Re: Comments?

by sluissa at 2006-05-31 19:59:49

I think I see what you're saying, but a seige traditionally was limited by the amount of supplies that were held by the defenders. The amount of attackers on the outside really had little effect on how long a seige lasted unless they somehow destroyed the defenses and simply attacked the square directly, which if some type of unit effective against buildings was put into the game, would be possible

I'm just thinking that each building on a square would have some supplies. now if you wanted to limit it more, I think you could take

(number of days till the end of seige) = ((number of buildings on the defending square)*5)/(number of units on the defending square)

**the *5 thing would probably be better set at 3 days, simply to speed things up a bit since with only 3 buildings on a square we're already looking at over two weeks.)

A seige would be costly for the attacker, since you'll probably have at LEAST 4 units being pounded on while the attacker simply whittles away at a wall, waiting for the seige to end or the wall to fall.

and yes, I do think all squares surrounding a seiged square should be controlled by the same player, but what about the chance of alliances in the future?