安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
What actually works is something that I have no idea how many players employ.
Hire a Lord, place them at the city you want defended.
This Lord does not have to have a full stack behind him, which is a likely reason why players dont hire such Lord's.
Over an over again in the forums, common complaint about how a players back line or home base is being over run by armies and how they can not press forward for gains let alone cover their holdings with the armies that they have.
WHY?
Because these players have it set in stone that every army they create must be a full stack.
These armies do not need to be full stacks, often just the Lord itself plus the garrison is enough to fight off the more common low tier trash that makes it that far in, these armies avoided your LL for a reason because your LL is too powerful for them.
Even 1 Lord with a few spearmen can actually deter anything but multiple army invasion, or high tier stack attack, this is because a garrison gives ~14 units. 14 Units means, 1 Lord + 5 spears is a full stack for defence with the advantage of walls.
One could take this further even, since you already plan to leave an army behind...Why not go wall less? The extra economic boon would likely pay for a 20 stack of tier 1 units and since the AI will attack your lands you get the added benefit of additional incoming resources marching into your lands through fights that when won give gold, levels, retainers, and magic items!
Not that I really disagree, but at that point, why give this trait to only LLs? Why not all lords, then? Or just rework the whole thing so that there is simply no requirement for launching a siege battle?
Having it only on a select few where it made some sense made them special and cool, giving it to every LL makes no sense, cheapens the trait, and makes almost no difference anyway, as most lords won´t be legendary.
One thing i have noticed, things like chaos hounds started doing rather well at tearing down gates recently. Had 2 units of those smash a gate before my ram on the other side of a settlement reached that gate. They don't have the damage output to really have done it.. yet they do. Probably just some odd balancing thing, as that's a unit meant to be weak vs armor (Surely the gates are armored.. Right?).
So much this.
Until recently I didn't read much about the game, but my kids got into it and struggled with that early game. The same way I struggled in my very first campaign (ahh, the memories) Guys, where's your back line army? One guy, maybe three melee and two shooters. That plus a garrison will hold against most early stuff.
Flyers make the concept of a traditional siege a bit pointless too.
Unless they'd either give more/quicker ladders built per or/and remove the fatigue penalty, i'd never bother building them.
Ladder rush only makes sense if you either outmatch them by far or don't care about losses.
That isn't really a 'fun' element, it doesn't really make for an interesting strategic choice. It just means that only some factions get to ignore the whole mechanic. Now, at least everyone gets to ignore it with one of their Lords.
I don't think it's the optimal solution, but I also don't think it's just dumbing down the game for the sake of dumbing it down. This way, they don't have to base starting armies and unit availability around Siege Attacker, so (at least in theory) they've got more room for variety and interesting choices.
That is super dumb though. LLs were always balanced around that need - Vlad for example always had siege attacker, because he is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ beast. Mannfred on the other hand did *not* have it, and he did not need it, since he started with a varghulf in his army.
That is a far better game design than this BS of giving siege attacker to every LL regardless of how little sense it makes.
"You get siege attacker!"
"And you get siege attacker!"
"And you..."
Except....they clearly weren't, as pointed out with the Kislev example. Do you think it's intended gameplay design for Kislev LLs not to have access to Siege Attacker until late game, even though everyone but Kat starts off with it in RoC? I fully expect this will be addressed with DLC in the future, but right now it's just an arbitrary restriction on Kislev for no real reason.
Now, you could say 'Well, just make sure every LL starts off with a Siege Attacker', but is that actually any different from just skipping the middle man and giving every LL Siege Attacker?
In regards to 'it doesn't make sense for LL's to have SA', why not? Are we really going to argue that say, a unit of Trolls makes sense to have SA, but not something like a Mage LL or all of the superhumans running around with magical weapons? I mean, if SA actually made for a meaningful mechanical difference in sieges, this would be a legit argument, but it doesn't. It just means you don't have to wait a turn building a useless piece of siege equipment you're not going to use.
It's about sieges having been trivialized more and more over the course of the game.
Now, literally, 20 dogs can chew down a max-tier city's gate in as many seconds.
Having to build rams or siege towers or needing to bring artillery to take a city now makes no sense. The only reason to build siege equipment is for meta reasons; an army without siege attacker in it needs siege equipment to be *allowed* to attack the city. So you build your ram, then enter the battle, then immediately drop the ram and run up to the gate to punch it down with your bare hands.
Sieges have become more and more degenerate ever since they made assladders a thing.
For sieges to matter, assladders can't be a thing. And random units can't be able to punch down gates.
But assladders *are* a thing. And literally any unit *can* punch down a city gate with its bare hands. So demanding siege eqipment to be able to siege a city makes no sense.
They should just remove the siege attacker requirement entirely.
Also, defenders should be allowed to position troops outside the walls before the start of battles, but that's a different point.
Better get the ladders like the ram-towers and give melee defence to whoever is on the walls , also let the back row face forward so we can put archers behind melee units, sieges fixed.
Basically their speciality are surprise attacks with stealthy elite units. They can simply scale the walls unnoticed, then wreck everything from the inside. Or open the doors for units like Alith Anar before he gets the sneak perk.
Previously, you always needed an extra unit like Warp Grinders just for the Siege Attacker trait. Even if you would always just retreat that unit, and it was 100% useless everywhere else for the Master Ambusher playstyle.
Otherwise you would have to spend 1 turn building a Battering Ram which you would also just drop once the battle starts.
So basically they just fix the logic of those army types. And it only works for Legendary Lords, so it's not like all your armies would "ignore" the walls (which isn't the case anyways, the walls are still there in battle).