New Takeover system - Tower Fatmilak/Madina

[Indirik]

Yes, that is how it works, and how it is apparently supposed to work. As others have pointed out, if they couldn't recruit, then it would be trivially easy to kill a realm just by occupying its capital. Realms should be harder to kill than that.

[fodder]

just imagine there's an inner keep that you can't breach and where the defenders withdraw to (you breach it when you've TO'ed the region)

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I've sometimes wondered whether a region that is just a stronghold that shows a tower really is just that tower. Because, you know...that would mean those towers are HUGE.

[Peri]

I think the control of the walls part is still the most relevant for the discussion and has been a bit overlooked. I have played bm since 5 years by now and as far as I can remember taking over a region ALWAYS disabled the chance for defenders to have the walls. That's a strategic key fact that every proper general knew and that hugely influenced several wars.

I do not have currently a definite opinion on whether would be right or wrong to keep or remove that feature, because I also think it makes sense what Tom says about simulating in a sense a fight street by street. I would just like to stress that this is no little change in the strategic-combat side of the game and should be thought thoroughly. Conquering a city will become extremely hard (as it certainly should be, but one should think whether it would become impossible), and that's particularly relevant with places such as dwilight with sea routes chokepoints that would reduce wars to a bunch of sieges.

[De-Legro]

I think the control of the walls part is still the most relevant for the discussion and has been a bit overlooked. I have played bm since 5 years by now and as far as I can remember taking over a region ALWAYS disabled the chance for defenders to have the walls. That's a strategic key fact that every proper general knew and that hugely influenced several wars.

I do not have currently a definite opinion on whether would be right or wrong to keep or remove that feature, because I also think it makes sense what Tom says about simulating in a sense a fight street by street. I would just like to stress that this is no little change in the strategic-combat side of the game and should be thought thoroughly. Conquering a city will become extremely hard (as it certainly should be, but one should think whether it would become impossible), and that's particularly relevant with places such as dwilight with sea routes chokepoints that would reduce wars to a bunch of sieges.

The main problem as I see it, is it is a real shock when you first encounter the change. Once you know about it strategic plans can change to accomidate it, but that first time could be a real disaster.

[egamma]

I'm aware what the difference is, but in this particular case we're talking about something, let's be honest, entirely different from Iraq. The two aren't even comparable. The army is in the Stronghold, which isn't a big city (or indeed a city at all) but which is the only place soldiers from all over the realm are apparently gathered awaiting hire.

It would be more realistic for all those recruits to serve as militia, manning the walls when you attack. But you probably wouldn't like all those 'free' soldiers defending, would you?

[Dante Silverfire]

It would be more realistic for all those recruits to serve as militia, manning the walls when you attack. But you probably wouldn't like all those 'free' soldiers defending, would you?

Yes, this "realism" would make it pretty much 100% impossible to take over a capitol of a realm without first destroying the entire rest of the realm. 

[Peri]

The main problem as I see it, is it is a real shock when you first encounter the change. Once you know about it strategic plans can change to accomidate it, but that first time could be a real disaster.

You are probably right for cities. I couldn't easily imagine situation in taking over a city where there would be a large difference, besides taking over the capital perhaps. For townslands things could be different. After all, most of the times they are not garrisoned with enough troops to fend of a frontal assault, and the chance to use the walls even if the enemy broke in may make their defense not as primary as before.

However Tom also said that if the defenders move in without any other defending unit in the region they would not be defenders anyway - so that walls would not be usable most of the times anyway I think. How are militia and partisans considered in this case? Because having the difference between using or not using the walls in the hands of a scattered remaining militia unit is a bit unbalancing.

[Eithad]

However Tom also said that if the defenders move in without any other defending unit in the region they would not be defenders anyway - so that walls would not be usable most of the times anyway I think. How are militia and partisans considered in this case? Because having the difference between using or not using the walls in the hands of a scattered remaining militia unit is a bit unbalancing.

This is also the case with peasant militia that rise up to prevent looting will grant walls to the region owner. This is why as a general you wait for the peasants to rise up before attacking. It has also been "abused" in the past where a duke would raise militia in the city at the same time a relieving force moved in from another region to grant the defenders walls. This is not new, I have not been a general for a couple of years and this was happening back then.

[Tom]

This is also the case with peasant militia that rise up to prevent looting will grant walls to the region owner. This is why as a general you wait for the peasants to rise up before attacking. It has also been "abused" in the past where a duke would raise militia in the city at the same time a relieving force moved in from another region to grant the defenders walls. This is not new, I have not been a general for a couple of years and this was happening back then.

It was also extensively discussed and rules to not be an abuse.

[Velax]

Like all things in BM, doing the same thing twice for half the hours always results in less result than doing it once with full hours.

What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.

[Tom]

What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.

Uh, no it doesn't?

[De-Legro]

What about looting after the peasant militia has formed? Looting in three-hour blocks gives you more chances to slip past them, rather than looting in a single big block.

Uh, no it doesn't?

The assumption here is that since you are performing more actions, you have more chances to slip past. The argument against it is that every action that is successful is less effective due to the reduced hours. In the end it should pretty much balance out.

[Velax]

Uh, no it doesn't?

Well, the hope was that if I, and the many others who subscribe to this belief, were wrong, you might explain why. Too much to ask for?

[De-Legro]

Well, the hope was that if I, and the many others who subscribe to this belief, were wrong, you might explain why. Too much to ask for?

Probability. The chance of each individual action succeeding does not change because of the hours spent. A single 3 hour looting has the same chance as a single 12 hour loot. What people rely on is that four 3 hour loots have a better chance of at least 1 succeeding. However that mission will be less successful, and in general with BM a 3 hour action is less effective then 1/4 of the 12 hour effect. Given a big enough sample group, the total amount of hours that are successful shouldn't change, but if you employed 12 hour lootings instead of 3 hour loots, the effects of those hours would be greater.

At least that is my take on it.