[Discuss] Abusing game logic - Starving tens ofthousandstodeath?!?!

[Rob Croson]

On 20 May 2007 at 16:32, Christopher Subich wrote:

> Samuel Knowlton wrote:
> > At any rate, siege warfare was basically designed to do one of two things:
> > reduce the walls with siege equipment, or starve the enemy. Starving the
> 
> That brings up an important point -- historically, walls were sieged 
> over weeks or months.  In Battlemaster, even the longest battle takes no 
> longer than a day, and that only happens if there's a stalemate for a turn.
> 
> The change really alters the dynamics of fortified combat, and I'm not 
> sure that's a positive thing.

That's just an active battle. A siege consistedof many days, weeks, 
or months of nothing but the two sides sitting there staring at each 
other over the walls. That's exactly what is happening right now on 
EC: Fontan (the realm) has laid siege to Fontan (the city) by 
surrounding with more CS of troops that the city has in mobile 
forces. Fontan doesn't have the mobile CS to storm the walls against 
the militia, and LoF doesn't have the mobile forces to break out past 
the besieging armies. So you have weeks and months of starving out 
the city. Eventually, the city morale and loyalty will drop quite a 
bit, and the production willd rop as the population starves. I've 
been on the receiving end of that already. It't no fun, but that's 
part of the game.

--
Rob
There'll be time for introductions later, and maybe some sex.
-- Rimmer, Red Dwarf