200+ raiders proof defense with only towers and walls

[Boris_Gonagan]

I’m one of the players stuck in the middle of this Brew Har Har:
I don’t want to play yet another tactical Medieval Combat game, so I would be bored silly playing Vanquisher Level - I played miniatures for over 20 years, which were ALL tactical battles and have written several books about tactical battles - don’t particularly need to play more of 'em in FF.
BUT
going ‘pacifiist’ and turning off all enemies, 2 and 4-footed, seems to me to be removing a lot of the game’s action, and especially seems perverse when, technically, we are all trying to provide feedback to the developers on how the game plays at this pre-release point. Not dealing with raiders, rams, bears, wolves, boars, etc. at all seems to be giving short shrift to the feedback.

So, my favorite map, that I am now playing my third town on since 0.7.6, is flat, but being Lowland Lakes, has only one open approach - three others are narrow strips of land between lakes that require any 200 - 250 raiders to line up in a column and get shot to bits as they try to mass against the only gate, or line up to get mangled by a deep column of troops should I choose to leave the walls and meet them (generally after they’ve finally piled up enough bodies to almost break through the gates, and then it’s my troops mopping up the survivors with tower archery support and flanks covered by water, the kind of ‘field battle’ that I prefer. My tactical approach is not from Clauswitz or Napoleon, it’s from W. C. Fields:
“Never give the suckers an even break”.

But I’ve played maps with mountains/hills, and have one set aside for my next game that is Alpine Valleys, all hills, a couple of small lakes, and lots of opportunity to try some major terraforming, which I’ve only dabbled at here and there so far (my Favorite Map has most of the Iron and Gold deposits right at the top of one of FF’s patented vertical-sided mountains, so I’ve learned a lot about ‘cutting roads’ to get to the top)

One of the great strengths of the game is that there is no single way to play it that is ‘right’.
Even at this stage, you can develop a town into a medieval version of Potsdam and swarm any enemy with troops brandishing halberds, crossbows, plate armor, etc. Or you can build Osaka Castle and sucker the enemy into attacking uphill against a cliff while hemmed in by water, walls, and towers everywhere. Your choice, your game.
I like to try a little bit of both, in moderation, because for me the greatest interest is the ‘city building’ part of the game, not the ‘city razing’ part.
But the game accommodates all of us . . .

[Groovy]

No I’m not assuming it is your first map. That is your error for assuming that.
I simply know you never played on the hardest settings at 250+ because you
are wrong. lol

(geez this is getting old)

“Those 18s are how much the height advantage multiplies the damage done by each arrow.”

The base arrow damage is (10 to 21) + 18 It is not a multiplier.
There is NO one shot one kill on the hardest settings and raiders
that demand payment. I just tested the damage with a level terrain
tower. I saw 10 to 21 damage so it appears to be some randomness
as well as armor at the very least. (may be other factors)

I then built a tower on the edge of the map. I saw 28 to 39 damage
per arrow. i.e. the yellow negative number above the raiders when hit.
the tower circle says +18 and it appears to be that literally. (10 to 21) + 18.
That is not a multiplier. That is a simple add to base damage. Now against
low level weak raiders with no armor on easy play settings that extra +18 is a lot
but against the raiders I face it is not much.

Not a single raider died from 1 shot. On average the first test took
10 hits and the second test took 5. It also appears that some raiders
get more health than others.

Now go and test it yourself you would see yellow hits
above them like -180 to -378 which I did not see anything over -39
in my quick test.

[Groovy]

well I’m ex military and did it for real lol

going ‘pacifiist’

oh hell no BORING lol

right and why I stopped using the terrain tool and using lakes etc… I want to fight.
It so boring that I didn’t even watch the raiders because they hit my choke point
and were annihilated. I didn’t even have to be there.

One of the great strengths of the game is that there is no single way to play it that is ‘right’.

totally agree. You understand what the other poster does not.

Your choice, your game. I like to try a little bit of both, in moderation, because for me the greatest interest is the ‘city building’ part of the game, not the ‘city razing’ part.
But the game accommodates all of us . . .

yuppers!

[Celebrindan]

@Groovy

… no single way to play it that is ‘right’.

If you are not playing in Pacifist mode, then preparing your village for the least number of casualties & lowest amount of damage in the face of belligerent actions will result in the most favorable outcome.

Everything else is support.

If you are not playing for most favorable outcome, then yes, your choices are endless.

[Boris_Gonagan]

Understand where you are coming from, but at the moment, the game has no set ‘Victory Conditions’, so the gamer is left to define their own ‘favorable outcome’.
One POSSIBLE favorable or most favorable outcome is minimal damage from Raids.
Another possible favorable outcome is the greatest chance to fight open field battles against raiders because you really, really wanted a Medieval Combat Game and this will do for now.

Those divergent personal ‘victory conditions’ or Most Favorable Game Conditions will result in very different FF villages/towns being developed, even on identical maps.

Not saying anybody is wrong, but at the current state of game development, we are free to set our own goals throughout the game based on what the game design gives us so far. I may agree generally with your goals, but I’d bet real money that we will not agree on everything in every particular of what our personal in-game Goals will be, and the fact that we can still play the ‘same game’ with different goals is, to me at least, one sign of a Good Game.

[Celebrindan]

There is no opportunity to fight a pitched battle in this game.

There is no unit direction capable of formation movement or attack, and no way to set an order of battle.

All one can do is point a small group of soldiers route-step to an area or attack an individual (out of 200+) and then hope they all take the same path to stay grouped.

Until screens are posted of battles and outcomes, consider this theory nothing but a line of horsehair.

[Boris_Gonagan]

Preaching to the Choir.
I’ve been a military historian for over 30 years, and a professional soldier for 20 years before that.
ALL military forces of whatever size have one thing in common: they all have Leaders. Having left all such creatures out of the game (so far), any ‘field battle’ is an exercise in Mass Casualty Production, but with only the vaguest hint of tactics, formations, or intelligent direction.
Although, Full Disclosure: I have managed to sucker raiders into an obviously under-defended gate, where they could be trapped in a walled corridor and attacked by my ground troops from front and rear and massacred - but it required that I give a bunch of individual orders to individual troops, since there is no real chain of command or unit structure in the game. The result was gratifying as an exercise, but far more micromanagement trouble than it was worth.

Its a fine line: on the one hand, it would be nice to have some bit of the structure of actual military forces, even semi-amateur ones, on the other hand I don’t want to get sucked into yet another Medieval Combat Game when FF is showing signs of being an excellent Medieval City Builder.

[Dragonne]

I have found that getting into the head of your enemy helps with effective defense design.

• Raiders follow easy prey villagers in retreat until the villager is dead, the villager passes through a wall gate, the raider is attacked, or the raid is called to retreat.
• Raiders will always attempt to attack the source of damage to them.

Using these 2 simple points shows that calling all villagers in the way of incoming attack groups into the walls, and creating a funnel of walls with 2-3 gates, flanked by towers, and a barracks at the narrow end will pull raiders into the funnel, where they get attacked by towers/barracks, attempt to attack the tower/barracks so they push to the narrow end gates, and get slaughtered while beating on those gates. A few of these set ups around your town and you should rarely need to enclose the entire town in walls. If the raiders are getting past them and into town, create another or adjust the location of an existing one to pull them in.

This method has been working pretty well the last few days, and minimalizes the investment in covering huge areas with towers and garrisons.

Just don’t tell the Devs…

[Mozarc2045_Mu]

tree ball

[medea_fleecestealer]

Welcome to the forum.

Does that stop raiders though?