t1 siege attrition damage, pls fix

[kamikharzeeh]

the instant attrition has to be removed, it is potentially endgame damaging.

to anyone who played legendary+vh in twwh2, you may know what i mean. how would u stop several stacks if they can kill any army before battle by just sieging you? midgame and endgame will be really unplayable like this. not even to talk about "total war" style campaigns.

like it is nice and fun that CA thinks nobody plays high difficulties anyways, but u cannot just balance your game always on the low difficulties. it's really enough. :S

[Ninja-star]

yea that is stupid sadly till mods come out that wont be fixed for sure

[Taebrythn]

yeah instant attrition makes no sense. i thought it didn't apply until they ran out of resources. don't like that change.

[ArchAnge1LT]

You can sally out with your garrison into field battle if it is strong enough. If you cannot because it is too weak, well you would be fked anyway. I am glad they made sieging faster. It just improves the game.

[Daliena]

Agreed, instant attrition is kinda meh. Especially with how silly the AI can get - was playing Something rotten in Kislev with a few friends, the AI just casually starts with something like six mid-high tier armies each.

You try having one major settlement each and then one province full of minors to split between you, and somehow find the funds to defend them when Khorne, Slaanesh and Tzeentch are all attacking with 5-6 stacks each and you can't even rely on a good siege to bleed them hard because they'll just insta-attrition you down.

[Chengar Qordath]

I don't mind the change overall, but it bugs me that you take attrition on the Cathayan bastions when attacked from the Chaos Wastes. Their supply lines shouldn't be cut off by an army on the Chaos side of the gate.

[Daliena]

Originally posted by Chengar Qordath:

I don't mind the change overall, but it bugs me that you take attrition on the Cathayan bastions when attacked from the Chaos Wastes. Their supply lines shouldn't be cut off by an army on the Chaos side of the gate.

On that I am of two minds. On the one hand.. I agree it's silly and there's no real reasonable explanation for how that works.

On the other, with a properly built Bastion gate and commander, you get what, 80% resistance to siege attrition, as well as perks like double ammo reserves on your defenders along with thousands of extra supplies - it'd be an unholy nightmare to try and storm the Bastion gates when fully defended (and while thematically it -should- be, it wouldn't be the most engaging mechanic for any head-to-head campaign that Cathay can hide behind the Great Bastion and force you to take the long, long, LONG way around through ogre territory while they can sally out to mess up any territory of your's in the Wastes.)

[Fawx]

Originally posted by Daliena:

Originally posted by Chengar Qordath:

I don't mind the change overall, but it bugs me that you take attrition on the Cathayan bastions when attacked from the Chaos Wastes. Their supply lines shouldn't be cut off by an army on the Chaos side of the gate.

On that I am of two minds. On the one hand.. I agree it's silly and there's no real reasonable explanation for how that works.

On the other, with a properly built Bastion gate and commander, you get what, 80% resistance to siege attrition, as well as perks like double ammo reserves on your defenders along with thousands of extra supplies - it'd be an unholy nightmare to try and storm the Bastion gates when fully defended (and while thematically it -should- be, it wouldn't be the most engaging mechanic for any head-to-head campaign that Cathay can hide behind the Great Bastion and force you to take the long, long, LONG way around through ogre territory while they can sally out to mess up any territory of your's in the Wastes.)

I really don't think we should be ruining a race's entire thematic character and defying logic for head-to-head campaigns that the majority of players will never, ever touch.

The Bastion should be extremely difficult to attack, that is it's entire purpose.

[Man of Culture]

It hasn't been an issue plus it's nice and picks up the gameplay a lot. I was tired of WH2 sieges lasting 12+ turns depending on your leaders siege skills or whatever. It just bogged the game way down IMO especially in late game. Plus with the terrain you still stand a solid chance against attacking armies and if you manage your agents you can have a pretty good defense by assassinating or assaulting units to make up for any attrition you suffer.

[Daliena]

Originally posted by Fawx:

Originally posted by Daliena:

On that I am of two minds. On the one hand.. I agree it's silly and there's no real reasonable explanation for how that works.

