[Discussion] Changes To The Way Sieges Operate

[mmat 7460]

Before I start, I'm not having a whine, because I really couldn't care less about the result of last night's war since I didn't fight in it. Anyway, I witnessed the Mt Augustus warclaim siege, and it was, quite simply, boring as hell. The attacking force were just sitting there for about an hour whilst trebuchet shots were fired at the mountain. The structure of the defence, in combination with the warclaim rules/server rules, made it absolutely impossible for the attacking side the achieve victory, the defenders would just carry on whittling down at the attacking forces until they won by retreating deeper and deeper into that underground nuclear bunker thing that's below mount Augustus.

 

The only term for an attacker victory in a siege is pretty much 'kill all the other guys', and that was and is impossible because of the strategic way in which LoTC forts are created; Ankle biters, falling traps, lava traps, water traps, it makes it so the attackers dare not even step foot inside the area that is under siege, and if they do, they are at risk of being immediately killed by traps, or just sealed inside. The same problem occurred with the Zion-Oren war where the Dwarves would immediately pull back to that fort in the middle of the fringe and hold out in there because we're not allowed to hack down wooden gates, the decterum's fort also has (or had) a siege mode which is basically impossible to breach.

 

This is obviously a multi-armed problem due to the issue of excessive traps being built in fortifications mixed with the relatively obsolete siege/server rules where you can't break any blocks, regardless of how, realistically, they would be easy to break with a pickaxe. This is a topic where I have very little insight into how to fix the issue, but there is an issue here. 

 

Tl;DR siege/server rules give a heavy advantage to the defenders in a siege situation and excessive traps are bloody annoying.

 

Discuss, friends.

[Swgrclan 2682]

I saw a suggestion earlier that said sieges, especially ones with the sole intention of claim, should be more drawn-out than what the current system offers. It was something along the lines of these attacks transpiring over, at most, an entire week -- and given the circumstances of how much land a siege force can cover around city/fort walls, a realistic approach can be made. Farms can be cut off, destroyed or utilized by the attacking side, cattle may be slaughtered and camps may be raised around siege weapons as to further legitimize the force that assaults the settlement in question. This would allow dynamic role-play to take place which involves anything to daily raids to even sending in spies or assassins which, if they're skilled in their profession, can assist quite a bit with this trap ordeal. They can even raise gates if they manage to provide a problem for the attackers.

[Hobolympic 1093]

I miss the old castle sieges. Ever since Indagolaf, there's been an increase in underground super-bunkers, with 20x impossible traps in every single nook in sight, with no way to run past. 

 

I think the only way to solve this is by GM intervention. Let the GMs go through the traps a couple of hours before the battle, and if there are any ridiculously difficult ones, order a removal. I also think there should be a limitation as to how big a underground bunker can be. If there's a natural cave system beneath your castle, then I suppose it's fine, but carving out 40x40 halls is just silly, especially if you're gonna be holed up in there for the entire battle.

 

I also think we should develop a new siege weapon system, where a nation has to actually purchase rams, catapults or trebuchets. These should be pretty expensive (5-10k minas, perhaps even 20k), and the assaulting/defending party may choose how many of the siege weapons they wish to deploy in a specific battle. If a siege weapon is destroyed by the other party (for instance, torched or hit by another siege weapon), it may not be repaired. This will prevent people from building 10+ catapults in every single battle in 20 minutes, which is rather unfair for the defending party. Not to mention, this will drain a nation's treasury pretty fast, because after all, a war should be expensive.

 

Players should be free to RP the construction of these weapons (or purchase if they wish), but they will still have to pay for it. The minas spent can be equivalent to the cost of its production.   

 

EDIT: Could also add a similar system to the traps: 5-10k minas per trap.

[The Fact Core 511]

 

I also think we should develop a new siege weapon system, where a nation has to actually purchase rams, catapults or trebuchets.

 

This my good sir, is a very nice suggestion.

[Campor 28]

The purchasing of siege equipment, I think, is a very good idea. War shouldn't be cheap or quick. If you're going to war against another nation, then resources should be accounted for- Not just people and iron, but funds, food, equipment and the like. It'd give a nice improvement to actual strategy beyond 'go here and stab this.'

[Supremacy 3361]

Alternatively don't siege cities and ban the creation of defensive traps anywhere but cities?

[Archbishop 1784]

I miss the old castle sieges. Ever since Indagolaf, there's been an increase in underground super-bunkers, with 20x impossible traps in every single nook in sight, with no way to run past. 

 

I think the only way to solve this is by GM intervention. Let the GMs go through the traps a couple of hours before the battle, and if there are any ridiculously difficult ones, order a removal. I also think there should be a limitation as to how big a underground bunker can be. If there's a natural cave system beneath your castle, then I suppose it's fine, but carving out 40x40 halls is just silly, especially if you're gonna be holed up in there for the entire battle.

 

I also think we should develop a new siege weapon system, where a nation has to actually purchase rams, catapults or trebuchets. These should be pretty expensive (5-10k minas, perhaps even 20k), and the assaulting/defending party may choose how many of the siege weapons they wish to deploy in a specific battle. If a siege weapon is destroyed by the other party (for instance, torched or hit by another siege weapon), it may not be repaired. This will prevent people from building 10+ catapults in every single battle in 20 minutes, which is rather unfair for the defending party. Not to mention, this will drain a nation's treasury pretty fast, because after all, a war should be expensive.

 

Players should be free to RP the construction of these weapons (or purchase if they wish), but they will still have to pay for it. The minas spent can be equivalent to the cost of its production.   

 

EDIT: Could also add a similar system to the traps: 5-10k minas per trap.

 

Yes, this is an awesome idea. Although for it to be noticed properly i feel that you should make a topic so the staff can see it more clearly, and people can give their input on it quickly and without filling up this thread. I think you should make a thread about this as a suggestion.

[IrishPerson 693]

You should've used some greene trebs mate.   

[Hobolympic 1093]

 

Yes, this is an awesome idea. Although for it to be noticed properly i feel that you should make a topic so the staff can see it more clearly, and people can give their input on it quickly and without filling up this thread. I think you should make a thread about this as a suggestion.

 

Good idea, I'll start right away then!

[Helvetius 314]

As Supremacy said. Allow it so that forts & outposts cannot have any more than one trap while cities, when they come under siege, can have as many as they please. Also for humans building super underground forts, I do believe that is a dwarven thing...Since when have humans become extreme underground architects like the dwarves?

 

((Didn't participate in the battle.))

[Vukovic 30]

Something I wrote up a while ago. Not everything can be considered, but I think they're all pretty fair ideas to suggest, and we can pick and choose what's the best:
 

The (proposed) Siege System

 

Drawing from ideas and musings in my spare time when contemplating battles on roleplay servers and basing most of it off of historical accuracy, I present to you the Siege System that I hope will bring forward not only a new form of roleplay, but a higher level of quality with realistic roleplay and enjoyment for all. So, let’s get down to it:

 

Historically, when war was declared, or when any conflict arose, the belligerents would often meet on fields of battle and conduct battle in the traditional fashion - head on with forces clashing together in melee. This is well represented(for the most part) in the current systems of battles established on the server, but what is not represented is what happens after the screams and horns of battle end, and he victorious army comes across an enemy fortified town. It was here that the grand armies would have to find a way to breach whatever defenses the town had, whether it be a series of curtain walls and citadels or a simple palisade wall. The siege was often one of the most grueling and tedious processes of war, but it was something that needed to be done in order to fully achieve a status of “winning” a war, in traditional terms. It is because of this that the sieges of medieval Europe specifically developed so quickly, and produced the core “step-by-step” process of a siege:

 

• The besieging army would heavily entrench themselves and secure their camp by connecting to key supplies such as food and water. Foraging and raiding parties would explore the countryside surrounding the town, both supplying the besiegers with food, while also cutting it off from the defenders.

• Siege engines would begin construction in range of the walls(preferably the siege engines would be constructed using the local materials available) and prepare more forward battle trenches to defend the engines in the case of a sally and protect the soldiers from the counter siege elements of the town(The better the trenches, the less lives lost).

• The long process of the battering of the walls begins as the siege engines begin to send their shot towards the walls, smashing into the stone and causing damage, slowly but surely. This portion would be the longest of steps, and definitely the most tedious for both sides; the defenders rising to defend the walls and counter siege the attackers, while the attackers lob a relentless amount of artillery at the walls. (It is here that the main RP would take place, which will be explained further down in this passage)

• Finally, after a long process of siege and counter siege, a breach would form, and the attackers would rush this breach with their forces, the defenders doing the same in an attempt to plug it up. (It is here that the main PvP portion of the siege would take place)

• Upon a victory for the attackers, the city would almost definitely be sacked, and looted, the victors taking their spoils, along with mass-scale rape and slaughter of civilians.

• The town, after the attackers have taken their fruits of victory, would be damaged heavily. The walls vulnerable with their breach and the town itself looted, with windows broken, doors broken down, and belongings strewn across the streets. It is up to the attackers to then re-evaluate their position, and work on fortifying the town once again, plugging up the breaches and establishing order amongst whatever populace still remains.

 

So, taking from the historical perspective of sieges, I have devised a system of siege intended for our roleplay, in order to properly portray the setting and feeling of war. Here is the procedure explained in more “Minecraft-esque” terms:

 

Planning & Skirmish Phase (Two days OOC time)

1. The attacking army would establish an encampment outside the walls, at whatever location of their choosing, taking into consideration the area at which they want to concentrate their main attack. A specific region would be set up and granted ownership to the attackers, allowing them to construct the proper trenches, camp defenses, and siege engines.

2. The attackers would dispatch bands of foragers and raiders to begin collecting food and additional supplies for the camp, while at the same time denying the defenders those same resources. The defenders as well may choose to send their own bands out to meet the attackers, in order to secure and protect their farmsteads. The skirmishes across the countryside would be PvP, but certain exceptions are applied when:

   1. An attacking band is already on a farmstead, looting or burning its yield. It is then required that the defending intercepting party provide enough RP to allow the attackers to realize the interception, for the attackers too will be RPing out every motion of the looting, and would need sufficient time to stop their typing and such. It is advised that a countdown be made in Local OOC, to indicate when the PvP will be initiated.

 

Siege Phase (Depending on the size of walls and the “luck” of the besiegers, OOC time in this phase will vary)

1. The Siege engines previously constructed will be unleashed onto the walls of the town, and it is here that a specific system is implemented to simulate the accuracy and “luck” of the shots:

   1. A roll system will be used when firing the siege and counter siege engines, which factors in power, accuracy, and overall “luck” of the shot. The soldiers firing the siege engines will first provide sufficient RP to arm and load the engine, and when complete the head of the engine will roll out of 20(Note: This system will require an admin to oversee the siege engines and to deal the appropriate amount of damage to the walls.):

      1. If over 10, it is a hit. If under 10, it is a miss.

      2. If it is 17 or higher, it is a “lucky” shot, and deals considerably more damage.

      3. If it is a 1, the siege engine will fail and break down, and sufficient RP must be conducted to repair it and resume its firing(The breakdown is determined by the admin, such as the tension on a ballista is too high and snaps its sinew, forcing a restringing)

   2. Along with this roll system, the type of siege engine used is important, and provides a particular set of perks for each engine:

      1. Trebuchets and Catapults - “Heavy Hitters”; provides the most damage to stone walls.

      2. Ballistae/Scorpions - “Skewers”; provides the highest amount of damage to siege engines, making them excellent counter-siege weaponry.

      3. Onagers - “Slingers”; allows for a specialized launching of such things as fire-spreading shot and forms of caltrops(Splash potions, in MC terms).

      4. Rams - “Smashers”; used primarily for breaking through gates, the ram was one of the more dangerous siege engines, simply because it had to come into contact with the walls and whatever defenses it boasted, which were often many(boiling oil, boulders, etc.).

      5. Assault Ladders - “Climbers”; used mostly for smaller assaults, ladders are useful for scaling the walls directly, and are often utilized as a flanking maneuver to assist in the main breaches(NOTE: Assault ladders are usually only ever used during the Assault phase of the siege).

   3. It is also during the Siege Phase that the defenders may choose to sally forth from their defenses, in hopes to meet the besiegers in a pitched battle and drive them from the field. This is often done when the defenders believe to have a numerical advantage and can easily sweep the entrenched attackers into a rout. When conducting a sally, the besieging leader must be informed and the proper battle terms be set.

 

Here is where most of the passive RP will roll out in both the attacking and defending camps, and really provide a feeling of an actual medieval siege, with men crowding around campfires in the nights and mornings, and manning their engines in the afternoons, slowly working towards that breach.

 

Assault Phase

1. The besieging forces, upon forcing however many breaches they require, would amass for a final and all-out assault, meaning to take the city they have besieged and battered for so long. This phase is entirely PvP and it involves capturing key points in the city/fort/etc to actually win the objective. Killing everything is not the only way to win.

Victory Phase

1. Upon an attacker victory, the victors are permitted open perms to the city and choose their next actions as they see fit. A peaceful transfer of power to large-scale looting and pillaging within the city are just two extreme decisions that can be made by the victors.

   1. The attackers also have the decisions on what to do with this new city’s defenses. Because of their siege, the walls are doubtless damaged and breaches are obvious. In order to properly defend the city, the victors must decide how they’re going to refortify their position, and can be done in a variety of ways:

      1. Spending minas to hire the local masons and architects to redesign and repair the walls, restoring them to the state they were in before the siege(Often the most effective, but the most costly method, costing a minimum of 10,000 minas)

      2. Stripping down the resources of the city; this including the buildings, in order to construct weaker defenses usually consisting of cobblestone and wood.

      3. Hiring the local engineers to construct or repair siege engines(Price varies depending on siege engine: Heavy Hitters: 12,000 minas; Skewers: 9,000; Slingers: 6,000)

 

2. Upon a defender victory, the attackers are subject to a “depleted resources” penalty, preventing a siege of ANY city for an OOC week, allowing the defenders to reevaluate and reinforce their defenses.

   1. The defenders too have decisions to make when a siege is lifted, which include:

      1. Spending minas to hire the local masons to redesign and repair the walls, restoring them to the state they were in before the siege(Because the defenders had successfully defended the city, the people are grateful and provide a discount, the price settling at a minimum 8,000 radiants).

      2. Stripping down the resources of the city in order to construct weaker defenses usually consisting of cobblestone and wood.

      3. Hiring the local engineers to construct or repair siege engines(Price varies depending on siege engine, and a defender discount is granted: Heavy Hitters: 10,000 minas; Skewers: 7,000; Slingers: 5,000)

 

I know this may seem like quite the complex system, but when it comes down to it, it’s quite simple and twice as effective in properly simulating and experiencing an accurate siege. It is with this complexity that I will offer to explain this system further(in any medium: teamspeak, chat, etc.) should anyone require it.

 

So, with all that said, I’d like to bring this proposal to the attention of not just the administration, but the entire community. I feel this can really help improve the RP standard and setting of conflicts and make them more interesting and intuitive. I am also leaving this topic open so that you all may give your suggestions and inputs, and if you have any suggestions to add points to the Siege System itself, feel free to provide it and I’ll consider adding it.

 

Happy reading.

[no longer active 734]

The person above has a truly great idea. However, the number one thing needed at all in PvP is non GM catapults. Only PvP related plugin we need at all really.

[Pureimp10 5691]

-snip-

Why aren't we funding this?!   

[kingnothing 571]

Sounds pre' damn good.   

[Mephistophelian 977]

Very good idea from the new guy (Vukovic)! Also, I think that we should have trap makers; people who are good at building traps both IC and OOC, and are paid handsomely for their services, no? These people can have licences from GMs or Admins stating that they are officially allowed to construct traps for a kingdom. This means that kingdoms will be forced to hire these trap makers for them, and that any traps that have not been 'green lighted' or 'approved' by an official trap master will be destroyed/disarmed by the GM before the battle.

I believe is will do a few good things:

1)Make kingdoms think twice over wether or not they really need traps, as the traps are now expensive.

2)Make the amount of traps in a base drastically fall, as they are now expensive to make.

3)Give some good RP for the trap makers and those hiring them.

4)Allow there to be a 'highest payer' who buys the services of the trap master for a greater sum.

5)Even more RP, such as trap masters being found, and then made to tell (via torture or bribery) where all the traps are, and how to avoid them.

6)I could go on and on, but I am sure you can think up of all the benefits too. :3

So? What do you think? Trap masters seem like a generally good idea, and they could prevent the spam of traps often seen in a city that is being raided!

Just to add on, whilst I am at it, let's list a few possible prices for traps.

-pitfall trap: 3000 Minas

-lava trap: 5000 Minas

-arrow trap: 2000 Minas

-suffocation trap (people are allowed to break blocks to escape this one, or maybe not. Depends!): 3000 Minas

-drowning trap: 2500 Minas

-etc etc

Extras (this stacks on to the initial payment):

-harder to detect (levels are based on how hard that trap will be to detect):

*level one: +1000 Minas

*level two: +2000 Minas

*level three: +3000 Minas

*level four: +4000 Minas

These are just ideas, but perhaps they could be enforced? I might make an idea proposal later on, but for now, tell me what you think!