of your farmers and Troops deserting you.
Having this option will open up new strategies for players and alliances. The weaker player(s) will win Honor/Glory for every successful day of a siege and the stronger player(s) will lose Honor/Glory. It can help weaker players team up on a stronger player and give players a chance to defeat a player who have built up strong defenses and would otherwise be unbeatable. Plus, stronger players wouldn’t siege weaker players because they “profit” wouldn’t be worth the cost.
u could also make it so if the defenders mates sent some support from south and thats where the attackers are they would have to fight the attackers to c if they cane get in
[1359714]
bobbysbro [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 4:48 p.m.
u could also send some men from the castle
to try and weaken the attackers
to try and weaken the attackers
[1359723]
FastChristian10 [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 5:53 p.m.
good idea i like it
[1359740]
bagofrice [None]
:: June 5, 2012, 7:39 p.m.
Could you send an attack from one of your outposts (a blocked one) to attack the blockade in the back
[1359798]
Mxnman [None]
:: June 6, 2012, 3:03 p.m.
I like it it's realistic and it is fairly even
[1360739]
WuerfelWilly [None]
:: June 15, 2012, 11:09 a.m.
Thank you for your idea 
I will forward it to the developer!
Regards
Hannes
I will forward it to the developer!Regards
Hannes
[1360793]
Flyingpigz [None]
:: June 15, 2012, 4:55 p.m.
Very nice idea, but I don't see why stone and wood production has to be cut down 1/3