On the other, with a properly built Bastion gate and commander, you get what, 80% resistance to siege attrition, as well as perks like double ammo reserves on your defenders along with thousands of extra supplies - it'd be an unholy nightmare to try and storm the Bastion gates when fully defended (and while thematically it -should- be, it wouldn't be the most engaging mechanic for any head-to-head campaign that Cathay can hide behind the Great Bastion and force you to take the long, long, LONG way around through ogre territory while they can sally out to mess up any territory of your's in the Wastes.)

I really don't think we should be ruining a race's entire thematic character and defying logic for head-to-head campaigns that the majority of players will never, ever touch.

The Bastion should be extremely difficult to attack, that is it's entire purpose.

Which is fair, but it still -is- difficult to attack, at least properly built. It gives out tons of buffs from it's buildings, not to mention no doubt having a very defender-favoring map (admittedly I haven't seen it yet myself). I just don't think it's a good idea to make it into something like the border gates of Heroes of Might and Magic 3, where the AI would relentlessly abuse it's ability to pass through them but you couldn't follow them through until you got the right keymaster's tent, letting the AI just hit-and-run harass you while you were utterly powerless to chase them down and retaliate.

Same deal if the Bastion becomes functionally impenetrable, barring having a 5-to-1 advantage or something - a Cathayan player could just sally forth and strike at the Wastes, then run back to the Bastion at the first sight of trouble. As it stands, it's still an extremely powerful defensive position even with attrition ticking away due to how much you can reduce it. If you ask me, we shouldn't have this whole instant attrition and instead it should take a while to kick in like it did in game 1 and 2, but I also don't know if I really want to support the Bastion gates becoming fully immune to any attrition ever.

[Kapika96]

Originally posted by ArchAnge1LT:

You can sally out with your garrison into field battle if it is strong enough. If you cannot because it is too weak, well you would be fked anyway. I am glad they made sieging faster. It just improves the game.

Not really. The whole point of having walls and ♥♥♥♥ is to give you a defensive advantage so a smaller army can defeat a larger attacking one. There are plenty of times where you'd be able to win a defensive siege, but would lose if you charged out to attack. Insta-attrition now often makes that a wait and lose so much of your army that winning defensively is no longer possible, or attack and lose because they have the bigger/better army. It's become lose-lose.

I wouldn't have minded if they'd toned it down, sometimes you had to wait ages for attrition to kick in. But having it instantly is stupid. Especially for the grand bastion.

[starkmaddness]

I really like instant attrition, it actually makes it worth laying siege. Having to wait many turns before attrition even started made it a pointless mechanic, nobody wants to tie up an army that long.

Also, the attrition is needed to balance the siege changes. It is far easier to defend a settlement than it used to be in WH2. Without that change there would be little threat to losing a settlement

So what we end up with far less insta-gibbing of settlements but with the risk matching WH2 levels after 2-4 turns.

[IntrepidH]

Siege attrition at turn 1 completely ruins the fun of the game for me
The ai just sits on your t3 cities until you have no chance to win at all.

No more cool and fun defensive sieges which were already hard to have an opportunity to see

[kamikharzeeh]

Originally posted by ArchAnge1LT:

You can sally out with your garrison into field battle if it is strong enough. If you cannot because it is too weak, well you would be fked anyway. I am glad they made sieging faster. It just improves the game.

what pro speaking arguments about this kinda always miss: think about long ME endgame and heavy stacked midgame armies. you have to fight (on high diff) several armies on a ton of front all over the map.
and ai does stack armies. they still turtle, and amass stacks if they have the option. u can view that in wh3 yet @ early cathay miau ying starter location - bastion area.

so it will once again mostly affect those, who enjoy longer and harder campaigns bc nobody tests anything under serious circumstance, apparently. n

[IntrepidH]

Whoever made that change doesn’t even play the game obviously

It makes no sense at all for them to have buffed siege attrition massively,
But it’s not as bad as legendary mode upkeep being set to 15% per lord so I guess I have to be happy they didn’t do something else as masochistic

Certainly gonna be Modding in garrison supplies back in because this is just stupid to endure

[NixAhmose]

I don't see what the issue is. The attrition damage is so low that it will take many turns before your garrision reaches half health, and even then settlement defenses have been buffed so hard that even fighting at half health isn't that big of a handicap.