http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Overcrowding_Rule
Enjoy this new rule, take profit of the Wiki, kept up to date by master cook extraordinaire Lodilefty!
(let's not forget all others volunteers that improve it too, and then Rafiki, our forum, server, wiki administrator*!)
(* he also controls the Zurich Gnomes.)
Wiki spotlight and new overcrowding rule
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
You aren't afraid of it being a little excessive to both penalize the defender and benefit the attacker with the same variable? It seems like it would just be easier to penalize one or the benefit the other. It'll take some playtesting to figure out how it works out, though. Thanks for your continued work on the game! 
-
Sir Garnet
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:23 pm
Vezina, I think the need to split the penalty between Attacker bonus and Defender penalty is driven by the way the engine works and to lower/increase losses respectively.
Frontage is still an issue that already works to prevent the defender from bringing a stronger garrison to bear.
I understand the firepower effects since a denser target takes more hits from bombardment (does it though, or is this just battle, not bombardment, which would be odd?). Why is the melee penalty even worse? There would not be actual overcrowding to the point of disrupting effective defense at the point of engagement. It would take a lot more than double the capacity before troops are jammed and disordered in place. Tactically, I would think the defenders at worst would be unaffected in melee effectiveness while the attackers would still get some bonus for fire effect incidental to melee due to the defender's density behind the front.
Thinking as an actual commander, if a fort or city is overflowing with troops you are less likely to want to assault it than if more lightly manned - instead cut it off to starve and bombard it heavily for devastating effect (ideally with siege batteries) since those inside must have to resort to increasingly inferior shelter, or perhaps none at all.
Frontage is still an issue that already works to prevent the defender from bringing a stronger garrison to bear.
I understand the firepower effects since a denser target takes more hits from bombardment (does it though, or is this just battle, not bombardment, which would be odd?). Why is the melee penalty even worse? There would not be actual overcrowding to the point of disrupting effective defense at the point of engagement. It would take a lot more than double the capacity before troops are jammed and disordered in place. Tactically, I would think the defenders at worst would be unaffected in melee effectiveness while the attackers would still get some bonus for fire effect incidental to melee due to the defender's density behind the front.
Thinking as an actual commander, if a fort or city is overflowing with troops you are less likely to want to assault it than if more lightly manned - instead cut it off to starve and bombard it heavily for devastating effect (ideally with siege batteries) since those inside must have to resort to increasingly inferior shelter, or perhaps none at all.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests