The Latest Warclaim

[Pav33 101]

OK so I know Im not the most qualified guy to post this, but since nobody has, I just decided to post this. Here are a few issues that I personally faced, and most likely most orenians also had a similar experience. When the battle started, it was, as usually SO LAGGY. On top of this, dwarves obviously took advantage of this to pour lava on our siege weapons while we were all trying to emote and stuff. I eventually died and rather being salty, Im confused.

 

1. Explosion arrows were MASSIVELY stockpiled, though I am ok with this as its legit.

2. Lag served a huge disadvantage to both sides, and definately got a few kills for itself. I heard teammates talking about my position and telling orders when I had left there 5 mins prior.

3. Attackers had a time limit. This is extreme bs, as sugarcoating this wont help. Attackers in real time, they were limited by a siege camps supply, but obviously lotc doesn't pay enough attention to this, as the dwarves who were locked in a besieged castle, apparently had enough supplys to not have a time limit.

4. Bias. This is a horridly common problem, a GM likes a certain side, and debuffs the other team. This happens to both sides,

5. Haxs, just gonna say, a few people did suspicious things

 

Id prefer everyone share their opinions on this warclaim, thank'e

[mmat 7460]

Free imattyz?

[KarmaDelta 969]

My only problem was the lag. I died after trying to go deep thinking Oren couldnt see me.

Dived into one of your tunnels, well, thinking I did, and was pooped on and I saw myself die on the surface.

 

I've never heard of a time limit, makes sense in a way, but there shouldn't be one realistically, aka 2 or 3 hours or whatever. If people run out of their bread/whatever during the battle, then it will eventually all die down im sure.

[AGP 3169]

Attackers had a time limit? Lmao what?

[zaezae 1098]

Putting a time limit on the defenders would be more stupid. Nobody here has time to wait around to simulate upwards to a year or more. If the attackers can't break a defense then the defense shouldn't lose because of it. 

[HedgeHug 2049]

Biggest bs is the time limit. Its horribly unfair. Since in a realistic point of view: The siege group would have all the time in the world since they have supplies delivered and could just wait for the enemy to die because of desease, food or dehydration. On top of this, I find it odd that 3 siegeengines can destroy 6, though ofcourse its all /luck/ of the roll? Hm? Or is it?

 

All I have to say.

 

~Captain

[mitto 2312]

21 minutes ago, WalrusGames said:

4. Bias. This is a horridly common problem, a GM likes a certain side, and debuffs the other team. This happens to both sides,

 

it just doesn't happen, if you get told 'no' once, it's bias. really.

[Porko 397]

We had to break over a 20 block span of cactus on an open field without being able to place barricades or tunnel. All the while, dwarves rained hell down upon us with obviously duped explosive arrows. We weren't allowed to run over the cacti, and Cosmic actually banned iMattyz for suggesting putting out some of the fires caused by dwarven potions with water. Oren can defeat the dwarves, we simply can't win against the staff :)

 

OH and the time limit. That made perfect logical sense.

[Jonificus 2763]

Just now, mitto said:

 

it just doesn't happen, if you get told 'no' once, it's bias. really.

Yeah the GM's right. Nobody ever picks sides. Ever. Go sit in the back of the class, WalrusGames smh

[Space 2335]

2 minutes ago, mitto said:

 

it just doesn't happen, if you get told 'no' once, it's bias. really.

 

NO WE ARE THE VICTIM YOU ARE WRONG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[mitto 2312]

1 minute ago, Jonificus said:

Yeah the GM's right. Nobody ever picks sides. Ever. Go sit in the back of the class, WalrusGames smh

Naw a lot of players pick sides, just the ones who don't get GM. Might explain a few things

[Jonificus 2763]

Amen to that, Brother

[mmat 7460]

I really love the 500,000,000,000 explosive arrows that the dwarves seem to have acquired from thin air.

 

I really love the fact that we were getting pelted by arrows and:

- Couldn't build trenches for cover

- Got banned for breaking blocks for cover, even before the announcement went up.

- Had to advance through a field of fences and ******* cacti, which are literally impossible to break because you're being pelted with arrows.

- Had a time limit to do that.

- Couldn't push the siege towers onto the defences because the 'wheels were too small'.

 

Really good gm work there boys. nice. Almost makes me wish I hadn't quit admin so i could stomp this autcraft tier stuff out.

 

I would like to thank cracker for being the only guy attempting to be fair and communicate with us, however. Good man.

 

In short, it's definitely NOT bias, I know that. But it sure is dumb.

[Algoda 885]

Ouch.

[zaezae 1098]

10 minutes ago, Captain Daan said:

Biggest bs is the time limit. Its horribly unfair. Since in a realistic point of view: The siege group would have all the time in the world since they have supplies delivered and could just wait for the enemy to die because of desease, food or dehydration. On top of this, I find it odd that 3 siegeengines can destroy 6, though ofcourse its all /luck/ of the roll? Hm? Or is it?

 

All I have to say.

 

~Captain

If it were as simple as that, then walls and other defensive structures wouldn't be considered a necessary building. The defending party is likely to have the advantage, as both the attackers and defenders are harmed by the same exact forces of nature. Both sides starve, freeze to death, and become diseased. The only difference is that one side has impressive stockpiles, infrastructure to deal with disease, and shelter from the harsh elements while the other side doesn't have as much. Pro-tip, the attackers don't have as much of any of that. 

 

Combined, the attacking party that lays siege to a city is very, very vulnerable to an outside attack from a third party which the defending party can join in to defeat. Also, the attacking party would be forced to completely surround the defending fortress/city. 

 

Sieges were used when it was too difficult/costly to break the defense of the target. It wasn't an automatic victory, it was risky, very costly, and could result in decisive defeat for the attackers. The argument that a siege is automatic victory is a farce. 

 

---

 

all of that said, I think imattz brings up some certainly good points. It was a very odd battle to watch.