poll: Garrison size

[monnikje]

Garrison sizes have been increased, but sometimes they tend to become pretty big. What I'd like to hear from you, is if you like it this way, or prefer the native sizes, or something in between.

 

[arosenberger14]

Been playing the mod for a while now, and it's definitely the best I've seen! great work! I think that the garrison size is too large right now; some cities are practically impossible to take even with a large army. However, it would be neat if you could penalize large garrisons instead of changing their size. Perhaps you could tie the siege time required to starve the cities out to the garrison size. If the cities with 2000+ troops garrisoned could be starved out in a week or so that would give you an alternate method to deal with them.

 

[2s1ckk]

I must say that arosen's idea is pretty good. This has already been discussed is the topic I made that Monnikje refers to in his link, there are some good ideas in there

EDIT: And apologies for the harassment I gave Monnikje to create the poll

 

[Lavalya]

That would be kinda easy to abuse though.. If you go there with a large army and siege it that way, the other armies will be reluctant to attack you, not to mention it takes them two days to even reach the city you're sieging.

Just add more map speed to lords (path-finding) and I'm pretty sure this wont be a problem anymore though.

 

[Stildawn]

I agree with the above... The size is fine if we can work on some of the ideas in that thread... Otherwise reduce it a little which what I voted for...

 

[theriel]

Been playing the mod for a while now, and it's definitely the best I've seen! great work! I think that the garrison size is too large right now; some cities are practically impossible to take even with a large army. However, it would be neat if you could penalize large garrisons instead of changing their size. Perhaps you could tie the siege time required to starve the cities out to the garrison size. If the cities with 2000+ troops garrisoned could be starved out in a week or so that would give you an alternate method to deal with them.

loved it, can we has it?

 

[Lavalya]

I agree with the above... The size is fine if we can work on some of the ideas in that thread... Otherwise reduce it a little which what I voted for...

Im actually thinking of starvation, that cities with over 1k garrison start starving after a week(No longer, this is a really long wait..) with a (maybe exponential is easier) starvation rate. Starts at like 4%, and increases by 50%(of 4%)
so 4%>6%>9%>14%>21%>32%>48%
So after a week +5 days its effectively halved the garrison, and after 14 days from the start of the siege there's only 20% of the original garrison left, at which point any army should be able to take them.

 

[Sacrist]

the garrisons are fine, I was able to storm a city with a garrison of 850ish with my army of 90.
Though as large as 2400 is quite daunting, but hey just bring a few lords along and that shouldnt be a problem.
I like how the sizes are now, and if something is to be changed, do something with starvation.

 

[EviliroN]

I guess it also matters on your battle size, no?

either way, i'd opt for bigger + options, rather than smaller

 

[2s1ckk]

Bigger + options does sound like a good idea, but it all depends of if/how/what can be implemented. I'm not entirely sure as I haven't been playing around with this game for very long. Maybe Caba or someone could give us an idea?

 

[imgran]

Smaller garrisons, more competently equipped troops.

 

[Shirebury]

Bigger garrisons, more corpses.

 

[Ikaguia]

bigger garrisons and smaller wage costs!

 

[Mamluke]

cities should have like 700 to 900 or 1000
this is acceptable but more than 2100?! very exaggerated

castles should have like 200 to 400 it´s more than enough

 

[2s1ckk]

I don't think better troops is really an option (not that you can influence which troops they use, I believe) because when you besiege such a largely garrisoned settlement, with a battle size of 300 at least, most of your men are dead before they even reach the top of the ladder. Even with the current troops they die very quickly.

 

[theriel]

specially if you are swadian

 

[Dawnbringer]

A big garrison accumuate in an unbesieged (is there such a word?!) town over a long time. When a faction captures a town/castle, the garrison starts out weak and gets stronger in time. Because of this the captured towns/castles gets the enemy's attention due to the low garrison and that enemy will eventually besiege it and capture it again. Ten this repeats.

So what matters is there are some towns/castles that will be never besieged due to the high garrison - and because of this it's garrison grows over time even more. The rest always exchanges owners thus remains constant low garrison.

Don't know how to counter this. Just my opinion.